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

[Disney Irish]

It's delusional to keep saying guaranteed. I said an analogy where a friend says almost guranteed. And I never said just at the box office.

So which is those that argue with obvious facts has the truth?

We have one poster @Disney Irish saying there are no guarantees.

The other guy @Casper Gutman saying there is always a guarantee.

And in my analogy I said a friend that borrowed money said it's an almost.l because he feels educated in calculations.

For example, the latest Haunted Mansion movie will take so long to profit that the friends in the analogy (the people wanting a return on their investment in question) will be dead before they see a return on investment.

Speaking of delusional thinking.

You are the guy that said there are no longer movie stars.


And all of it is moot anyway, for at the end of the day

Would you be stoked to spend two years and 100 dollars to get 2 back?

That was not what @Casper Gutman was saying.

What was said is that studios have setup a structure that attempts to insulate themselves as much as possible from audience fluctuations that happen, ie the box office is not guaranteed.

As mentioned there is no guarantee, or even almost guarantee, especially at the box office. Market shifts caused by audience changes results in successes and failures by all studios. If there was such thing as a "almost guarantee" at the box office then "almost" no movies would ever fail during theatrical.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The fact that anyone can say the age of movie stars is dead. It's the opposite. We have so dang many of them at once. The being famous because their famous is stronger than ever. The person was not arguing talent either, but bankability.

I know Guardians of the Galaxy could have saved so much money as well as Jurassic World of they just would have recast Pratt early on.

Movies need a hook, something ads can sell, something that will let audiences know what to expect of a given movie. The most typical hooks have historically been stars and directors. Others have been VFX, social relevance, etc. but stars were the most common. Step back to the 90s. Hollywood’s bread and butter, as it had been for decades, is the star-driven mid-budget film. Think Ashley Judd woman-in-danger thriller, Julia Roberts rom-com, or, at a slightly higher price point, Schwarzenegger action film. The movies are structured around the Star and the Star lets the audience know what kind of film it is. Even nominally IP films are Star-driven - Men in Black is a Will Smith film, the IP is of minimal importance.

That changed during the 2000s. The Star-driven mid-budget is almost entirely dead, consigned to streaming or, more often, made into a mini-series. IPs are THE organizing principle for the film industry. Films are structured around them and they govern audience expectations. If an actor makes a fuss - Edward Norton, for instance, they’re expendable.

Robert Downey Jr. Biggest MCU star. Big enough to demand lots of money from stingy Marvel. How did he do in films structured around his Star persona rather than around an IP? The Judge, The Soloist, Doolittle. Those are quintessential Star-focused vehicles. All flops.

Are there some remnants of the Star-driven system? Sure, nothing in pop culture is ever absolute. Tom Cruise can still make Star vehicles. Ryan Reynolds had Free Guy. But they’re few and far between. Look over the box office for the last decade, see how many you spot.

Hollywood is in the IP business, not the Star business.

Don’t take my word for it:

Twilight of the A-list: has the 21st century killed off the movie star?

Brad Pitt’s new film is fizzling out. Meryl Streep is doing TV. Only Tom Cruise fills cinemas – and, in the age of superheroes and streaming, his days may be numbered. So, what does the future hold for Hollywood’s big beasts?

www.theguardian.com

‘We Used to Treat Movie Stars Like Gods’: Hollywood Grapples With Loss of Young Star Power

Hollywood grapples with an aging demographic of male movie stars as Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone and others age.

variety.com

Quentin Tarantino Says Marvel Actors Aren’t Movie Stars: ‘Captain America Is the Star,’ Not Chris Evans

Quentin Tarantino says movie stars don't exist in bulk anymore because of the "Marvel-ization" of Hollywood.

variety.com

There are tons of these articles over the last decade.

For anyone who knows anything about how Hollywood operates, now or historically, arguing with you and Raleigh is like taking a trip to crazytown.

 

[Disney Irish]

People forget that the 'rule of thumb' is just a 'rule of thumb' because Hollywood finances are mostly a black box.

By the rule of thumb, Elemental will lose that much in the theatrical window, if and only if, the rule of thumb as applied to Elemental is accurate.

