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

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Because you are questioning people's motivations with zero basis.
I'm asking posters to question their own motivations. And the basis is what they post here in the discussion.
It's like someone saying... "I would never vote for Hillary Clinton"
And you responding "well maybe there is some predetermined biases there..."
Yeah, I suppose it is. Is this a problem?
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?
I mean, if this were a political discussion board, that seems like it'd be an interesting discussion to have.
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.
I'm not sure what horrible traits I've suggested of anyone, but I can imagine what you mean. Would you prefer I not ask posters why they like/don't like certain Disney movies? The only thing we have to go on is what's posted here. If someone posts an opinion and I ask why they hold that opinion, and then they respond in a way that raises even more questions for me, how somehow dismissive?
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.
Right. And because I agree that it's possible for some to be biased (consciously or otherwise), I find it interesting to ask about that. That's not an attack, it's discussion. I try to engage in good faith, responding to what people actually post, and asking questions because I find it interesting.
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'm not sure what ugly behavior I've suggested. I try to be polite and respectful.
"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.
Hmm. I think it would be a perfectly logical question to ask (if we were on a political site). I guess we just see things differently (which is why I mentioned ideologies earlier in the thread). I don't see how asking questions and discussing motivations is the same as "suggesting
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
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.
We had that thinking when Star Wars came back... when the SE editions were released it was a whole event... because we had no star wars for so long.

But know what... When watching Bad Batch or Rogue One... I never think to myself "man, I wish I had to wait longer for something like this to have come out" :D
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
We had that thinking when Star Wars came back... when the SE editions were released it was a whole event... because we had no star wars for so long.

But know what... When watching Bad Batch or Rogue One... I never think to myself "man, I wish I had to wait longer for something like this to have come out" :D
I agree, but the "fatigue" argument is brought up all the time. I'm getting fatigue just from that!
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
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.
Maybe. I'm not saying the old audience was uniform, just that enough of them were willing to pay for the same movies. Now (and this is my theory), there's no way to reliably make films that will resonate with so many.
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.
Sounds like we disagree!
 

ABQ

Well-Known Member
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.
There was one very brief mentioning of it, almost in passing. But what's a real issue is the only other Marvel movie mentioned was Deadpool3, also in passing, as something in the forward looking portion of the call and , if released in 2024 at all, might make it to cinemas by Christmas. Pretty barren movie schedule next year, with pretty much nothing from Wish till.....April?
 

flynnibus

Premium Member
I don't see how asking questions and discussing motivations is the same as "suggesting
You ask... you get an answer... and your response to every answer was akin to "well maybe there is something more..."

You're not accepting people's answers but instead glossing over them to suggest maybe there is some other bias instead.

You keep insisting there must be some motivation behind their conclusion. Sometimes something just doesn't resonate with someone - there doesn't have to be some bias behind it. When people bring up reasons, you just skip past them to keep trying to drug up motivations. If I didn't like the pace of a film, or the character design, or the vfx, or if it simply failed to keep me engaged... these are not topics that need a evaluation of biases. But instead you gloss over those kinds of responses to keep suggesting there is something deeper or darker behind someone's dislike for a film.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
You ask... you get an answer... and your response to every answer was akin to "well maybe there is something more..."

You're not accepting people's answers but instead glossing over them to suggest maybe there is some other bias instead.

You keep insisting there must be some motivation behind their conclusion. Sometimes something just doesn't resonate with someone - there doesn't have to be some bias behind it. When people bring up reasons, you just skip past them to keep trying to drug up motivations. If I didn't like the pace of a film, or the character design, or the vfx, or if it simply failed to keep me engaged... these are not topics that need a evaluation of biases. But instead you gloss over those kinds of responses to keep suggesting there is something deeper or darker behind someone's dislike for a film.
What if all of a critics criticisms are related to issues of identity?
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
Well.. the films are available for free for Disney's core audience from the comfort of their couch.. and still aren't as popular as their peers. I think the results speak for themselves.
I can see several ways streaming had to do with Elemental and Turning Red not doing as well as the Incredibles and Toy Story. In fact, this is a good example of the point I've been trying to make.

