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

[brideck]

So do we think $350 million is the baseline expectation for an MCU movie at this point? Hulk was 17 years ago so it doesn’t feel particularly informative. That just leaves The Marvels under 350.

I had said $400m a week or so ago, but I think Irish countered with $350m. It's definitely somewhere in that zone for a "normal" (non-event) MCU release.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Well there are diminishing returns in business, and they understand that, however. With inflation also comes the cost to make the movies have risen too. It is not sustainable when the drops are so drastic as the costs went up.

Good points.

I had said $400m a week or so ago, but I think Irish countered with $350m. It's definitely somewhere in that zone for a "normal" (non-event) MCU release.

Ah, okay. I think I did read that, but just forgot.

 

[Disney Irish]

So do we think $350 million is the baseline expectation for an MCU movie at this point? Hulk was 17 years ago so it doesn’t feel particularly informative. That just leaves The Marvels under 350.

I think I mentioned it before, but $350M-$400M is a good baseline for the floor for MCU expectations in my opinion.

 

[DKampy]

The John Wick spinoff is also action fatigue, which follows the downward trend of the year for action and Horror and Family being the trend that audiences have gone to and both genres have had better chances at success.

I don’t know if Ballerina is proof that action movie fatigue is there…. John Wick has never even been a 500 million franchise…There is only 1 that did over 400…and prequels never do as well as the franchise proper in which they spun from….Ballerina should of been released outside of summer…. With so much competition…. Not everything was going to hit…. And IMO…. I thought this was the biggest candidate from the get go

 

[celluloid]

I don’t know if Ballerina is proof that action movie fatigue is there…. John Wick has never even been a 500 million franchise…There is only 1 that did over 400…and prequels never do as well as the franchise proper in which they spun from….Ballerina should of been released outside of summer…. With so much competition…. Not everything was going to hit…. And IMO…. I thought this was the biggest candidate from the get go

That's fair,
I think that is more to the point that John Wick's spinoff is still performing near an expected a post fourth sequel spin off would. Which unfortunately this time, even with the less budget is still not enough to carry it to much probability between two family giants (Lilo and How to Train Your Dragon) with major releases for horror coming.(28 years later and M3GAN 2.0)on their way in the next two weeks.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm just not convinced it does. I've said before, but if I could have gone to this movie and gotten popcorn/drink with my one kid who wanted to see it for $25, I would have gone. But, neither of us cared that much to justify dropping $50 for it. So while ticket sales is a thing to watch, there is a very real other side of it where people just don't justify spending the insane costs on movies they would have 10 years ago (heck, maybe even 5 years ago).

I agree with that…but it’s kinda different argument

Adjusted ticket sales shows how many people felt it worth it to go…despite “all in” costs which you can compartmentalize

Not the same as our argument on park tickets…where you really can’t

As long as movie tickets have roughly followed inflation?

 

[DKampy]

That's fair,
I think that is more to the point that John Wick's spinoff is still performing near an expected a post fourth sequel spin off would. Which unfortunately this time, even with the less budget is still not enough to carry it to much probability between two family giants (Lilo and How to Train Your Dragon) with major releases for horror coming.(28 years later and M3GAN 2.0)on their way in the next two weeks.

We will see what happens…. I do expect How To Train Your Dragon to do well….Megan and 28 Years Later I am less sure…. Plus I am not sure if the former is of the horror genre…. I think Megan’s trailers has felt more action oriented ala Terminator 2

 

[celluloid]

We will see what happens…. I do expect How To Train Your Dragon to do well….Megan and 28 Years Later I am less sure…. Plus I am not sure if the former is of the horror genre…. I think Megan’s trailers has felt more action oriented ala Terminator 2

Definitely the direction it went. Still leans into horror first with the campy kills and blood focus that T2 did not have.

Who knows how 28 and Megan will do on their own. Such a gap for the 28 installment and a budget close to Balerina.

And I don't know how great any of them will do, but it will bump Balerina way out of the top three or further, which was the competition point discussed.

 

[DKampy]

Definitely the direction it went. Still leans into horror first with the campy kills and blood focus that T2 did not have.

Not to sure about being blood focused…. Megan 2.0 is rated pg-13

 

[celluloid]

Not to sure about being blood focused…. Megan 2.0 is rated pg-13

I shouodnuabe hyphenated there instead of writing it thst way. A focus is It has bloody kills and camp. Director itself said at it is still horror at its core.
..."strong violent, bloody images..."

The first one's theatrical version was also PG13.

 

[DKampy]

I shouodnuabe hyphenated there instead of writing it thst way. A focus is It has bloody kills and camp. Director itself said at it is still horror at its core.
..."strong violent, bloody images..."

The first one's theatrical version was also PG13.

Yes… I know… nothing wrong with PG-13 horror… A Quiet Place is one of my favorite movies this century…. I just don’t think bloody images even with the first Megan… I still think trailer looks more action to me… and T2 had bloody images and kills as well… probably more so as it was rated R

 

[celluloid]

Yes… I know… nothing wrong with PG-13 horror… A Quiet Place is one of my favorite movies this century…. I just don’t think bloody images even with the first Megan… I still think trailer looks more action to me… and T2 had bloody images and kills as well… probably more so as it was rated R

T2 was rated R for strong violence with strong language strong language. It is not a bloody film.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I don’t know if Ballerina is proof that action movie fatigue is there….

No.

 

[Disney Irish]

Adjusted ticket sales shows how many people felt it worth it to go…despite “all in” costs which you can compartmentalize

Does it though?

