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

[celluloid]

Some of the fanatical used to say "Universal and WB often stoop to low mid budget horror films. Disney does not need to do that, nor should we want them to"

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
Omen prequel
Alien midquel reboot.

All slated for next year.

Disney is triyng to Blumhouse their 70 billion dollar Fox investment with nothing original.

Kingodm of The Planet of the Apes is just a really wordy and bad name.

 

[celluloid]

An interesting take from Variety about the end of year prospects from theatre folks

Christmas at the Box Office Hinges on ‘Aquaman 2.’ Movie Theater Owners Are Worried.

Hollywood usually ends the year with at least one surefire blockbuster, but this holiday lacks another "Avatar" at the box office.

variety.com

The article mentions how fatigued audiences are with current sequels and spin offs that are not resonating and looking for originals.

While maybe not the most four quadrant, the article did not mention Migration. Which is at least an original family animation fare coming out on that same Christmas time release week to be the finale of the year.

 

[TP2000]

Kingodm of The Planet of the Apes is just a really wordy and bad name.

Agreed. I would have just called it "Planet of the Apes: Charlton Heston's Revenge".

 

[TP2000]

Nope, I'm one of those work from home people that you think don't work and only drink Merlot. So no one looking over my shoulder.

And yet you started posting here at 11:39AM Pacific Time, and posted 16 different times from 11:49AM until close of business at 5:00PM Pacific, then posted another half dozen times after close of business into early evening.

Does your employer know you are posting online in a Disney fan forum during business hours on their dime? Or are you a middle aged person who still has to work irregular hours late at night or very early mornings? Like a 3AM to 11:30AM shift?

Disney might have originally bought Marvel back in 2009 to enhance their appeal to males. But times change and its no longer just for males.

If that's true, and human biology has somehow changed suddenly since 2009, the disastrous box office results for The Marvels don't seem to point to that being a good business strategy.

It's now quite apparent that Marvel should go back to making movies for teenage boys and young men. Because whatever their current strategy is, it isn't working for them.

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

 

[Disney Irish]

And yet you started posting here at 11:39AM Pacific Time, and posted 16 different times from 11:49AM until close of business at 5:00PM Pacific, then posted another half dozen times after close of business into early evening.

Does your employer know you are posting online in a Disney fan forum during business hours on their dime? Or are you a middle aged person who still has to work irregular hours late at night or very early mornings? Like a 3AM to 11:30AM shift?

I post at all different hours, but thanks for monitoring my posting habits. As for the rest, don't worry about that as its between my employer and me. Just know I get my job done, I do it very well, and my employer rewards me for it.

So are you now the work monitor for WDWMagic, if so you better check everyone else that clearly posts during working hours.

If that's true, and human biology has somehow changed suddenly since 2009, the disastrous box office results for The Marvels don't seem to point to that being a good business strategy.

It's now quite apparent that Marvel should go back to making movies for teenage boys and young men. Because whatever their current strategy is, it isn't working for them.

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

I know its hard for you to believe, but males and females can like the same things, it has nothing to do with biology.

By your own admission you don't watch any of the MCU content. So unless you are secretly watching them and just posting that you're not you don't actually know anything about any of the content.

How many movies have the MCU done that had a female lead? Out of the 33 films released so far there have only been 3 lead by females. The rest were either male lead or co-lead.

How many movies does the MCU have planned or did have planned that will be lead by a female? Zero, a huge big 0. None have been planned or were planned to be lead by a female.

How many movies have the MCU done that are actually geared toward females only? Zero, a huge big 0. None have been geared only toward females. Even The Marvels with its 3 female leads isn't geared only for females, its geared toward everyone. And as you posted a bunch of times males showed up to see it. Its just there wasn't enough that showed up of either male or female movie goers. So this idea that somehow the MCU is now geared toward female is false.

Now as for the why isn't it working with the recent movies. That is something that has been debated here, and on the interwebs for awhile now. There are many reasons, and its a combination of a lot of them. But in the end its not up to any of us to figure out or even fix it, its up to Kevin Feige and the rest of the Marvel team to figure out and fix. And I'm pretty sure they are work on it now, and don't really need us endlessly debating it on a Disney Fan Forum.

Next up will be Deadpool3 a clearly male lead MCU film. I'm anticipating it'll do well, but we'll see next summer.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Nope, I'm one of those work from home people that you think don't work and only drink Merlot. So no one looking over my shoulder.


Disney might have originally bought Marvel back in 2009 to enhance their appeal to males. But times change and its no longer just for males.

Studies show that as of 2021 up to 47% of MCU viewers were female even though female characters only accounted for 10% of screen time in the MCU.

