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

[Ghost93]

Original movies CAN do well, but they need to be released in an environment where there isn't as much competition and word of mouth is allowed to spread. For example, the first M3gan movie did well because I was released in January when there was nothing else playing, but the sequel will likely flop or underperform amid all the summer blockbuster competition. Sinners was able to get a lot of buzz because it came out in the relatively dead April — not the middle of June. I just think releasing an original film in the middle of the summer isn't wise in today's environment. Elio would have been better as a February, March or August release.

Still, I do think there is a "kiddie" look to Elio that most Pixar movies don't have, and I suspect that may be playing a role why many demographics aren't interested in it.

 

[Disney Irish]

Original movies CAN do well, but they need to be released in an environment where there isn't as much competition and word of mouth is allowed to spread. For example, the first M3gan movie did well because I was released in January when there was nothing else playing, but the sequel will likely flop or underperform amid all the summer blockbuster competition. Sinners was able to get a lot of buzz because it came out in the relatively dead April — not the middle of June. I just think releasing an original film in the middle of the summer isn't wise in today's environment. Elio would have been better as a February, March or August release.

Still, I do think there is a "kiddie" look to Elio that most Pixar movies don't have, and I suspect that may be playing a role why many demographics aren't interested in it.

Could Elio have done better during a different part of the year, maybe. But I wouldn't say that is an accurate read on the situation. The problem here isn't just one or two films, it seems to be a widespread issue of originals. As we have had examples of original films over the last decade underperforming in general. So while some originals can perform well, by and large they aren't. This has been discussed a bunch of times over the years in this and other threads. So it doesn't bode well for originals in the marketplace if the ones that do get released don't attract an audience.

Also the two you mentioned are part of the glut of horror movies that have been released the last few years which had been attracting audiences. So I would say its part of that rather than purely being a benefit of them being "originals".

 

[DKampy]

Sinners was able to get a lot of buzz because it came out in the relatively dead April

Would Sinners have done as well if not for the Vampire element…. Which WB really leaned into it in the promotions…. My personal opinion they should have hinted at something supernatural in the trailers and kept it a surprise…. I think it would have made a good movie even better… General audiences were really sold on the idea of vampires… which is not that original…. Even if the film is and much deeper then that one idea

 

[Phroobar]

Still, I do think there is a "kiddie" look to Elio that most Pixar movies don't have, and I suspect that may be playing a role why many demographics aren't interested in it.

I've been saying that for a long time. Elio's character design (Turning Red, Luca, Win or Lose) is far too generic. There is no eye candy that we saw in movies like Across the Spiderverse or Puss'n Boots the last wish. The animation industry has gotten more creative in design and Pixar seems to have degenerated and looks cheap.

 

[Ghost93]

Would Sinners have done as well if not for the Vampire element…. Which WB really leaned into it in the promotions…. My personal opinion they should have hinted at something supernatural in the trailers and kept it a surprise…. I think it would have made a good movie even better… General audiences were really sold on the idea of vampires… which is not that original…. Even if the film is and much deeper then that one idea

I knew Sinners had vampires going into it but that didn't impact my enjoyment of the films (which is my personal favorite of the 2020s so far) at all. And while vampires may have initially interested audiences in seeing the movie in the first place, I think its the character work and thematic elements that got people to see the movie multiple times in the theater.


Don't get me wrong, I am not implying that original movies don't have challenges in the current marketplace. I think it is EXTREMELY hard for an original movie to break out in today's environment. I'm just saying that — despite challenges — it can be done, but it has to be done very strategically. I think the summer movie season is no longer an ideal time to release a completely original story without an IP attached to it. The only exceptions would be if the director making the original movie is a brand unto himself, like Christopher Nolan.

 

[Miss Rori]

Elio would have been better as a February, March or August release.

Well, it was supposed to be a March 2024 release!

Looking around elsewhere online for commentary on this situation, I think some families thought Elio came out a while ago because the original November 2023 teaser hung around for quite a while, since the ridiculous amount of trailers most big chains put before movies nowadays have to be appropriate to the main attraction. Elio being a kids' movie, pretty much every kids' movie last year had to have worked that teaser, and later the post-retool teasers/trailers, in front of it. That's a long time to go without actually delivering the movie. But it couldn't have had a huge effect on the take!

Still, I do think there is a "kiddie" look to Elio that most Pixar movies don't have, and I suspect that may be playing a role why many demographics aren't interested in it.

Yeah, I don't mind the aesthetic offhand, but the whole movie just didn't look or sound particularly appealing to anybody who didn't have kids. (And there's only so many movies where half the dialogue is yelling/screaming that parents and guardians can stand!) I think this also got in the way of Wish - remember all the comments that it looked more like a Sofia the First / Elena of Avalor movie than a "proper" Disney animated feature?

