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

[Vegas Disney Fan]

Had it not been an enjoyable story, however, people would have blamed all those “checked boxes” for the poor quality of the writing. It’s a grossly unfair framing. Diversity is considered irrelevant when something is deemed good yet highlighted as the main or sole problem when something is deemed bad.

Probably true, except I’d say most people will include it as a secondary problem, the bad story would still be highlighted as the main problem.

Ironically when people don’t accept that you simply didn’t enjoy a story and they demand to know specifics stuff like diversity tend to get extra scrutiny.

 

[LittleBuford]

Probably true, except I’d say most people will include it as a secondary problem, the bad story would still be highlighted as the main problem.

I suppose what I’m saying is that the two have become inextricably linked in many people’s estimation, as numerous posts in these threads demonstrate.

 

[LSLS]

Respectfully, $180 million is a huge budget for a film, whether it’s 2019 or 2023.

This simply shows that Disney has not been able to control its production costs for years.

At the time, Terminator 2 (1991) was rumored to be the first film with a $100 million budget. (Although the exact budget is debated - certainly True Lies passed the $100 million mark a few years later.) Adjusted for inflation, that’s about $240 million. At the time, it was an outlier and its reported cost received a tremendous amount of attention in the press. Yet according to the link I provided earlier, T2 doesn’t even make the list of most expensive (adjusted for inflation) films ever made.

Now Disney has multiple films that are (by your calculation) averaging $180 million in production costs.

Disney has forgotten how to make small films. This means that films they produce are under tremendous pressure to make hundreds of millions at the box office.

As @celluloid wrote earlier, Eisner’s strategy was to mix it up, including going after Three Men and a Baby scale films, with an inflation adjusted production cost of about $40 million. The most financially successful film of its year, it brought in $240 million on a $15 million budget.

Iger had tremendous successes with Pixar, Lucas Films, and Marvel Studios, but the public is fatigued with the endless stream of big budget films. These films no longer have the draw they once did.

It’s time to look in a different direction.

So, somewhat. You take away End Game and Skywalker, that number drops pretty substantially. BUT, here's the interesting thing. I selected the top 12 because that's the number of movies released this year. If I look at ALL movies released in 2019, that number drops to $135 million. Take away Skywalker and Endgame, now you are at $108 million. SO, why bring that up? WELL, Disney did release like 8 more movies or so this year that I'd bet money were very low budget for the most part. BUT, they didn't send them to theaters, they were all direct to D+. So, while they have spent too much on too many movies, their numbers are not totally insane like it's being made out to be. The issues really seem to revolve around them only releasing big budget films to theaters, and that the big budget films simply aren't popular enough to justify the budgets.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Had it not been an enjoyable story, however, people would have blamed all those “checked boxes” for the poor quality of the writing. It’s a grossly unfair framing. Diversity is considered irrelevant when something is deemed good yet highlighted as the main or sole problem when something is deemed bad.

The way to silence that crowd is
To make excellent content.

It’s hard dispute good. What Disney is running out is very rarely that. It’s mostly mismanagement at the very top

 

[Tony the Tigger]

You cannot make amends for bigotry 100 years ago

But you can stop the bigotry going forward.

And barely putting a lesbian peck into a movie is not enough to even be called “representation,” yet look at the overreaction to it.

For the next generation, films like these are the thing that reduces the bigotry.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Not a criticism, but Disney has in any case waited until it’s safe. There’s nothing all that daring or groundbreaking about anything they’ve done in this regard.

One would have thought so a few years ago!

I guess all this hoopla demonstrates we and Disney may have been overly optimistic about that.

 

[Heppenheimer]

So correct me if I’m wrong: this was not a prequel. This was meant to be the original film that inspired the toy who was Buzz Lightyear. Therefore it is not part of the Toy Story story, maybe it could loosely be called an origin story - but really the Buzz in this film is not the same Buzz in TS. He is the movie character that inspired the toy.

So if my Kenner Wicket the Ewok action figure came to life and was my friend for years, he would not be the same Wicket who was in ROTJ or The Ewok Movie. No one should have any expectation the two should match up.

It wasn't the same Buzz character. It was a generic, far less interesting character who shared the same name and some superficial traits with the beloved Toy Story character, but not much else. Which begs the question... why did anyone in Pixar think this was something we wanted to see?

Buzz Lightyear always made more sense to me primarily as a kid's toy with media cross-promotion, like they used to do in the 80s with stuff like the Transformers or He-Man. Not as an a sci-fi movie action hero with broader age appeal.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But you can stop the bigotry going forward.

And barely putting a lesbian peck into a movie is not enough to even be called “representation,” yet look at the overreaction to it.

For the next generation, films like these are the thing that reduces the bigotry.

I don’t disagree with that…at all….

…they need to make BETTER movies. That’s the bigger problem as it stands

 

[Tony the Tigger]

FWIW:

MCU Box Office Drama Ignores The Marvels Breaking 1 Important Record

The Marvels has broken one box office record.

screenrant.com

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Full disclosure: I haven’t seen the movie, have no interest, and I don’t think I’ve ever watched a Toy Story movie from beginning to end. Hubby has seen them all.