But the rule of thumb is not the *actual* figures. If a studio exec contradicts the rule of thumb, then that's a more reliable source than the rule of thumb.

And yet you have some that won't accept the word of a studio exec because its just "spin".

So if we're not to take the word of the people in-charge of the actual numbers because its "spin", then how are we to the take word of the reporting by the trades because its just "spin" too....

 

[erasure fan1]

Indy did exactly what people predicted it would, and they criticize it for...meeting their financial expectations.

I don't think anyone predicted or expected it to be only at 369mil right now. That is a flop by any definition. The cost of Indy is pretty easy to find along with the marketing. Even the most conservative budget numbers would put this movie square in the flop column. Let's say they didn't do any marketing for the film, of course we know they did. It would still need over 200mil to break even.

You can keep pretending otherwise, but it doesn't make your claims true.

You could stand to take your own advice. You can pretend that these movies are all super profitable, but it doesn't make your claim true.

 

[celluloid]

And yet you have some that won't accept the word of a studio exec because its just "spin".

So if we're not to take the word of the people in-charge of the actual numbers because its "spin", then how are we to the take word of the reporting by the trades because its just "spin" too....

Well the trades are the trades. They don't have an obligation to safe face as a whole. There is always some bias potentially. But do you trust a group of doctors in a health committee, or a doctor who has a TV show and is a main owner of a product more.

It's the PR job to always spin.

 

[celluloid]

Wait. Indy did exactly what the studio expected it to do? So Disney produced Dial of Destiny knowing it would theatrically not meet it's ROI? Wow. It's charitable for them?

Movies need a hook, something ads can sell, something that will let audiences know what to expect of a given movie. The most typical hooks have historically been stars and directors. Others have been VFX, social relevance, etc. but stars were the most common. Step back to the 90s. Hollywood’s bread and butter, as it had been for decades, is the star-driven mid-budget film. Think Ashley Judd woman-in-danger thriller, Julia Roberts rom-com, or, at a slightly higher price point, Schwarzenegger action film. The movies are structured around the Star and the Star lets the audience know what kind of film it is. Even nominally IP films are Star-driven - Men in Black is a Will Smith film, the IP is of minimal importance.

That changed during the 2000s. The Star-driven mid-budget is almost entirely dead, consigned to streaming or, more often, made into a mini-series. IPs are THE organizing principle for the film industry. Films are structured around them and they govern audience expectations. If an actor makes a fuss - Edward Norton, for instance, they’re expendable.

Robert Downey Jr. Biggest MCU star. Big enough to demand lots of money from stingy Marvel. How did he do in films structured around his Star persona rather than around an IP? The Judge, The Soloist, Doolittle. Those are quintessential Star-focused vehicles. All flops.

Are there some remnants of the Star-driven system? Sure, nothing in pop culture is ever absolute. Tom Cruise can still make Star vehicles. Ryan Reynolds had Free Guy. But they’re few and far between. Look over the box office for the last decade, see how many you spot.

Hollywood is in the IP business, not the Star business.

Hollywood is in any business that makes them money.

If the IP was so good no matter the actor, than the casting would not matter and they could habe gotten people much cheaper over time.

Uncharted, the movie based on the video game would not have done nearly as well as it did without its lead with Holland. He jumped IPs like Chris Pratt and made other movies successful.

You picked flops that wanted the star power and took a risk. One was even an IP remake, Doolittle, it flopped. You could certainly counter that with Sherlock Holmes doing well. Unless you are splitting hairs and get to count bad IP results form your argument, but well performing ones go against yours so you can't count them. You have done that a lot here.

The fact that you need to always end with an insult like crazy town shows you have fallacies as wide as the gap of Haunted Mansion's debt to profit ratio.


You think John Wick would do as well if they recast him? Keanu is the reason many see that movie.
I think @Sirwalterraleigh was ok the right track.
You are just old and are not aware of the stars there are.

 

[Mmoore29]

I don't think anyone predicted or expected it to be only at 369mil right now. That is a flop by any definition. The cost of Indy is pretty easy to find along with the marketing. Even the most conservative budget numbers would put this movie square in the flop column. Let's say they didn't do any marketing for the film, of course we know they did. It would still need over 200mil to break even.

