Fox&Hound
Well-Known Member
Reused characters from Strange World???? I don’t follow.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
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.
Last edited:
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Member
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
Premium Member
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
Well-Known Member
I think most little boys would scared to death if that happened.
brideck
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
And old men, too!
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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!
-3-Full.jpg)
thenumbers.com
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
Disney Irish
Premium Member
And in other news, M3GAN 2.0 is now predicted to come in under the $20M expected opening. Its also getting hit hard with critics scores, currently sitting at 59% on RT.
deadline.com
Add to that the soft opening that 28 Years Later had, now sitting at only $70M WW, and again it brings up the horror genre fatigue that appears to be taking hold.
‘F1’ Zooms To $10M Previews, An Apple Original Films Record; ‘M3GAN 2.0’ $1.5M – Friday AM Box Office
'F1' the Brad Pitt Apple Original Films is expected to deliver an opening north of $40M-$50M while Universal/Blumhouse's 'M3GAN 2.0' is expected to crash. Previews of $10M were a record for Apple Original Films.
deadline.com
Add to that the soft opening that 28 Years Later had, now sitting at only $70M WW, and again it brings up the horror genre fatigue that appears to be taking hold.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
Meh.
I don't know about that.
So far 28 years later has made 1.2x it's production budget.
I'm off the see M3GAN tonight.
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
Looks like the Pitt movie will do well.And in other news, M3GAN 2.0 is now predicted to come in under the $20M expected opening. Its also getting hit hard with critics scores, currently sitting at 59% on RT.
‘F1’ Zooms To $10M Previews, An Apple Original Films Record; ‘M3GAN 2.0’ $1.5M – Friday AM Box Office
'F1' the Brad Pitt Apple Original Films is expected to deliver an opening north of $40M-$50M while Universal/Blumhouse's 'M3GAN 2.0' is expected to crash. Previews of $10M were a record for Apple Original Films.
Add to that the soft opening that 28 Years Later had, now sitting at only $70M WW, and again it brings up the horror genre fatigue that appears to be taking hold.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I enjoyed M3gan 2.0, but not surprised many aren't liking it. IT's a complete genre change from the first film, leaning into the more comedic in absurd elements. I would compare it to the change in tone from Gremlins to Gremlins 2: The New Batch.And in other news, M3GAN 2.0 is now predicted to come in under the $20M expected opening. Its also getting hit hard with critics scores, currently sitting at 59% on RT.
‘F1’ Zooms To $10M Previews, An Apple Original Films Record; ‘M3GAN 2.0’ $1.5M – Friday AM Box Office
'F1' the Brad Pitt Apple Original Films is expected to deliver an opening north of $40M-$50M while Universal/Blumhouse's 'M3GAN 2.0' is expected to crash. Previews of $10M were a record for Apple Original Films.
Add to that the soft opening that 28 Years Later had, now sitting at only $70M WW, and again it brings up the horror genre fatigue that appears to be taking hold.
I also think the plot of M3gan 2.0 is needlessly convoluted for the type of movie it is.
Hope to catch F1 sometime in theaters this weekend or early next week. Want to see it in a Dolby if possible.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Which means that so far 28 Years has lost a potential of $80M, using the usual 2.5x formula against its $60M budget. Even if you want to be generous and say it only needs 2x due to lower budget that is still $50M in the hole as of now. Its already dropping hard into low single digits for its daily numbers, and if I was to guess its probably a $10M-$12M weekend, max $15M.
So gonna be hard to rebound in my opinion, if it does breakeven it'll barely make it.
Enjoy M3GAN 2.0 though.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
I saw F1 in ScreenX on an early preview on Wednesday, it was really good. Pitt is really good in the mentor roles that he has picked up now that is he later in his career.
easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
I’m wondering if Rush came out 10 years too early. It had generally solid critical and audience reviews but barely made a dent at the box office.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
Brad Pitt is also much more of a draw then Chris Hemsworth, who hasn't had box office success outside of Thor.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Let's do a mid-year checkup on where Burbank stands, shall we? Most of us are Americans so we'll be busy next week with Independence Day Weekend hosting and/or guesting 
, so we should do this now even though Lilo & Stitch might have another $50 Million in box office left.
It would also tell us what sort of heavy lifting Elio would need to do to get to profitability.
