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

[DKampy]

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.

For my wife and I going to the movies is the cheapest form of entertainment I can think of… But we usually go for Sunday Matinees and don’t buy concessions…. We will sneak in bottle water/soda… it is just over $22.00 for the two of us

I just joined the movie club at our local chain for 9.99 a month…. Where any movie you purchase is 9.99 including at night…. Plus in reality it cost nothing as you also get one one complimentary movie ticket a month

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

$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.

That’s exactly what I’m saying

 

[DKampy]

That’s exactly what I’m saying

I believe Irish does not mean just movie Tickets have increased…. Everything has.., I remember a time in the 80’s when you get a concert ticket for a big act in the 80’s for near $20.00…. These days the cheapest you will get that same ticket will be closer to $200

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I believe Irish does not mean just movie Tickets have increased…. Everything has.., I remember a time in the 80’s when you get a concert ticket for a big act in the 80’s for near $20.00…. These days the cheapest you will get that same ticket will be closer to $200

Of course

Things are more expensive across the board no question

My point is the difference between a $14 ticket and a $20 is easier to swallow than a $75 concert ticket vs a $200 ticket.

Or a $175 park ticket vs a $80 ticket.

It’s the rate of churn and the price. Not just the ridiculous pricing gone to hell

 

[networkpro]

IMHO it only matters for the Disney company if a "production" (terminology is kind of fluid these days) results in a net profit and associated increase in good will. A "critically acclaimed" "production" that doesn't fit those criteria means little outside the art film/critic community (which doesn't value the business side of the equation as a key factor as much as the bean counters)

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

Economy still isn't great. And really nothing to indicate it will get better anytime soon. I already spend enough money on streaming content. I doubt I get back into a theater this year. It's at least $50 in just ticket prices to take the family. Have to sit through 30 minutes of ads and trailers in a sub par theater. And, as is the case most often, the movie turns out to just be kinda average.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Economy still isn't great. And really nothing to indicate it will get better anytime soon. I already spend enough money on streaming content. I doubt I get back into a theater this year. It's at least $50 in just ticket prices to take the family. Have to sit through 30 minutes of ads and trailers in a sub par theater. And, as is the case most often, the movie turns out to just be kinda average.

The lure would be much greater if the studios didn’t churn out awful predictable crap in volume…

You know who’s really good at that?

 

[Disney Irish]

The lure would be much greater if the studios didn’t churn out awful predictable crap in volume…

You know who’s really good at that?

Sorry that not every movie released to the market today is Oscar gold or a huge blockbuster earning Billions. Its the nature of the industry, everything is cyclical.

I've sat through many decades of crap being released to theaters, so this isn't new, speaking of the 80s. We got spoiled by the 15ish years of good content being released starting in the early 00s. Unfortunately it could never last. And I know how you hate my talk about streaming, but the small-to-mid sized movie that used to fill the screens (and was usually good) is what is being pumped out to streaming in a lot of cases. So thank the advancements in technology for that one.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Sorry that not every movie released to the market today is Oscar gold or a huge blockbuster earning Billions. Its the nature of the industry, everything is cyclical.

I've sat through many decades of crap being released to theaters, so this isn't new, speaking of the 80s. We got spoiled by the 15ish years of good content being released starting in the early 00s. Unfortunately it could never last. And I know how you hate my talk about streaming, but the small-to-mid sized movie that used to fill the screens (and was usually good) is what is being pumped out to streaming in a lot of cases. So thank the advancements in technology for that one.

It’s more a reflection of business decisions than “cyclical” at this point. It is industry wide though

So you think the execs telling Tony Gilroy that “streaming is dead” behind closed doors isn’t a window into the soul?

 

[Disney Irish]

Of course

Things are more expensive across the board no question

My point is the difference between a $14 ticket and a $20 is easier to swallow than a $75 concert ticket vs a $200 ticket.

Not for a family, which IS the point. Sure when you're going solo that $20 is easy to swallow as its just $40ish or so total when including snacks. But multiple that by 3 or 4 for the average family size and you can see that that $20 quickly adds up and why many families are skipping the movies. Because who really wants to pay upwards of $160 or more to go see something that will most likely be available on your already paid for streaming service in a matter of a couple months at most.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s more a reflection of business decisions than “cyclical” at this point. It is industry wide though

But again this isn't new. Its just this eras version of things that have happened before. I don't know why this is all of a sudden a surprise.

So you think the execs telling Tony Gilroy that “streaming is dead” behind closed doors isn’t a window into the soul?

