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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Lucasfilm is most certainly making money. Otherwise they wouldn’t be able to afford making new content.

Over a 50 year legacy of product…really the first of its kind in Hollywood.

What are they actually filming/making? Almost nothing. Trying to do just enough to stay in the consumer consciousness.

Now realize…do I think they will stop making MCU?

Of course not. It’s repetitive, stock mogul Bob…
But king Midas’s touch isn’t what it was…

They would be smart to pull back from
MCU…the more they try to pump volume…the less effect it will have. The movies aren’t really working…neither is the streaming stuff.

So they should pull back. You do understand that the customer at large is not as hooked as the impression you would get from our fan discussions?
Not a hot ticket item right now. They made too much…it’s become repetitive…they’re going too fringe.

But what I say doesn’t matter…just don't expect a renaissance. That’s what they’re selling and the peeps ain’t buying. In order for a “relaunch”, you gotta stop firing rockets off the pad over and over Again.

And lucasfilm Isn’t a great example. It’s the most recognizable movie franchise probably ever…and they misread it so bad they basically shut the movie studio down for 5 years. Or maybe I missed one?

 

[BrianLo]

Has Mr. Gunn said what his number is for his $225 Million tentpole to break even, if it's not $650 Million?

If they spent $225 Million on production, and another $100 Million on global advertising, and so far his studio's 60% of their domestic box office take equals $199 Million, and his studio's 40% of the overseas box office take equals $99 Million, then that math states Superman is currently at a loss of $27 Million. And break even with that $325 Million spent on production and marketing would indeed seem to be about $650 Million with the current domestic/overseas ticket mix.

Where are the savings coming from to be at break even or better by now with this box office? Was there a big production budget tax credit we are unaware of? Was Superman filmed in the UK and subsidized by British taxpayers, by chance?

View attachment 876940

A little upthread @Nevermore525 pulled the Q10 studios breakdown for TWDC and they make about 1$ In post theatrical markets for every dollar they make in the box office. I’d assume WBD is similar.

This combined with a general underestimation of the totality of the costs is why your numbers don’t arrive at the right conclusion. Needing to be profitable out of the box office only is an arbitrary benchmark that has been set in this thread, but doesn't reflect how films are budgeted or what they actually make (or cost).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A little upthread @Nevermore525 pulled the Q10 studios breakdown for TWDC and they make about 1$ In post theatrical markets for every dollar they make in the box office. I’d assume WBD is similar.

This combined with a general underestimation of the totality of the costs is why your numbers don’t arrive at the right conclusion. Needing to be profitable out of the box office only is an arbitrary benchmark that has been set in this thread, but doesn't reflect how films are budgeted or what they actually make (or cost).

Please stop coming up with “box office failure is cool” stated as many vague ways as possible?

You do understand the goal is to make maximum money, correct?

So many excuses…

 

[Disney Irish]

Please stop coming up with “box office failure is cool” stated as many vague ways as possible?

You do understand the goal is to make maximum money, correct?

So many excuses…

Or maybe understand this isn’t 1995 and the box office isn’t the sole monetary factor anymore.

 

[BrianLo]

Please stop coming up with “box office failure is cool” stated as many vague ways as possible?

You do understand the goal is to make maximum money, correct?

So many excuses…

Walter, you again are misreading my posts. He asked a question about how studios (consistently) are arriving at lower thresholds than he is and I answered it.

The reality is being off by a 0.5X turn. It doesn’t polish a turd. It just means Snow White lost in the bottom half of 200 million instead of the top half. It means Superman *just* started eeking into the black.

You also missed my constant “excuse” that I am very consistently accusing him of also significantly underestimating costs.

 

[BrianLo]

I’m very rarely attempting to be vague. I tend to just fact check a lot, which is most assuredly an annoying trait.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Walter, you again are misreading my posts. He asked a question about how studios (consistently) are arriving at lower thresholds than he is and I answered it.

The reality is being off by a 0.5X turn. It doesn’t polish a turd. It just means Snow White lost in the bottom half of 200 million instead of the top half. It means Superman *just* started eeking into the black.

You also missed my constant “excuse” that I am very consistently accusing him of also significantly underestimating costs.

The costs aren’t kosher

So that one didn’t get enough play. I’ll give you that.

No way they are hitting half budgets now…when Hollywood has blown damn near every budget for decades
Toooooo convenient when the box office has hit the tank.

My issue is this “they make other money off the movies!!!”
They always did…That’s not new. It’s only being brought up more and more recently when the BO is dropping by half. It doesn’t mean the model is different.

The stream data from the last couple of weeks wasn’t really good either…so that isn’t where the bread is.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m very rarely attempting to be vague. I tend to just fact check a lot, which is most assuredly an annoying trait.

Vague might not be the best word

 

[BrianLo]

My issue is this “they make other money off the movies!!!”
They always did…That’s not new. It’s only being brought up more and more recently when the BO is dropping by half. It doesn’t mean the model is different.