Using the available media info on marketing budgets and using a 60/40 box office take for domestic/foreign; the first five movies from Burbank (and Emeryville) have created a net loss of $245 Million at this year's box office. I don't see any way that Elio could make that up, does anyone else? If anything, Elio seems headed towards a loss of at least $150 Million.
Captain America 4: Production $180, Marketing $90, Domestic $120, Foreign $53 = $97 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White: Production $270, Marketing $100, Domestic $52, Foreign $47 = $272 Million Loss
The Amateur: Production $60, Marketing $30, Domestic $25, Foreign $22 = $43 Million Loss
Thunderbolts: Production $180, Marketing $90, Domestic $114, Foreign $77 = $79 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch: Production $100 (Phew!), Marketing $100, Domestic $236, Foreign $210 = $246 Million Profit
Elio: Production $150, Marketing $75 = ????
Or, for our friends on the Metric system and the less specific 2.5X the production blanket formula, you'd get a profit of $37 Million so far.
That means Elio needs to make at least $375 Million at the global box office to break even and in order to not start lowering the current '25 profit of $37 Million. For example, if Elio only does $150 Million at the global box office, the 2025 profit disappears and turns into a $188 Million Loss by the time The Fantastic Four debuts in late July, using the 2.5x formula.
Captain America 4 = $37 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White = $471 Million Loss
The Amateur = $54 Million Loss
Thunderbolts = $68 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch = $667 Million Profit
Elio = ???
Regardless of what Elio does, or doesn't do, at the box office, it's obvious to me that the star of this year's box office show is the team at Rideback Ranch that Burbank farmed out Lilo & Stitch to on the cheap for only $100 Million. If Rideback Ranch can produce a reasonably big hit and make a fat profit no matter which way you slice it with a budget roughly half the normal size Disney spends, why can't the Disney team on the Burbank campus do that same thing with the same IP?
Where does all that money go on the Burbank lot?
, so we should do this now even though Lilo & Stitch might have another $50 Million in box office left.It would also tell us what sort of heavy lifting Elio would need to do to get to profitability.
Using the available media info on marketing budgets and using a 60/40 box office take for domestic/foreign; the first five movies from Burbank (and Emeryville) have created a net loss of $245 Million at this year's box office. I don't see any way that Elio could make that up, does anyone else? If anything, Elio seems headed towards a loss of at least $150 Million.
Captain America 4: Production $180, Marketing $90, Domestic $120, Foreign $53 = $97 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White: Production $270, Marketing $100, Domestic $52, Foreign $47 = $272 Million Loss
The Amateur: Production $60, Marketing $30, Domestic $25, Foreign $22 = $43 Million Loss
Thunderbolts: Production $180, Marketing $90, Domestic $114, Foreign $77 = $79 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch: Production $100 (Phew!), Marketing $100, Domestic $236, Foreign $210 = $246 Million Profit
Elio: Production $150, Marketing $75 = ????
Or, for our friends on the Metric system and the less specific 2.5X the production blanket formula, you'd get a profit of $37 Million so far.
That means Elio needs to make at least $375 Million at the global box office to break even and in order to not start lowering the current '25 profit of $37 Million. For example, if Elio only does $150 Million at the global box office, the 2025 profit disappears and turns into a $188 Million Loss by the time The Fantastic Four debuts in late July, using the 2.5x formula.
Captain America 4 = $37 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White = $471 Million Loss
The Amateur = $54 Million Loss
Thunderbolts = $68 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch = $667 Million Profit
Elio = ???
Regardless of what Elio does, or doesn't do, at the box office, it's obvious to me that the star of this year's box office show is the team at Rideback Ranch that Burbank farmed out Lilo & Stitch to on the cheap for only $100 Million. If Rideback Ranch can produce a reasonably big hit and make a fat profit no matter which way you slice it with a budget roughly half the normal size Disney spends, why can't the Disney team on the Burbank campus do that same thing with the same IP?
Where does all that money go on the Burbank lot?
Rideback Ranch | Los Angeles
Founded by Dan Lin, Rideback Ranch supports and empowers visionary storytellers who share our passion for entertaining audiences across all genres and around the globe.
ridebackranch.com
easyrowrdw
Well-Known Member
True. I just checked the date and Rush came out a year after Avengers. That seems like it should’ve helped but nope. I was thinking more that the current popularity of Formula 1 was helping this new movie.