I think too much is being made of that off-the-cuff comment. But if you really want to dive into it, I don't think it really means that streaming is dead, ie no more content is going to be made and the services are going away. What I think it really means is that Studios aren't going to be spending $650M on a single show for streaming. But that they will still be making content, just cheaper, just like they have for the last almost 100 years of television. The services ARE NOT going away, its too late for that as the genie is already out of the bottle. They will just get better at producing content for cheaper, again going back to the old model of production for that.

Disney wouldn't have just given Comcast an additional $439M for the rest of Hulu if streaming was really dead. Not to mention that both WBD and Comcast wouldn't be splitting off their old legacy media divisions to focus on streaming as a core business if streaming was really dead. So maybe read the tea leaves here of what the studios are actually doing, not what some writer/director says.

So again I think too much is being made of this off-the-cuff comment by a writer/director that just wrapped a very expensive streaming program and was likely looking to do it again but was told no.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not for a family, which IS the point. Sure when you're going solo that $20 is easy to swallow as its just $40ish or so total when including snacks. But multiple that by 3 or 4 for the average family size and you can see that that $20 quickly adds up and why many families are skipping the movies. Because who really wants to pay upwards of $160 or more to go see something that will most likely be available on your already paid for streaming service in a matter of a couple months at most.

Things are more expensive…

So just close the theaters and studios?

Because that’s the path of least resistance when there isn’t alot of money in it.

And we may get there

…I know…AI generated full house reboots on D+ will just rake

 

[Disney Irish]

Things are more expensive…

So just close the theaters and studios?

Because that’s the path of least resistance when there isn’t alot of money in it.

And we may get there

…I know…AI generated full house reboots on D+ will just rake

Maybe that is where we are heading, who knows I can't predict the future and neither can you.

However if I was to put on my prognostication hat for a second, I would say (as I have before) that what is more likely to happen is that the movie going experience will become a more niche boutique experience. Similar to the Golden Age of Hollywood where it was seen as a once a year or twice a year outing, you got dressed up, had a nice meal, and then go see a movie. Heck, we're about half way there now, so it won't take much to get fully there.

Now can one run a successful Studio in that type of market, I'd say yes because it was done before so can be done again.

Also Full House is owned by WBD and licensed out to Netflix now and they already did a reboot, so another won't be on D+.

 

[BrianLo]

So you think the execs telling Tony Gilroy that “streaming is dead” behind closed doors isn’t a window into the soul?

I think that’s a misquote of the intention behind the comment. It’s likely more that Peak TV is dead. As in the concept of writing any and every creator open ended cheques.

I don’t even think radio or linear are dead. So it’s hard to call the whole buisness of streaming, which is still in a growth phase, “dead”.

 

[Tha Realest]

I think that’s a misquote of the intention behind the comment. It’s likely more that Peak TV is dead. As in the concept of writing any and every creator open ended cheques.

I don’t even think radio or linear are dead. So it’s hard to call the whole buisness of streaming, which is still in a growth phase, “dead”.

This is a silly recharacterization which only makes sense if you ignore they’ve cancelled outright a bunch of series.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think that’s a misquote of the intention behind the comment. It’s likely more that Peak TV is dead. As in the concept of writing any and every creator open ended cheques.

I don’t even think radio or linear are dead. So it’s hard to call the whole buisness of streaming, which is still in a growth phase, “dead”.

Exactly, I think it means they are going to back to trying to make shows with $1M-5M per episode price tag, ie less than $100M for a season. WBD just did this with The Pitt for Max with a price tag of $5M per episode for a season total of $75M.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is a silly recharacterization which only makes sense if you ignore they’ve cancelled outright a bunch of series.

And they cancelled a majority of those for one reason, they were too expensive. They aren’t going to be spending $650M for a show anymore, that is what all this means. The era of huge spends for streaming shows is over.

 

[BrianLo]

This is a silly recharacterization which only makes sense if you ignore they’ve cancelled outright a bunch of series.

Yes, that’s what I define as the peak TV movement. I’m reframing it because I otherwise don’t agree at all with the choice of words Gilroy used.

You think that streaming is “dead”? As in we won’t have streaming platforms within 10 years. He didn’t even use the word decline, which I’d still disagree, but could entertain an argument around. Consolidation maybe being the most palatable to me. Dead is such a silly hyperbole.


Plus I bristle because I know Walter is using it to support his hypothesis that the business subunit of streaming is dead, which is not at all the intent behind his comment. The unbridled blank cheques and proliferation phase is dead.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Yes, that’s what I define as the peak TV movement.

 

[DKampy]

The Wild West of streaming is over…. When everyone was throwing as much money as possible… all in the name of competition…. That was not going to last forever… as now the dust has settle… as it is figured which route is the most profitable