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

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Well I just told you I watched Elemental, Haunted Mansion, and TLM in the last month or so. So if you want to tell a lifelong Disney fan 'well maybe you just aren't our audience anymore'... Well maybe you're part of the mindset leading to Disney failing to identify the market they've banked on generations.

One of the posters earlier said something to the effect that their data may have shown that hanging on to their legacy audience didn’t have the long term growth potential, hence the change in approach. That’s fine - but what happens when they start to lose people like you, and the “new, growth rich audience pool” never shows up? I think we’re seeing that now.
I mean, Disney is known for their well worn tropes like the animal sidekick... but the best punch line they got from this is... "my butt found it"?
View attachment 753143
I mean... if I were maybe 4 I might find that funny? And I'm not critiquing because of toilet humor... but simply because it's just not funny or that imaginative.
That’s Shrek-level humor.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
I’m not sure what you mean here. But I think the box office struggles are because Disney is out ahead of changes to moviegoing audiences.

Despite some recent outliers, pleasing the masses isn’t really a thing anymore. The old formulas don’t work. Disney is exploring alternatives, and it’s alienating them from legacy audiences. Hence a year (or more) of poor box office performance.
Ok…and that may be the thing…

…the problem is they have to course correct. This is a huge public company with a business slump problem. This isn’t Bob iger’s yacht. It’s not “his”…it’s the hedge funds.

So they have limited “time” to let the audience catch up…they have to come back to it.

And they know it…what do your think all the animated sequels announced were for? It was damage control for the studios…not for chapek.

But the live action/heavy hitter franchises…including a big chunk of Pixar…wow…
That’s a huge issue in this time and space. There isn’t enough patience from the boss - the real boss - for 5 years of “adjustment”
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I’m saying that Disney realizes that “resonating with the general public” isn’t going to be a reliable norm moving forward.
Well, as long as Disney keeps starting $150+million dollar film projects... they better figure out what customers are going to pay for projects that big if not the General Population... because niches can't support film slates that big that and support an entire film division that has to deliver results to the parent company.

Disney isn't community theater - they have a boss that is expecting revenue and profit margins year over year. They have to find the intersection of their creative aspirations along with their business obligations.

I think this is good insight. And I think Disney is actually ahead of the curve here rather than behind. The live action remakes are Disney trying to connect existing IP to new/different audiences.
Honestly I can't recall any casual interaction in the last 10+ years these projects have been prolific that someone has told me the new film was some gateway for them. Probably the closest I could believe that would be all the way back to the Tim Burton Alice film.. which is from a different era of remakes entirely.

You believe they are using these projects as ways as a form of 'outreach' or connecting new generations. TV films, Disney Channel Originals, and direct to VHS used to be the size projects to help run those kinds of iterative works... now we're working with projects that need to be top 5 movies of the year to even be successful?? Maybe they're using the wrong tools here...

Maybe. Or maybe they’re going after different audiences than they used to.

Well... first step of any marketing plan is to identify your addressable market and how much you think you can capture. Disney is spending billions and not getting the return. So maybe they don't know how to target the audience as well as they thought?

Sorry, but ever time I read your statement... I can't stop thinking about these misguided efforts... like 90s hip hop mickey
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
One of the posters earlier said something to the effect that their data may have shown that hanging on to their legacy audience didn’t have the long term growth potential, hence the change in approach. That’s fine - but what happens when they start to lose people like you, and the “new, growth rich audience pool” never shows up? I think we’re seeing that now.

The “dumping their audience that’s resulted in tens of billions in profit over the last decade in search of a new audience” angle
is interesting… I can’t think of another company that’s ever done that, Disney truly is groundbreaking.

Companies don’t typically abandon a highly profitable market in search of another, they add to their existing market.
 

spacemt354

Chili's
I was kidding - it's weird how everyone seems to get it wrong, though.