 

[Ghost93]

Yeah, I don't mind the aesthetic offhand, but the whole movie just didn't look or sound particularly appealing to anybody who didn't have kids. (And there's only so many movies where half the dialogue is yelling/screaming that parents and guardians can stand!) I think this also got in the way of Wish - remember all the comments that it looked more like a Sofia the First / Elena of Avalor movie than a "proper" Disney animated feature?

Anecdotally, the animation style is why my sister didn't see Wish in theaters. She thought it looked like a Disney Jr. product.

Of course, the movie itself had a billion problems other than the animation (weak characterization, terrible song lyrics, muddled plot, etc) but most people never gave the movie a chance in the first place to discover these issues.

 

[brideck]

Would Sinners have done as well if not for the Vampire element…. Which WB really leaned into it in the promotions…. My personal opinion they should have hinted at something supernatural in the trailers and kept it a surprise…. I think it would have made a good movie even better… General audiences were really sold on the idea of vampires… which is not that original…. Even if the film is and much deeper then that one idea

Yeah, I just finally saw this last night and was surprised that the vampires didn't even show up until at least halfway through the movie, and some of those shots in the trailer come from very late in the runtime. A really interesting movie to try to market, though, and I can see why it didn't find success overseas. Outside of the vampire angle, it is very specifically American in setting and subject matter.

My normal preference is that a trailer should focus on the first part of the movie up to and including plot point 1 (usually about 20-25 mins in) and leave the rest to be discovered by the audience, but the movie covers so much ground that it would be nigh impossible to do in this case. I would have taken maybe up to the first appearance of bad-looking folks with an evil glint in their eye to get the basic point across.

 

[DCLcruiser]

Anecdotally, the animation style is why my sister didn't see Wish in theaters. She thought it looked like a Disney Jr. product.

Of course, the movie itself had a billion problems other than the animation (weak characterization, terrible song lyrics, muddled plot, etc) but most people never gave the movie a chance in the first place to discover these issues.

Wish had so much potential. The genesis of the Wishing Star. It should have taken place in Mesopotamia (Gilgamesh) or a Phoenician outpost (thank you). Show how storytelling transcends human history. Instead they reused characters from Strange World, injected IP all over the place and made for a weak story. Granted I did like the tie-in to the Mirror.

They should have used this pencil style animation, not smooth CGI.

 

[DKampy]

I knew Sinners had vampires going into it but that didn't impact my enjoyment of the films (which is my personal favorite of the 2020s so far) at all. And while vampires may have initially interested audiences in seeing the movie in the first place, I think its the character work and thematic elements that got people to see the movie multiple times in the theater.

I also really like Sinners…one of my favs this year…hoping it will be remembered during award season…. However during the last half of the film…. I could predict certain scenes coming just from what I saw in the trailer

Yeah, I just finally saw this last night and was surprised that the vampires didn't even show up until at least halfway through the movie, and some of those shots in the trailer come from very late in the runtime. A really interesting movie to try to market, though, and I can see why it didn't find success overseas. Outside of the vampire angle, it is very specifically American in setting and subject matter.

My normal preference is that a trailer should focus on the first part of the movie up to and including plot point 1 (usually about 20-25 mins in) and leave the rest to be discovered by the audience, but the movie covers so much ground that it would be nigh impossible to do in this case. I would have taken maybe up to the first appearance of bad-looking folks with an evil glint in their eye to get the basic point across.

That would of been perfect…at the very last frame of the trailer show the evil eye folks approaching just to leave viewers intrigued there is something more going on

 

[Fox&Hound]

Wish had so much potential. The genesis of the Wishing Star. It should have taken place in Mesopotamia (Gilgamesh) or a Phoenician outpost (thank you). Show how storytelling transcends human history. Instead they reused characters from Strange World, injected IP all over the place and made for a weak story. Granted I did like the tie-in to the Mirror.

They should have used this pencil style animation, not smooth CGI.
View attachment 867074

Reused characters from Strange World???? I don’t follow.

 

[Ghost93]

Yeah, I just finally saw this last night and was surprised that the vampires didn't even show up until at least halfway through the movie, and some of those shots in the trailer come from very late in the runtime. A really interesting movie to try to market, though, and I can see why it didn't find success overseas. Outside of the vampire angle, it is very specifically American in setting and subject matter.

My normal preference is that a trailer should focus on the first part of the movie up to and including plot point 1 (usually about 20-25 mins in) and leave the rest to be discovered by the audience, but the movie covers so much ground that it would be nigh impossible to do in this case. I would have taken maybe up to the first appearance of bad-looking folks with an evil glint in their eye to get the basic point across.