Is the problem that "The Marvels" is ... for the youths?

The issue isn't that huge audiences didn't show for MCU's female superhero team-up. It's that Gen Z stayed home, and that's mainly who it was for

www.salon.com

They aren't abandoning, they have just been slow to come on-board and remain engaged. And its because Gen Z tends to consume their content differently than older generation, ie they don't tend to watch traditional TV or go to the movies as much. Its an issue that is plaguing many Studios in Hollywood, and the reason many are diving head first into streaming and other newer mediums such as Tiktok. If you want to go after the Tiktok generation you have to engage them differently.



Sorry but I live almost 400 miles away from Silver Lake, and I don't "brunch". But I can see the trends in media and see that the older generations and old ways of Hollywood aren't going to work with the next generations.

So just like every other company as you mentioned, Disney has to adjust to the way the next generation engages with content.

If all of your facts like "47% 0f MCU fans are female" come from one source, then maybe you need to read some other sites. I see you quote Salon and I had never heard of it, so I took a look. These are the top stories as of now. I think they may be leaning a bit one way in their reporting.

 

[Disney Irish]

If all of your facts like "47% 0f MCU fans are female" come from one source, then maybe you need to read some other sites. I see you quote Salon and I had never heard of it, so I took a look. These are the top stories as of now. I think they may be leaning a bit one way in their reporting.

View attachment 756737

That article is just a recent one reference to it, not the actual source. It was actually a study performed in 2021 by an outside media group that doesn't lean one way or the other. That article references that study, you can read it yourself.

 

[LSLS]

100% it appealed to just about everyone, there's no doubt about it. Here's my question. If Marvel appealed to male and female, old and young, with the mcu very much aimed at the male demographic, what needed to change? We've seen the numbers with the marvels. The woman didn't seem to show up. It was what, 60 some percent male? So maybe the woman liked when it was aimed more towards the male audience as well? I know my wife and daughter did. Obviously there's more to it than just this, it's not just one magic fix.

Maybe. But if that younger generation doesn't seem to be all that interested in what you're doing. Why shift away from a demo that was all in? I understand the need to gain new blood, but I'm not real sure the younger generation cares all that much either.

I mean, my bigger question is what about this movie didn't appeal to everyone? We have had superhero movies with women leads that did big numbers. I don't think it's that it's not appealing to everyone in the sense that they are trying to get to a different market, I think it's they stretched themselves too far with the D+ shows, and that nothing has really come together. Like, it's cool Ms. Marvel came together with Captain Marvel (and it even includes some of Wandavision), but we are through Phase 4 and into Phase 5. Excluding all the shows, this is the 10th Marvel movie for these two phases with no big Avengers-style meetup. And beyond that, it doesn't even look like these are close. I mean, which previous movie has incorporated into the Marvels? Even the end scenes/credit scenes hint at the future based on stuff that hasn't ever come out, or that revolves around the shows (side note, didn't Feige say at one point the shows weren't going to be required watching to keep up with the films?). The BIG mistake in my eyes was expecting to keep the attention through 3 phases with no smaller payoffs of following the characters.

 

[erasure fan1]

I mean, my bigger question is what about this movie didn't appeal to everyone? We have had superhero movies with women leads that did big numbers.

There's a few reasons in my opinion. I think marvel was a bit blind to the numbers that captain marvel did originally. The movie did great numbers, but was it because of the character, or it's placement in the greater mcu? I'm guessing they realized it was the later and the reason captain marvel 2 became the marvels. Unfortunately they once again misread the tea leaves.

Having a team up, that's good. I like team ups better than solo stories. Unfortunately they decided to take characters from two tv shows that had overall pretty low viewership. Especially ms marvel. I get that a lot of people keep saying it was a good show. It lost me in a couple of episodes. And a lot of people never even started it. So in my opinion, what was the appeal outside of it just being part of the mcu? It didn't have the luxury of the interconnected story that people were super invested in. That is what helped bring in the viewers for a tree that says 4 words and a talking racoon. It helped catapult Captain marvels box office into the stratosphere.

Also the trailers message was a bit mixed in my opinion. You had quirky silly teen comedy vibes, then a trailer with a super serious tone featuring cap, iron man and thanos? It was just a mixed bag all around. And the one thing that could save it, would be great word of mouth. And that never came.

 

[_caleb]

100% it appealed to just about everyone, there's no doubt about it. Here's my question. If Marvel appealed to male and female, old and young, with the mcu very much aimed at the male demographic, what needed to change?

Audience behavior is changing. Any changes to Disney’s strategy has been driven by business, not ideology. It wasn’t a matter of leave well enough alone. The business is different today than it was 3 years ago.

We've seen the numbers with the marvels. The woman didn't seem to show up. It was what, 60 some percent male? So maybe the woman liked when it was aimed more towards the male audience as well? I know my wife and daughter did. Obviously there's more to it than just this, it's not just one magic fix.

The good thing is that DTC results in much better data than box office/linear. Disney has a much better idea than ever what its various audiences and sub-audiences actually browse for, watch, re-watch, share, click on, and buy.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Disney obviously has a huge trust issue. Interesting acknowledgment from the Annual SEC report.

In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”

I've said it before somewhere, and I'll say it again: a take on The City Mouse And The Country Mouse is the way to go. Whatever they call it, whether or not they use mice, that story is 100% relevant right now. It gives a chance to represent the entire population, maybe poke fun at both sides, elevate both sides, and promote unity of both sides (a message sorely lacking today.) It's the perfect vehicle to address everything right now, and the perfect moral people need to hear. Especially kids.

I don't have all the answer, nor do I get paid to come up with them. But I can say that they need to continue (or get back to) appealing to everyone not just a certain demographic. The characters and story arcs that do that best is what should be used.

Why does a movie focused on white guys appeal to everyone, but a movie focused on a white guy with a blip of two lesbians expected to only appeal to some?

 

[celluloid]

Audience behavior is changing.

Like building one. Brand damage takes time to see the results. Let's not go back to blame the audience when other studios are having success.

The laurels were rested on for awhile, and accelerated.

 

[flynnibus]

Maybe the strategy of introducing characters via tv show first before a movie isn’t working well…

On ms marvel i think it’s just a bad character combination too. You team captain marvel with two characters no one cares about… with a plot no one knows about… and no one shows up.

 

[Andrew C]

Disney itself is a Conscious business.

Conscious? You mean...Unconscious!!!

#badjoke

 

[celluloid]

Conscious? You mean...Unconscious!!!

#badjoke

Their strategies and hubris certainly give them those results.

 

[LSLS]

Maybe the strategy of introducing characters via tv show first before a movie isn’t working well…

On ms marvel i think it’s just a bad character combination too. You team captain marvel with two characters no one cares about… with a plot no one knows about… and no one shows up.

I personally think that's a much bigger thing than people are realizing, especially when they aren't tying the movies together with it (just D+ series).

 

[_caleb]

Like building one. Brand damage takes time to see the results. Let's not go back to blame the audience when other studios are having success.

The laurels were rested on for awhile, and accelerated.

The fact that you can point to some successes in the old model doesn't mean that the old model is viable.

What other studio is consistently cranking out financial successes at the box office? Or even in streaming, for that matter?

 

[celluloid]

The fact that you can point to some successes in the old model doesn't mean that the old model is viable.

What other studio is consistently cranking out financial successes at the box office? Or even in streaming, for that matter?

I did not say that they had to resort to the old model. Where do you get that? They can change and stay viable as they have mostly done in the past. They just chose poorly so far with their changes. If anything, remember resting on laurels means there was not a change to what was successful 3-10 years ago.

Your second comment is different. There is always ebb and flow. But as a whole, other studios are having much more success than failure. Let me bold this for you though so we don't rehash what is on 50 or more pages worth of content in this thread. It has already been confirmed Disney had by far the worst than some of their competition. So let's not go back to debating that.

 

[_caleb]

I did not say that they had to resort to the old model. Where do you get that? They can change and stay viable as they have mostly done in the past. They just chose poorly so far with their changes. If anything, remember resting on laurels means there was not a change to what was successful 3-5 years ago.

Yes, I'm familiar with the phrase. I'm saying the successes at other studios you're pointing to have largely been done in the old model. You say, they can change and stay viable. That's what they're doing. It's not profitable in the short run, and it's frustrated/angered/alienated a segment of their audiences, but they are changing in ways that all the studios are trying to do.

Your second comment is different. There is always ebb and flow. But as a whole, other studios are having much more success than failure. It has already been confirmed Disney had by far the worst than their competition. So let's not go back to debating that.

Which studios have it figured out and are enjoying reliable profit right now? And if that success is reproducible, why is every other major studio following Disney's lead in pursuing the same changes?

 

[celluloid]

Yes, I'm familiar with the phrase. I'm saying the successes at other studios you're pointing to have largely been done in the old model. You say, they can change and stay viable. That's what they're doing. It's not profitable in the short run, and it's frustrated/angered/alienated a segment of their audiences, but they are changing in ways that all the studios are trying to do.

How would you say Universal is under an old model or not changing its ways? You can't say others are trying to do, when they have had more success than Disney at it.

There is so much evidence to go against anything you are trying to claim here.

Still waiting to see where I pointed to successes in the old model?