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

[Casper Gutman]

Illumination might be “cheap”…but hard to argue with $2.5-2.75 billion for slapstick walking Twinkies

Combine that with the 3 despicable me’s and that takes a pretty big chunk outta Pixar at higher price/quality, don’t it?

And fast whatever was steaming crap…but this haul is about $200 mil more than mermaid

Think Tom might make some bank this month too…after he bested every MCU movie since endgame with his little flying thing last year…

So you don't mind lousy movies as long as they make money. Sorta seems like the exact opposite of your attitudes to the parks.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Forbes reported Dominion cost over 300 million to produce.

Illumination films can be fun, but the animation looks cheap. It would be a tragedy to see Pixar brought down to that level. As for Spider-Verse, which was great, the filmmakers are currently under fire for abusing their animators, so its probably not a great model to hold up.

I bet they don’t care at all…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So you don't mind lousy movies as long as they make money. Sorta seems like the exact opposite of your attitudes to the parks.

First…minions aren’t lousy movies. They are idiot fun…kinda like Mario. Or better yet: beavis and butthead.
So let’s not insult genius…
What’s next? Dissing weird Al?

But back to point…
I don’t condone bad movies…but sometimes it’s not that simple. Giving the audience what they’ll consume doesn’t always work…but it works a lot.

Disney’s problem keeps coming back to the stories suck. They look great…but nothing memorable about them and people get bored.
Cynical remakes…reboots (gawd 2 terrible mistakes there)…and movies lacking anything resembling interesting characters or good plots.

Really has gotten bad.

You know what? It’s not enough to have the label…

…you know where I’m going with that…but I’ll spare ya

 

[erasure fan1]

Illumination films can be fun, but the animation looks cheap. It would be a tragedy to see Pixar brought down to that level.

I didn't think Mario looked cheap at all. I'm not saying it was Pixar quality, but light-year didn't look twice as good. If something like rise of gru cost 85, I would think Disney would come in around 150 tops. They shouldn't lower their quality, but maybe they need to better streamline their operations.

 

[erasure fan1]

What’s next? Dissing weird Al?

Anyone starts dissing my man Al, we're going to have a problem!

 

[Casper Gutman]

I didn't think Mario looked cheap at all. I'm not saying it was Pixar quality, but light-year didn't look twice as good. If something like rise of gru cost 85, I would think Disney would come in around 150 tops. They shouldn't lower their quality, but maybe they need to better streamline their operations.

This is like a presidential candidate saying they will eliminate the debt by getting rid of "waste, fraud, and abuse." What it amounts to is, "I will use magic to make things cheaper without eliminating anything you like or diminishing the quality of the product." It's substanceless.

 

[erasure fan1]

This is like a presidential candidate saying they will eliminate the debt by getting rid of "waste, fraud, and abuse." What it amounts to is, "I will use magic to make things cheaper without eliminating anything you like or diminishing the quality of the product." It's substanceless.

All I've been saying, is that I believe there is definitely fat to be trimmed. I couldn't tell you where because we don't see the inside financials. So I'm not going to stand here and say things like, maybe how they are rendering the animation or things like that are the issue because I don't know. All I know, is their budgets are 2 to 3 times more and I'm not seeing double or triple the quality.

 

[Casper Gutman]

All I've been saying, is that I believe there is definitely fat to be trimmed. I couldn't tell you where because we don't see the inside financials. So I'm not going to stand here and say things like, maybe how they are rendering the animation or things like that are the issue because I don't know. All I know, is their budgets are 2 to 3 times more and I'm not seeing double or triple the quality.

Pixar films are absolutely double or triple the quality of Illuminations.

 

[erasure fan1]

Pixar films are absolutely double or triple the quality of Illuminations.

Maybe during the lasseter days. But not in this era that we've been talking about. There's been a lot of mediocre coming out of pixar these days in my opinion.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Maybe during the lasseter days. But not in this era that we've been talking about. There's been a lot of mediocre coming out of pixar these days in my opinion.

 

[BrianLo]

Wait you’re actually saying that Disney paying Disney for a Disney movie is “the plan”?

So like shell game?

We are WAY deep down the well here.

Yes, exactly. What else is D+ other than Disney paying itself for content instead of relying on the competitors?

I'll say it again, either we accept many of the movies are profitable in the back end (not true bombs like Lightyear, Strange World and probably Indy) or D+ is actually wildly profitable. D+ does not have a revenue issue really, they have a propping up expensive Disney content issue. All the worse under the Chapek direct to stream regime.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Maybe during the lasseter days. But not in this era that we've been talking about. There's been a lot of mediocre coming out of pixar these days in my opinion.

Cool, now comes the part when we valorize the sexual predator. I assume you remember the wild success of Luck?

Pixar's success was based on a brain trust of which, yes, Lasseter was a part, but only a part. Since he left, they've released Soul, Luca, and Turning Red, all of which have been very good. I haven't seen Elemental, but it seems to be rebuilding Pixar's theatrical rep quite nicely.

 

[Bullseye1967]

I am all over the place here. I liked Red, disliked Soul and Luka. I thought Elemental looked good but do to how bad it is doing, I will watch it on D+. BTW I am sure you have guessed where I stand, but I thought TLM was a bad story, and this may have been biased by me hating all of these remakes and lack of original content. I could care about what a "statement" it was making. I want a good movie. Not something that gets good social justice scores. For the record I disliked Strange and didn't think Buzz was as bad as it is made out to be. I do think they could had a better story line but I considered it worth the money I spent.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Cool, now comes the part when we valorize the sexual predator. I assume you remember the wild success of Luck?