The first trailer for Sinners I think did a good job of showing a lot of footage without spoiling the context of what people were in for and keeping much of the mystery.





It was only later in the marketing campaign that they started being more upfront that it was a vampire movie.

As far as Sinners overseas/non U.S. performance, it has made slightly more than Nosferatu. So I think the issue is less that if flopped overseas as much as it significantly over performed in America. That's probably, as you mentioned, due to the themes of Sinners being EXTREMELY tied to American history. While people in other countries may appreciate — and maybe even love — Sinners, it probably doesn't speak to them nearly as much as it does to Americans and especially Black Americans.

Which is fine. It's okay to target a movie to a specific demographic or country as long as that demographic shows up in large numbers to support the movie.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Per usual, I think a lot of people with good intentions are jumping to conclusions with nowhere near enough data.

One film does not change the entire landscape of filming.

People are people are people. There is no reason why suddenly nobody wants to see new ideas. That makes absolutely no sense. We are in a temporary era in which the price of a ticket has made people more picky about what they go to see in a theater. Either those prices will come more in line with income, or businesses will adjust, or businesses will fail.

My guess is if Elio had been an animal, this would be a bigger hit.

The idea that children aren’t interested in science fiction sounds wrong to me.

What little boy wouldn’t be excited about an alien spaceship coming to pick up a little boy?

In my opinion, the trailer should have focused more squarely on that. Don’t reveal so much. Don’t show the alien. Keep some mystery to make it interesting.

If the film is good as it seems to be, and there is no political drama, and people aren’t going, the trailers failed. In this case, the scheduling also failed.

But the idea that new movies are over or Science Fiction is over – it’s over reaction.

 

[FrontierSpirit]

Per usual, I think a lot of people with good intentions are jumping to conclusions with nowhere near enough data.

One film does not change the entire landscape of filming.

People are people are people. There is no reason why suddenly nobody wants to see new ideas. That makes absolutely no sense. We are in a temporary era in which the price of a ticket has made people more picky about what they go to see in a theater. Either those prices will come more in line with income, or businesses will adjust, or businesses will fail.

My guess is if Elio had been an animal, this would be a bigger hit.

The idea that children aren’t interested in science fiction sounds wrong to me.

What little boy wouldn’t be excited about an alien spaceship coming to pick up a little boy?

In my opinion, the trailer should have focused more squarely on that. Don’t reveal so much. Don’t show the alien. Keep some mystery to make it interesting.

If the film is good as it seems to be, and there is no political drama, and people aren’t going, the trailers failed. In this case, the scheduling also failed.

But the idea that new movies are over or Science Fiction is over – it’s over reaction.

I don’t think the kids wanted to see it… or even knew about it (maybe?). My kids wanted to see Dragon, Stitch, Moana 2, inside out, Minecraft and let us know way before it was released… never said a word about Elio.
Right now they are talking about live action Moana, Wednesday, and stranger things.
Take it for what it’s worth.

 

[Disney Irish]

Per usual, I think a lot of people with good intentions are jumping to conclusions with nowhere near enough data.

One film does not change the entire landscape of filming.

People are people are people. There is no reason why suddenly nobody wants to see new ideas. That makes absolutely no sense. We are in a temporary era in which the price of a ticket has made people more picky about what they go to see in a theater. Either those prices will come more in line with income, or businesses will adjust, or businesses will fail.

My guess is if Elio had been an animal, this would be a bigger hit.

The idea that children aren’t interested in science fiction sounds wrong to me.

What little boy wouldn’t be excited about an alien spaceship coming to pick up a little boy?

In my opinion, the trailer should have focused more squarely on that. Don’t reveal so much. Don’t show the alien. Keep some mystery to make it interesting.

If the film is good as it seems to be, and there is no political drama, and people aren’t going, the trailers failed. In this case, the scheduling also failed.

But the idea that new movies are over or Science Fiction is over – it’s over reaction.

I don't necessarily think its an overreaction or about one movie or even necessarily about one genre. I think we have plenty of data over the last decade (as does Hollywood which is driving their decisions) that shows that originals by and large aren't drawing customers in droves back to the theaters like they used to. Sure you'll have a handful that will break through and end up being a hit, several of which were discussed already, but that is not the majority and certainly doesn't change the landscape. Consumers just flock to the known comfortable right now, is it temporary we don't know as only time will tell. But if we say that Hollywood is a business, and as a business they look at the landscape and the data shows that they get more return from recycling IP rather than taking a risk on originals, what do you think they will choose more often than not?

