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

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
The problem with posting individual reviews as proof of quality is people could go back and forth all day swapping good and bad reviews, currently it’s at 59% positive and 41% negative on rotten tomato’s, there’s lots of “proof” available to both sides.

I saw nothing but positive reviews last night and came to the conclusion this looked like a sleeper hit, only to find out they were cherry picked to only show the good reviews. It still might be a hit, but we won’t know that from a handful of reviews selected because they say what the poster wants them to say.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
The problem with posting individual reviews as proof of quality is people could go back and forth all day swapping good and bad reviews, currently it’s at 59% positive and 41% negative on rotten tomato’s, there’s lots of “proof” available to both sides.

I saw nothing but positive reviews last night and came to the conclusion this looked like a sleeper hit, only to find out they were cherry picked to only show the good reviews. It still might be a hit, but we won’t know that from a handful of reviews selected because they say what the poster wants them to say.
Its actually higher now -

1699513516346.png


Which only shows that initial reviews aren't always indicative of the overall consensus of critics, only the ones that click Submit the fastest.

We'll see where it ends up by Friday.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
Okay. I'll play.

Just exactly who is this "new audience" who is losing DIS a lot of $?

Who exactly is the audience you would prefer DIS to cater to?

Please be specific.
I'm curious about this, too but I bet Disney would be willing to pay real money if anyone could tell them because they sure don't seem to be finding this mystery group - whoever they are - in big enough numbers to make anything work if this "new" audience is who they're expecting to rely on for their tent-pole features.

I'd think most audiences, regardless of demographics, would like good movies but we live in a world where they're still making (money off of) FATF movies so what do I know? 🤷‍♂️
 
Last edited:

MrPromey

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.
Do you have any insight into where all this money is going?

Are cast being paid that much?

Are the creators/producers getting fat contracts?

Is it the cost of location?

I know the development of sets and practical effects for some of these are high but that can't be the case with all of them.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
I posted this previously and naturally, all the haters ignored it. I think I am actually going to go see it tomorrow.
It’s at 60%. Which is below The Flash. Which was an embarrassing spectacle. And the Marvels will do worse in its opening weekend.

We ignored it out of pity. It’s a pathetic showing.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Thanks for the history lesson. Phase 4 ended with Black Panther Wakanda.
Oh I know, I was calling out Iger for blaming Chapek for too much content. Iger greenlit a TON of content from Marvel, and now wants to act like Chapek wasn't just continuing exactly what he was doing.
 

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
The newest trailer is less “girl buddy movie” and more “what comes after endgame” with a promise to see the moment that changes everything.



Might go tonight if we can get out of some housewarming thing.
 

LSLS

Well-Known Member
The newest trailer is less “girl buddy movie” and more “what comes after endgame” with a promise to see the moment that changes everything.



Might go tonight if we can get out of some housewarming thing.

See, that tells me they completely misjudged what brings the fans out (changing the entire plot shown in the trailer). So question is, which is more representative? I'll see it either way (in no small part because my 11 year old is super excited for another Captain Marvel movie), and honestly I expect to like it, but I'd be lying if I said I don't find the numbers fascinating right now.
 

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
See, that tells me they completely misjudged what brings the fans out (changing the entire plot shown in the trailer). So question is, which is more representative? I'll see it either way (in no small part because my 11 year old is super excited for another Captain Marvel movie), and honestly I expect to like it, but I'd be lying if I said I don't find the numbers fascinating right now.
All reports are that the first, humorous, Ms Marvel trailer is far more accurate. Which pleases me, because that’s absolutely what I like about Marvel. I guess most people are sky laser fans, however.
 

MrPromey

Well-Known Member
See, that tells me they completely misjudged what brings the fans out (changing the entire plot shown in the trailer). So question is, which is more representative? I'll see it either way (in no small part because my 11 year old is super excited for another Captain Marvel movie), and honestly I expect to like it, but I'd be lying if I said I don't find the numbers fascinating right now.

Yeah, this is what I was thinking too. Not speaking to the quality of the actual movie at all but this trailer looks like desperation from Disney doing a complete 180 on the marketing in the last minute to put out a trailer that's 15% clips and voiceover from previous movies with characters and plot-lines most people cared about and suggesting some major thing that is going to happen that is going to have some major impact on the MCU as a whole.

It's like "Okay that whole fun quirky buddy movie thing isn't working to get people excited so lets pull a little nostalgia and then tease they'll be missing something important from the overarching MCU story if they decide to skip this one - maybe that'll get butts in seats!"

I wanted to see it based on it looking like a fun movie.

If it had been marketed as this grand big thing, I'd want to see that, too.

But they just crossed the beams in the weirdest way - what the heck?

Again, Disney's desperation to drum up interest in a movie any way possible that seems to have bad buzz doesn't automatically make it a bad movie but as someone paying attention, it sure gives me pause.

I was planning to go, anyway, but honestly, all of this just makes me want to see it more to find out if it's good or a train wreak than because of my initial interest.

Somehow, I don't think that's what they were aiming for when they put out this last trailer.

I guess as long as they get my money it doesn't matter, though, right?
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom