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

[BuddyThomas]

I think it’s important when one reads a review like this to remember, as has been stated in this forum, that a feature film’s director has no responsibility nor impact on a film’s quality, audience reception, or global box office performance.

“The arrival of a solid contender for the worst Marvel film yet will do little to dispel suggestions that this cinematic universe is disappearing up its own black hole. To say The Marvels is hard to watch would be to risk understatement. It’s not just that it’s not very good. It is hard to watch in the sense that a tree is hard to defibrillate.

This chaotic, ugly, incoherent picture barely seems intended for exhibition. The horrible purple CGI. The characters magically swapping locations. The long breaks for utterly fruitless exposition. Our brains are not sufficiently evolved – or perhaps they are too evolved – to make sense of this audiovisual chop suey.“

That's one (1) review. It is pretty evenly split on Rotten Tomatoes at the moment, between critics who love it or hate it.

 

[_caleb]

Disney's film strategies have changed in several ways over the last few years because the landscape of the industry has changed. I'm not sure why there isn't a greater degree of acknowledgement that of all that's changed:

• Home cinema technology (many home setups rival theaters)
• The pandemic changed habits around public gatherings (we don't like to put on pants if we can help it)
• Streaming (people want to watch on-demand and on devices)
• Marvel use to be a plucky little comic book brand. Now, the
• For entertainment, audiences watch spoiler-laden fan analyses of films
• Every aspect of every film is scrutinized more than ever
• Audiences are extremely fractured along ideological lines
• Disney's costs for making a movie have gone way up (their own doing), but lower budgets are viewed as Disney not being fully supportive
• Disney's reach is multi-cultural and international. Audiences are more diverse, have more options, and have greater social sensitivity than ever
• Audiences are desensitized to special effects or fancy marketing, but our standards for these are also much higher

I mean, it's hardly the same business as it used to be! I'd like to see the discussion about Disney at the box office include more about the new realties Disney faces and how these might require different approaches than whatever used to work.

 

[Disney Irish]

An article by our very own DisneyIrish!

Not even close, but glad to know I take up space in your head for free.

 

[DCBaker]

Bob Iger on "improving the output and economics of our film studios”.

“To achieve this, we are focusing heavily on the core brands and franchises that fuel all of our businesses and reducing output overall, to enable us to concentrate on fewer projects and improve quality while continuing our efforts around the creation of fresh and compelling original IP,” Iger said. “I’m devoting considerably more of my time to this with the goal of improving returns, always seeking to exceed the level of creative excellence audiences expect from Disney.”

Disney Now in “Building” Phase, Bob Iger Says, Outlining New Areas of Focus

Disney+ added 7 million core subscribers in the quarter, which also saw the company report its earnings in a new format that breaks out ESPN.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[flynnibus]

Huh? What hate? I’m assuming you aren’t some hateful person.

You replied "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"

Your assuming by simply pointing out a difference in film making, I am somehow being triggered by "preconceived biases". No, it's called BEING OBSERVANT. There has been a clear acceleration of Disney's Diversity efforts in it's films - this is indisputable. I mean, Disney even had an executive officer tasked to deal with this company wide. To point out there is a change in product is not the viewer being too sensitive - it's an actual change made by the company and publicly acknowledged as an initiative. This is not a butthurt fan - This is simple history.

You boiled it down to a “diversity kick.” To me, this suggests that you have a problem with diversity. Sorry if I misunderstood.

Because it's far easier to address the pivot with a clear label then have draw out what we all already know - Disney made a conscious effort to promote these initiatives.

The change in films from Tim Burton's Alice... is very obvious vs films like TLM and Mulan.

If Hallmark movies used to be the biggest blockbusters of all time but then tried to shift toward greater inclusion and diversity, this might work better as an analogy.

It still works - Disney's smaller budget projects were still a thing concurrently with blockbuster films. The 'shift' here has been to focus on the blockbuster sized projects. They simply need to go back to what they were already doing before.

I mean, American moviegoing is trending downward, theater chains aren’t doing great, and streaming is a new competition.

I don’t think legacy audience exists as a single group anymore; it’s been fractured into a thousand smaller groups with little overlap in interest and spending habits. Again, my theory is that Disney knows this and has been risking everything to try to position itself for whatever is next.

