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

[AdventureHasAName]

At this point, I don't understand why these studios even make the actors/directors available to the press leading up to a film's release. It's just too easy for them to say something that will aggravate 25% of the public and tank a film's opening.

 

[TP2000]

A Minecraft Movie ended its 90 day domestic run at $423.95M

https://the-numbers.com/movie/Minecraft-Movie-A-(2025)#tab=summary

Lilo & Stitch sits at $408.67M through 45 days, is there enough left to pass Minecraft domestically?

Lilo & Stitch (2025) - Box Office and Financial Information

Financial analysis of Lilo & Stitch (2025) including production budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports.

the-numbers.com

It’s still averaging around $1M per day for the moment but we’ll see what the next few weeks brings

I think it's clear at this point that Lilo & Stitch will beat Minecraft at the box office. It's just a nail biter on whether or not Lilo & Stitch breaks $1 Billion officially. But the profitability of Lilo & Stitch is huge for Burbank regardless.

Plus, thanks to Disney outsourcing Lilo & Stitch to Ridgeback Ranch for a small $100 Million production budget, Disney is making bigger profits off of it than Minecraft is.

TP2000 Global Command Center Imperial Measurements:

Lilo & Stitch: $100 Production, $100 Marketing, $245 Domestic, $226 Overseas = $261 Million Profit
Minecraft: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, $254 Domestic, $212 Overseas = $241 Million Profit

Metric System Measurements:

Lilo & Stitch: 2.5 Times $100 Production Minus Global Box Office Divided By Two = $362 Million Profit
Minecraft: 2.5 Times $150 Production Minus Global Box Office Divided By Two = $290 Million Profit

 

[Nevermore525]

I think it's clear at this point that Lilo & Stitch will beat Minecraft at the box office. It's just a nail biter on whether or not Lilo & Stitch breaks $1 Billion officially. But the profitability of Lilo & Stitch is huge for Burbank regardless.

Plus, thanks to Disney outsourcing Lilo & Stitch to Ridgeback Ranch for a small $100 Million production budget, Disney is making bigger profits off of it than Minecraft is.

TP2000 Global Command Center Imperial Measurements:

Lilo & Stitch: $100 Production, $100 Marketing, $245 Domestic, $226 Overseas = $261 Million Profit
Minecraft: $150 Production, $75 Marketing, $254 Domestic, $212 Overseas = $241 Million Profit

Metric System Measurements:

Lilo & Stitch: 2.5 Times $100 Production Minus Global Box Office Divided By Two = $362 Million Profit
Minecraft: 2.5 Times $150 Production Minus Global Box Office Divided By Two = $290 Million Profit

View attachment 869592

I was only talking about the Domestic Gross, not global or total profit. Already knew it would pass Minecraft from global gross and profit.

Earned $700K today so the next weeks will start to average below $1M a day pending Tuesday/Weekend numbers so whether it gets that additional $15M+ domestically remains to be seen

 

[TP2000]

At this point, I don't understand why these studios even make the actors/directors available to the press leading up to a film's release. It's just too easy for them to say something that will aggravate 25% of the public and tank a film's opening.

It's because they are "Actors!" or "Very Important Studio People" (aka directors or producers or what have you) and they think people care what they think. Instead, they should stay quiet and sell their products to their customers without personal commentary.

But their hermetically sealed social bubble doesn't let them know that. And if you're flying in a private jet and are being driven around by a team of yes-men and subservients, without having to actually speak with the hoi polloi, how would they even know the vast majority of their potential customers do not care what they think?

Can you imagine hiring a plumber who first had to tell you what his political beliefs were before he went under the sink? Just shut up and fix the damn leak I'm paying you to fix, I don't care what you think or who you vote for!

 

[Disney Irish]

It's because they are "Actors!" or "Very Important Studio People" (aka directors or producers or what have you) and they think people care what they think. Instead, they should stay quiet and sell their products to their customers without personal commentary.

But their hermetically sealed social bubble doesn't let them know that. And if you're flying in a private jet and are being driven around by a team of yes-men and subservients, without having to actually speak with the hoi polloi, how would they even know the vast majority of their potential customers do not care what they think?

Can you imagine hiring a plumber who first had to tell you what his political beliefs were before he went under the sink? Just shut up and fix the damn leak I'm paying you to fix, I don't care what you think or who you vote for!

And yet its the press that ask them questions about "what they think". This isn't some random social media post, its a question by a reporter that is being answered.

If the press didn't think that people wanted to know, they wouldn't ask the questions. So its a double-edged sword there.

 

[Phroobar]

It would be a great idea to have a Stitch attraction in Tomorrowland.

 

[BlakeW39]

I'm not usually the one to play the moderate but I think both sides kind of have points here:

1. Superman has always stood up for immigrants. He's always been progressive. He's literally the Man of Tomorrow.

2. Art in general has always been mostly politically progressive, because artists themselves are mostly politically progressive.

3. There is a difference between art having political subtext, and art being a political soapbox.

4. Hollywood isn't just struggling because their films have political subtext. They're struggling because they're constantly aiming microaggressions at their fans and making inflammatory remarks that make people resent them.

