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

[Disgruntled Walt]

Who made it the issue of the film?

Was it not the subject of much discourse? Am I misremembering? I don't recall many people talking about how bad a movie Lightyear was...more that it had a gay kiss.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Perhaps because of how many doors have historically been closed to actors of colour.

…thank you for saying what had been the innuendo since Memorial Day. At least honesty.

You absolutely…cannot…”fix” what happened 75 years ago with more content today.

You do as much harm as good. It ends up paddling in a circle

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Was it not the subject of much discourse? Am I misremembering? I don't recall many people talking about how bad a movie Lightyear was...more that it had a gay kiss.

I think it was both

 

[erasure fan1]

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.

That's a tuff one. I don't see many non "fan" moviegoers really caring one way or the other. They'll watch once and move on. As a cohesive story, the prequels are light-years ahead of the sequels. I'm sure someone who hasn't watched star wars before would say the sequels might be better than the originals or prequels just based on how they look from a technical standpoint. Which they owe to the prequels as they were a HUGE leap forward in movie making. Love or hate Jar Jar, all modern mocap goes back to him.

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

Most liked the force awakens. As a stand alone it was fine. Too much of a cut and paste of the OT with a few other flaws. But most gave it a pass as a good start, and were willing to see where it would go. Unfortunately for a lot of fans, last jedi split the fan base. So for many, myself included, found it hard to go back to force awakens as it really no longer matters. And like you said, rise of Skywalker was just a complete mess further muddying the water. The funny thing is, I don't think last jedi is a bad movie. But I do think it's a bad star wars movie.

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.

I also saw the OT in theaters as a youngling, and yea, that's my star wars as well. I wasn't really disappointed with ep1. I wasn't a fan of Jar Jar, like most. But I loved Qui-gon, obi-wan, maul. To this day I think the duel of the fates is the greatest lightsaber battle in star wars. I'm not saying the prequels are some complete masterpiece. But as a whole, they work much better than the sequels.

 

[LittleBuford]

Was it not the subject of much discourse? Am I misremembering? I don't recall many people talking about how bad a movie Lightyear was...more that it had a gay kiss.

That’s an issue with the discourse, not the film itself.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

That’s an issue with the discourse, not the film itself.

The fact that it was included is what caused the discourse. They cared more about including that than creating a good movie. They made up their minds that it needed to be included.

 

[LittleBuford]

…thank you for saying what had been the innuendo since Memorial Day. At least honesty.

You absolutely…cannot…”fix” what happened 75 years ago with more content today.

You do as much harm as good. It ends up paddling in a circle

75 years ago?!

I was on an early 2000s kick recently and rewatched Legally Blonde and Mean Girls on some flights. Let’s just say it was an eye-opening experience as far as diversity in casting goes.

The demographic makeup of Disneyland’s Lion King show isn’t the problem here. White actors are going to be just fine, I assure you.

 

[LittleBuford]

The fact that it was included is what caused the discourse. They cared more about including that than creating a good movie. They made up their minds that it needed to be included.

So by your logic, their concern for including the kiss was so all-consuming that it sucked the life out of the remaining 99.9% of the script? I’m really not sure how I can respond to that.

 

[erasure fan1]

The demographic makeup of Disneyland’s Lion King show isn’t the problem here. White actors are going to fine, I assure you.

I think it's more the double standard that's the problem. We keep getting told that a fictional mermaid can be any race. It doesn't matter, she's not real. But then in the next breath it's you can't cast anyone but people of African descent in the Lion king. Because talking cartoon animals have a race? You don't see the issue? It's either best person for the job or it's not.

 

[LittleBuford]

I think it's more the double standard that's the problem. We keep getting told that a fictional mermaid can be any race. It doesn't matter, she's not real. But then in the next breath it's you can't cast anyone but people of African descent in the Lion king. Because talking cartoon animals have a race? You don't see the issue? It's either best person for the job or it's not.

It’s only a double standard if you pretend it’s a level playing field. Context matters. Ignoring this context is what leads people to ask why there’s no White History Month or Straight Pride.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

So by your logic, their concern for including the kiss was so all-consuming that it sucked the life out of the remaining 99.9% of the script? I’m really not sure how I can respond to that.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying their priorities were clearly not in order. They may have even thought that including the kiss would lift up the mediocre script.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I think it's more the double standard that's the problem. We keep getting told that a fictional mermaid can be any race. It doesn't matter, she's not real. But then in the next breath it's you can't cast anyone but people of African descent in the Lion king. Because talking cartoon animals have a race? You don't see the issue? It's either best person for the job or it's not.

It's gonna blow your mind when you find out who played Simba in the film! (and Rafiki, and Scar, and Zazu, and...)

But Buford's right, there's a lot of history involved and we can't go into it here.

 

[TP2000]

75 years ago?!

I was on an early 2000s kick recently and rewatched Legally Blonde and Mean Girls on some flights. Let’s just say it was an eye-opening experience as far as diversity in casting goes.

I never saw Mean Girls, but like you I have watched Legally Blonde on a long plane ride. I'm baffled that you think there should have been more diversity in the casting of that movie in its primary story locations; Bel Air and Harvard Law School. I have visited Bel Air a few times in the past 20 years, and I used to work/dine/shop in Cambridge in the 1990's. The movie seemed to reflect the real world, not a forced mandate from HR to make things look different than reality.