The Incredibles and Toy Story were part of the pre-streaming movie business that thrived on scarcity, relative lack of competition, and disconnected (from one another) audiences. They were event movies (from a time when movies could reliably be considered events) that benefitted from the (then) novelty of computer animation. Back then, kids watched the DVDs on a loop.

Elemental and Turning Red, on the other hand, were part of Disney's strategy to engage diversified audiences who have endless entertainment options, deep fandoms, and and entire industry built around criticism. They were movies part of Disney's attempt to get a lot of content onto Disney+ quickly as they tried to build their subscriber base. Today, people watch movies like these while scrolling Instagram.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
and some around here only seem to focus (negatively) on the diversity part. I remain interested in exploring why that is.
For me it always seems to be where the conversation ends up. If I question a part of a film that has had diversity debates, it's inevitable that someone will turn it into a comment about diversity, even though what I posted has nothing to do with that. And of course I then get sucked into a back and fourth. I get that there's some who are just out for Disneys blood. But it's like I said earlier, I have a pretty strong track record on what I've supported. It's not some, Mua ha ha! I've fooled them for 20yrs, my anti-diversity will never be detected now!
I agree, but the "fatigue" argument is brought up all the time. I'm getting fatigue just from that!
Fatigue is an issue, just not in the generalized way it's brought up. There isn't star wars or marvel fatigue because there's too much. There's fatigue of inconsistent and mediocre content. That's what it all boils down to in my opinion. People like quality entertainment. Quality stuff = no fatigue.
 

Andrew C

You know what's funny?
Fatigue is an issue, just not in the generalized way it's brought up. There isn't star wars or marvel fatigue because there's too much. There's fatigue of inconsistent and mediocre content. That's what it all boils down to in my opinion. People like quality entertainment. Quality stuff = no fatigue.
Interesting argument. Never thought of it that way. You don’t think maybe there is a little of both?
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Interesting argument. Never thought of it that way. You don’t think maybe there is a little of both?
Yes. There was always going to be some letdown in my opinion. Especially after the uber epicness of the infinity saga. You had a series of 20+ films culminating with extremely high stakes. It was going to be hard to follow that. I think you were going to lose some to fatigue just because they didn't want to mentally invest in another saga. But I think that there were plenty of people still jonesing for content. Myself being one of them. But phase 4 was such a hodgepodge of content, with more mediocre than great, that even I have struggled with it.

As for star wars, I really think it's just mediocrity fatigue. Season one of Mando showed me that even after the quality split with the sequels, people came back hard to the franchise. It became a cultural phenomenon just like the OT.
 

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Yes. There was always going to be some letdown in my opinion. Especially after the uber epicness of the infinity saga. You had a series of 20+ films culminating with extremely high stakes. It was going to be hard to follow that. I think you were going to lose some to fatigue just because they didn't want to mentally invest in another saga. But I think that there were plenty of people still jonesing for content. Myself being one of them. But phase 4 was such a hodgepodge of content, with more mediocre than great, that even I have struggled with it.

As for star wars, I really think it's just mediocrity fatigue. Season one of Mando showed me that even after the quality split with the sequels, people came back hard to the franchise. It became a cultural phenomenon just like the OT.
I think people wouldn't mind how directionless the MCU felt if the individual projects were better.

Spider-Man: No Way Home and Guardians of the Galaxy 3 have been the only MCU movies post-Endgame that seem universally loved, though Shang-Chi got generally positive reception. Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness and Eternals were both very polarizing. Thor: Love and Thunder and Quantumania were despised. Wakanda Forever was decent enough, but was such a downer that it's not one that generates the repeat viewership of most Marvel movies.

As for TV shows, only WandaVision and Loki were big hits that left a huge mark on pop culture. Hawkeye and Moon Knight were both good, but fell short of greatness, falling apart near the end. Ms. Marvel had incredibly low viewership and She Hulk got EXTREME hatred (although I kinda enjoyed it). Secret Invasion was the worst-reviewed Marvel show to date.
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Ya'll think movie box office is complicated? Try Broadway.