 

[Phroobar]

I'm not usually the one to play the moderate but I think both sides kind of have points here:

1. Art in general has always been mostly politically progressive, because artists themselves are mostly politically progressive.

2. There is a difference between art having political subtext, and art being a political soapbox.

4. Hollywood isn't just struggling because their films have political subtext. They're struggling because they're constantly aiming microaggressions at their fans and making inflammatory remarks that make people resent them.

And the story just sucks.

 

[TP2000]

And yet its the press that ask them questions about "what they think". This isn't some random social media post, its a question by a reporter that is being answered.

If the press didn't think that people wanted to know, they wouldn't ask the questions. So its a double-edged sword there.

The interview in question was with The Sunday Times out of London. The interviewer had already delved into politics before Mr. Gunn went into his new take that Superman is now an "immigrant". This wasn't a case of Mr. Gunn pushing back against a conservative journalist, this was Mr. Gunn being coddled by one of his own in the safest of safe spaces.

But you are correct, in that Mr. Gunn knew exactly what he was saying, and whatever the readership is for The Times of London they mostly nodded along in agreement with all of Mr. Gunn's political statements of the past decade. The interviewer, Mr. Gunn or the readers aren't having their opinions challenged, they are all having them comfortably affirmed.

 

[TP2000]

I'm baffled by this controversy, to be honest. It should be noted I'm not a comic book fan, and in my youth I only read Mad Magazine and occasionally Archie comic books. I never got into Superheroes or the whole comic book scene. Instead, as a 12 year old boy, I have distinct memories of reading and laughing at the one panel comics in my mom's subscription to The New Yorker, which is weird.

That said, I did see the original 1978 Superman in the theater and have seen it again once or twice at home, and have vague memories of seeing one of the sequels decades ago. But... Superman is now an immigrant??? When did that happen?

I thought Superman was an alien from the planet Krypton, and was not human but coincidentally looked human and even more coincidentally was very handsome with chiseled features and piercing blue eyes. And his parents on Krypton shot him into space before his planet was destroyed to save him, and after his space cradle crash landed in a Kansas corn field, he was taken in by a married couple who couldn't have their own children and was raised as an average American child in small town Kansas who just happened to have superpowers owing to him actually being Kryptonian rather than human.

Right? What am I missing there?

In this new Superman movie about to come out, is that no longer the story? He's now a human, and an immigrant from another country who sneaks into the US illegally and is found out, despite his superpowers? They changed his backstory???

 

[LittleBuford]

The interview in question was with The Sunday Times out of London. The interviewer had already delved into politics before Mr. Gunn went into his new take that Superman is now an "immigrant". This wasn't a case of Mr. Gunn pushing back against a conservative journalist, this was Mr. Gunn being coddled by one of his own in the safest of safe spaces.

But you are correct, in that Mr. Gunn knew exactly what he was saying, and whatever the readership is for The Times of London they mostly nodded along in agreement with all of Mr. Gunn's political statements of the past decade. The interviewer, Mr. Gunn or the readers aren't having their opinions challenged, they are all having them comfortably affirmed.

I don’t think you understand The Sunday Times or its readership. It certainly doesn’t cater to the same demographic as its New York namesake.

 

[Agent H]

I'm baffled by this controversy, to be honest. It should be noted I'm not a comic book fan, and in my youth I only read Mad Magazine and occasionally Archie comic books. I never got into Superheroes or the whole comic book scene. Instead, as a 12 year old boy, I have distinct memories of reading and laughing at the one panel comics in my mom's subscription to The New Yorker, which is weird.

That said, I did see the original 1978 Superman in the theater and have seen it again once or twice at home, and have vague memories of seeing one of the sequels decades ago. But... Superman is now an immigrant??? When did that happen?

I thought Superman was an alien from the planet Krypton, and was not human but coincidentally looked human and even more coincidentally was very handsome with chiseled features and piercing blue eyes. And his parents on Krypton shot him into space before his planet was destroyed to save him, and after his space cradle crash landed in a Kansas corn field, he was taken in by a married couple who couldn't have their own children and was raised as an average American child in small town Kansas who just happened to have superpowers owing to him actually being Kryptonian rather than human.

Right? What am I missing there?

In this new Superman movie about to come out, is that no longer the story? He's now a human, and an immigrant from another country who sneaks into the US illegally and is found out, despite his superpowers? They changed his backstory???

yes . He immigrated from krypton to earth.

 

[TP2000]

I don’t think you understand The Sunday Times or its readership. It certainly doesn’t cater to the same demographic as its New York namesake.

Ah. Is it sort of a Wall Street Journal type thing? Where they are still pro-business, but their Life and Culture stories now trend noticeably left of center?

I just took a look at their front page online, and it doesn't look notably conservative. I scanned a story about this week's latest Los Angeles protests, and two stories on European business trade issues, and it seems to be the typical just-left-of-center slant on the topics of the day. Kind of like what the Wall Street Journal has become in the past 10 years.

