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

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Guess he really enjoys and is really excited for watching his DCU movies from the comfort of his couch rather than the full theatrical experience.

My guess is he must think it will allow him to tell more stories, like how D+ allowed dozens of smaller Marvel stories to be told. It was very hit or miss for D+/Marvel so if that’s his expectation he better hit it out of the park.

From a “creative” perspective I can see why he’d be excited about it, I just hope he paid attention to what happened at D+ and realizes telling good stories results in more opportunities to tell more good stories, tell a couple bad stories and it just results in less future opportunities.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Imagine actually calling a billion dollar movie a flop…. For all the complaining about Disney films…. They will have 3 movies in the top 5… a rare feat for any studio

Has anyone actually called it a flop?

It's obviously a huge hit but we can still consider the success and future of the franchise based on the diminishing returns.

Cameron himself said Way of Water had to be one of the highest grossing films of all time to make a profit theatrically.

The movies don't seem to generate much in the way of merchandise the way Marvel or Star Wars done.

This is all somewhat moot. The franchise is still profitable. There will likely only be one or two more movies regardless of how they perform. There's no reason to think Disney won't greenlight Cameron wrapping the series up in whatever manner he chooses.

 

[BrianLo]

Has anyone actually called it a flop?

I don’t think so, some thought it might but that died once it didn’t. Even the poster who predicted it would flop set 1.3-1.4B as a success barometer.

Though they did slink away, so I suppose that was the confirmation @DKampy asked for.

 

[Hawkeye_2018]

Avatar is unique in that the movies make a ton of money yet the merchandise sales and cultural impact is pretty slim.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'm going to finally respond to this.

Avatar is a strange case in that there is debate about whether or not it's a disappointment when compared to the $2.9 and $2.3 billion grosses of the first two.

I think any talk of "disappointment" needs to stop. Any movie that makes over $1B is automatically ruled out of the "disappointment" category. Expectations that every movie in a franchise is just going to get more and more at the box office than their predecessor is silly. There will always be drop off, no matter the franchise. The only way this movie was going to be a disappointment is if that drop off fell way below $1B (which some around here was claiming it would be struggling to hit).

Only in the realm of James Cameron and/or Avatar is that a discussion.

Which makes you wonder why, because in reality any movie that makes over $1B is considered a success almost immediately.

It does however show that audience interest has declined, and that is likely due to the shorter release time between 2 and 3 as well as a sense of repetitiveness in part 3.

I think this is a bit overstated here. Much of WoWs success was repeat viewings, sometimes upwards of people going 4 or more times. So any "decline" is not likely due to lack of interest but rather not as many repeat viewings.

The question isn't will they greenlight a part 4 so much as how will that look?

One final movie with a longer gap would likely perform better than part 3.

You don't think a 2 year gap is enough time between sequels? What would be a good gap for you?

However, does it make still make sense to do two movies that might only gross a "mere" $1.5 billion each?

This baffles me, why would anyone say no to a "mere" $1.5B or more from a movie. Any studio on the planet would greenlight that, and I think the only person basically stopping it now is James Cameron himself, ie no way Disney is not trying to get Cameron to finish out this saga for a $3B or more payday.

Parts 2 and 3 were filmed together in part because it made sense financially. These movies are expensive. Is part 4 cheaper to make because the tech has been developed, or does James Cameron have some crazy expensive new ideas in mind?

Which is why I've always questioned the reported budgets on 2 and 3 at $400M a piece. Cameron pays for much of the tech himself so he retains the rights to it, ie its not really in the production budget. So the actual production costs are likely much lower than what is reported. And certainly will be for 4 and 5.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I think any talk of "disappointment" needs to stop. Any movie that makes over $1B is automatically ruled out of the "disappointment" category. Expectations that every movie in a franchise is just going to get more and more at the box office than their predecessor is silly. There will always be drop off, no matter the franchise. The only way this movie was going to be a disappointment is if that drop off fell way below $1B (which some around here was claiming it would be struggling to hit).

Which makes you wonder why, because in reality any movie that makes over $1B is considered a success almost immediately.

I don't know why you're hung up on the word disappointment. The movie is a highly profitable financial success, but I'm sure some people are disappointed that it is going to gross half of what the first one did.

There are certainly franchises that grew bigger over time, and raises the question of what they did that Avatar didn't. Avatar 3 was very similar to Avatar 2 and audience engagement dropped unlike things like Lord of the Rings or The Avengers series.

