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

[Casper Gutman]

It seems the other studios are trend setters, so I would probably start with that.

Traditionally do what we do well and tell great stories and some happen to be fairy tales.

I think your cutting cost one does matter when it comes to being more specific.

The Haunted Mansion film could have been half the price had they decided not to cast Owen Wilson, Jamie Lee Curtis, Danny Davito and Jared Leto.
Do that and hire a differenet writer, put Ryan Gosling in it who always wanted to be in it instead of the other cast who were overpaid and you would have likely had a better chance, certainly not worse.

It is funny because with your post it seems to go back to what we all see. Disney has a Disney problem.

There is no reason 20th Century Fox/Disney could not produce a film like Oppenheimer.

I can certainly tell you I would not be greenlighting theatrical big budget spectacles of stories we have just told the last 12 years. (Moana/Tangled)

I’m not at all sure that Gosling would be much cheaper then Curtis, Devito, and Wilson combined, and I don’t know that he’d be a huge draw in a property like HM.

Oppenheimer is the beneficiary of an incredibly unique confluence of events - thoughtful biopics are not going to start regularly breaking box office records. But let’s focus on one element, the auteur. Nolan is an incredibly rare commodity at the moment, a director who can open a film with a mass audience. Who else is in that category? Not Scott, who has a catalog of bombs. Scorsese? What directors are major box office draws?

 

[CaptainMickey]

Marvel movies set box office records by being four quadrant hits. They weren’t “boys stuff,” although a number of boys who said things like “M-She-U” tried to make them so. Both Captain Marvel and DCs Wonder Woman were big hits. And all that said, there HASN’T been some huge swing towards female leads - there’s absolutely no “half-dozen female empowerment films.” We’ve just had Thor and Doctor Strange films and Deadpool and Cap are next. The Marvels is an outlier. And that’s sort of the point - the noise machine is going to grab ahold of The Marvels and try to make it emblematic of the “M-She-U” when it isn’t. It’s resistance to any diversity at all.

That seems to be the theme to a lot of your suggestions - Disney needs to do what it’s doing now, but with no attempt at increasing minority representation. Setting aside the politics of it, Im not sure that’s even an economically winning formula with an increasingly diverse audience.

Is this Victoria Alonso's burner account?

 

[celluloid]

Oppenheimer is the beneficiary of an incredibly unique confluence of events - thoughtful biopics are not going to start regularly breaking box office records. But let’s focus on one element, the auteur.

Before you went to change the subject to auteur.
Thoughtful biopics do not have to break box office records to be succcesful. There is the Disney problem again. Universal did not expect Oppenheiemer to break records nor does it have to. If Disney wants every movie to break records, than there again, Disney has a Disney problem.

Oppenheimer cost 100 million Now you can claim the couple of star power draw actors it had took a lower pay because they like the guy, but even if they did not, the movie would never cost 200 million. Universal has a well-produced movie.

A hit and breaking records don't have to be the same.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Before you went to change the subject to auteur.
Thoughtful biopics do not have to break box office records to be succcesful. There is the Disney problem again. Universal did not expect Oppenheiemer to break records nor does it have to. If Disney wants every movie to break records, than there again, Disney has a Disney problem.

Oppenheimer cost 100 million Now you can claim the couple of star power draw actors it had took a lower pay because they like the guy, but even if they did not, the movie would never cost 200 million. Universal has a well-produced movie.

A hit and breaking records don't have to be the same.

What director other then Nolan could open an Oppenheimer? Remember, the break even point would be $300 million worldwide.

 

[celluloid]

What director other then Nolan could open an Oppenheimer? Remember, the break even point would be $300 million worldwide.

That's a rabbit hole separate from the point.

Disney does not have Nolan? That is what we are going with now?

Why was it Universal and not 20th Century Fox?

Nolan has clout but there are many filmmakers who can do a successful biopic. Both known and yet to be.

The difference is Whittney just wants to stick with the oversaturation, and it has caught up with them.

The risk is paying off for other studios. Maybe Disney could, ya know, try it?

 

[Casper Gutman]

That's a rabbit hole separate from the point.

Disney does not have Nolan? That is what we are going with now?

Why was it Universal and not 20tj century fox?

No, the point is that Oppenheimer is not a reproducible model. The draw was the director. There are very, very few other directors who can open a film like that. Oppenheimer directed by Rob Marshall does not earn back its budget (or get greenlit in the first place). Even Elvis, a critically acclaimed Oscar contender with big name stars and a distinctive, well-known director barely broke even (at less then $300 million).

The larger point is that films have to have a draw - preferably more then one. There was a time when stars or directors were draws. For a variety of reasons, they largely are not anymore. IPs are the draw. Oppenheimer is a unicorn.

 

[celluloid]

No, the point is that Oppenheimer is not a reproducible model. The draw was the director. There are very, very few other directors who can open a film like that. Oppenheimer directed by Rob Marshall does not earn back its budget (or get greenlit in the first place). Even Elvis, a critically acclaimed Oscar contender with big name stars and a distinctive, well-known director barely broke even (at less then $300 million).

