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

[celluloid]

My point is whether a biopic, or swashbuckling, or whatever genre lower budget character dialog driven content is possible and has been successful. Again this is something you claim that Disney needs more of, so really I'm in alignment with you on that. Now whether that means a Pirates D+ show, or a movie, or anything else, I don't know.

As for whether right now is the right time for such content, specifically with Pirates, not sure. But if not now, then when would be a good time for lower budget character dialog driven content to be made?

I think the time is now, well we are way past time. It would not likely come in the form of a remake of another theme park attraction to show comparison for the press. HM just bombed miserably. They will have to read the room in that one. Which I know they hate.

You know, they should know it is possible to do lower budget dialogue and story driven shows that are not marvel, remakes or theme park attractions.

Not sure why you think pirates would be the answer to fish for the dialogue budget when other shows could be.

The time is right. I just don't think Pirates is the right one to tackle right now for obvious trends and hard to spread that budget reasons.

All this started because of the discussion from Ms. Robbie being a bit with Barbie and once rumored to be in a pirates film years ago.

I know it may be shocking, but Disney could produce a unicorn or moderate hits instead of trying to acquire and borrow fame from others.

 

[Trauma]

I don't get that either. The free market is one of the most powerful communication tools that humans have ever invented. When people spend their own hard-earned money on a product, that is a powerful message. And when they do not spend their own money on a product, that's also a powerful message.

Disney has received a giant message in bright bold letters this year from the free market, both domestically and overseas.

How will Disney respond to that message? And what's even scarier to think about... has Disney even heard it yet?



It might just be a string of really bad luck, starting last year with Lightyear. But with every new movie they release that flops, that's a theory that gets harder and harder to rationally support. The faceplant that Haunted Mansion just did is the latest data point.

Next up.... The Marvels and Wish in November. Tick, tick, tick, tick...

What I have to wonder is does Disney even care.

As long as Fink is willing to fund the losses don’t they just continue to do as told?

Ok I’ll take my tinfoil hat off now.

 

[TP2000]

Mermaid wasn’t popular…didn’t make anywhere close to what Disney targeted…but keep trying

For those keeping score... Mermaid only did 48% of Lion King's domestic box office, did 50% of Beauty and the Beast's domestic box office, and did 73% of Aladdin's domestic box office. And the USA has 10 Million more people in 2023 than it did in 2017.

But then after only doing up to half of the domestic box office, Mermaid performed horribly at the overseas box office. The result is that after its $250 Million production budget and its $140 Million marketing budget (per Variety and other reputable sources), Little Mermaid has lost just over $100 Million for Disney this year.

That level of financial loss can in no way be considered a success, or even a vaguer description like "popular".

 

[celluloid]

For those keeping score... Mermaid only did 48% of Lion King's domestic box office, did 50% of Beauty and the Beast's domestic box office, and did 73% of Aladdin's domestic box office. And the USA has 10 Million more people in 2023 than it did in 2017.

View attachment 735859

But then after only doing up to half of the domestic box office, Mermaid performed horribly at the overseas box office. The result is that after its $250 Million production budget and its $140 Million marketing budget (per Variety and other reputable sources), Little Mermaid has lost just over $100 Million for Disney this year.

That level of financial loss can in no way be considered a success, or even a vaguer description like "popular".

Paritcularly mind blowing with how marketed Mermaid was for so long. It has all the major stops for it.

People are just over it.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think the time is now but not another theme park attraction to show comparison for the press. HM just bombed miserably. They will have to read the room in that one. Which I know they hate.

You know, they should know it is possible to do lower budget dialogue and story driven shows that are not marvel, remakes or theme park attractions.

Not sure why you think pirates would be the answer to fish for the dialogue budget when other shows could be.

The time is right. I just don't think Pirates is the right one to tackle right now for obvious trends and hard to spread that budget reasons.

All this started because of the discussion from Ms. Robbie being a bit with Barbie and once rumored to be in a pirates film years ago.

I know it may be shocking, but Disney could produce a unicorn instead of trying to acquire and borrow fame from others.

The reason why they are called unicorns is because they don't happen very often and are very hard to capture, ie another term is "lighting in a bottle". All of Hollywood is looking for the next unicorn, so its not as easy as just saying "Disney should just produce the next unicorn".

There is a reason why you see the same actors/actresses being cast in movie after movie, its because Hollywood is banking on them being the box office draw that brings in hundreds of Millions.

The rumors about Robbie being cast in the next Pirates film came after her success in Suicide Squad, so Disney was hoping to bank on her popularity at the time. Obviously it never got very far off the ground and ended up in development hell. As for whether they should revive that due to her regained popularity via Barbie, dunno. But I could see why it could happen, budgets aside.

