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

[coffeefan]

Who said you can't have content streaming success? Not mutually exclusive and does not change the fact that the theatrical box office is still the best and fastest way to make your money.

You will notice that many things people want to watch on Netflix are also box office hits of recent are old. With just their own content, they would habe a rougher go. This was an odd comparison.

But nobody is saying the contrary. They're just saying that it's not black and white like it was before the steaming era.

 

[celluloid]

But nobody is saying the contrary. They're just saying that it's not black and white like it was before the steaming era.

It was never black and white. TV, HBO/Cable and Home Video all did this before.



Box office has always and still the primary correlator to success for most.

The reason you can share videos like that is...because it is surprising it happened. Meaning a luck and risky, can't count on it.

Not sure why it is so shocking to say that box office is primary driver of success for the major motion picture industry. It is not controversial.

If we want to talk cult classics and minor releases getting second life...we can do that as it is more common there.

But this is a box office thread.


There is still no evidence to the claim that the box office is not the primary driver. That was a black and white statement.

It is not the ONLY driver. But it is the primary one.

 

[celluloid]

Absolutely true. You don't think that the movie with the 2nd highest gross income at the BO so far this year (Cap 4, which would have been 14th overall last year) will correlate to a correspondingly high income in the home market?

So wait, is it the primary driver or not?

You guys took a long walk around the block to agree.

 

[coffeefan]

Not sure why it is so shocking to say that box office is primary driver of success for the major motion picture industry. It is not controversial.

Where did someone say that information was shocking? Let's include some quotes here.

It is not the ONLY driver. But it is the primary one.

Again, where did someone say otherwise? People are saying it's not the only factor, so it looks like you agree without realizing it.

 

[celluloid]

Where did someone say that information was shocking? Let's include some quotes here.


Again, where did someone say otherwise? People are saying it's not the only factor, so it looks like you agree without realizing it.

Because people are arguing like it is the norm for a movie to make more money at home than at box office.

It is the exception, not the norm.

This was all in repsonse to @Disney Irish saying that box office is NOT the primary driver.

Which everyone but Disney Irish seems to see that it is not true.

 

[brideck]

You’re correlating some of there’s flops as being a new sub or sustained sub…which is pretty silly. It doesn’t “generate income” in the home market otherwise.

I'm really not. I'm just reporting the numbers from a variety of studios that are attributed to non-Theatrical income. I'm making no assumptions as to what specific sources that income is coming from (like you are).

To use Cap 4 as an example, I am not saying that it's some dramatic moneymaker. But in Disney's ledger in the end, there's probably a "small" black number next to it, like $10m.

 

[brideck]

Because people are arguing like it is the norm for a movie to make more money at home than at box office.

It is the exception, not the norm.

Again, untrue. Only the top 4 or 5 movies last year clearly made more money at the box office than elsewhere. Source: Deadline

 

[easyrowrdw]

And as always you avoid the actual point like its the plague.

Follow along with me here -

The goal is not for a movie to have a loss overall, of course the goal is to have a movie that is profitable at the end of the day, its just that the box office is no longer the goal of where those profits need to happen. The box office is now secondary to where a movie makes its profit, it is use to setup the primary market for profit which is the post-theatrical space.

The short answer, if a movie fails at the box office as long as those losses are minimized Disney is able to absorb those losses and turn a profit on a movie due to its post-theatrical strategy, ie the primary driver of where a movie now makes profits.

You're a rather intelligent guy, as is TP, and I know you actually both get this point, even if you're being stubborn and won't admit that Disney has positioned itself for this new era of post-theatrical earnings.

The statement you’re quoting from Disney doesn’t say these things. That doesn’t mean they can’t be true - gotta check the breakdowns for Disney movies. But it’s still not what Disney’s statement says.

 

[celluloid]

I'm really not. I'm just reporting the numbers from a variety of studios that are attributed to non-Theatrical income. I'm making no assumptions as to what specific sources that income is coming from (like you are).

To use Cap 4 as an example, I am not saying that it's some dramatic moneymaker. But in Disney's ledger in the end, there's probably a "small" black number next to it, like $10m.

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

Diney is not making 200 million dollar budget films to make ten million on a ledger years later.

And no one saying Cap 4 was a flop, but it is showing the tired grouping.


And it proves my point that box office is still the primary driver, not against the point.

 

[celluloid]

Again, untrue. Only the top 4 or 5 movies last year clearly made more money at the box office than elsewhere. Source: Deadline

Again, not isolated to time in theaters, but directly correlated.

You are confusing primary driver of success in revenue to "just counting how much it made in theaters"

You joined a conversation with a different argument proposed.

 

[Disney Irish]

The statement you’re quoting doesn’t say these things. That doesn’t mean they can’t be true - gotta check the breakdowns for Disney movies. But it’s still not what Disney’s statement says.