 

[LittleBuford]

Ah. Is it sort of a Wall Street Journal type thing? Where they are still pro-business, but their Life and Culture stories now trend noticeably left of center?

No. It’s a famously centre-right newspaper that almost always endorses the Conservative Party. All of this information is pretty easy to come by if you actually cared to know.

 

[TP2000]

yes . He immigrated from krypton to earth.

Okay. That's the phrasing we're using for alien life forms in TV and movies now?

E.T. immigrated to live in Elliot's country on earth, now commutes by bike.
ALF immigrated from Melmac to earth to live with the Tanner family and hilarity ensued weekly.
Kevin Spacey immigrated from K-PAX to live on earth and mess with snooty scientists.
The big creature from Cloverfield is an immigrant clumsily looking for a cheap apartment in New York. Doesn't want a roommate.

In War of the Worlds, the tripods immigrated to earth a million years ago and buried themselves, which means it's their planet instead of our planet because they got here before humans existed as a species. We weren't even Neandertals yet.

That new phrasing and nomenclature of referring to aliens from other planets as "immigrants" doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems to be shoehorning a current hot button issue of legal vs. illegal immigration into an entirely different concept of other planetary species from outer space landing on earth.

But if it sells more movie tickets to call Superman an "immigrant" now, I guess they have to do what they have to do. Seems dumb to me though, and I'm not sure audiences will go for it.

 

[TP2000]

No. It’s a famously centre-right newspaper that almost always endorses the Conservative Party. All of this information is pretty easy to come by if you actually cared to know.

I can only count on one hand the number of times I've been to London. I didn't really read local newspapers while there, I was doing dorky tourist stuff.

But doing an 8 second Google search just now confirms that The Times of London is pretty much analogous to The Wall Street Journal (traditionally pro-business, but increasingly liberal in its social commentary and lifestyle coverage, and definitely not huge fans of the current US administration). I think my first impression assessment of The Times of London is pretty accurate. It's not the Epoch Times, that's for sure.

(I don't actually read the Epoch Times, some people here will be saddened to learn. I think its kind of weird and a tad creepy.)

 

[Agent H]

Okay. That's the phrasing we're using for alien life forms in TV and movies now?

E.T. immigrated to live in Elliot's country on earth, now commutes by bike.
ALF immigrated from Melmac to earth to live with the Tanner family and hilarity ensued weekly.
Kevin Spacey immigrated from K-PAX to live on earth and mess with snooty scientists.
The big creature from Cloverfield is an immigrant clumsily looking for a cheap apartment in New York. Doesn't want a roommate.

In War of the Worlds, the tripods immigrated to earth a million years ago and buried themselves, which means it's their planet instead of our planet because they got here before humans existed as a species. We weren't even Neandertals yet.

That new phrasing and nomenclature of referring to aliens from other planets as "immigrants" doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems to be shoehorning a current hot button issue of legal vs. illegal immigration into an entirely different concept of other planetary species from outer space landing on earth.

But if it sells more movie tickets to call Superman an "immigrant" now, I guess they have to do what they have to do. Seems dumb to me though, and I'm not sure audiences will go for it.

It’s not a hard and fast rule but technically he could be called an immigrant.

 

[coffeefan]

That new phrasing and nomenclature of referring to aliens from other planets as "immigrants" doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems to be shoehorning a current hot button issue of legal vs. illegal immigration into an entirely different concept of other planetary species from outer space landing on earth.

But if it sells more movie tickets to call Superman an "immigrant" now, I guess they have to do what they have to do. Seems dumb to me though, and I'm not sure audiences will go for it.

In US legal context, immigrants are referred to as aliens, but the opposite is not right according to you?

It's also not something new that Gunn started; It's been said in comics.

 

[DKampy]

Okay. That's the phrasing we're using for alien life forms in TV and movies now?

E.T. immigrated to live in Elliot's country on earth, now commutes by bike.
ALF immigrated from Melmac to earth to live with the Tanner family and hilarity ensued weekly.
Kevin Spacey immigrated from K-PAX to live on earth and mess with snooty scientists.
The big creature from Cloverfield is an immigrant clumsily looking for a cheap apartment in New York. Doesn't want a roommate.

In War of the Worlds, the tripods immigrated to earth a million years ago and buried themselves, which means it's their planet instead of our planet because they got here before humans existed as a species. We weren't even Neandertals yet.

That new phrasing and nomenclature of referring to aliens from other planets as "immigrants" doesn't quite make sense to me. It seems to be shoehorning a current hot button issue of legal vs. illegal immigration into an entirely different concept of other planetary species from outer space landing on earth.

But if it sells more movie tickets to call Superman an "immigrant" now, I guess they have to do what they have to do. Seems dumb to me though, and I'm not sure audiences will go for it.

Not surprising you don’t get the subtexts in the original comics.. … you were the person that said Barbie didn’t have feminist messaging

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Stitch already passed Minecraft globally…just a little behind domestically

It will almost definitely pass a billion and beat it domestically as well. People love that little blue monster