You're confusing the tool of consumption with the audience itself. Just because people aren't going to movies the same doesn't mean the audience is gone.. it means the audience has changed how it consumes. Those people still want their entertainment, they are just purchasing through different avenues. They are still there as the addressable market - they just have to be reached differently.

By blurring the theatre topic with your diversity initative points you're muddying everything up... making it sound like 'the old audience doesn't exist anymore' - They do, they just aren't paying to be in a theater.

 

[TP2000]

I know, no one cares about reviews, but wow, that Irish Times one that's flying all over the place is hilarious.
The Marvels review: The Marvel Cinematic Universe disappears up its own black hole

Maybe they don't have access to Twitter in Ireland and they didn't see all the Tweets that Mr. Penguin posted for us?

The movie critic at the Irish Times should read all those glowing Tweets about The Marvels written by 40 year old adults living in basements, and then review the movie again. It might help.

 

[flynnibus]

Why argue in the extremes, though?

Because absurd retorts deserve equally extreme responses.

 

[Robbiem]

Bob Iger on "improving the output and economics of our film studios”.

“To achieve this, we are focusing heavily on the core brands and franchises that fuel all of our businesses and reducing output overall, to enable us to concentrate on fewer projects and improve quality while continuing our efforts around the creation of fresh and compelling original IP,” Iger said. “I’m devoting considerably more of my time to this with the goal of improving returns, always seeking to exceed the level of creative excellence audiences expect from Disney.”

Disney Now in “Building” Phase, Bob Iger Says, Outlining New Areas of Focus

Disney+ added 7 million core subscribers in the quarter, which also saw the company report its earnings in a new format that breaks out ESPN.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

does this mean new movies will have more trees?

 

[TP2000]

A “sub-$50M” opening forecast has made an appearance.

Weekend Box Office Forecast: THE MARVELS and JOURNEY TO BETHLEHEM - Boxoffice​

To review, here is how the box office projections have evolved over the past three weeks for The Marvels, based on the data and analytics done by Box Office Pro.

Opening Weekend Box Office Projections for The Marvels

October 19th = Opening Weekend $50 to $75 Million
October 26th = Opening Weekend $46 to $67 Million
November 2nd = Opening Weekend $45 to $62 Million
November 8th = Opening Weekend $35 to $49 Million

Boxoffice

Boxoffice is the world’s premiere source of information about the global cinema industry and has provided exclusive news and numbers to the film industry since 1920.

www.boxofficepro.com

 

[flynnibus]

I’m not judging anyone. I’m hoping we might all reflect a bit on why we think/feel/believe the way we do. For me, it’s interesting to explore what motivates us. I don’t see how that’s judgmental.

Because you are questioning people's motivations with zero basis.

It's like someone saying... "I would never vote for Hillary Clinton"
And you responding "well maybe there is some predetermined biases there..."

You're basically suggesting they are sexist or some other form of inability to make their own rational conclusions purely based on their conclusion. Instead of respecting that maybe the person simply doesn't like her politics after her 20+ years as a Senator and Presidential Candidate?

Your statement isn't because of some other hints.. prior behavior.. or anything suggestive of that bias.. but you're still making it solely based on a statement in isolation. Can you not see how your responses suggest horrible traits/behavior by the poster simply for stating a conclusion? One that might be shared by others of less objectivity, but by suggesting the poster might have something.. you're basically suggesting they are that thing. And absent of any substance, that is incredibly disrespectful. And to do it repeatedly to multiple posters.. well then that just comes off as dismissive of others compared to yourself.

Do you not think that it’s possible some fans don’t like diversity? Do you not think some haven’t thought through their motivations for not liking Disney’s current film strategies? Why do you find it threatening to ask these questions?

Sure it's possible for some to be biased... but when you keep suggesting people ARE, without merit, you're attacking their character and or intelligence.

I’m sorry you felt disrespected. I assure you I’ve tried to ask questions rather than tell anyone anything.

Ok, but please consider when you keep suggesting the same ugly behavior might be happening from someone, even when they've demonstrated no such behavior... just because they share an outcome with someone else.. You're making innuendo and it's not respectful of the person you are engaged with.

"I didn't like Barrack Obama"
Don't come back with logic like "you might be a racist, because many racists don't like Barrack Obama". That's the line of argument you're playing now.. and it's not logical, nor is it fair to the person you are engaged with.

 

[flynnibus]

I think people are just reacting to the words that you are typing.