As for the character dialog driven ideas, I was just using Pirates as an example. Not sure its the right property to do it with, but it could be good if they did it right. The points was that they can start producing more of that type of content and it be successful. With Oppenheimer, as I stated previously, I pretty sure every studio right now is reviewing every script ever submitted for similar cheaper character dialog driven content for their next projects.

 

[celluloid]

The reason why they are called unicorns is because they don't happen very often and are very hard to capture, ie another term is "lighting in a bottle". All of Hollywood is looking for the next unicorn, so its not as easy as just saying "Disney should just produce the next unicorn".

There is a reason why you see the same actors/actresses being cast in movie after movie, its because Hollywood is banking on them being the box office draw that brings in hundreds of Millions.

The rumors about Robbie being cast in the next Pirates film came after her success in Suicide Squad, so Disney was hoping to bank on her popularity at the time. Obviously it never got very far off the ground and ended up in development hell. As for whether they should revive that due to her regained popularity via Barbie, dunno. But I could see why it could happen, budgets aside.

As for the character dialog driven ideas, I was just using Pirates as an example. Not sure its the right property to do it with, but it could be good if they did it right. The points was that they can start producing more of that type of content and it be successful. With Oppenheimer, as I stated previously, I pretty sure every studio right now is reviewing every script ever submitted for similar cheaper character dialog driven content for their next projects.

Yeah. You are right. That is what they need, but
pirates is the one you brought up to do it with, which is a read the room moment. That would be an odd choice for a smaller budget, but could work, HT it is also again a remake of a theme park property film, taking away the biggest thing people.liked, which was Jack Sparrow. It's more of the same.
Unicorns do take creative effort and risk. Which as we know, Disney is not about as often anymore. This is why majority of Disney Plus originals are MCU and star Wars inflated and oversaturated.


We had three films this year that topped all of Disneys with lesser budget. Mario is not oversaturated on film. And besides one being a sequel(albeit still a unique take on Spidey) it came through with better storytelling in a smaller budget than what Disney is currently doing with Marvel. Then Oppenheimer, which was just a well produced subject matter that certainly has not been on film lately. Then Barbie. A huge risk to satire a young girls toy. Also on a budget lower than anything Disney produced.

At a certain point one just has to admit Disney did not have a good line up and an oversaturated set of films for most of this year. Tent poles draining.

 

[TP2000]

Paritcularly mind blowing with how marketed Mermaid was for so long. It has all the major stops for it.

Yes, by giving it a huge $140 Million marketing budget, it was obvious that Disney expected Mermaid to be another Billion Plus Dollar blockbuster for them.

But Mermaid only did half that, and lost them $100 Million or so in a year they were already losing $500 Million.

 

[Chi84]

Paritcularly kind blowing with how marketed Mermaid was for so long. It has all the major stops for it.

People are just over it.

Did you like it? I thought it was very good. It seems a shame people aren’t giving it a chance.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Did you like it? I thought it was very good. It seems a shame people aren’t giving it a chance.

I am sure a lot of people will watch it on D+.

 

[celluloid]

Yes, by giving it a huge $140 Million marketing budget, it was obvious that Disney expected Mermaid to be another Billion Plus Dollar blockbuster for them.

But Mermaid only did half that, and lost them $100 Million or so in a year they were already losing $500 Million.

I remember back in December 31st watching her sing on the castle stage at Disneyland in a dress I would not call family appropriate, that they were really rolling out all the stops.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yeah. You are right. That is what they need, buT
T pirates is the one you brought up to do it with, which is a read the room moment. That would be an odd choice for a smaller budget, but could work, HT it is also again a remake of a theme park property film, taking away the biggest thing people.liked, which was Jack Sparrow. It's more of the same.
Unicorns do take creative effort and risk. Which as we know, Disney is not about as often anymore. This is why majority of Disney Plus originals are MCU and star Wars inflated and oversaturated.

Believe it or not, Disney does take more risks looking for unicorns then we give them credit for.

Some recent examples,

Strange Worlds was a risk.
Elemental was a risk.

A lot of their 20th Century/Searchlight stuff is about taking risks, such as The Creator which is a low budget film coming out later this year. And given its content matter is relevant right now this one could end up being received really well and do well at the box office.

The problem is those risks as we know don't always pan out as they don't click with audiences. The idea in Hollywood is to minimize risk by offsetting it with more tried and true properties that end up bringing in the audiences and money. Yeah it leads to over-saturation and fatigue sometimes, but that is how you get Hollywood to take risk. Because those risks fail like 99% of the time, which aren't great odds when you're trying to run a for-profit business.

 

[erasure fan1]

They're struggling to find that with the exception of Mandalorian, Andor, and a couple of MCU shows. Everything else looks like it belongs on Disney Channel. That's a SERIOUS problem moving forward since SW and MCU's popularity will fluctuate over time.