Elle in Legally Blonde lives in Bel Air, California in the early 2000's. According to the US Census of 2000 the population of Bel Air had the following demographic makeup;

White, Non Latino = 86.3%
Asian/Pacific Islander = 8.1%
Latino = 4.6%
Black = 1.9%
Mixed Race = 3.6%

Later in the movie Elle goes to Harvard Law School. According to Harvard University, the student body in 2004 had the following demographics;

White, Non Latino: 58%
Asian/Pacific Islander: 11%
Black: 9%
Latino: 5%
Foreign Students of Unknown Races: 13%
Other: 4%

https://oir.harvard.edu/files/huoir/files/harvard_fact_book_2004-2005.pdf

Bel-Air | Community Guide

Bel-Air is an affluent residential community in the hills of the Westside of the city of Los Angeles, California..

susansmithrealty.com

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying their priorities were clearly not in order. They may have even thought that including the kiss would lift up the mediocre script.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

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 wieldy 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.

They don't have to limit content, just delay the Disney+ debut until other sources of revenue are exhausted.

If they adjust the release pattern, Disney+ will still have new content on a consistent basis. I suspect most people won't unsubscribe if The Little Mermaid debuts in December instead of September. Just give some people that little push to buy the disc or digital copy so they don't have to wait.

It doesn't help that Disney+ is the better option for a lot of movies. They have making-of specials exclusive to Disney+ while discs come with minimal extras. The IMAX versions of MCU movies are exclusive to D+. If I pay $30 for a movie I should get a superior experience versus streamers, but the opposite is true.

 

[Willmark]

That's a tuff one. I don't see many non "fan" moviegoers really caring one way or the other. They'll watch once and move on. As a cohesive story, the prequels are light-years ahead of the sequels. I'm sure someone who hasn't watched star wars before would say the sequels might be better than the originals or prequels just based on how they look from a technical standpoint. Which they owe to the prequels as they were a HUGE leap forward in movie making. Love or hate Jar Jar, all modern mocap goes back to him.

Most liked the force awakens. As a stand alone it was fine. Too much of a cut and paste of the OT with a few other flaws. But most gave it a pass as a good start, and were willing to see where it would go. Unfortunately for a lot of fans, last jedi split the fan base. So for many, myself included, found it hard to go back to force awakens as it really no longer matters. And like you said, rise of Skywalker was just a complete mess further muddying the water. The funny thing is, I don't think last jedi is a bad movie. But I do think it's a bad star wars movie.

I also saw the OT in theaters as a youngling, and yea, that's my star wars as well. I wasn't really disappointed with ep1. I wasn't a fan of Jar Jar, like most. But I loved Qui-gon, obi-wan, maul. To this day I think the duel of the fates is the greatest lightsaber battle in star wars. I'm not saying the prequels are some complete masterpiece. But as a whole, they work much better than the sequels.

Absolutely correct, the prequels might have their issues and they do but they are Shakespeare compared the train wreck this is TLJ.

TLJ has not aged well and has only caused its adherents to further become defensive of it (not talking about this thread).

I can also see why such folks dislike RoS. Im
Hard pressed to think of another that’s has to retrocon so much of another Star Wars movie.

TLJ isn’t just a bad SW movie it’s a bad movie overall.

 

[flynnibus]

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.

Yes these these things are not mutually exclusive, but when you elevate one at the cost of the other… it is not going to be without loss.

Sure you can say ‘i am willing to accept that potential loss for the sake of my creative objectives’ and roll the die snd see how the public responds. But if that keeps coming up big losses… at some point the creative is going to get reeled in by the guy paying the bill

 

[flynnibus]

They don't have to limit content, just delay the Disney+ debut until other sources of revenue are exhausted.

If they adjust the release pattern, Disney+ will still have new content on a consistent basis. I suspect most people won't unsubscribe if The Little Mermaid debuts in December instead of September. Just give some people that little push to buy the disc or digital copy so they don't have to wait.

It doesn't help that Disney+ is the better option for a lot of movies. They have making-of specials exclusive to Disney+ while discs come with minimal extras. The IMAX versions of MCU movies are exclusive to D+. If I pay $30 for a movie I should get a superior experience versus streamers, but the opposite is true.

The reason why its been collapsing though is those other revenue streams have dried up.

There is no point giving time to dvd sales that will not happen, etc. so studios have caved to push their current initiatives… making their DTC services attractive.

Personally i think this is an area the studios should ’go backwards’. Don’t use new releases as a DTC lure… use them only in direct monetized forms like theatrical and a much later PPV window. Stop the ‘we gotta strike while still hot’ thinking. Stop letting your own PPV and DTC canabalize your theater release. Hold ppv back 6months. Hold DTC back another 2months after that.

It won’t cause longer theater tuns most likely… but will cause scarcity and hopefully drive motivation to see it in the theater

 

[Jedijax719]

Absolutely correct, the prequels might have their issues and they do but they are Shakespeare compared the train wreck this is TLJ.

TLJ has not aged well and has only caused its adherents to further become defensive of it (not talking about this thread).

I can also see why such folks dislike RoS. Im
Hard pressed to think of another that’s has to retrocon so much of another Star Wars movie.

TLJ isn’t just a bad SW movie it’s a bad movie overall.

TFA moved things in a direction that raised curiosity and built a bit of mystery.
TLJ erased that mystery and pretty much accomplished squat.
TROS attempted to erase the erasure and put some mystery back. But it was too late.

The PT, for all of its dialogue/scripting woes, had a solid story arc and ROTS delivered on the promises of what fans wanted from the prequels.

But Rogue One totally delivered and did so with a premise that nobody really asked for. So things CAN be done.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Can we not do the sequel argument nonsense?