Ok, paint me a villian for having the courage to say I just didn't like a movie. Clearly I'm sexist, racist, and everything else because I found a movie not entertaining.

If you want a recommendation... I suggest watching 1883 and 1923... unfortunately they are full of white people... so I guess that makes me an old guy who just can't change with the 'new audiences'.

 

[Tha Realest]

To review, here is how the box office projections have evolved over the past three weeks for The Marvels, based on the data and analytics done by Box Office Pro.

Opening Weekend Box Office Projections for The Marvels

October 19th = Opening Weekend $50 to $75 Million
October 26th = Opening Weekend $46 to $67 Million
November 2nd = Opening Weekend $45 to $62 Million
November 8th = Opening Weekend $35 to $49 Million

Boxoffice

Boxoffice is the world’s premiere source of information about the global cinema industry and has provided exclusive news and numbers to the film industry since 1920.

www.boxofficepro.com

Queue the “I don’t care how much these movies make, I liked it” brigade.
Meanwhile, Daddy is out there today saying stuff like this during earnings calls:

 

[flynnibus]

Bob Iger on "improving the output and economics of our film studios”.

“To achieve this, we are focusing heavily on the core brands and franchises that fuel all of our businesses and reducing output overall, to enable us to concentrate on fewer projects and improve quality while continuing our efforts around the creation of fresh and compelling original IP,” Iger said. “I’m devoting considerably more of my time to this with the goal of improving returns, always seeking to exceed the level of creative excellence audiences expect from Disney.”

Disney Now in “Building” Phase, Bob Iger Says, Outlining New Areas of Focus

Disney+ added 7 million core subscribers in the quarter, which also saw the company report its earnings in a new format that breaks out ESPN.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Personally I never bought into the 'watering down' issue. I love having a lot of Marvel content to pick from on D+...

We don't expect every film to be the best film ever.. why can't we accept some shows just aren't either? I understand from a business perspective they don't want the losses, but why as a fanbase are people so upset that Shehulk and Moon Knight sucked so bad? They suck.. just don't watch them and let the feedback loop do it's thing.

I'd rather they take 3-4 swings and get 2 or more great shows vs the tent pole strategy which they've proven time and time again to screw up.

 

[Tha Realest]

Queue the “I don’t care how much these movies make, I liked it” brigade.
Meanwhile, Daddy is out there today saying stuff like this during earnings calls:

View attachment 753322

Just to let this sink in, the next film in the most profitable franchise of all time, directed by an African American woman and starring a multicultural cast of women, premieres tomorrow and…

…he didn’t mention it.

 

[_caleb]

You replied "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"

Your assuming by simply pointing out a difference in film making, I am somehow being triggered by "preconceived biases". No, it's called BEING OBSERVANT. There has been a clear acceleration of Disney's Diversity efforts in it's films - this is indisputable. I mean, Disney even had an executive officer tasked to deal with this company wide. To point out there is a change in product is not the viewer being too sensitive - it's an actual change made by the company and publicly acknowledged as an initiative. This is not a butthurt fan - This is simple history.

I'm not denying that Disney has made intentional efforts to diversify their films, characters, cast, directors, etc. I'm saying that this is but one of many changes they've made in their moviemaking, and some around here only seem to focus (negatively) on the diversity part. I remain interested in exploring why that is.

Because it's far easier to address the pivot with a clear label then have draw out what we all already know - Disney made a conscious effort to promote these initiatives.

The change in films from Tim Burton's Alice... is very obvious vs films like TLM and Mulan.

Again, you chose to lump all of the changes to Disney's business(es) together as a "diversity kick." If you don't have a problem with diversity (and I believe you don't), why not call it something else? This made me curious.

It still works - Disney's smaller budget projects were still a thing concurrently with blockbuster films. The 'shift' here has been to focus on the blockbuster sized projects. They simply need to go back to what they were already doing before.

I believe Disney is convinced that "going back to what they were already doing before"–whether that entails going back to less diverse casts/directors, making less-geeky general-audience films, or even just slashing budgets– is a losing strategy. I think the business has gotten way more complex in just the last two years (see my other post about this if you're interested).

You're confusing the tool of consumption with the audience itself. Just because people aren't going to movies the same doesn't mean the audience is gone.. it means the audience has changed how it consumes. Those people still want their entertainment, they are just purchasing through different avenues. They are still there as the addressable market - they just have to be reached differently.