For clarity, you’ll find me arguing exactly that on Friday that the model isn’t actually different. I don’t think box office is going anywhere and still is a guiding pillar of tentpoles for years to come. They tried to make it work without box office and failed at it. I think the splits are interesting because it really hasn’t changed since Disney streaming.

The studios did very poorly in 2023, very well in 2024 and 2025 the jury might be heading for a mixed or even poor bag unless Zootopia (and Avatar) end on a high note.

Vague might not be the best word

Maybe allowing for more creative interpretation than I intend. Explaining is not always meant to be a ringing endorsement. Though I do think Superman is being considered a successful relaunch on most metrics.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

For clarity, you’ll find me arguing exactly that on Friday that the model isn’t actually different. I don’t think box office is going anywhere and still is a guiding pillar of tentpoles for years to come. They tried to make it work without box office and failed at it. I think the splits are interesting because it really hasn’t changed since Disney streaming.

The studios did very poorly in 2023, very well in 2024 and 2025 the jury might be heading for a mixed or even poor bag unless Zootopia (and Avatar) end on a high note.



Maybe allowing for more creative interpretation than I intend. Explaining is not always meant to be a ringing endorsement. Though I do think Superman is being considered a successful relaunch on most metrics.

Ok…I’ll take you off the poopie list for today

 

[TP2000]

I think Mr Gunn, who is the head of DC, would know better than you or anyone here what the breakeven point is for his own movie.

So, I take it that means you have no idea, and that Mr. Gunn refuses to admit publicly, what the breakeven point was for his $225 Million Superman movie. Got it.

Maybe he isn't using your "imperial" method. Maybe he is using the more standard "metric" (as you call it) method of 2.5x Production Budget which would put it at a $562.5M breakeven point on a $225M budget.

Is there any ability within you to have some fun? To realize this is all just a lark? To maybe relax a bit, and have an evening drink or make a fresh S'more over the August coals, and laugh just a little?

And maybe this puts more credence into using the rule of thumb 2.5x method that the rest of the industry uses.

I can use the Metric system, if you aren't able to do that math yourself. I've had three S'mores tonight, after all!

That Metric system lacks a bit of nuance, as the overseas box office take is notably less than the domestic take for American studios in real life, but the Metric system doesn't take that into account in this increasingly global business and thus the domestic/overseas data gets dumbed down to a blanket 50% of box office. But if dumbing it down and removing global financial nuance makes you happy...

Burbank 2025 Box Office So Far During The Dog Days O' Summer, Metric Version (2.5x Production Minus Global Box Office, Divided By Two For Future Disney+ Profit Arriving In 2026-2031, I Think)

Captain America 4: $180 Production, $414 Global Box Office = $18 Million Loss
The Amateur: $60 Production, $96 Global Box Office = $27 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White: $270 Production, $206 Global Box Office = $235 Million Loss, Oof!
Thunderbolts: $180 Production, = $34 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch: $100 Production, $1,028 Global Box Office = $389 Million Profit
Elio: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, $148 Global Box Office = $114 Million Loss
The Fantastic Four: $200 Production, $435 Global Box Office = $33 Million Loss & Narrowing
Freakier Friday: $42 Production, $44 Global Box Office = $31 Million Loss & Narrowing

2025 Burbank Box Office So Far During The Dog Days O' Summer = $103 Million Loss & Narrowing

Even using the Metric System, Burbank has lost over $100 Million so far this year and needs to send another muffin basket over the hill to Ridgeback Ranch for saving Fiscal '25 with their Lilo & Stitch blockbuster done on the cheap.

 

[TP2000]

A little upthread @Nevermore525 pulled the Q10 studios breakdown for TWDC and they make about 1$ In post theatrical markets for every dollar they make in the box office. I’d assume WBD is similar.

This combined with a general underestimation of the totality of the costs is why your numbers don’t arrive at the right conclusion. Needing to be profitable out of the box office only is an arbitrary benchmark that has been set in this thread, but doesn't reflect how films are budgeted or what they actually make (or cost).

Got it. And as I understand it, and you've been patient enough to remind me a few times when I forget, the dividing by two the box office tally compared to the 2.5x production budget accounts for future Disney+ sales in future fiscal years. Probably a five year outward look, if I were to guess. Right?

So, using a total bomb example; Rachel Zegler's Snow White cost $270 Million to produce which if you times that by 2.5 gets you $675 Million, and then it brought in only $206 Million in global box office for a total loss of $469 Million in 2025. But assuming it creates future revenue and downloads for the next few fiscal years, will ultimately only have lost Burbank half of that $469 Million and thus creates a $235 Million loss in this current year before all the Disney+ profits come in later this decade?

Just wanting to clarify I finally got it into my pea sized brain correctly. Plus, I've had three S'mores and a healthy nightcap.

 

[Disney Irish]

So, I take it that means you have no idea, and that Mr. Gunn refuses to admit publicly, what the breakeven point was for his $225 Million Superman movie. Got it.

And I take it to mean that you also have no idea, and probably less than I do. Got it.

