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

[LittleBuford]

How long will theatrical productions have to atone for the sins of the past?

I wouldn’t frame it in those terms. But as you say, we’re probably entering a topic beyond what’s permissible here.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I personally think it was both: she was eminently qualified for the job and her casting was meant to further inclusivity. Those things aren’t mutually exclusive in my view.

Like I said in a subsequent post, Mermaid was a bad example for me to choose because Bailey was excellent. But it's a question of focus. What is our raison d'être here? Is our goal to make money? Is our goal to delight and entertain? Is our goal to be agents of social change?

I'm certainly not arguing that Disney should be spending time, energy and resources to make sure they're being un-diverse, inequitable, and exclusionary. I'm saying they shouldn't be spending huge amounts of time, energy, and resources on these things at all. I want them laser-focused on quality and yes, I think there are instances where Disney has *sacrificed* quality for the sake of the social agenda. Why was Baymax shopping for tampons with a trans man? Why is the most beloved ride in theme park history being plastered over with a Louisiana salt mine? Why was Willow a medieval fantasy with the tone and tenor of a made-for-TV teen movie set in 2009 California? Why was She-Hulk a feminist screed that literally made "fans of superheroes" the villain?

No, diverse choices are not automatically bad choices. But an obsession with diversity is a distraction that pulls focus away from quality in the aggregate.

 

[_caleb]

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.

What I've been saying is that the "old" audience (that made them billions)no longer exist as a single entity, reliably pleasable with a single film. Now we see that it's actually a million smaller audiences, and some of those audiences are emotionally invested in Disney's failure as it appeals to others. You can't just "go back," because the entire landscape has changed.

I saw an interesting stat today that Marvel Phase 1 was 746 minutes of content spread over 5 years, phase 2 was 757 minutes of content spread over 3 years, phase 3 was 1500 minutes of content spread over 3 years, and phase 4 (including D+) was 3500 minutes of content over 2 years.

Marvel released more content in 2021/2022 than in the previous 12 years combined.

They theorized this has resulted in Marvel NOT feeling like event movies anymore, if you miss the latest movie or show it’s not a big deal because Marvel will likely release something new to watch next week.

Since the beginning of the MCU, the entire movie industry has radically changed. There is little point in comparing number of hours from 2008-2011 to the number of hours in the D+ era. Box office is losing relevance in the DTC era.

 

[LittleBuford]

Like I said in a subsequent post, Mermaid was a bad example for me to choose because Bailey was excellent. But it's a question of focus. What is our raison d'être here? Is our goal to make money? Is our goal to delight and entertain? Is our goal to be agents of social change?

I'm certainly not arguing that Disney should be spending time, energy and resources to make sure they're being un-diverse, inequitable, and exclusionary. I'm saying they shouldn't be spending huge amounts of time, energy, and resources on these things at all. I want them laser-focused on quality and yes, I think there are instances where Disney has *sacrificed* quality for the sake of the social agenda. Why was Baymax shopping for tampons with a trans man? Why is the most beloved ride in theme park history being plastered over with a Louisiana salt mine? Why was Willow a medieval fantasy with the tone and tenor of a made-for-TV teen movie set in 2009 California? Why was She-Hulk a feminist screed that literally made "fans of superheroes" the villain?

What puzzles me about this framing is that one never sees the opposite logic applied. There are plenty of bad shows and movies that lack an obvious “woke” scapegoat, and no-one ever blames their poor quality on a lack of diversity.

I suppose what I’m saying is that I don’t see the two as correlated. Whether something turns out to be good or bad does not depend on the diversity of its cast, and vice versa. One can pursue both aims—quality and diversity—simultaneously. As with any kind of entertainment, the results are going to vary.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

What puzzles me about this framing is that one never sees the opposite logic applied. There are plenty of bad shows and movies that lack an obvious “woke” scapegoat, and no-one ever blames their poor quality on a lack of diversity.

I suppose what I’m saying is that I don’t see the two as correlated. Whether something turns out to be good or bad does not depend on the diversity of its cast, and vice versa. One can pursue both aims—quality and diversity—simultaneously. As with any kind of entertainment, the results are going to vary.

I don't know what you do for a living, but I suspect you haven't spent much time in a hugely complex media conglomerate with the layers of bureaucracy and red tape of Disney. "Pursue diversity" literally means millions of dollars of cost, months of man-hours, focus groups, interdepartmental ing contests, consultants, and on and on. For every single production.

 

[_caleb]

Like I said in a subsequent post, Mermaid was a bad example for me to choose because Bailey was excellent. But it's a question of focus. What is our raison d'être here? Is our goal to make money? Is our goal to delight and entertain? Is our goal to be agents of social change?

I'm certainly not arguing that Disney should be spending time, energy and resources to make sure they're being un-diverse, inequitable, and exclusionary. I'm saying they shouldn't be spending huge amounts of time, energy, and resources on these things at all. I want them laser-focused on quality and yes, I think there are instances where Disney has *sacrificed* quality for the sake of the social agenda. Why was Baymax shopping for tampons with a trans man? Why is the most beloved ride in theme park history being plastered over with a Louisiana salt mine? Why was Willow a medieval fantasy with the tone and tenor of a made-for-TV teen movie set in 2009 California? Why was She-Hulk a feminist screed that literally made "fans of superheroes" the villain?