Pixar's success was based on a brain trust of which, yes, Lasseter was a part, but only a part. Since he left, they've released Soul, Luca, and Turning Red, all of which have been very good. I haven't seen Elemental, but it seems to be rebuilding Pixar's theatrical rep quite nicely.

You can't say that the studio didn't change for the worse after he left. The reason he left has nothing to do with it.

 

[Chi84]

I am all over the place here. I liked Red, disliked Soul and Luka. I thought Elemental looked good but do to how bad it is doing, I will watch it on D+. BTW I am sure you have guessed where I stand, but I thought TLM was a bad story, and this may have been biased by me hating all of these remakes and lack of original content. I could care about what a "statement" it was making. I want a good movie. Not something that gets good social justice scores. For the record I disliked Strange and didn't think Buzz was as bad as it is made out to be. I do think they could had a better story line but I considered it worth the money I spent.

Did you like anything at all about TLM? What about Halle Bailey? I heard she was good but I haven’t been able to see the movie yet.

 

[erasure fan1]

Cool, now comes the part when we valorize the sexual predator. I assume you remember the wild success of Luck?

Come on now. You can do better than that. When did I at all vaorize Lasseter? I said his era. You can't say that pixar is 3 times better than everyone else and then discount his time there. You can't dismiss what he did as a film maker and studio head. Separate the artist from the person. Who cares about luck. It makes zero difference with what he did with pixar.

Pixar's success was based on a brain trust of which, yes, Lasseter was a part, but only a part. Since he left, they've released Soul, Luca, and Turning Red, all of which have been very good. I haven't seen Elemental, but it seems to be rebuilding Pixar's theatrical rep quite nicely.

Ok. Soul, average. Luca, good not great. Onward, just average. Turning red, not very good. Light-year and strange world speak for themselves. Raya was pretty average too. And I know the last two aren't pixar but neither were tangled or Zootopia, but lasseter was in charge of them. I can't comment on elemental as I've not seen it either.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Come on now. You can do better than that. When did I at all vaorize Lasseter? I said his era. You can't say that pixar is 3 times better than everyone else and then discount his time there. You can't dismiss what he did as a film maker and studio head. Separate the artist from the person. Who cares about luck. It makes zero difference with what he did with pixar.

Ok. Soul, average. Luca, good not great. Onward, just average. Turning red, not very good. Light-year and strange world speak for themselves. Raya was pretty average too. And I know the last two aren't pixar but neither were tangled or Zootopia, but lasseter was in charge of them. I can't comment on elemental as I've not seen it either.

In this very post you're given Lasseter credit as though he were the driving force behind not only Pixar's but Disney's animated successes, films for which he was an Executive Producer, and are suggesting that his absence at least partially explains the failure of Strange World. Defining a period as his "era" elevates him and diminishes the contributions of the rest of the brain trust. You need to separate your "great man" theory of creativity from an understanding of what was (and remains) one of the most collaborative creative processes in Hollywood. Luck is profoundly relevant because it demonstrates Lasseter's work away from the collaboration of the Pixar organization.

Needless to say, I disagree with your assessment of Pixar's recent output.

 

[erasure fan1]

In this very post you're given Lasseter credit as though he were the driving force behind not only Pixar's but Disney's animated successes, films for which he was an Executive Producer, and are suggesting that his absence at least partially explains the failure of Strange World.

Of course I'm giving him credit. You threw out the sexual predator line because I'm right about pixar not being 3 times better than everyone else right now. Can you inform me of the Pixar movie that's made 1.3b, or near 1b, or 650m?

It's hard to argue the effect he had on wdas. Look at the before then during. Before we got such gems as bolt, chicken little and that wonderful classic that's so beloved, home on the range.

Defining a period as his "era" elevates him and diminishes the contributions of the rest of the brain trust. You need to separate your "great man" theory of creativity from an understanding of what was (and remains) one of the most collaborative creative processes in Hollywood.

Yes it was a fantastic brain trust, during his tenure as the head of the studio. Therefore making it his era. Do we not call it the Eisner era, or the Iger era? Or will the current star wars not be labeled as the Kennedy era? So why is this different? Does anyone discount or think less of the imaginees that worked under those ceos? No, they don't.

No one is condoning his actions as person as you so want to imply. But if you think for a second that post Lasseter Disney quality is anywhere close to during Lasseter Disney, I just can't agree. And I'm not sure you'd find many who would take your stance. Hence once again, the Lasseter era.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes, exactly. What else is D+ other than Disney paying itself for content instead of relying on the competitors?

I'll say it again, either we accept many of the movies are profitable in the back end (not true bombs like Lightyear, Strange World and probably Indy) or D+ is actually wildly profitable. D+ does not have a revenue issue really, they have a propping up expensive Disney content issue. All the worse under the Chapek direct to stream regime.

Let’s see if they get to the 1.5 billion it apparently is gonna take to make D+ profitable “on the backend”

Can’t wait to see how they spin more subscriber loss?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Maybe during the lasseter days. But not in this era that we've been talking about. There's been a lot of mediocre coming out of pixar these days in my opinion.

And it doesn’t matter anyway…it’s all about how much the audience consumes them and what they sell based off them.

Which isn’t much if no one sees them