I'd be very, very surprised if there were significant creative differences on the film. Directors are absolutely clear on what they're getting into when they take on an MCU film - their process is widely known, and the number of folks who've been involved in the process and talk about it freely within the filmmaking community make it unlikely there were any surprises. "Studio meddling" isn't really a relevant term, since the entire process is tightly controlled from start to finish, and everyone knows it. If DaCosta was unaware of what she was getting into, she'd have to have been remarkably oblivious.

I think Marvel's difficulties are multi-faceted:
1) The build-up to Infinity War and Endgame was much more of a factor then Marvel and many analysts understood, and without a clear end point, their ability to make a hit out of any character at all has diminished considerably
2) The pandemic break really harmed their momentum and hurt the D+ roll out
3) the Multiverse stuff is too complex and directionless and diminishes dramatic stakes
4) The "zeitgeist" has turned, particularly in the entertainment press, which quite frankly has been eager to push a "fall of the MCU" narrative from the moment the series began
5) Ant-Man and Eternals underwhelmed, but I think the significance of this can be overstated - Marvel survived a few stinkers on its way up, and their impact is only really significant because of its interaction with other factors
6) The box office has changed post covid and no one really knows what the new normal is - despite isolated mega-hits like Mario and Barbie, a lot of films, even well-reviewed ones, have underperformed dramatically
7) Yes, the culture war nonsense really does matter, and The Marvels is enemy #1 for the grifters pushing it
8) It may also not be very good - we'll know in a few days
Was thinking today about this as The Marvels approaches. As someone who enjoyed Ms. Marvel but has become lukewarm with the MCU as a whole, my main gripe with it is too many of the narratives have gone nowhere. Phases 1-3 had stand alone films but the majority were crafted with a purpose even if they weren't integral to the overarching narrative, they at least had a subtle tease they existed in the same universe, or a cameo from another character. The Eternals and Secret Invasion act as if they are in separate universes for example as Secret Invasion says nothing about the giant Celestial sticking out of Earth.

So it got me wondering what would have been a Phase 4 slate that would have been better received? At least to me. And really a lot of the elements exist already, which if I have time, I'm curious if Phase 4 will be more digestible watching it this way. That said, I would change two things that go hand in hand, that being WandaVision needed a Season 2 to better establish her turn in Multiverse of Madness, and MoM needed to be an Avengers level film to bring together more elements of the Phase, similar to the stakes of Civil War.

Other than that, it's pretty much the same slate subtracting out things that take away from the multiverse saga.

Phase 4
Jan 2021: WandaVision (D+ Show); establishes Wanda as the anti-hero of Phase 4, X-Men intro
May 2021: Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings; Ta Lo, Wong, Captain Marvel, Hulk cameo
July 2021: Loki (D+ Show); Est TVA and introduces Kang
Dec 2021: Spider-Man: No Way Home; Crossover multiverse film, Dr. Strange second lead
Dec 2021: Guardians of the Galaxy: Holiday Special (D+ Film); lead up to Guardians 3, but can watch without it.
Feb 2022: Black Panther: Wakanda Forever; essentially unchanged
Mar 2022: Ms. Marvel (D+ Show); a potential Young Avenger, X-Men, Captain Marvel tease
May 2022: Guardians of the Galaxy Vol 3; wraps up their story, leaving room for more cosmic teams (ie Fantastic 4)
Oct 2022: **WandaVision Season 2 (D+ Show) Combines Agatha show ideas, illustrates how Wanda becomes a villain.
Mar 2023: The Marvels; Ties together Ms. Marvel and some WandaVision elements, more X-Men teases
May 2023: **Dr. Strange in the Multiverse of Madness; Avengers-level film with Counsel of Kang teaser.
July 2023: What If? (D+ Show); Essentially unchanged, a tangential segue into more multiverse stories of Phase 5
Oct 2023: Loki Season 2 (D+ Show); Essentially unchanged
-------------------------------------------------

Cut from the slate:
Black Widow
The Eternals
Thor: Love and Thunder
Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania
Moonknight (D+ Show)
She-Hulk (D+ Show)
Hawkeye (D+ Show)
Captain America and the Winter Soldier (D+ Show)
Secret Invasion (D+ Show)
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Well, as long as Disney keeps starting $150+million dollar film projects... they better figure out what customers are going to pay for projects that big if not the General Population... because niches can't support film slates that big that and support an entire film division that has to deliver results to the parent company.
I think they’re identifying niches. Hopefully they can find enough overlap to make a profitable film!
Disney isn't community theater - they have a boss that is expecting revenue and profit margins year over year. They have to find the intersection of their creative aspirations along with their business obligations.