No, diverse choices are not automatically bad choices. But an obsession with diversity is a distraction that pulls focus away from quality in the aggregate.

Disney is thinking well beyond initial box office returns as it makes films. It's not a "social agenda," it's business. But it's not business to please the audience as it used to be.

I think of it like this: Disney had a huge hit in the Little Mermaid (sticking with your example). A timeless animated classic, really. With an enormous fan base. Now, Disney might ask, how can we add to (not replace) that content in such a way that continues to grow the brand and propel it forward in popularity with changing and emerging audiences?

Their answer: make a different version of the same movie! Diversify the cast and crew, tell it from a (slightly) different perspective, change any cultural aspects that might bother newer audiences, develop backstories, double down on what many people loved about the original. Now, there is more Mermaid to love and enjoyed by an even broader audience.

This has been the strategy for all the live-action remakes. Anyone who hates the remake still has the original. Anyone who thought the original was too (whatever) might enjoy the new one.

 

[LittleBuford]

I don't know what you do for a living, but I suspect you haven't spent much time in a hugely complex media conglomerate with the layers of bureaucracy and red tape of Disney. "Pursue diversity" literally means millions of dollars of cost, months of man-hours, focus groups, interdepartmental ing contests, consultants, and on and on. For every single production.

I don’t see how any of that is a hindrance to the production of good entertainment.

And I’ll note again that the opposite logic is never applied, which to me is very revealing. To take Lightyear as an example, had it lacked the blink-and-you’d-miss-it gay kiss, no-one would have ever have discussed its flaws in ideological terms; they would simply have concluded—rightly—that it’s a boring movie that could have been better written. But the presence of that fleeting kiss opened the door to the usual litany of complaints about “woke” this and “woke” that, and, well, you know the rest. By your own admission, you yourself fell into the same trap a little earlier when your brought up The Little Mermaid. In short, people are looking for an easy scapegoat, and diversity has unfortunately become the candidate of choice.

 

[erasure fan1]

In his defense, ANY Star Wars movie will tick off "fans".

Rogue one would like a word with you.

How quickly we forget the prequels.

The prequels got ragged on more for Jar Jar and the wooden acting from Hayden and Natalie. It should be a wakeup call for Disney that the prequels are now lauded as masterpieces when compared to the sequels by most fans.

 

[LittleBuford]

It should be a wakeup call for Disney that the prequels are now lauded as masterpieces when compared to the sequels by most fans.

I do wonder how people who aren’t self-described fans would compare the two trilogies. I have a hard time believing that anyone seeing all the Star Wars films for the first time—without knowledge of the acrimonious discourse of the past few years—would prefer the prequels to the sequels.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Rogue one would like a word with you.

The prequels got ragged on more for Jar Jar and the wooden acting from Hayden and Natalie. It should be a wakeup call for Disney that the prequels are now lauded as masterpieces when compared to the sequels by most fans.

“Most” fans. Don’t really buy that. Some fans - loud ones, sure.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Like I said in a subsequent post, Mermaid was a bad example for me to choose because Bailey was excellent. But it's a question of focus. What is our raison d'être here? Is our goal to make money? Is our goal to delight and entertain? Is our goal to be agents of social change?

I'm certainly not arguing that Disney should be spending time, energy and resources to make sure they're being un-diverse, inequitable, and exclusionary. I'm saying they shouldn't be spending huge amounts of time, energy, and resources on these things at all. I want them laser-focused on quality and yes, I think there are instances where Disney has *sacrificed* quality for the sake of the social agenda. Why was Baymax shopping for tampons with a trans man? Why is the most beloved ride in theme park history being plastered over with a Louisiana salt mine? Why was Willow a medieval fantasy with the tone and tenor of a made-for-TV teen movie set in 2009 California? Why was She-Hulk a feminist screed that literally made "fans of superheroes" the villain?

No, diverse choices are not automatically bad choices. But an obsession with diversity is a distraction that pulls focus away from quality in the aggregate.

Not to speak to the rest of this, but that’s what She-Hulk has been for decades, famously even breaking the third wall to snark at her writer and artist for being an objectifying creep.

 

[erasure fan1]

“Most” fans. Don’t really buy that. Some fans - loud ones, sure.

I don't know. I've watched a lot convention coverage and you would think Hayden and Ewan were the greatest thing to happen to star wars everytime they got introduced. I'd say prequel obi-wan is at the very top of most fans list of favorite characters. You'd be hard pressed to find anywhere close to a majority of fans who would rate any of the sequels higher than revenge of the sith. There are problems with the prequels, LOTS of them. But as a whole, it's a much more cohesive piece of work in my opinion.

 

[DKampy]

The prequels got ragged on more for Jar Jar and the wooden acting from Hayden and Natalie. It should be a wakeup call for Disney that the prequels are now lauded as masterpieces when compared to the sequels by most fans.