I'd say it's worse than that. I think Mando did well with the younger crowd. But Andor not so much. So really Mando was the only one to blow up with all sides. I don't see any real traction with the MCU D+ shows with my kids or their friends.

I also read that a POTC animated series is coming. NO, NO, NO, and MORE NO to that!!! D+ should not and CANNOT become an extension of Disney Channel.

I don't think making Disney channel type shows and content for D plus is necessarily a bad thing. You just can't fall into a cycle of too many things feeling like they are from Disney channel.

 

[celluloid]

Did you like it? I thought it was very good. It seems a shame people aren’t giving it a chance.

I suppose that is subjective and I am glad you liked it!
The thread from a box office perspective financially, shows more are over it than Disney anticipated.

 

[BrianLo]

Mermaid wasn’t popular…didn’t make anywhere close to what Disney targeted…but keep trying

And none of these movies have a thing to do with chapek. He was the parks hatchet man when they all were greenlit

The goes back to “if you want to destroy my SWEATER”…plain and simple

Read what I wrote again. I was commenting on Chapek's move to direct to streaming, not which movies he approved. The short window (or non-existent window) undermined consumers willingness to see movies in theatre. This really impacted "Disney/WDAS/Pixar" that were all heavily pushed direct to stream or had tight 45-day windows under his reign. This was distinctly a Chapek maneuver, pumping D+ exclusively, not really an Iger one.

Regarding Mermaid, again, I was not talking about popularity. I was responding to a quote about whether it was liked by audiences who saw it. Which the audience scores, post-exits and Cinemascores all support. Domestic audiences liked TLM. International didn't. They liked Elemental and they liked Guardians 3.

But please continue grinding your axe against even the slightest hint of complimentary commentary, like that will somehow get Iger fired.

 

[TP2000]

But please continue grinding your axe against even the slightest hint of complimentary commentary, like that will somehow get Iger fired.

I mean, it can't hurt.

 

[celluloid]

Believe it or not, Disney does take more risks looking for unicorns then we give them credit for.

Some recent examples,

Strange Worlds was a risk.
Elemental was a risk.

A lot of their 20th Century/Searchlight stuff is about taking risks, such as The Creator which is a low budget film coming out later this year. And given its content matter is relevant right now this one could end up being received really well and do well at the box office.

The problem is those risks as we know don't always pan out as they don't click with audiences. The idea in Hollywood is to minimize risk by offsetting it with more tried and true properties that end up bringing in the audiences. Yeah it leads to over-saturation and fatigue sometimes, but that is how you get Hollywood to take risk. Because those risks fail like 99% of the time, which aren't great odds when you're trying to run a for-profit business.

Preaching to the choir. WB and Uni just had examples that it can be more consistent than Disney currently has itself in.

Barbie and Oppenheimer are even both hits surpassing most of Disneys biggest and we're released in the same week.

Unicorns are not so rare when you can have multiple of them in a year from nearly every studio but Disney.

Back to what some here say. Everyone knows and repeat it since you like to say this in a hundred ways.

As of now:
Disney has a Disney problem.

 

[BrianLo]

I mean, it can't hurt.

I can live with transparency!

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney has a Disney problem.

I disagree with this sentiment, as I've said before.

If this is the case, then -

WBD has a WBD problem.
Uni has a Uni problem.
Sony has a Sony problem.
Paramount has a Paramount problem.
Lionsgate has a Lionsgate problem.

And so on.

As if pointing to a couple films being successful somehow negates there being a whole industry issue. I'm sorry that is, just as another poster just put it, "grinding your axe against even the slightest hint of complimentary commentary".

Put down the axe and realize that while Disney is having a worse time this year that there is a whole industry wide shift happening and causing ALL sorts of issues across the entire Hollywood ecosystem. So no this isn't Disney just having a Disney problem.

 

[celluloid]

I disagree with this sentiment, as I've said before.

If this is the case, then -

WBD has a WBD problem.
Uni has a Uni problem.
Sony has a Sony problem.
Lionsgate has a Lionsgate problem.

And so on.

As if pointing to a couple films being successful somehow negates there being a whole industry issue. I'm sorry that is, just as another poster just put it, "grinding your axe against even the slightest hint of complimentary commentary".

Put down the axe and realize that while Disney is having a worse time this year that there is a whole industry wide shift happening and causing ALL sorts of issues across the entire Hollywood ecosystem. So no this isn't Disney just having a Disney problem.

There we are.

 

[Disney Irish]

There we are.

I've said the same over and over in many threads now, so don't know why you think this is some new revelation for me.

But you still cannot seem to admit there is an industry wide issue going on.