Honestly I can't recall any casual interaction in the last 10+ years these projects have been prolific that someone has told me the new film was some gateway for them. Probably the closest I could believe that would be all the way back to the Tim Burton Alice film.. which is from a different era of remakes entirely, before Disney went on their diversity kick.
It’s not just a “diversity kick.” It’s the move to streaming, the telling of new kinds of stories, developing fandoms, etc. When you reduce it to “a diversity kick,” you oversimplify (which, in my opinion, leads to bad conclusions).
You believe they are using these projects as ways as a form of 'outreach' or connecting new generations.
Yeah. Sorta.
TV films, Disney Channel Originals, and direct to VHS used to be the size projects to help run those kinds of iterative works... now we're working with projects that need to be top 5 movies of the year to even be successful?? Maybe they're using the wrong tools here...
Those tools really did work (they’re likely responsible for creating many fans like us!), but those are not going to work for the next generation. I agree they need better tools, but the way forward isn’t to dust off what worked before.
Well... first step of any marketing plan is to identify your addressable market and how much you think you can capture. Disney is spending billions and not getting the return. So maybe they don't know how to target the audience as well as they thought?
Or maybe they have tons of data showing that the legacy audience isn’t viable moving forward, and that catering to that legacy audience is hurting their prospects with emerging audiences. This is how I understand what I’ve been seeing/hearing from the company, anyway.
Sorry, but ever time I read your statement... I can't stop thinking about these misguided efforts... like 90s hip hop mickey
Right. And I bet we can think of hundreds of examples like that of Disney trying to be hip/cool/relevant. Some of those actually worked! So why would we think Disney should ride or die with our preferred strategy, style, content, or format?
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Apparently The Marvels is only about an hour and forty five minutes long. Unless it gets uniform bad reviews, I might go see it on Thursday.

In non Disney news, I saw The Holdovers tonight and it was absolutely wonderful. Multiple Oscar nominations are in its future including Best Picture.
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
It’s not just a “diversity kick.”

Just look at the films they made for the live action remakes pre2015 vs the ones after. Outside the cgi ones it is a dramatic change in the films reworking the casts and characters. This wasn’t just live action… there was a obvious shift in high visibility, significant character casting and more.

Those tools really did work (they’re likely responsible for creating many fans like us!), but those are not going to work for the next generation. I agree they need better tools, but the way forward isn’t to dust off what worked before.

I think the key word in my point was ‘size’. Those where all examples of video goto market paths that were far less expensive, and were able to be marketed cheaply by the company. You can afford to scale horizontally and be risky when you don’t have so much tied up into it.

Contrast that with what disney was doing spending more than major films on really risky streaming projects lime shehulk. The motivation that enabled that kind of decision clearly was not sound business wise. You can’t convince me disney’s new ‘data’ on audiences projected a product like that would be justified by sales.
Or maybe they have tons of data showing that the legacy audience isn’t viable moving forward, and that catering to that legacy audience is hurting their prospects with emerging audiences. This is how I understand what I’ve been seeing/hearing from the company, anyway.

Well how long do you ride that horse before you accept tbe signals your paying customers are sending?