You could stand to take your own advice. You can pretend that these movies are all super profitable, but it doesn't make your claim true.

"I know you are but what am I?" is not a valid rebuttal.

No one looks at Dead Reckoning and says it's gonna flop, even though it's dropping off faster than anyone expected. They talk quite fondly of it, but they always give Disney's movies short shrift, even when they get in the black.

Either both Indy and MI are flops, or they're both doing well. That's how consistent standards work.

Indy's opening weekend met exactly what the analysts and trades said...and then they complained about it.

 

[dreday3]

Movies need a hook, something ads can sell, something that will let audiences know what to expect of a given movie. The most typical hooks have historically been stars and directors. Others have been VFX, social relevance, etc. but stars were the most common. Step back to the 90s. Hollywood’s bread and butter, as it had been for decades, is the star-driven mid-budget film. Think Ashley Judd woman-in-danger thriller, Julia Roberts rom-com, or, at a slightly higher price point, Schwarzenegger action film. The movies are structured around the Star and the Star lets the audience know what kind of film it is. Even nominally IP films are Star-driven - Men in Black is a Will Smith film, the IP is of minimal importance.

That changed during the 2000s. The Star-driven mid-budget is almost entirely dead, consigned to streaming or, more often, made into a mini-series. IPs are THE organizing principle for the film industry. Films are structured around them and they govern audience expectations. If an actor makes a fuss - Edward Norton, for instance, they’re expendable.

Robert Downey Jr. Biggest MCU star. Big enough to demand lots of money from stingy Marvel. How did he do in films structured around his Star persona rather than around an IP? The Judge, The Soloist, Doolittle. Those are quintessential Star-focused vehicles. All flops.

Are there some remnants of the Star-driven system? Sure, nothing in pop culture is ever absolute. Tom Cruise can still make Star vehicles. Ryan Reynolds had Free Guy. But they’re few and far between. Look over the box office for the last decade, see how many you spot.

Hollywood is in the IP business, not the Star business.

Don’t take my word for it:

Twilight of the A-list: has the 21st century killed off the movie star?

Brad Pitt’s new film is fizzling out. Meryl Streep is doing TV. Only Tom Cruise fills cinemas – and, in the age of superheroes and streaming, his days may be numbered. So, what does the future hold for Hollywood’s big beasts?

www.theguardian.com

‘We Used to Treat Movie Stars Like Gods’: Hollywood Grapples With Loss of Young Star Power

Hollywood grapples with an aging demographic of male movie stars as Harrison Ford, Sylvester Stallone and others age.

variety.com

Quentin Tarantino Says Marvel Actors Aren’t Movie Stars: ‘Captain America Is the Star,’ Not Chris Evans

Quentin Tarantino says movie stars don't exist in bulk anymore because of the "Marvel-ization" of Hollywood.

variety.com

There are tons of these articles over the last decade.

For anyone who knows anything about how Hollywood operates, now or historically, arguing with you and Raleigh is like taking a trip to crazytown.

I would have bet on Dwayne "The Rock" Johnson still being a star who could open a movie on name alone, but I'm not so sure anymore (Black Adam).
Even Julia Roberts/George Clooney didn't have a big hit with their romcom that came out.

Keanu had success with John Wick because of the John Wick storyline. I don't believe Keanu would be a huge draw for opening a different movie on his name alone. (and I love Keanu)

I have to agree with this post.


(that said - I'll watch ANYTHING with Chris Pine or Ryan Gosling )

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

This is true, the hard part is calculating how much a movie actually cost and how much it actually made.

Estimated budget, estimated marketing, the ridiculously complex theater/studio revenue split ratio… there’s a million unknowns.

At best it’s all a calculated guess, ballpark figure.

Also, the internal expenses.

If Disney owned Industrial Light and Magic does most of the special effects for a movie, the effects "budget" might be $100 million but a good chunk of that actually flows back to the company as "profit" on what ILM charges.

 

[Chi84]

(that said - I'll watch ANYTHING with Chris Pine or Ryan Gosling )

Have you seen Bottle Shock?

 

[MisterPenguin]

Keanu had success with John Wick because of the John Wick storyline. I don't believe Keanu would be a huge draw for opening a different movie on his name alone. (and I love Keanu)

Point of data: Matrix Resurrections lost over $200M at the BO.