Also he did publicly admit that the breakeven point wasn't what the person who asked the question, or what you or some others, think it is. He just didn't provide an actual amount, nor should he. As no studio head (or anyone involved with production) ever really provides that detailed of data.

Is there any ability within you to have some fun? To realize this is all just a lark? To maybe relax a bit, and have an evening drink or make a fresh S'more over the August coals, and laugh just a little?

Oh I have plenty of fun, I don't really take any of this seriously, because its all meaningless. And because I know that in the end no matter what any of us say here isn't going to matter. And that any totals you insist as being Disney "losses" aren't real. As we aren't privy to any information. And so the numbers are all made up and the totals aren't real, as another poster recently said from a tagline of a great show I used to watch.

I just like to make sure things are a bit more accurate, just like when you inadvertently switched the budgets of Fantastic Four and Superman and I corrected you.

I can use the Metric system, if you aren't able to do that math yourself. I've had three S'mores tonight, after all!

Oh I can do the math just fine, thank you.

That Metric system lacks a bit of nuance, as the overseas box office take is notably less than the domestic take for American studios in real life, but the Metric system doesn't take that into account in this increasingly global business and thus the domestic/overseas data gets dumbed down to a blanket 50% of box office. But if dumbing it down and removing global financial nuance makes you happy...

Except you take liberties with the marketing and splits that we can't assume, which is why your "nuanced" Imperial metric never really matches up with any totals from anyone else including Disney themselves in the financials. For example do you know for a fact that the split for Superman's domestic/international was an even 60/40? Or that marketing was an even $100M? For that matter do you know if that marketing spend is specific to just theatrical or includes post-theatrical marketing which really can't be attributed to the theatrical run, something that several posters here have tried to explain to you.

So your "nuanced" Imperial metric really just becomes a muddled mess when you actually think about it for a second. Which is probably why no one else uses it. And why your totals constantly end up being corrected by others who want to at least make the discussion more accurate.

Burbank 2025 Box Office So Far During The Dog Days O' Summer, Metric Version (2.5x Production Minus Global Box Office, Divided By Two For Future Disney+ Profit Arriving In 2026-2031, I Think)

Captain America 4: $180 Production, $414 Global Box Office = $18 Million Loss
The Amateur: $60 Production, $96 Global Box Office = $27 Million Loss
Rachel Zegler's Snow White: $270 Production, $206 Global Box Office = $235 Million Loss, Oof!
Thunderbolts: $180 Production, = $34 Million Loss
Lilo & Stitch: $100 Production, $1,028 Global Box Office = $389 Million Profit
Elio: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, $148 Global Box Office = $114 Million Loss
The Fantastic Four: $200 Production, $435 Global Box Office = $33 Million Loss & Narrowing
Freakier Friday: $42 Production, $44 Global Box Office = $31 Million Loss & Narrowing

2025 Burbank Box Office So Far During The Dog Days O' Summer = $103 Million Loss & Narrowing

Even using the Metric System, Burbank has lost over $100 Million so far this year and needs to send another muffin basket over the hill to Ridgeback Ranch for saving Fiscal '25 with their Lilo & Stitch blockbuster done on the cheap.

And yet even if its still a "loss" currently, if I'm Disney this looks a whole lot better than the $468M loss that you were insisting with your "nuanced" metric. And so going into the latter half of the year with Zootopia 2 and Avatar 3 as the major releases (and a few other smaller releases) Disney is looking like it'll end 2025 in the positive column.

 

[BlindChow]

'Thunderbolts*' Strikes No. 1 on Disc Sales Charts - Media Play News

Disney-owned Marvel Studios’ Thunderbolts* debuted at No. 1 on the Circana VideoScan chart, which tracks combined DVD and Blu-ray Disc unit sales, and the dedicated Blu-ray Disc chart the week ended Aug. 2. The film assembles an unconventional team of disillusioned castoffs whose survival...

www.mediaplaynews.com

They still make DVD's? What is this, 1998?

 

[Tony the Tigger]

They still make DVD's? What is this, 1998?

They sure do.

And people are learning if you don’t buy them for your most favorite shows and movies, you are at the mercy of streaming companies who may delete or change them, or charge you whatever they want to watch them.

 

[Phroobar]

They still make DVD's? What is this, 1998?

I buy DVDs all the time and rip them to Plex for my NAS. I have my own little Netflix running. Best of all they never go away.

 

[Phroobar]

I really miss the Walmart $5 DVD bin.

 

[BlindChow]

They sure do.

And people are learning if you don’t buy them for your most favorite shows and movies, you are at the mercy of streaming companies who may delete or change them, or charge you whatever they want to watch them.

DVD's? You do realize we're in the Blu-Ray Age now, right?

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

DVDs are still popular amongst physical media despite superior options available.

Physical media continues to decline in general.

A lot of releases now depend on steel books and other collectible packaging to generate revenue. The trend for physical media seems to be that a smaller customer base will need to pay more per title to keep the industry going.

 

[Disney Analyst]