The larger point is that films have to have a draw - preferably more then one. There was a time when stars or directors were draws. For a variety of reasons, they largely are not anymore. IPs are the draw. Oppenheimer is a unicorn.

So wait. What you are saying is, Disney, has a Disney problem of latching onto solely large Tent Poles for their success? Seems funny because others and myself stated that was Disney's issue pages and weeks ago.

Times change and the wheel goes round. Pretend it's the 60s and Gangster fantasy films are oversaturated and have played out.
The bearded wonders are about to break rules by the 70s. They made Unicorns and reputations of their own work. That has finally dried out a good bit but hey, 50 years will do that.

The time has come again, clearly.
WB and Uni just proved you don't chase Unicorns, you produce them.

Marvel needs a ten year hiatus.

 

[Disney Irish]

That's a rabbit hole separate from the point.

Disney does not have Nolan? That is what we are going with now?

Why was it Universal and not 20th Century Fox?

Nolan has clout but there are many filmmakers who can do a successful biopic. Both known and yet to be.

The difference is Whittney just wants to stick with the oversaturation, and it has caught up with them.

The risk is paying off for other studios. Maybe Disney could, ya know, try it?

Nolan went to Universal to screw over WB after a 20 year partnership because of Tenet and WBs decision to release its whole 2021 slate to HBO Max day-and-date. So its as simple as that.

 

[celluloid]

Nolan went to Universal to screw over WB after a 20 year partnership because of Tenet and WBs decision to release its whole 2021 slate to HBO Max day-and-date. So its as simple as that.

Hey don't quote me. I was continuing the odd claim that insinuated that only Nolan could. I am not the one that says Nolan is the only one who can produce a successful biopic.

 

[Disney Irish]

Hey don't quote me. I was continuing the odd claim that insinuated that only Nolan could. I am not the one that says Nolan is the only one who can produce a successful biopic.

The point that was being made is still valid, Nolan is the only one who was interested in bringing the Oppenheimer story to the big screen. It was his project so its not like Universal gave him the script and asked him to direct, no it was he who brought it to Universal. That is the point.

So no its not only Nolan that can make a biopic, but its only Nolan that could make Oppenheimer. Which had it been released at any other time may not have done as well. So its a success based on circumstance really. And that is not taking anything away from the film, as I've seen it and it was good, its just the reality.

Now are there other directors like Nolan out there that want to bring unknown biopics to the big screen, don't know. I'm sure after the success of Oppenheimer however that every studio is now looking for the next one, even Disney.

 

[celluloid]

The point that was being made is still valid, Nolan is the only one who was interested in bringing the Oppenheimer story to the big screen. It was his project so its not like Universal gave him the script and asked him to direct, no it was he who brought it to Universal. That is the point.

So no its not only Nolan that can make a biopic, but its only Nolan that could make Oppenheimer. Which had it been released at any other time may not have done as well. So its a success based on circumstance really. And that is not taking anything away from the film, as I've seen it and it was good, its just the reality.

Now are there other directors like Nolan out there that want to bring unknown biopics to the big screen, don't know. I'm sure after the success of Oppenheimer however that every studio is now looking for the next one, even Disney.

You guys are stuck on Oppenheimer specifically like a red herring There are always great true story based potentials.

Nolan is this recent hit of a biopic.

Universal has variety in current success at varying budgets and markets.

Disney has Marvel and remakes as a majority of their films.

This is the Disney problem.

"It's success is based on circumstances" The most vague thought I have ever seen on here. That could be said for any and all popular art.

 

[Disney Irish]

"It's success is based on circumstances" The vaguest thought I have ever seen on here. That could be said for any and all popular art.

All the other stuff aside this I completely agree with actually. A box office success is based on circumstance, and a bit of luck. There is no such thing as a guarantee in Hollywood, which is why this idea that "just make better films" that is often said around here is silly.

 

[celluloid]

All the other stuff aside this I completely agree with actually. A box office success is based on circumstance, and a bit of luck. There is no such thing as a guarantee in Hollywood, which is why this idea that "just make better films" that is often said around here is silly.

This was my point. It is for everything. But when something consistently underwhelms, blaming box office on just a year of bad luck when the specific studio issues are bigger than anyone else's...

There is strategy otherwise, there is no point in business and creative leadership.

Disney's current leadership created some really bad circumstances and are currently in the result.

 

[Disney Irish]

This was my point. It is for everything. But when something consistently underwhelms, blaming box office on just a year of bad luck when the specific studio issues are bigger than anyone else's...

There is strategy otherwise, there is no point in business and creative leadership.

Disney's current leadership created some really bad circumstances and are currently in the result.

You could say the same about many studios not just Disney. Outside of Barbie WBD was having a really bad year. Barbie basically saved 2023 for WBD.

If you really look at it, and @MisterPenguin brings this up all the time, its really one tent pole film that ends up making a studio profitable.

 

[celluloid]

You could say the same about many studios not just Disney. Outside of Barbie WBD was having a really bad year. Barbie basically saved 2023 for WBD.

Yep. Not saying anything some.others or I have not.