Right. And I bet we can think of hundreds of examples like that of Disney trying to be hip/cool/relevant. Some of those actually worked! So why would we think Disney should ride or die with our preferred strategy, style, content, or format?
I’m just saying their ‘data’ as you keep referring isn’t flawless either.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Just look at the films they made for the live action remakes pre2015 vs the ones after. Outside the cgi ones it is a dramatic change in the films reworking the casts and characters. This wasn’t just live action… there was an obvious shift in high visibility, significant character casting and more.
It’s ok not to like the newer approach. But if someone is critical and primarily focuses on the gender/race/ethnicity of the characters (or the director), or seems to dismiss the film out of hand, it seems like preconceived biases might be at play.
I think the key word in my point was ‘size’. Those were all examples of video goto market paths that were far less expensive, and were able to be marketed cheaply by the company. You can afford to scale horizontally and be risky when you don’t have so much tied up into it.
It’s tricky. If they spend far less on a film that features a person of color or a woman, it’s going to come across as not really giving them full support. But if they give full budgets and fans don’t come out for reasons that have little to do with the content of the actual film, what’s the solution? I think for Iger, it’s going to be smaller budgets.
Contrast that with what disney was doing spending more than major films on really risky streaming projects lime shehulk. The motivation that enabled that kind of decision clearly was not sound business wise. You can’t convince me disney’s new ‘data’ on audiences projected a product like that would be justified by sales.
I’m sure in hindsight they’ve reconsidered how much they spent on She-Hulk. But they were going all-in on D+ and didn’t want to hamstring a new concept. On paper, an Ally McBeal meets
Well how long do you ride that horse before you accept tbe signals your paying customers are sending?
I don’t think the paying customers are a single, pleasable block of people anymore. There isn’t a legacy audience to go back to.
I’m just saying their ‘data’ as you keep referring isn’t flawless either.
Yeah, I don’t think it’s flawless. But whatever the data is, it must be compelling if Disney would risk so much on creating content that they know isn’t likely to appeal to legacy fans, don’t you think?
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
But why blame me if something, clearly not directed at me, doesn't perform? Shouldn't the blame be put on the people who are the "primary exclusive audience"?

If The Marvels flops it will be because the 170 Million females in America didn't want to see it nearly as much as they wanted to see Barbie or Taylor Swift a few months ago.

So a flop for The Marvels will be the fault of the women of America who didn't flock to theaters to see an inclusive story of female empowerment, with badass kittens and a Freaky Friday vibe. Or something.

How about going after the people here who vilified the people who weren't fans of mermaid and didn't see it. All while not supporting it themselves. But that won't happen because it doesn't help the anti diversity narrative.

That fun little twist to the story was absolutely fascinating to me. At least I am honest and say I rarely see movies in theaters ever, instead of accusing different cultures and countries of being racist for not seeing the same movie I also chose not to see.
 

Indy_UK

Well-Known Member
I also think that with the speed Marvel are churning out these TV shows and Movies, casual fans are getting left behind so because they aren't up to date on the interconnected story, think there's no point going to see it.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Just look at the films they made for the live action remakes pre2015 vs the ones after. Outside the cgi ones it is a dramatic change in the films reworking the casts and characters. This wasn’t just live action… there was an obvious shift in high visibility, significant character casting and more.
That. Is. Reality.

And they started reflecting reality far too late. Catch up.
 

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
That. Is. Reality.

And they started reflecting reality far too late. Catch up.
With the exception of strong female characters…it’s not a question of “catching up”…it’s really proportionality. That’s what is playing out in the business results.

At least in the US and the “nato” market.

Have awesome…kick $&@ characters with African/ Asian descent. I’ll sign up.

But it’s not 50%…and like it or not…that influences how humans receive things.

They really need to sweep the decks, cut the crap, and make GOOD movies. Good movies with all races/genders of characters. Including white males.

That’s the problem…they’re making garbage.

For really rich and famous management -
The Walt Disney company makes really dumb decisions at times.

So Hollywood was a
Corrupt old boys network for 100 years and needs to get with the times…no argument…let’s do it.

But you can’t do DEI for 80% of your slate in 2023 and have it “balance” 1955…when Bogey was calling Kate Hepburn a “broad”

Just make good material…hire people with passion to tell stories across the spectrum…not mouthpieces for stock obsessed analysts. Like rob marshal - frankly - cause that’s where they parked him now.

And for GOD’s sake…put somebody in charge at Lucas film who doesn’t have his/her head planted in their colon and make something exciting?
…ok…that was a tangent….but still needs to be done.
 
Last edited:

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom