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

[Casper Gutman]

This idea of needing a new audience makes no sense, what was wrong with the previous one that made them Billions?

What would be regressive about going back to the previous one that was comprised of men, women, white, black, asian, hispanic, straight, gay… aka everyone?

People act like the only people who went to the previous (billion dollar) movies were straight white men and that the previous movies didn’t appeal to anyone else, that’s completely false.

Why would a more diverse cast and crew limit that appeal? The assumption by some here (not necessarily you) is that films starring Pakistani girls appeal only to Pakistani girls, but films starring white men appeal to everyone.

 

[BuddyThomas]

This idea of needing a new audience makes no sense, what was wrong with the previous one that made them Billions?

What would be regressive about going back to the previous one that was comprised of men, women, white, black, asian, hispanic, straight, gay… aka everyone?

People act like the only people who went to the previous (billion dollar) movies were straight white men and that the previous movies didn’t appeal to anyone else, that’s completely false.

I must have missed the post that said their previous audience was composed only of straight white men. On the other hand, I unfortunately did not miss the countless other posts (many completely vile and now deleted) on this thread and various other threads, complaining about black mermaids, minorities in lead roles, and the inclusion of gay characters in blink and you miss them roles. Fun times.

 

[TP2000]

Lots of folks saying there’s something wrong with The Marvels as a film but not a lot of folks explaining what that is. When I ask for substantive things wrong with the film, posters point to box office or exit scores, which are absolutely not good measures of a films quality.

Well, to be fair, this is the thread about Disney At The Box Office, so we primarily discuss box office. There are likely to be conversations about the film quality itself over in The Marvels thread; stuff like character arcs, plotlines, special effects, funny moments and witty gags, setting up plotlines for future movies, hair and makeup, etc.

But here we are talking about box office. And the free market of global consumers failed to show up and buy a ticket for this movie. Thus, it's been labeled a "bomb" by the trade papers and industry media, and it is now on track to lose at least $100 Million for Disney.

After ‘The Marvels’ Bombs at the Box Office, What’s Next for the MCU?

"The Marvels" is a rare misfire for Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe.

variety.com

We’re told not to look at shifting audience patterns, that the problem can only be with the film.

The most interesting thing about shifting audience patterns is the apparent collapse in interest in this movie by Gen Z. The kids didn't want to see it apparently, and compared to Barbie or Taylor Swift or Freddy's, it was a demographic disaster for Marvel. They're now losing the kids, so what does that mean for the future?

So I ask again, what are the substantive problems with The Marvels and why are Disney’s critics so reluctant to articulate them?

From what we know of box office and demographic data on the first 6 days of The Marvels in theaters, the problems appear to be, off the top of my head;

• A movie no one asked for starring actresses very few people had interest in. There's Brie Larson, who is controversial herself but is at least a legit B List movie actress. Then there's two minor TV actresses that were either supporting characters in old shows (Teyonah Paris) or had their own show that flopped in the Nielsens, had little cultural impact, and has not been picked up for a second season (Iman Vellani). That's not a winning combo of box office draw.
• 
  
• A female focused story for a fan base that is majority male. Boys aged 14 to 28 don't want to see Beaches In Space, they want to see masculine driven stories with guys fighting it out with lots of explosions. And the girls in the movie should be really cute. The men stayed away from The Marvels, but the women stayed away too. So that's the women's fault for not supporting Marvel stories of female empowerment, right?
• 
  
• Marvel fatigue. Superhero fatigue. The strategy that Bob Iger and Kevin Feige set out for Marvel five years ago isn't working. It's been too much, too fast, and without coherent story strategy it seems. Call it the Curse of Disney+, which lost another $372 Million in just the past 90 days. But it's a strategy that seems to have imploded on itself. That isn't neccesarily the fault of The Marvels movie specifically, but that The Marvels was such an unloved and weakly received movie by the free market of global consumers just makes that strategy failure more clear.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There is no debate that they have a major strategic and business problem here…

How do I know?
Because when Flynn and I agree on anything…It’s so obvious that there’s no room for nuance…

We come at things from diametrically opposed angles. The yin and the yang are aligned here

 

[Chi84]

What would be regressive about going back to the previous one that was comprised of men, women, white, black, asian, hispanic, straight, gay… aka everyone?

