Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs

[Disney Irish]

?

Mufasa is at $722m worldwide.

Its the 60/40 split of what Disney takes home after the cuts with the theaters.

 

[Disney Irish]

TLDR: Only go to the more expensive premium theaters so we get lots and lot of money.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Overheard…

 

[Phroobar]

Overheard…

View attachment 853654

What? We saw A Minecraft Movie. What else do they want?

 

[Andrew C]

Overheard…

View attachment 853654

Maybe they suck? Or maybe they have wired us to only show up for the big tent poles? I dunno.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Wicked has now passed $750 million worldwide, though I don't think BOM has updated the actual Japan numbers in a while.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Maybe they suck? Or maybe they have wired us to only show up for the big tent poles? I dunno.

Many of them have received glowing reviews.

Maybe audiences have free will and can be criticized for their choices?

 

[LittleBuford]

Not to rehash this whole thing, but this wasn't even the case in 1989. The director and producer of the original said they weren't even biological brothers. So this wasn't a retcon, it was always intended even if not implied that they weren't biological brothers.

Back in 2017 a full 7 years before Mufasa came out -

https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/lion-king-director-reveals-shocking-truth-about-mufasa-and-scar-117082100470_1.html

I wasn’t bothered by it, but I have to say it felt like a retcon to me too. It’s irrelevant what those who made the film were thinking behind the scenes; if it wasn’t conveyed in the finished product, it may as well never have been the case. Did anyone ever watch The Lion King and come away with the impression that Mufasa and Scar weren’t biological brothers? I certainly didn’t.

 

[Agent H]

I wasn’t bothered by it, but I have to say it felt like a retcon to me too. It’s irrelevant what those who made the film were thinking behind the scenes; if it wasn’t conveyed in the finished product, it may as well never have been the case. Did anyone ever watch The Lion King and come away with the impression that Mufasa and Scar weren’t biological brothers? I certainly didn’t.

I mean it never occurred to me but I’m accustomed to theories and retcons like this. As I’ve mentioned previously I’m kind of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to world of film.

 

[Agent H]

Overheard…

View attachment 853654

I find it heavily ironic that the people who are complaining about Disney being unoriginal now also complained non stop about Disneys original films the past few years.

 

[Disney Irish]

I wasn’t bothered by it, but I have to say it felt like a retcon to me too. It’s irrelevant what those who made the film were thinking behind the scenes; if it wasn’t conveyed in the finished product, it may as well never have been the case. Did anyone ever watch The Lion King and come away with the impression that Mufasa and Scar weren’t biological brothers? I certainly didn’t.

I understand and can see that point of view. But to me if the intent of the original filmmakers is they weren't biological brothers and the remake just makes that clear to rectify something previously left open to interpretation then that isn't a retcon. That is just honoring the original intent of the original filmmakers.

Everyone can make their own opinion of it. But that to me is one of the most nitpicky reasons to want to see a film do badly.

 

[LittleBuford]

I understand and can see that point of view. But to me if the intent of the original filmmakers is they weren't biological brothers and the remake just makes that clear to rectify something previously left open to interpretation then that isn't a retcon. That is just honoring the original intent of the original filmmakers.

Everyone can make their own opinion of it. But that to me is one of the most nitpicky reasons to want to see a film do badly.

I don’t think it’s a good reason for wanting the film to do badly either, but neither do I agree that it was “something previously left open to interpretation”. There was absolutely nothing in the original film to raise it as a possibility, let alone open it up to interpretation. It would be like suddenly revealing that Remy and Emile aren’t biological siblings—by no means something impossible, but certainly not anything hinted at in the original film.

 

[LittleBuford]

I mean it never occurred to me but I’m accustomed to theories and retcons like this. As I’ve mentioned previously I’m kind of a conspiracy theorist when it comes to world of film.

