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

[_caleb]

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.

Of course I can. Disney, Universal, Warners, Sony, etc. are all legacy entertainment companies. They knew how to make money from movies. There's never been a sure-fire formula, but they were profitable for a long time.

But things started changing. Technology. Social media. Audience behavior. Attitudes. Disruption by "new guys" (Netflix). All the studios recognized this (some earlier than others) as an existential threat their business.

What to do? Pivot. Adjust. Most kept doing things the "old way" (box office/linear) while dabbling in finding a new way (this is what Hulu was for Disney and NBC). But then the changes accelerated.

Where others treated is as just another content deliver channel (still trying to leverage artificial scarcity and appeal to the broadest audience possible), Disney was remarkable in that it went all in on DTC. They interpret the trends as being so significant, they effectively switched to treating box office/linear as secondary to their streaming business, which they see as the future.

Some are still having success in the "old" model: Top Gun, Barbie, Oppenheimer, etc. But these are fleeting and can't be reliably reproduced. This is why all the big studios are following the same path Disney is and looking to go all-in on streaming/segmentation, etc.

Some are watching Disney, seeing the pushback they're getting from certain vocal audience sub-sets, and getting cold feet. So they double down on the old blockbuster model. This has actually been successful in recent months, but I think it's because there are fewer studios playing seriously in that space. They are essentially tapping into the pent-up demand among the sub-sets of audiences that are frustrated with all the changes.

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

Where is the evidence? That some don't like the changes? Can't you see that Disney has all the data and was convinced to risk everything on streaming?

 

[celluloid]

Of course I can. Disney, Universal, Warners, Sony, etc. are all legacy entertainment companies. They knew how to make money from movies. There's never been a sure-fire formula, but they were profitable for a long time.

But things started changing. Technology. Social media. Audience behavior. Attitudes. Disruption by "new guys" (Netflix). All the studios recognized this (some earlier than others) as an existential threat their business.

What to do? Pivot. Adjust. Most kept doing things the "old way" (box office/linear) while dabbling in finding a new way (this is what Hulu was for Disney and NBC). But then the changes accelerated.

Where others treated is as just another content deliver channel (still trying to leverage artificial scarcity and appeal to the broadest audience possible), Disney was remarkable in that it went all in on DTC. They interpret the trends as being so significant, they effectively switched to treating box office/linear as secondary to their streaming business, which they see as the future.

Some are still having success in the "old" model: Top Gun, Barbie, Oppenheimer, etc. But these are fleeting and can't be reliably reproduced. This is why all the big studios are following the same path Disney is and looking to go all-in on streaming/segmentation, etc.

Were? Some studios still are!
Other studios had examples of bigger success streaming same day as theatrical release vs Disney losing money on both box office and streaming, in addition to Aliens being moved from streaming platform to theatrical release, proves your thoughts are completely unfounded. Among Disney's overproduced ROI situations, they are absolutely the king of creating scarcity.

You really claim that other companies are producing artificial scarcity when Indiana Jones and many other examples don't come out to Disney Plus within a 40 day or same day window to their theatrical release?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Wow. Tells me everything I need to know about you. And it's an ugly look. You are one of the last people on this site I care about their respect. You've never given it anyway, so I guess shame on me for thinking you could ever have a rational discussion. Am I using the emoji right?

I must have missed it - where did Tony say the kiss was the main reason Lightyear failed?

 

[_caleb]

Were? Some studios still are!

Again, it's more hit-or-miss than ever. Some studios are still seeing successes, but even those are seeing fewer successes as the industry as a whole is rapidly changing. No studio figured out how to reliably make the kind of money they're used to in this current environment.

Other studios had examples of bigger success streaming same day as theatrical release vs Disney losing money on both box office and streaming, in addition to Aliens being moved from streaming platform to theatrical release, proves your thoughts are completely unfounded. Among Disney's overproduced ROI situations, they are absolutely the king of creating scarcity.

You really claim that other companies are producing artificial scarcity when Indiana Jones and many other examples don't come out to Disney Plus within a 40 day or same day window to their theatrical release?

Why do you speak in absolutes like this? Completely unfounded? I might see things differently than you do, but I'm not making things up out of thin air. And my theory, unlike others, doesn't require a vast conspiracy, mass ineptitude, or ideological zealotry.

I'm not saying that Disney isn't still pulling the levers that served them well under the old model. They are! They're still releasing films to theaters. They're still running linear/cable. They're still licensing content to other networks. They're doing all this because there's still money in it. But they (perhaps more than most studios) recognize that these streams are drying up and less reliable than others. So they're taking huge risks in new approaches.

For example, Disney ditched the "Disney Vault" approach, which created artificial scarcity, and dumped pretty much everything into D+. While many are crying "over saturation!" of Star Wars and Marvel content, Disney is cranking out content so there's more than enough for different sub-sets and audiences to consume. They've varied by degrees the content offerings (what some see as DEI pushes) to fill the slate with contend aimed at a variety of smaller, but deeper audiences. They've shown willingness to frustrate some audiences as they seek to better engage others.