Now none of this is to say that new original movies won't happen, or that new SciFi animated movies won't happen. They still will, but they may not be the blockbuster movies where a studio puts big bucks behind it. They will be more likely to be more independent small budget movies, or streaming exclusives.

 

[Phroobar]

What little boy wouldn’t be excited about an alien spaceship coming to pick up a little boy?

I think most little boys would scared to death if that happened.

 

[brideck]

People are people are people. There is no reason why suddenly nobody wants to see new ideas. That makes absolutely no sense. We are in a temporary era in which the price of a ticket has made people more picky about what they go to see in a theater. Either those prices will come more in line with income, or businesses will adjust, or businesses will fail.

I'll beat the drum forever that I don't really think it's the price of tickets in a vacuum. If you play the inflation game, tickets today are only about $2 more expensive (on average) than they were in 1995. [Note: The price of concessions has probably increased way more dramatically, but I'm not going to go looking for data on that. It's kind of a self-created problem for a movie-goer that they think this is a required part of the price puzzle when going to see something in theaters. Just sneak it in if you think that stuff is too expensive for you and you absolutely have to eat or drink something -- that's what we did in the '90s.]

The real problem for theaters is that they've been so dramatically undercut by Netflix and everyone chasing them. Combine that with the shortened window of time between a movie being in a theater and being able to watch it at home via something you're already paying for, and it's game over. Movie tickets would have to be stupidly cheap (on the order of $5 or less) if theaters were ever going to be able to compete with that, and I don't know if that will keep the lights on, unless doing that would double the audience size. It's hard to run a business when your primary good has reached commodity pricing.

Think about how Cap 4 just racked up 750m viewing minutes (6.3m+ views) in its first week on Disney+. Not all of those would have necessarily been from theater-goers were this 15 years ago instead of today, but that's got to be a lot of potential box office (>$60m at least? Who knows how many people are in the room watching those streams?) that just no longer exists.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I think most little boys would scared to death if that happened.

And old men, too!

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I'll beat the drum forever that I don't really think it's the price of tickets in a vacuum. If you play the inflation game, tickets today are only about $2 more expensive (on average) than they were in 1995. [Note: The price of concessions has probably increased way more dramatically, but I'm not going to go looking for data on that. It's kind of a self-created problem for a movie-goer that they think this is a required part of the price puzzle when going to see something in theaters. Just sneak it in if you think that stuff is too expensive for you and you absolutely have to eat or drink something -- that's what we did in the '90s.]

The real problem for theaters is that they've been so dramatically undercut by Netflix and everyone chasing them. Combine that with the shortened window of time between a movie being in a theater and being able to watch it at home via something you're already paying for, and it's game over. Movie tickets would have to be stupidly cheap (on the order of $5 or less) if theaters were ever going to be able to compete with that, and I don't know if that will keep the lights on, unless doing that would double the audience size. It's hard to run a business when your primary good has reached commodity pricing.

Think about how Cap 4 just racked up 750m viewing minutes (6.3m+ views) in its first week on Disney+. Not all of those would have necessarily been from theater-goers were this 15 years ago instead of today, but that's got to be a lot of potential box office (>$60m at least? Who knows how many people are in the room watching those streams?) that just no longer exists.

The price of concessions absolutely matters, and that was, if not specifically mentioned, implied by my generalization of “the price of tickets.“

The bottom line is what used to cost X now costs around 2X. That jump happened quickly. Yes, you are posting from your point of view, and I am posting from mine. I am not going to the theater, sneaking in a drink and abstaining from popcorn or whatever.

The cheapest without specials for two people with shared popcorn and even one drink is around $50. When I was in my 20s, that couldn’t be an impulse purchase. It’s a planned event. The movie never used to cost as much as dinner.

No, that’s not the only reason. But it definitely explains recent history, along with other reasons like Covid (which provides multiple reasons of its own.)

Netflix doesn’t even have a decent selection of movies. It rarely has new ones. That still goes to HBO and what not.

And watching a movie at home in most cases is still a second rate experience.

All of this is far beyond my original point that one movie in 2025 is not the tipping point. That includes if studios overreact to that one movie in 2025. Everything is temporary. Everything has a solution.

 

[TP2000]

It's Friday already? Where did the week go?!

But that means box office is out for the Thursday previews, forecasting where the movies will place this weekend. It looks like Elio drops down to 3rd place for its second weekend in theaters. Lilo & Stitch hangs on strong in its fifth weekend!

The Numbers - Daily Box Office Chart for Thursday June 26, 2025

Daily Domestic Box Office Chart for Thursday June 26, 2025

thenumbers.com