I think this is basically what I've been saying, except that there is no single audience. Changing consumer behavior is different (but related) to changes in the audience itself. I see both as major factors in Disney's current slump but key to its future success.

By blurring the theatre topic with your diversity initative points you're muddying everything up... making it sound like 'the old audience doesn't exist anymore' - They do, they just aren't paying to be in a theater.

Of course I think there are still loads of people out there who want to consume Disney's content, I'm saying I think the "old audience" doesn't exist as one single entity anymore, and therefore Disney cannot make a successful business of creating films that please all the fragments and fandoms that the "old audience" has broken into. And increasingly, what they do to please/appeal to some audiences actually ends up hurting them with other audiences. BTW, I think this has been the subtext of most of Iger's announcements about Disney+.

 

[TP2000]

Just to let this sink in, the next film in the most profitable franchise of all time, directed by an African American woman and starring a multicultural cast of women, premieres tomorrow and…

…he didn’t mention it.

Ouch.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Ok, paint me a villian for having the courage to say I just didn't like a movie. Clearly I'm sexist, racist, and everything else because I found a movie not entertaining.

If you want a recommendation... I suggest watching 1883 and 1923... unfortunately they are full of white people... so I guess that makes me an old guy who just can't change with the 'new audiences'.

Who exactly is painting you as a villain? Certainly not me. I’m just reading your words and responding to (some of) them. Same as others. That’s all.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Complete with the “I saw The Marvels at a completely sold out theater and the audience loved it and erupted in a 10-minute Cannes-like standing ovation!” kicker.

Yawn.

 

[Disney Irish]

Personally I never bought into the 'watering down' issue. I love having a lot of Marvel content to pick from on D+...

We don't expect every film to be the best film ever.. why can't we accept some shows just aren't either? I understand from a business perspective they don't want the losses, but why as a fanbase are people so upset that Shehulk and Moon Knight sucked so bad? They suck.. just don't watch them and let the feedback loop do it's thing.

I'd rather they take 3-4 swings and get 2 or more great shows vs the tent pole strategy which they've proven time and time again to screw up.

This I actually agree with, I'd rather have more than less. But I guess the take that its "less special" is what is often brought up when the "more content causing fatigue" stance is made.

 

[flynnibus]

Again, you chose to lump all of the changes to Disney's business(es) together as a "diversity kick." If you don't have a problem with diversity (and I believe you don't), why not call it something else? This made me curious.

I did not. You mentioned the live action remakes as a path to reach new audiences.. and I responded to that statement about the live action remakes

There is nothing there about 'lump all of the changes to Disney's business(es) together" -- It was a comment about the pivot of Disney's initatives with the subject at hand - the live action remakes. You're reading way more into that then what was said. I was stating ancedotally I've never seen the claim you made about the newer films impacting people in that way and contrasting the early live action remakes vs the later ones.

I believe Disney is convinced that "going back to what they were already doing before"–whether that entails going back to less diverse casts/directors, making less-geeky general-audience films, or even just slashing budgets– is a losing strategy. I think the business has gotten way more complex in just the last two years (see my other post about this if you're interested).

I already gave you examples of what I meant by 'going back to what they were doing before" -- and it was none of the things you just outlined. I gave specific examples of how Disney would leverage the different sized projects and publishing/distribution venues. Something that is even more accessible today with all the on-demand, DTC paths the company has.

Of course I think there are still loads of people out there who want to consume Disney's content, I'm saying I think the "old audience" doesn't exist as one single entity anymore, and therefore Disney cannot make a successful business of creating films that please all the fragments and fandoms that the "old audience" has broken into.

I think you are making false generalizations. The "old audience" was never as uniform as you made it out. The audience that loved Look Who's Talking isn't necessarily the same audience as who loved High School Musical... or Lilo and Stitch.. Disney has been serving multiple demographics through multiple distribution schemes for decades. Disney didn't have to 'please all the fragments' with each project... and most weren't even aware of all the different products.

From the 80s onward, they had a very diverse portfolio that had some generalizations people could assume about a Disney product.

The issues like Pixar not finding the broad appeal for films like Elemental or Turning Red compared to previous projects like the Incredibles or Toy Story, etc do not have to do with the death of the theaters, or the rise of streaming, or customers changing consumption. They are misses from the product. They could put Turning Red on ABC for free tomorrow and promote the hell out of it -- it's not going to turn into the Incredibles or Finding Nemo.