I think even you may find this one too much (suggested to me this very day by the YouTube algorithm!):

 

[Disney Irish]

I don’t think it’s a good reason for wanting the film to do badly either, but neither do I agree that it was “something previously left open to interpretation”. There was absolutely nothing in the original film to raise it as a possibility, let alone open it up to interpretation. It would be like suddenly revealing that Remy and Emile aren’t biological siblings—by no means something impossible, but certainly not anything hinted at in the original film.

I see your point. I guess I just come from an area where brother is used as a term not only for biological relations but also close friends and other non-blood male familial relations. For example I regularly call my male friends brothers. So when one male calls another "brother" I don't automatically just assume that means blood biological brother.

So this is why I call it leaving it open to interpretation, it all comes from ones own perspective even if its not out right stated in the film one can interpret it multiple ways.

 

[LittleBuford]

I see your point. I guess I just come from an area where brother is used as a term not only for biological relations but also close friends and other non-blood male familial relations. For example I regularly call my male friends brothers. So when one male calls another "brother" I don't automatically just assume that means blood biological brother.

So this is why I call it leaving it open to interpretation, it all comes from ones own perspective even if its not out right stated in the film one can interpret it multiple ways.

In the context of the film, I really don’t see how one can interpret the word except in its fraternal sense. Scar refers to Mufasa as his “big brother”, and Zazu chides Scar “as the king’s brother” for not being first in line to pay his respects at the birth of Simba. Of course, these usages would still apply to an adopted brother, but certainly not to a friend or non-fraternal relative.

 

[Agent H]

I think even you may find this one too much (suggested to me this very day by the YouTube algorithm!):

Yeah. That’s a lot of leaps in logic even for me!

 

[Disney Irish]

In the context of the film, I really don’t see how one can interpret the word except in its fraternal sense. Scar refers to Mufasa as his “big brother”, and Zazu chides Scar “as the king’s brother” for not being first in line to pay his respects at the birth of Simba. Of course, these usages would still apply to an adopted brother, but certainly not to a friend or non-fraternal relative.

I guess we just come from different backgrounds where the usage of the word varies. Which is what makes these discussions interesting to see everyone's take on things.

Anyways, my take is if the original filmmakers intended one thing but the audience thought it meant something else. Well the original filmmaker wins in that regard in my opinion, as its their vision.

If people want to call it a recon, ok. But I cannot see that based on how the original filmmakers intended it.

 

[LittleBuford]

I guess we just come from different backgrounds where the usage of the word varies.

It has nothing to do with what backgrounds we come from. I offered examples from the original film’s own script that make clear the word is being used in its fraternal sense. That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course, but it does mean that they are most definitely brothers, not just friends or non-fraternal relatives.

 

[LittleBuford]

Yeah. That’s a lot of leaps in logic even for me!

Oh, it’s pure clickbait, of course. The nonsense people can publish (and make money from) on the internet is staggering.

 

[Disney Irish]

It has nothing to do with what backgrounds we come from.

I understand your point of view, but that doesn't mean my background doesn't inform my perspective. As I mentioned if I hear someone call another brother, even when adding "big" to it as a qualifier, I don't automatically assume they are biological brothers. There are all sorts of situations where that can happen. Heck, there is a even a mentoring program called "Big Brothers Big Sisters" I used to be involved with where the mentor/mentee would regularly call each other big brother/little brother in conversation.

So agree to disagree on that. But I hope this helps you understand why my background helps color my opinion.

I offered examples from the original film’s own script that make clear the word is being used in its fraternal sense. That doesn’t have a bearing on whether or not they’re biological brothers, of course, but it does mean that they are most definitely brothers, not just friends or non-fraternal relatives.

And I agree those are valid examples on how one would conclude that biological link. I'm just not conceding that its not possible to also conclude that its a non-biological link. Which is why I leave it up to the original intent of the filmmakers, they are the final authority on it in my opinion. If you disagree with the filmmakers and say that should have made it more clear in the original if that is what they intended, well that is up to you.