Because I don't think costs can be discounted here. Because as ticket prices have rose many are deciding to wait to see it at home due to it now costing way over $100 for a family of 4 to go to the movies. Whereas in years past, like when the MCU first started, one could go to a movie for half that on average. Basically unless its an event film you're not going to get the masses out. So forget the average run of the mill mid-tier MCU movie. And its because ticket sales have continued to plummet year-after-year for the past 2 decades, something that many of us have talked about before, and something I continue to bring up because I feel its important in these conversations.

I mean just look at some of our fellow posters here, many have commented that they will just wait to watch "insert the name of the latest movie here" at home. And the number one reason given, "its costs too much to go to the movies".

As long as movie tickets have roughly followed inflation?

Ticket prices have generally outpaced inflation, especially now for premium seats. For example someone spending $10 on a movie ticket in 2008 when RDJ said "I am Iron Man" should be paying ~$14.50 today, but most are paying over $20 for even non-premium seats.

So unless someone is going to a matinee show solo on a Tuesday and not buying any snacks, you're probably not getting anywhere close to what they paid in 2008.


So no just doing an inflation adjusted look doesn't actually tell you anything about how people felt about anything, not when less people go to the movies today than they did even 5 years ago let alone 10 years ago.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Does it though?

Because I don't think costs can be discounted here. Because as ticket prices have rose many are deciding to wait to see it at home due to it now costing way over $100 for a family of 4 to go to the movies. Whereas in years past, like when the MCU first started, one could go to a movie for half that on average. Basically unless its an event film you're not going to get the masses out. So forget the average run of the mill mid-tier MCU movie. And its because ticket sales have continued to plummet year-after-year for the past 2 decades, something that many of us have talked about before, and something I continue to bring up because I feel its important in these conversations.

I mean just look at some of our fellow posters here, many have commented that they will just wait to watch "insert the name of the latest movie here" at home. And the number one reason given, "its costs too much to go to the movies".


Ticket prices have generally outpaced inflation, especially now for premium seats. For example someone spending $10 on a movie ticket in 2008 when RDJ said "I am Iron Man" should be paying ~$14.50 today, but most are paying over $20 for even non-premium seats.

So unless someone is going to a matinee show solo on a Tuesday and not buying any snacks, you're probably not getting anywhere close to what they paid in 2008.


So no just doing an inflation adjusted look doesn't actually tell you anything about how people felt about anything, not when less people go to the movies today than they did even 5 years ago let alone 10 years ago.

In short, going to the movies has historically been a nominal fee compared to income - affordable to teens with minimal allowance or p/t job. Now it’s a significant expense, even before concessions. “Dinner and a movie” is more likely dinner OR a movie - or a lesser meal during the movie.

 

[Nevermore525]

Would usually catch movies on opening weekends, now I actively go on Tuesday’s and all summer with the fam that’s the plan for anything they want to see.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Does it though?

Because I don't think costs can be discounted here. Because as ticket prices have rose many are deciding to wait to see it at home due to it now costing way over $100 for a family of 4 to go to the movies. Whereas in years past, like when the MCU first started, one could go to a movie for half that on average. Basically unless its an event film you're not going to get the masses out. So forget the average run of the mill mid-tier MCU movie. And its because ticket sales have continued to plummet year-after-year for the past 2 decades, something that many of us have talked about before, and something I continue to bring up because I feel its important in these conversations.

I mean just look at some of our fellow posters here, many have commented that they will just wait to watch "insert the name of the latest movie here" at home. And the number one reason given, "its costs too much to go to the movies".


Ticket prices have generally outpaced inflation, especially now for premium seats. For example someone spending $10 on a movie ticket in 2008 when RDJ said "I am Iron Man" should be paying ~$14.50 today, but most are paying over $20 for even non-premium seats.

So unless someone is going to a matinee show solo on a Tuesday and not buying any snacks, you're probably not getting anywhere close to what they paid in 2008.


So no just doing an inflation adjusted look doesn't actually tell you anything about how people felt about anything, not when less people go to the movies today than they did even 5 years ago let alone 10 years ago.

You seem to be stuck on the “less people are going to the movies now…”

That means they’re all on a path to failing…If we’re honest

Streaming you say?
Tony Gilroy just has an interesting comment on that…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

In short, going to the movies has historically been a nominal fee compared to income - affordable to teens with minimal allowance or p/t job. Now it’s a significant expense, even before concessions. “Dinner and a movie” is more likely dinner OR a movie - or a lesser meal during the movie.

$20 is a “significant expense” now?

…the 1980’s called and wants its $20 back

 

[Disney Irish]

You seem to be stuck on the “less people are going to the movies now…”

That means they’re all on a path to failing…If we’re honest

Streaming you say?
Tony Gilroy just has an interesting comment on that…

Stuck on it? No, but I can recognize what a fall in consumers means to the overall business. And how if you have millions less consumers going to a movie today than in decades past that doesn’t tend to properly equate out when trying to do comparisons to show “how people felt” as you were.

So if Gilroy is right, and not just giving an off the cuff comment, then I guess we write the obit now on not only streaming but all of Hollywood because it’s all gonna crumble huh. Better get used to watching the latest kid doing dumb stuff YouTube vids for entertainment because the era of movies is over I guess.

 

[Disney Irish]

$20 is a “significant expense” now?

…the 1980’s called and wants its $20 back

$20 in the 80s had more spending power than it does today. And you should know that, you’re a smart guy. So don’t play like you aren’t aware of the differences in how things cost different today and are more expensive than 40 years ago.