So correct me if I’m wrong: this was not a prequel. This was meant to be the original film that inspired the toy who was Buzz Lightyear. Therefore it is not part of the Toy Story story, maybe it could loosely be called an origin story - but really the Buzz in this film is not the same Buzz in TS. He is the movie character that inspired the toy.

So if my Kenner Wicket the Ewok action figure came to life and was my friend for years, he would not be the same Wicket who was in ROTJ or The Ewok Movie. No one should have any expectation the two should match up.

More importantly: what about two moms would make the character in the film (not to be confused with the character in the film series) any different than if he had a mom and a dad, or if he was adopted by a single dad, or any other family configuration?

What are you reading into having two moms that makes it “not fit the story/IP?”

You gotta watch the movie…

It just didn’t feel right for the buzz character. And that had nothing to do with 2 moms

If it was a good story…it wouldn’t have failed.
I appreciated it for what it was…but I can see why it didn’t meet audience approval.

The lesbian character was one of the strongest parts of the film.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It wasn't the same Buzz character. It was a generic, far less interesting character who shared the same name and some superficial traits with the beloved Toy Story character, but not much else. Which begs the question... why did anyone in Pixar think this was something we wanted to see?

Buzz Lightyear always made more sense to me primarily as a kid's toy with media cross-promotion, like they used to do in the 80s with stuff like the Transformers or He-Man. Not as an a sci-fi movie action hero with broader age appeal.

Yeah…I have to agree

Very similar to solo…with the same results


They have to stop doing that…the audience already is suspecting they’re trying to abuse our heart strings before the film rolls for cheap profits. These types of movies are DOA

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How long should it take?

BTW, I think Disney is following the data. The timeline isn’t set by Bob Iger’s bleeding heart, right?

…that’s why they get paid the big bucks.

Which means they all should be fired because it isn’t working


The thing that Iger, Inc is showing more and more everyday is that they’re misreading the data…that’s why they’re failing in most of their business units.

Don’t get me started on parks or espn…then I’ll really start letting go

 

[TalkingHead]

Studio execs making decisions based on data instead of an abiding passion and understanding of movies is what got Disney (and other studios) into this predicament. I still can’t wrap my head around $200m being spent on a movie with Wish’s story. There are so many more interesting and meta things that could’ve been done for a Disney centennial feature. Absolutely mind-boggling that nobody calling the shots swerved this project in a different direction.

 

[LittleBuford]

@Tony the Tigger, I was reacting to your post even as it disappeared. Thank you; I couldn’t agree more.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

@Tony the Tigger, I was reacting to your post even as it disappeared. Thank you; I couldn’t agree more.

Thanks. I'm genuinely surprised. This is so frustrating and feels pointless.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Thanks. I'm genuinely surprised. This is so frustrating and feels pointless.

I often agree with parts of the posts I dispute…quite often - actually

Baby goes out with the bath water at times

 

[Ghost93]

If it was a good story…it wouldn’t have failed.
I appreciated it for what it was…but I can see why it didn’t meet audience approval.

I don't think Lightyear was a bad movie, but it was NOT the movie audiences wanted and it missed the appeal of the Buzz Lightyear character. It was supposed to be a fun, pulpy space adventure — not a gloomy, cerebral time-travel drama.

I think of Lightyear almost as an original sci-fi movie as it just feels so disconnected from the Lightyear of the Toy Story movies.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't think Lightyear was a bad movie, but it was NOT the movie audiences wanted and it missed the appeal of the Buzz Lightyear character. It was supposed to be a fun, pulpy space adventure — not a gloomy, cerebral time-travel drama.

I think of Lightyear almost as an original sci-fi movie as it just feels so disconnected from the Lightyear of the Toy Story movies.

Agree 100%

I liked the movie

At the same time I can see why audiences rejected it and it caused brand damage

 

[erasure fan1]

If it was a good story…it wouldn’t have failed.
I appreciated it for what it was…but I can see why it didn’t meet audience approval.

That's just it. This notion that it was some great film that was taken down by a group of narrow minded individuals is crazy. Did it have an impact? Yea, I'm sure it did. But when push comes to shove, it was mediocre film. If people thought they were going to get the Buzz that they know and love, and were disappointed they didn't, how's that the fans problem? It seems like a miscalculation on Pixars part in my opinion. Unfortunately that seems to be a hard thing for some to come to terms with.

 

[TalkingHead]

I don't think Lightyear was a bad movie, but it was NOT the movie audiences wanted and it missed the appeal of the Buzz Lightyear character. It was supposed to be a fun, pulpy space adventure — not a gloomy, cerebral time-travel drama.

I think of Lightyear almost as an original sci-fi movie as it just feels so disconnected from the Lightyear of the Toy Story movies.

The marketing was a mess. Initially pushed as “the guy who inspired the Buzz toy” but then closer to the release it was “the movie Andy saw in the 90s that inspired the Buzz toy.” Yet it didn’t do anything to replicate the feel of a 90s (or 80s) sci-fi blockbuster which tells you the concept was in flux from development to release.