The Prequels IMO are the worst triolgy… I actually like The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi well enough on their own…although I find The Rise of Skywalker to be terrible and my least liked Star Wars film

Perhaps it is my age…as I saw episode IV in the Theater at 5 and was instantly hooked…so the original trilogy is my Star Wars… I was never More disappointed than when I saw The Phantom Menace opening night. It seems we are seeing new love of the prequels from the generation that grew up with those becoming adults

It is interesting that my brothers kids ages 9 and 11 favorite trilogy is the 3 made with Disney… perhaps we will see new interest in those in 20 years

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

I don’t see how any of that is a hindrance to the production of good entertainment.

And I’ll note again that the opposite logic is never applied, which to me is very revealing. To take Lightyear as an example, had it lacked the blink-and-you’d-miss-it gay kiss, no-one would have ever have discussed its flaws in ideological terms; they would simply have concluded—rightly—that it’s a boring movie that could have been better written. But the presence of that fleeting kiss opened the door to the usual litany of complaints about “woke” this and “woke” that, and, well, you know the rest. By your own admission, you yourself fell into the same trap a little earlier when your brought up The Little Mermaid. In short, people are looking for an easy scapegoat, and diversity has unfortunately become the candidate of choice.

I don't know. To me the "gay kiss" is a perfect example of trying too hard at the expense of quality. And it allows them to get away with a lack of quality. It became the issue with the film, and then you had people defending a bad movie because of that blink-and-you-miss-it moment.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don't know. To me the "gay kiss" is a perfect example of trying too hard at the expense of quality. And it allows them to get away with a lack of quality. It became the issue with the film, and then you had people defending a bad movie because of that blink-and-you-miss-it moment.

Who made it the issue of the film?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Wean people off super quick digital/Disney+ releases. We're seeing it with Indy to a degree. I wonder if a few more people would have seen it had they known they'd be waiting until December to watch it as part of a subscription?

Reduce the TV series and/or make them distinctly separate from the theatrical releases. If I want a Marvel fix today I can watch Loki. There's less demand to go out to see The Marvels.

Focus on behind the scenes talent. Everyone loved Jack Sparrow but for me, the reason the first 3 Pirates movies were so good was the director. The 4th and 5th installments just felt off. For all the talk of Downey and Evans, where's the push to bring back the writers and directors of the most popular Marvel installments.

You make some good points…

The problem is the BUSINESS side of it

In 2000…something like 55% of Disneys revenue was cable. Parks we’re about 30-35% ish

Everything else was 10%…including movies

Now it’s an unwieldy 40-50% off parks (unsustainable)…and cable in the 30s and falling (also unsustainable)
The rest is STILL a tiny sliver.


So they literally can’t give up the steam crap…which they never will make as much money off of…if at all?

This is where some fool says “it will make money in 2024!!!”

They kinda made that up…plugged some numbers into a computer with a lot of “best case scenario” variables…and just are really hoping.

Yes. That can happen. There’s no “truth serum” or guarantees here.

Everyone do the research…what the money people are asking is: “if you have overperformed and haven’t made money yet…why would you ever?”

A question Napoleon von argyle will not answer. He doesn’t have one.


So back to front. I don’t think “limiting content” to make them “Thirsty for more” is a viable plan.

If it was…they would have done it. It’s cheaper…which is also a problem without a solution.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't know. To me the "gay kiss" is a perfect example of trying too hard at the expense of quality. And it allows them to get away with a lack of quality. It became the issue with the film, and then you had people defending a bad movie because of that blink-and-you-miss-it moment.

The gay kiss on Star Trek deep Space nine was illuminating…

…wait…what was the topic again?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Who made it the issue of the film?

It was pumped up for a hot minute in the knuckle dragging echo chamber…

…but not enough to explain the hard crash…no pun intended.

We saw Lightyear in springs…

I don’t think it was a bad story…it was just too long…too plodding…too off the source material.

It failed on its own merits

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

We were just explaining why this box office thread took a particular turn.

Please don’t start arguing social issues relating to Disney content here. It’s absolutely not allowed, as the mods have repeatedly pointed out.

The gate is manned…right on schedule…

Which is code for: “I don’t want to think about anything when I have already decided I won’t believe anything other than what’s already in my head”

Ain’t discussion great?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

A safe option would be to hire a name talent to direct a retro back-to-basics practical-heavy SW feature that takes place on the other side of the galaxy where nobody’s heard the name Skywalker.

Saw today where Waititi said in an interview his SW feature will “[tick] off fans.” I mean, that comment should be grounds for never giving him the keys. If he does eventually make one, that comment alone will cost Disney millions at the box office. It’s just bad show business. Unnecessarily provocative.

Bad news is I think they have even less of a clue how to fix SW than they do with Marvel.

…that movie isn’t getting made…

He’s proven he sucks and will get shelved


It will premiere on the side screens next to Wonder Woman 3, the last Johnson trilogy; and the stuff from the game of thrones dudes