INSIDE BROADWAY’S $1 MILLION NUT CASES
by Philip Boroff

"Water for Elephants, the circus-themed new musical, will be under pressure to make a big splash when it arrives on Broadway. Scheduled to open March 21, 2024, at the Imperial Theatre, it will need to sell at least $960,000 of tickets each week to cover operating expenses, according to an internal budget prepared over the summer and reviewed by Broadway Journal. (The sales here refer to “gross gross,” the weekly figure that the trade association the Broadway League makes public, which includes credit card commissions and other fees the production doesn’t keep.)

Joining the million dollar club at the Broadway box office used to be a matter of prestige. Today, it’s often a requirement for a show’s survival.

The 2011 $75 million musical Spider-Man: Turn off the Dark was a rarity for having operating expenses of about $1 million a week. Thanks to a resurgence of spectacles, as well as overall inflation and recent labor contracts that contribute to higher costs, musicals depending on weekly sales close to seven figures are commonplace.
High operating costs put downward pressure on the length of a run, at a time when theatergoing hasn’t returned to pre-pandemic levels. With 2023-24 nearly half-over, attendance has improved from a year ago but is still off 14 percent from Broadway's busiest season, 2018-19, according to League data.

Ticket prices, generally speaking, haven’t kept pace with rising expenses. So far this season, the average seat has cost $122, down from $128 in the first half of 2018-19. Producer Cameron Mackintosh cited The Phantom of the Opera’s high running costs and underperforming box office (until its final seven months) in closing it in April after 35 years.

Cabaret, the incoming Kander & Ebb London transfer starring Eddie Redmayne as emcee and Gayle Rankin as Sally Bowles, must gross $1.16 million a week to break even, according to a recoupment chart created by the production. The budget document includes the standard disclaimer that numbers are estimates and subject to change. Lead producer Ambassador Theatre Group is making the most of the five months Redmayne has committed to the New York production, which begins previews April 1 at the August Wilson Theatre. A pair of “Pre-show stage side dining experience” seats, which includes light food and champagne, cost as much as $1551.98, depending on the performance.

Cabaret’s being capitalized for up to $26 million — per a filing last month with the Securities and Exchange Commission — largely to fund the transformation of the August Wilson into a Weimar-era nightclub. (I previously reported that the show cost a mere $24.25 million, based on earlier budget documents.) Cabaret‘s long-term success depends on the appeal of Redmayne and Rankin’s replacements and whether theatergoers view attending this Kit Kat Club as an event unto itself.

Merrily We Roll Along — produced by ATG subsidiary Sonia Friedman Productions — has a weekly nut of about $950,000, according to a production estimate. But with its manageable $13 million capitalization and status as the smash hit of the fall, the Stephen Sondheim and George Furth musical should recoup well before its scheduled close on March 24. Its endearing lead actors Daniel Radcliffe, Lindsay Mendez and Jonathan Groff have helped sell seats priced as high as $799.

A car, albeit an iconic DeLorean, is a star of Back to the Future, which must gross at least $980,000 to break even each week, according to a recoupment chart from the production. Since opening in August, it’s averaged $1.2 million at the box office, putting it on track to recoup its $23.5 million capitalization — in a little over two years, if ticket sales sustain that level.

Water for Elephants is based on the 2006 novel by Sara Gruen and follows the hit 2011 movie starring Reese Witherspoon and Robert Pattinson. Jessica Stone (Kimberly Akimbo) is directing the musical, which will star Grant Gustin (CW Network’s The Flash) and Isabelle McCalla (The Prom). Capitalized at $25 million, including a $3 million cash reserve, it’s produced by Peter Schneider, a former Disney production executive involved with The Lion King on Broadway.

It’s telling that one of the brightest commercial prospects of the fall is the audience-friendly Gutenberg! The Musical! Yet another ATG production, it has two stars (Josh Gad and Andrew Rannells), two understudies (Russell Daniels and Sam Hartley), three musicians and a celebrity cameo. The box office breakeven is $638,000. When factoring in a state tax credit, it’s almost a sure thing that investors get their money back, especially with grosses on an upward trajectory.

An obvious template for Broadway’s big-budget entrants is Wicked. Its weekly expenses are well over $1 million and its $14 million capitalization ($23 million inflation-adjusted) was quite risky way back in 2003. The show announced recouping in December 2004.
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member

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

Back
Top Bottom