WB oversaturated flops galore too. Remakes, sequels, reboots and multiverse(the flash actor controversy did no favors) that guaranteed most flops. Similar Issue to Disney.
but, they did let Barbie's Gerta have her fun. They did let them make a fairly unique and fresh film in a year of trends and franchises. It's a relatively fresh take on Barbie and most clearly feel it did it well.
Universal produced a well made biopic and let Nolan do it well. Actors wanted to be a part of it too.
Cocaine Bear did amazingly well for a random self aware lower budget wide release and was not a smash but not a flop. It turned green.
Blumhouse has an exorcist sequel. It's been about 50 years since the original it follows and many from awful remakes it's not claiming connection to. Blumhouse knows what it is and has yet to flop much under Universal.
Likewise with their Five Nights at Freddy's. DreamWorks and Illumination films at the end of this year during holiday season will likely.provide healthy profits for them.
Circumstances of chance as well as strategy, but odds are good for these things. They know it's low risk budget and big reward.

Disney is over here with a ride based movie that is a remake of the ride based movie from 2003 after and before more MCU sequels. Elemental you can see had legs because it attempted something sort of Fresh, but Pixar's sequel and spin off reputation branding shift still loom.

Disney...rest of the year not much fresh or unique. Just Wish. An animation film with a giant animation budget needs to save them.

You just pointed out the Disney problem.

 

[wtyy21]

Here's the interesting info regarding inside of Disney's cost of the film, accompained by TRUE budget for the two films. Secret Invasion is not a movie, but it's really a Disney+ Original series. Regardless of that, Secret Invasion still included.

The 4 Flops Of 2023 That Cost Disney $1 Billion

Disney has revealed that it spent $965 million on four of its most high-profile streaming and film flops this year.

www.forbes.com

Additional quotes come from increasingly right-leaning Forbes:
"As we have reported extensively, productions made in the UK are an exception. Studios have to set up separate companies to make each one and get a cash reimbursement of up to 25% of the money they spend in the UK. Each company has to file financial statements and they shine a spotlight on the spending."

"Disney is filming increasingly more content in the UK to take advantage of this incentive. It was home to four of the most-expensive productions released by the studio this year and they have also been amongst its worst-performers."

 

[doctornick]

No, leaving the political crap behind does not mean "conform to my politics". The problem is that some think instilling a dose of politics into everything should be the new default option.

This. I watch entertainment to avoid everyday issues. Anything that reminds me of the ongoing and extremely annoying culture wars gets a thumbs down from me. Just be fun and mindless entertainment.

 

[Disney Irish]

Here's the interesting info regarding inside of Disney's cost of the film, accompained by TRUE budget for the two films. Secret Invasion is not a movie, but it's really a Disney+ Original series. Regardless of that, Secret Invasion still included.

The 4 Flops Of 2023 That Cost Disney $1 Billion

Disney has revealed that it spent $965 million on four of its most high-profile streaming and film flops this year.

www.forbes.com

View attachment 735768
Additional quotes come:

Thanks for the info. So the take away, while still bad the outcome of some of these films may not be as dour as previously reported with the incentives that Disney gets for filming in the UK. This is the same as the reported incentives and tax breaks Disney got from New Orleans for HM being filmed there.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So wait. What you are saying is, Disney, has a Disney problem of latching onto solely large Tent Poles for their success? Seems funny because others and myself stated that was Disney's issue pages and weeks ago.

Times change and the wheel goes round. Pretend it's the 60s and Gangster fantasy films are oversaturated and have played out.
The bearded wonders are about to break rules by the 70s. They made Unicorns and reputations of their own work. That has finally dried out a good bit but hey, 50 years will do that.

The time has come again, clearly.
WB and Uni just proved you don't chase Unicorns, you produce them.

Marvel needs a ten year hiatus.

You still refuse to name a single other director who could open an adult non-IP film like Oppenheimer.

Retiring Marvel would be madness. It had the two biggest openings of 2022 and provided Disneys only true hit of 2023.

This Summer is the Summer of Barbie and Mario. Those are films based on tremendously familiar IPs. I’ve asked folks in this thread to suggest other, comparable properties the studios could mine.

Your assessment of Universal is horribly skewed. Cocaine Bear lost money. Without Mario, they are doing very badly. Universal isn’t an example of a successful, varied slate of films, it’s the story of one huge IP film.

And Disneys slate for the rest of the year includes an incredibly rare attempt at a major original property sci-fi blockbuster, The Creator, as well as smaller films like Next Goal Wins and The Bikeriders. Oh, and an original IP animated film. In other words, exactly what you say you want.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I'd start with making movies that have a proven history of success with specific audiences rather than trying to reinvent the wheel.

They know animated princess musicals have a nearly perfect record with girls and families, so they give us 2 outer space themed adventure movies aimed at boys. They know Marvel superhero movies have a nearly perfect record with young men so they give us a half dozen female empowerment superhero movies aimed at women. They know remakes have a nearly perfect track record of making bank on nostalgia, so they give us altered and modernized stories that abandon the nostalgia in favor of political correctness.

I'm not sure who Disney is making movies for but it's not their core audience.

So basically you want them to make movies for straight white people. Got it.