I think this is a bit overstated here. Much of WoWs success was repeat viewings, sometimes upwards of people going 4 or more times. So any "decline" is not likely due to lack of interest but rather not as many repeat viewings.

You don't think a 2 year gap is enough time between sequels? What would be a good gap for you?

We can call it a lack of engagement instead but that just feels like semantics.

The ideal gap is going to depend on the movie, but these big sci-fi franchises seem to benefit from longer gaps. Marvel has seen a decline in interest in part due to saturating the market.

Many of these big action movies tend to be repetitive. The Force Awakens was huge because audiences were primed to experience classic Star Wars again decades later, and that allowed it to overcome repeating a lot of what came before.

Release Avatar 3 five years from now and audiences would be more enthusiastic to just have a similar experience again. When it's just a few years later of course they won't see it four times. They just did that.

However, the studio is probably quite happy to make $1.5 billion now rather than $2 billion several years from now, and that makes sense.

And while that is fair, I'd be critical if they released another by the numbers Avatar movie 2 or 3 years from now. They need to rebuild anticipation and/or deliver something new.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

This baffles me, why would anyone say no to a "mere" $1.5B or more from a movie. Any studio on the planet would greenlight that, and I think the only person basically stopping it now is James Cameron himself, ie no way Disney is not trying to get Cameron to finish out this saga for a $3B or more payday.


Which is why I've always questioned the reported budgets on 2 and 3 at $400M a piece. Cameron pays for much of the tech himself so he retains the rights to it, ie its not really in the production budget. So the actual production costs are likely much lower than what is reported. And certainly will be for 4 and 5.

Well, I said it's a given Disney greenlights part 4 so not sure if there's a contrary opinion you find baffling.

Cameron may fund elements of the movies but he also shares more of the profit than other filmmakers. The actual budget to Disney may be lower than what we know or think, but so is the revenue. Can't just mention one aspect without the other.

There's also this expectation that the next movies will be cheaper because the technology has been developed. Sure, but we're talking James Cameron here. For all we know he'll come up with some crazy new ideas that cost a small fortune.

His success has been due to all of his movies being groundbreaking in some way.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't know why you're hung up on the word disappointment. The movie is a highly profitable financial success, but I'm sure some people are disappointed that it is going to gross half of what the first one did.

There are certainly franchises that grew bigger over time, and raises the question of what they did that Avatar didn't. Avatar 3 was very similar to Avatar 2 and audience engagement dropped unlike things like Lord of the Rings or The Avengers series.

Because the word disappointment indicates that someone at Disney had a specific box office goal in mind and it didn't hit it. Which none of us can actually say, at least with any certainty.

Box office disappointments by Disney don't get press releases on how well it opened.

So any "disappointment" is one that is built on an unrealistic expectation by those that just want to see Disney or Cameron fail. And one that I've often said needs to be reset, because no franchise can continue to get $2B+ movie after movie.

We can call it a lack of engagement instead but that just feels like semantics.

The ideal gap is going to depend on the movie, but these big sci-fi franchises seem to benefit from longer gaps. Marvel has seen a decline in interest in part due to saturating the market.

Many of these big action movies tend to be repetitive. The Force Awakens was huge because audiences were primed to experience classic Star Wars again decades later, and that allowed it to overcome repeating a lot of what came before.

Release Avatar 3 five years from now and audiences would be more enthusiastic to just have a similar experience again. When it's just a few years later of course they won't see it four times. They just did that.

Lack of engagement though can be for many reasons not related to the movie itself. Including but not limited all the things we've talked about over the last couple years on why the box office is down or flat.

However, the studio is probably quite happy to make $1.5 billion now rather than $2 billion several years from now, and that makes sense.

And while that is fair, I'd be critical if they released another by the numbers Avatar movie 2 or 3 years from now. They need to rebuild anticipation and/or deliver something new.

It fair to be critical of the artistic merits of the movie, but I think its less fair to talk about "only making $1.5B" as if that is some regular feat that happens all the time.

 

[Disney Irish]

Well, I said it's a given Disney greenlights part 4 so not sure if there's a contrary opinion you find baffling.