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So wait, is it the primary driver or not?

You guys took a long walk around the block to agree.

You can’t change the stripes on a contrary contrarian leopard

 

[Disney Irish]

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

If you want to get exact on an analogy it would be 10 on 180 investment, and that would be a 5.56% return on investment. Which to many would be a good return.

 

[celluloid]

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

Common sense should tell you that they are explaining they also make money outside of the box office when reporting about bad box office results. Cushioning the blow.

It is no secret that there are ways for home viewing to make the loss less or reach an audience for profit.
It is hopeful and explainining how it works.

You are jumping to a conclusion that this is the new norm.

Common sense shows that if a movie's marketing budget so it can get to theaters is still near half the budget for the film or more, than they would save a ton if they did not feel box office is the primary driver for success.

So again, your stance has no basis.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Again, untrue. Only the top 4 or 5 movies last year clearly made more money at the box office than elsewhere. Source: Deadline

There it is folks. The box office does not matter any more.

In the old days the box office mattered because it was the only place to see a movie.

So if the box office is no longer the measuring stick, the media should stop reporting it and sites like The Numbers should shut down.

The reality is, everyone still uses it as a measuring stick whether we like it or not.

 

[Disney Irish]

So wait, is it the primary driver or not?

You guys took a long walk around the block to agree.

I think you've missed again on this one. As its me you keep referencing with these "primary driver" things, let me try to clear it up since people seem to have gotten it confused.

What I've said is that the box office is no longer the primary driver of PROFITS for a movie, not that it wasn't the primary driver of revenue.

 

[brideck]

Again, not isolated to time in theaters, but directly correlated.

You are confusing primary driver of success in revenue to "just counting how much it made in theaters"

I'm not confusing anything, other than assuming that you were one of the people who didn't understand that movies make a lot of money outside of the box office these days. [There are many of them around these parts.] I would guess that many people are guilty of reading you to be saying share of income as opposed to driver of income.

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

And yet, that's what movie making looks like in general (albeit usually on a smaller scale). It's like playing the lottery for investors -- you're likely to lose, but there's a chance you'll make a mint.

I gave Steven Soderbergh $6 to make a spy thriller, but I only got 50¢ back. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

What are you talking about?

Capitalistic goals is still the priority at Disney today, same as it was in Walt's day, but that doesn't mean its goals are primarily driven by the box office receipts anymore. We're in a new era of consumer consumption where the box office is now becoming secondary and used to drive primary consumption which is the secondary market.

As noted before, from Disney's own FY24 earnings report right at the top of page 6 -

"The Company incurs significant marketing and advertising costs before and throughout the theatrical release of a film in
an effort to generate public awareness of the film, to increase the public’s intent to view the film and to help generate consumer interest in the subsequent home entertainment and other ancillary markets. These costs are expensed as incurred, which may result in a loss on a film in the theatrical markets, including in periods prior to the theatrical release of the film"

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2025/01/2024-Annual-Report.pdf

I know its hard for some to wrap their head around, but theatrical is no longer the same as it was in the previous decades. Just a fact that some will have to get used to as I don't see this changing.

You quoted this and said all that stuff above. But it does not say the things you’re saying it does about post-theater being the primary driver of revenue (correction: profit). Your interpretation goes far beyond what is stated. You can feel free to support your position with numbers but it’s not in what you quoted.

 

[Disney Irish]

What are you talking about?

You quoted this and said all that stuff above. But it does not say the things you’re saying it does about post-theater being the primary driver of revenue. Your interpretation goes far beyond what is stated. You can feel free to support your position with numbers but it’s not in what you quoted.

Again I think people are getting confused in what I'm saying, so let me quote myself what I just posted -

I think you've missed again on this one. As its me you keep referencing with these "primary driver" things, let me try to clear it up since people seem to have gotten it confused.

What I've said is that the box office is no longer the primary driver of PROFITS for a movie, not that it wasn't the primary driver of revenue.

 

[celluloid]

I'm not confusing anything, other than assuming that you were one of the people who didn't understand that movies make a lot of money outside of the box office these days. [There are many of them around these parts.] I would guess that many people are guilty of reading you to be saying share of income as opposed to driver of income.



And yet, that's what movie making looks like in general (albeit usually on a smaller scale). It's like playing the lottery for investors -- you're likely to lose, but there's a chance you'll make a mint.

I gave Steven Soderbergh $6 to make a spy thriller, but I only got 50¢ back. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Well at least you are honest. Assuming is more dangerous than confusing. I made no obvious incidentals. I said primary driver.


The rest is obvious and has been stated a lot.

Disney is more often only making 50 cents on the six dollars than not. And branding is not in a good place when that keeps happening.