Disney never rejected that audience. It definitely wants to make films that will appeal to the widest demographic.

 

[TalkingHead]

I saw it, its a great film and I expect it to win some awards.

But it still cost $200M (with no VFX) to make, plus $100M to market (using everyone's favorite guesstimate number), and that is a huge loss for a filmmaker that is usually pretty solid at the box office. Hmm, sound familiar....

Apple isn’t Disney. At least not yet.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

I must have missed the post that said their previous audience was composed only of straight white men. On the other hand, I unfortunately did not miss the countless other posts (many completely vile and now deleted) on this thread and various other threads, complaining about black mermaids, minorities in lead roles, and the inclusion of gay characters in blink and you miss them roles. Fun times.

I guess my question is who is this new audience people keep talking about?

And what was wrong with the previous one that made billions and was made up of everyone?

People keep mentioning Disney needing a new audience and I can’t fathom who that would be or why Disney would need one. They already had everyone.

 

[LittleBuford]

I guess my question is who is this new audience people keep talking about?

And what was wrong with the previous one that made billions and was made up of everyone?

People keep mentioning Disney needing a new audience and I can’t fathom who that would be or why Disney would need one. They already had everyone.

I personally don’t think Disney was/is in need of a new audience. But I do think Disney films stand to be more reflective of the diverse makeup of their audience.

 

[Chi84]

I guess my question is who is this new audience people keep talking about?

And what was wrong with the previous one that made billions and was made up of everyone?

People keep mentioning Disney needing a new audience and I can’t fathom who that would be or why Disney would need one. They already had everyone.

They can’t keep making the same films over and over again. They need new, original content or to re-make their older films in a way that will appeal to current audiences.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

There’s no question that demographics are changing and Hollywood can and should change with it…
Not debatable

The problem I have is mandating change in a specific calendar year(s)

Humans do not work that way…and trying to do it on a schedule often makes the process slower in the wash.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I personally don’t think Disney was/is in need of a new audience. But I do think Disney films stand to be more reflective of the diverse makeup of their audience.

So you want content/characters proportional with the audience in demographics?

…careful on that slope

 

[LittleBuford]

There’s no question that demographics are changing and Hollywood can and should change with it…
Not debatable

The problem I have is mandating change in a specific calendar year(s)

Humans do not work that way…and trying to do it on a schedule often makes the process slower in the wash.

To those of us waiting for our first gay lead (something that still seems a rather distant prospect), the “mandate” you speak of seems the very opposite of forced or accelerated. Whatever move towards diversity we’re seeing at Disney is decidedly incremental. Nor is it at all out of keeping with what other studios are doing or with Disney’s own approach pre-slump. If Frozen were released today, the usual suspects would pounce on it as another example of “pandering”.

 

[LittleBuford]

So you want content/characters proportional with the audience in demographics?

…careful on that slope

Not what I said!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Not what I said!

That’s actually my point…

It opens the doorway to that thought pattern…which creates a whole new set of problems…

 

[Disney Irish]

Apple isn’t Disney. At least not yet.

No one claimed it was.

I was talking specifically about a bankable filmmaker also losing hundreds of millions at the box office, showing the shift in audience.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

To those of us waiting for our first gay lead (something that still seems a rather distant prospect), the “mandate” you speak of seems the very opposite of forced or accelerated. Whatever move towards diversity we’re seeing at Disney is decidedly incremental. Nor is it at all out of keeping with what other studios are doing or with Disney’s own approach pre-slump. If Frozen were released today, the usual suspects would pounce on it as another example of “pandering”.

I was SPECIFICALLY drawing on my experience on a campus working on the gay rights movement in the 1990’s…

It didn’t apply to me…but I thought change was obvious/needed and put in a lot of effort.

What if taught me is “bust down the door” for change is a completely ridiculous concept. It’s buzzwords…but it doesn’t work in practice.

It happens with strategic plans…which determine their own timeframe.

Thanks to the political nonsense - and money - Disney is being mass rejected like it never has been before. Because they have no long game.

How to do a long game? Have a evans Captain story intermixed with a Marvels and a boseman (had it worked out better) Wakanda storyline

You’re “forcing change” but on familiar footing and over time that doesn’t get bubba in the hills after you.

If wish doesn’t perform well…I’ll tell you part of it will be cocoa-encanto-wish in rapid succession (relatively speaking) after emperors new groove and Saludos amigos in the prior 75 years…

And yes…that SUCKS…it does. But still…you get there. Just might take a little bit longer.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I was SPECIFICALLY drawing on my experience on a campus working on the gay rights movement in the 1990’s…

It didn’t apply to me…but I thought change was obvious/needed and put in a lot of effort.

What if taught me is “bust down the door” for change is a completely ridiculous concept. It’s buzzwords…but it doesn’t work in practice.

It happens with strategic plans…which determine their own timeframe.

Thanks to the political nonsense - and money - Disney is being mass rejected like it never has been before. Because they have no long game.

How to do a long game? Have a evans Captain story intermixed with a Marvels and a boseman (had it worked out better) Wakanda storyline

You’re “forcing change” but on familiar footing and over time that doesn’t get bubba in the hills after you.

If wish doesn’t perform well…I’ll tell you part of it will be cocoa-encanto-wish in rapid succession (relatively speaking) after emperors new groove and Saludos amigos in the prior 75 years…

And yes…that SUCKS…it does. But still…you get there. Just might take a little bit longer.

The actual content of the films you're listing, films like The Marvels, is very neutral and apolitical. That's why almost all of the criticism focuses on vague generalities with almost no reference to the actual filmic text.

What Disney's push for inclusion demonstrates is something any observer of American history should understand - any move towards expanded inclusivity, no matter how mild and gradual, is likely to be met with frantic, vitriolic resistance, especially in a moment like the one the country is currently experiencing. Remember, you're talking about a film franchise that includes THIRTY-TWO FILMS and has THREE that star female protagonists and THREE others that feature non-white protagonists. It would be hard to imagine more gradual change. No one's busting down any doors.

Letting "change happen at its own pace" is almost always a great way to ensure no change takes place. Disney is demonstrating change in the way most say they want to see it - its a private company pushing for inclusivity based on its perception of changing markets and producing content in which that diversity is organic to the stories and not forced or didactic. At some point, the position (not saying this is yours) "I don't mind more diversity in art, just so long as no one intentionally increases diversity in art," becomes absurd.

 

[Tha Realest]

Lots of folks saying there’s something wrong with The Marvels as a film but not a lot of folks explaining what that is. When I ask for substantive things wrong with the film, posters point to box office or exit scores, which are absolutely not good measures of a films quality. We’re told not to look at shifting audience patterns, that the problem can only be with the film. So I ask again, what are the substantive problems with The Marvels and why are Disney’s critics so reluctant to articulate them?

It has an Event Movie budget with TV stars from little watched series as lead actors. I’ve pointed this out repeatedly.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The actual content of the films you're listing, films like The Marvels, is very neutral and apolitical. That's why almost all of the criticism focuses on vague generalities with almost no reference to the actual filmic text.

What Disney's push for inclusion demonstrates is something any observer of American history should understand - any move towards expanded inclusivity, no matter how mild and gradual, is likely to be met with frantic, vitriolic resistance, especially in a moment like the one the country is currently experiencing. Remember, you're talking about a film franchise that includes THIRTY-TWO FILMS and has THREE that star female protagonists and THREE others that feature non-white protagonists. It would be hard to imagine more gradual change. No one's busting down any doors.

Letting "change happen at its own pace" is almost always a great way to ensure no change takes place. Disney is demonstrating change in the way most say they want to see it - its a private company pushing for inclusivity based on its perception of changing markets and producing content in which that diversity is organic to the stories and not forced or didactic. At some point, the position (not saying this is yours) "I don't mind more diversity in art, just so long as no one intentionally increases diversity in art," becomes absurd.

The big difference here is it’s a business that is in it only to make money…not a farm bill or a public school curriculum mandate.

So if 10 years ago they decided that a massive diversity push is their path…and the strategy is failing…they all should be fired.

And most have…time for the big fish

Results based business.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

And cats. Apparently, lots of cats.

View attachment 754539

Top right is a ragdoll…best pets ever