The baffling part is why you think Disney wouldn't do both 4 and 5 for a "mere" $1.5B each at the box office. As if $1.5B isn't enough gross to get Disney to greenlight both 4 and 5. Heck for that matter we pretty much know that Disney already greenlit both 4 and 5 because they were already slated on the calendar, Dec 21st 2029 for 4 and Dec 19th 2031 for 5, and unless I'm mistaken 4 already started some filming (some filmed at the same time as 2 and 3). So it would seem that it would be only Cameron at that point who says that he only wants to make 4 and not 5, or even end it with 3 if he wants to scrap what is already filmed.

Cameron may fund elements of the movies but he also shares more of the profit than other filmmakers. The actual budget to Disney may be lower than what we know or think, but so is the revenue. Can't just mention one aspect without the other.

The actual breakdown will always be unknown. And yes obviously any revenue for Disney would be less based on how much the actual production budget may be. My point was that I suspect Disney's actual exposure is probably a lot less than the $400M that is being reported.

There's also this expectation that the next movies will be cheaper because the technology has been developed. Sure, but we're talking James Cameron here. For all we know he'll come up with some crazy new ideas that cost a small fortune.

His success has been due to all of his movies being groundbreaking in some way.

True, but we won't know if that happens until it does.

 

[DKampy]

Not sure how big of a disappointment Disney felt with Avatar…. But many people here figured it would not reach the heights of WoW… myself included…. Even all saying it would not touch 2 billion…. And I would guess. Disney has better analytics then most of us amateur box office forecasters

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

The baffling part is why you think Disney wouldn't do both 4 and 5 for a "mere" $1.5B each at the box office. As if $1.5B isn't enough gross to get Disney to greenlight both 4 and 5. Heck for that matter we pretty much know that Disney already greenlit both 4 and 5 because they were already slated on the calendar, Dec 21st 2029 for 4 and Dec 19th 2031 for 5, and unless I'm mistaken 4 already started some filming (some filmed at the same time as 2 and 3). So it would seem that it would be only Cameron at that point who says that he only wants to make 4 and not 5, or even end it with 3 if he wants to scrap what is already filmed.


The actual breakdown will always be unknown. And yes obviously any revenue for Disney would be less based on how much the actual production budget may be. My point was that I suspect Disney's actual exposure is probably a lot less than the $400M that is being reported.


True, but we won't know if that happens until it does.

I've said they will almost certainly greenlight more.

However, even Cameron has stated they need to be made cheaper, so the question was what will that look like?

$1.5 billion isn't guaranteed as you seem to imply. If part 4 follows the pattern and drops another 33% or so, that's not insignificant.

It's easy to say that any movie earning $1.5 billion will get a sequel, but while these movies are successful like few movies are, they are also more expensive to make than most movies. They have to be looked at through a somewhat unique lens.

Nothing is guaranteed either. I said Disney was correct to make a fifth Indiana Jones movie, but it lost money as we know with hindsight.

I believe Cameron filmed a few scenes to capture the actors at a young age, but that would be an insignificant impact to the budget of the next film given the effects are the primary expense.

Saving calendar dates doesn't mean much, more so considering that there's zero chance another Avatar movie will be finished in three years.

Pointing out the budget is offset by Cameron chipping in is fine, but it's very selective to do so without pointing out that the revenue is similarly offset.

 

[Disney Irish]

However, even Cameron has stated they need to be made cheaper, so the question was what will that look like?

"Look" wise I suspect they look the same as 2 or 3, story wise who knows.

$1.5 billion isn't guaranteed as you seem to imply. If part 4 follows the pattern and drops another 33% or so, that's not insignificant.

Not saying its guaranteed, I'm just commenting on you calling $1.5B "mere", as if that is just a drop in the bucket. Also there is no pattern here, Avatar 1 to 2 saw a 20% drop, and now 2 to 3 saw a 33% drop. We don't know what if any drop there will be between 3 and 4 or even 4 or 5. That is the gamble of putting movies out into the market.

It's easy to say that any movie earning $1.5 billion will get a sequel, but while these movies are successful like few movies are, they are also more expensive to make than most movies. They have to be looked at through a somewhat unique lens.

Not sure why they should be looked at through some unique lens. They are movies, an expensive to make movie, but a movie nonetheless. It gets put out into the market just like any other movie, and we should look at it just like any other movie. And any other movie that makes over $1B is more than likely getting a sequel. Outside of maybe Barbie and Aladdin is there any movie on the $1B club list that isn't a sequel itself or has gotten a sequel? That is the point.

Nothing is guaranteed either. I said Disney was correct to make a fifth Indiana Jones movie, but it lost money as we know with hindsight.

Agreed its not guaranteed, but its also not likely its some foregone conclusion that its going to fail either. As the saying goes you bet against Cameron at your own peril.

I believe Cameron filmed a few scenes to capture the actors at a young age, but that would be an insignificant impact to the budget of the next film given the effects are the primary expense.

Saving calendar dates doesn't mean much, more so considering that there's zero chance another Avatar movie will be finished in three years.

I don't know why you think it can't be finished in 3 years. And even if it does have to move dates (it already had once), doesn't mean its not already greenlit, which was my point.

Pointing out the budget is offset by Cameron chipping in is fine, but it's very selective to do so without pointing out that the revenue is similarly offset.

I didn't realize I needed to breakout all the aspects of the financials. My only point, and it wasn't trying to be selective, was that I had questioned the reported budget because some of that is Cameron himself not directly Disney. So while we attribute it all to Disney, their financial burden is probably a lot less, that is all I was saying. So it really should go without saying that if their financial burden is less their actual revenue take is also less, ie its pretty well known (and even discussed in this very thread) that Cameron gets a cut in any revenue generation, even if we don't know what they are.

 

[coffeefan]

To get an idea of how much movies are valued on streaming platforms.

 

[Disney Irish]

To get an idea of how much movies are valued on streaming platforms.

It should be noted that this is for the Pay-one window, ie after theatrical and other at-home distribution like PVOD. But what it does do is locks up and expands Netflix's global reach, as Sony had been shopping around the overseas distribution to Amazon and other streamers, which now goes to Netflix.

Netflix & Sony Pictures Close $7B-Plus Exclusive Global Pay-1 Deal In Industry First

Netflix & Sony Pictures Close $7B-Plus Exclusive Global Pay-1 Deal In Industry First

deadline.com

This however then begs the question, if Netflix is already getting fed by studios like Sony why does it need to buy WB? That in itself puts that into potentially anti-competitive and potentially monopolistic territories, as it locks up a large portion of the content distribution (almost 30%) with one provider. This "re-upping" deal is going to make it harder to get the WB merger passed regulators if it moves forward.

 

[coffeefan]

It should be noted that this is for the Pay-one window, ie after theatrical and other at-home distribution like PVOD. But what it does do is locks up and expands Netflix's global reach, as Sony had been shopping around the overseas distribution to Amazon and other streamers, which now goes to Netflix.

Netflix & Sony Pictures Close $7B-Plus Exclusive Global Pay-1 Deal In Industry First

Netflix & Sony Pictures Close $7B-Plus Exclusive Global Pay-1 Deal In Industry First

deadline.com

This however then begs the question, if Netflix is already getting fed by studios like Sony why does it need to buy WB? That in itself puts that into potentially anti-competitive and potentially monopolistic territories, as it locks up a large portion of the content distribution (almost 30%) with one provider. This "re-upping" deal is going to make it harder to get the WB merger passed regulators if it moves forward.

If the WB deal closes then I think regulators should make Netflix go back on the Sony deal and bar them from making major exclusive streaming deals. I don't know how probable that is though.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Zoe Saldaña Becomes Highest-Grossing Actor of All Time With ‘Avatar: Fire and Ash’

With 'Avatar: Fire and Ash,' Zoe Saldaña has become the highest-grossing actor of all time, overtaking Scarlett Johansson and Samuel L. Jackson.

variety.com

 

[MisterPenguin]

To get an idea of how much movies are valued on streaming platforms.

The actual article is here..

Netflix to Remain Streaming Home for Sony Movies, Studios Expand Deal Worldwide

Netflix and Sony have signed a deal for the streamer to get global rights to the studio's film after their theatrical and on-demand windows.

variety.com

I'm assuming that since this is a "continuation" of their contract, that Sony-Marvel movies will go to D+ in Pay Window 2 once done on Netflix.

 

[Disney Irish]

If the WB deal closes then I think regulators should make Netflix go back on the Sony deal and bar them from making major exclusive streaming deals. I don't know how probable that is though.

If they cannot divest from the Sony deal then it'll probably means the WB merger is blocked.

 

[coffeefan]

If they cannot divest from the Sony deal then it'll probably means the WB merger is blocked.

I don't think that's guaranteed tbh. Also, WB has a play-1 with A24 so Netflix would take over that deal too.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't think that's guaranteed tbh. Also, WB has a play-1 with A24 so Netflix would take over that deal too.

Not saying its guaranteed. And you're just providing even more of a reason why it should be blocked.