 

[dreday3]

Have you seen Bottle Shock?

No!!! Is it good?

 

[Chi84]

No!!! Is it good?

Please watch it ASAP. It’s an old movie (2008) but you will thank me. Guaranteed.

 

[dreday3]

Please watch it ASAP. It’s an old movie (2008) but you will thank me. Guaranteed.

We will watch it this weekend if I can find it on streaming. I'll even pay for it!

 

[TP2000]

It already has crossed the $560 million threshold when all ticket sales worldwide are counted, is climbing up to $600 million from the remaining overseas market. This is not a flop by any standard.

"Why isn't it higher?" Because trolls and the media put their thumb on the scale to make it so. Everyone wants to kick Disney in the teeth. But Elemental is profitable, so is TLM, and a lot of the upcoming slate will be.

Fascinating. Now can you tell us how profitable Haunted Mansion will be?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Wait. Indy did exactly what the studio expected it to do? So Disney produced Dial of Destiny knowing it would theatrically not meet it's ROI? Wow. It's charitable for them?

Hollywood is in any business that makes them money.

If the IP was so good no matter the actor, than the casting would not matter and they could habe gotten people much cheaper over time.

Uncharted, the movie based on the video game would not have done nearly as well as it did without its lead with Holland. He jumped IPs like Chris Pratt and made other movies successful.

You picked flops that wanted the star power and took a risk. One was even an IP remake, Doolittle, it flopped. You could certainly counter that with Sherlock Holmes doing well. Unless you are splitting hairs and get to count bad IP results form your argument, but well performing ones go against yours so you can't count them. You have done that a lot here.

The fact that you need to always end with an insult like crazy town shows you have fallacies as wide as the gap of Haunted Mansion's debt to profit ratio.


You think John Wick would do as well if they recast him? Keanu is the reason many see that movie.
I think @Sirwalterraleigh was ok the right track.
You are just old and are not aware of the stars there are.

This response amounts to you sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming “nuh-uh.” You don’t even try to address the articles, of which I included only a small sample.

You continually misread, either intentionally or unintentionally, the arguments of those opposed to your positions. I addressed the issue of Star-led IP films directly. 90s adaptations like Men in Black or Wild Wild West were STAR-DRIVEN despite the use of an IP. They were carefully customized to fit a Star persona and marketed based on that persona. The IP was made to fit the actor. The opposite is now true. Doolittle was a throwback to this earlier model - almost no one was going to see Doolittle, they were going to see Downey (but they didn’t go). Sherlock is a perennially successful IP with its own draw.

Tell you what - go ahead and list some of the biggest STAR-DRIVEN hits of the last seven or so years. Not IP-driven, STAR. I’ll spot you one: Free Guy.

PS: oh, and maybe acknowledge the articles.

 

[Chi84]

We will watch it this weekend if I can find it on streaming. I'll even pay for it!

It’s on Prime Video. Peacock too I think. Wait til you see the cast lol.

 

[TP2000]

Sorry I think you are talking TLM and I was talking Elemental.

I cut these out and put it on my fridge under a Superstar Limo magnet. It helps me keep all the flops profitable movies straight.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I cut these out and put it on my fridge under a Superstar Limo magnet. It helps me keep all the flops profitable "successful" movies straight.

View attachment 736565

FIFY

 

[celluloid]

Tell you what - go ahead and list some of the biggest STAR-DRIVEN hits of the last seven or so years. Not IP-driven, STAR. I’ll spot you one: Free Guy.

PS: oh, and maybe acknowledge the articles.

Sure. I will do that as soon as you define the term IP. Because in commercial art, as soon as thing is produced and owned. It is an Intellectual Property.
There is always cross over of movie stars being in the IP because they know it will help the IP do better.

Also, I know your lips are chapped from favoring Disney. But Free Guy was not a theatrical hit under the rule of thumb you go by for every other studio. I presume we are defining hits as rule of thumb, and not some arbitrary goal you can move later?


I will make simple for you since you like the language of hostility. If movie stars were not still bankable. We would have voice actors voice acting Ock haters rather than the list of expensive to cast celebrities sometimes doing their own voices.