Disney is experimenting by adjusting theatrical windows, D+ release dates, etc. Disney+ gives them more data/insight than they've ever had, so it makes sense that they're monitoring the effects changes like this have on user behavior.

 

[Casper Gutman]

2023 had five successful blockbusters - Oppenheimer, Barbie, Spider-Verse, Guardians 3, and Mario. Disney had one, Sony had one, Warners had one, and Uni had two. It's a shockingly low blockbuster batting rate.

The industry is changing in fundamental ways no studio understands. Outside of possible sequels, the success of Opp, Barbie, and Mario is not easily repeatable - they don't offer a clear roadmap to future success. Spider-Verse and Guardians indicate superheroes can still sell but they need an added hook, the exact nature of which is unclear.

Disney is more exposed by the changing market because they had an all-tentpole strategy that worked amazingly well for a decade. All the studios, however, are in a period of experimentation.

Disney has also been hurt by a concerted, bad-faith assault on their brand by some of the most powerful people in the country. The amount of damage is debatable, but its existence is not.

 

[LSLS]

2023 had five successful blockbusters - Oppenheimer, Barbie, Spider-Verse, Guardians 3, and Mario. Disney had one, Sony had one, Warners had one, and Uni had two. It's a shockingly low blockbuster batting rate.

The industry is changing in fundamental ways no studio understands. Outside of possible sequels, the success of Opp, Barbie, and Mario is not easily repeatable - they don't offer a clear roadmap to future success. Spider-Verse and Guardians indicate superheroes can still sell but they need an added hook, the exact nature of which is unclear.

Disney is more exposed by the changing market because they had an all-tentpole strategy that worked amazingly well for a decade. All the studios, however, are in a period of experimentation.

Disney has also been hurt by a concerted, bad-faith assault on their brand by some of the most powerful people in the country. The amount of damage is debatable, but its existence is not.

Here's the thing though. 2019 had either 9 or 10. Sony had 1 (or 2 if you count Jumanji, seems to be on the bubble), and WB had 1. And that's it. All the others are Disney. 2018 had 7. Universal had 1, WB had 2, Fox 1, and Disney had 3. 2017 maybe 11. Universal had 2, WB had 2, Sony had 2, 1 was a Chinese release, and the rest were Disney.

Point being, all other studios were kind of on par for what they normally do. The difference was Disney. SO, is it movies are down and Disney just took the brunt, or is it Disney has changed something and tanked THEIR theatrical releases?

 

[erasure fan1]

I must have missed it - where did Tony say the kiss was the main reason Lightyear failed?

Let me throw it back. When did I say he said that? The discussion was about lightyear and why it failed. I said it wasn't a great film. Of course I get the angry face from tony. When I said I don't think the film is successful even if the kiss was never added, he replied with 7 articles about the kiss. He did say it had a major effect. I don't think the movie failed because of the kiss. He fought me on it, even though I said it would have done better if it wasn't there, because there's a group of narrow minded people who were against it. It did too little to think that it was taken down solely by it. I said it would have done better, I never claimed it didn't have an effect. My question was, would the movie have been a success if the kiss wasn't added? I say no, because it wasn't a great film.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Here's the thing though. 2019 had either 9 or 10. Sony had 1 (or 2 if you count Jumanji, seems to be on the bubble), and WB had 1. And that's it. All the others are Disney. 2018 had 7. Universal had 1, WB had 2, Fox 1, and Disney had 3. 2017 maybe 11. Universal had 2, WB had 2, Sony had 2, 1 was a Chinese release, and the rest were Disney.

Point being, all other studios were kind of on par for what they normally do. The difference was Disney. SO, is it movies are down and Disney just took the brunt, or is it Disney has changed something and tanked THEIR theatrical releases?

I honestly think its the first, though your mileage may vary. The overall box office is down significantly. I'm also not seeing a dramatic decline in the quality of their output - The Marvels, Little Mermaid, and Elemental are very comparable to their predecessors. Only Wish seems like it has notable quality issues.

Disney HAS made mistakes beyond the immediate quality of individual films that have hurt the box office of their slate. Marvels likely suffered from Ant-Man, a major disappointment, and from the oversaturation of Marvel content. Pixar films being released directly onto D+ damaged the brand. It is also POSSIBLE that the attacks on the studio have been more effective then folks believe - after all, Disney sells escapism, and even if you disagree with the substance of the assault, it associates their films with some of the more unappealing aspects of modern society.

Honestly, its a perfect storm of internal and external developments, some unique and some industry-wide, that have caused Disney to flounder.

I'm curious about which 2023 films folks expect to be hits in the current environment. I'd argue Barbie, Mario, Guardians, and Spider-Verse (and Five Nights) were all easily foreseeable hits, though the extent of Barbie's success might have been a surprise. In 23, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2, Despicable Me 4, and Joker 2 seem the best bets, with Fall Guy, Kung Fu Panda 4, Furiosa, and Dune 2 likely to find success on a more modest scale. The rest...

 

[celluloid]

I honestly think its the first, though your mileage may vary. The overall box office is down significantly.

It is actually up with more ticket sales than last two previous years.

The share is what changed. If people showed up and bought tickets for Disney's releases to where most made what they should have.

You would have the year ending closer to 11 billion instead of the 8 and a half billion, which would be back to 2019.

Attendance tide rose all ships slowly again another year away from pandemic. Only one studio did not rise the same way.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Let me throw it back. When did I say he said that? The discussion was about lightyear and why it failed. I said it wasn't a great film. Of course I get the angry face from tony. When I said I don't think the film is successful even if the kiss was never added, he replied with 7 articles about the kiss. He did say it had a major effect. I don't think the movie failed because of the kiss. He fought me on it, even though I said it would have done better if it wasn't there, because there's a group of narrow minded people who were against it. It did too little to think that it was taken down solely by it. I said it would have done better, I never claimed it didn't have an effect. My question was, would the movie have been a success if the kiss wasn't added? I say no, because it wasn't a great film.

The best I can tell, you both agree the controversy around the kiss had some effect but isn't primarily responsible for the film's failure, but you're eager to minimize the controversy as you do with a lot of the attacks on Disney while for Tony the attack is of greater significance. Apologies if I misinterpret.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It is actually up with more ticket sales than last two previous years.

The share is what changed. If people showed up and bought tickets for Disney's releases to where most made what they should have.

You would have the year ending closer to 11 billion instead of the 8 and a half billion, which would be back to 2019.

Attendance tide rose all ships slowly again another year away from pandemic. Only one studio did not rise the same way.

Ticket sales are likely up over 2022 but are still down massively from pre-pandemic in 2019.

 

[LSLS]

I honestly think its the first, though your mileage may vary. The overall box office is down significantly. I'm also not seeing a dramatic decline in the quality of their output - The Marvels, Little Mermaid, and Elemental are very comparable to their predecessors. Only Wish seems like it has notable quality issues.

Disney HAS made mistakes beyond the immediate quality of individual films that have hurt the box office of their slate. Marvels likely suffered from Ant-Man, a major disappointment, and from the oversaturation of Marvel content. Pixar films being released directly onto D+ damaged the brand. It is also POSSIBLE that the attacks on the studio have been more effective then folks believe - after all, Disney sells escapism, and even if you disagree with the substance of the assault, it associates their films with some of the more unappealing aspects of modern society.

Honestly, its a perfect storm of internal and external developments, some unique and some industry-wide, that have caused Disney to flounder.

I'm curious about which 2023 films folks expect to be hits in the current environment. I'd argue Barbie, Mario, Guardians, and Spider-Verse (and Five Nights) were all easily foreseeable hits, though the extent of Barbie's success might have been a surprise. In 23, Deadpool 3, Inside Out 2, Despicable Me 4, and Joker 2 seem the best bets, with Fall Guy, Kung Fu Panda 4, Furiosa, and Dune 2 likely to find success on a more modest scale. The rest...

See, but I pointed out in another thread, the box office is down because of Disney and MAYBE Sony a bit. The other major studios are at or almost at their 2018/19 levels. 2023 was either there best or second best revenue/movie released in the last 30 years outside of Disney and Sony.

I will say, I'm not one to make the case of how bad the movies actually are. To be fair, I never saw (and will never see) Little Mermaid (sorry, I hate the live action remakes that are the same storylines, and I'm sick of Lin Manuel), nor Elemental, but I agree Marvels was good. Not great, but it's fine for what it is, certainly better than it's gotten in box office. I still think the difference is Disney has changed their audience. Not in the way that's argued here, but in that they now know they can see it on D+ in 3 months, so why waste the money in the theater with how expensive it is?

 

[celluloid]

Ticket sales are likely up over 2022 but are still down massively from pre-pandemic in 2019.

It has gotten closer every year since thus far. It has gone from 2-4-7 and this year now 8 and a half billion since the Pandemic impacts. We are back up to 8 and a half billion to 2019's 11. Even with inflation attendance is growing steadily a year again.

If we were still seeing 4-5 billion. you would have a point on a trend that the industry has had some rapid change. Things can be not back to 2019 and not be dying this death you all depict.
Disney is really the only studio suffering like this, and the difference is obvious that the gap would end the year pretty close.

If 3/4ths of Disney's big budgets would have made back what they wanted them to, we would be that much closer yet. So really, the largest part of the gap is mostly Walt Disney Studios.

 

[Casper Gutman]

See, but I pointed out in another thread, the box office is down because of Disney and MAYBE Sony a bit. The other major studios are at or almost at their 2018/19 levels. 2023 was either there best or second best revenue/movie released in the last 30 years outside of Disney and Sony.

I will say, I'm not one to make the case of how bad the movies actually are. To be fair, I never saw (and will never see) Little Mermaid (sorry, I hate the live action remakes that are the same storylines, and I'm sick of Lin Manuel), nor Elemental, but I agree Marvels was good. Not great, but it's fine for what it is, certainly better than it's gotten in box office. I still think the difference is Disney has changed their audience. Not in the way that's argued here, but in that they now know they can see it on D+ in 3 months, so why waste the money in the theater with how expensive it is?

I'm incredibly surprised by your assessment. Paramount, for instance, has suffered the same kind of string of underperformers as Disney. Did you run the numbers yourself, or is their an article you could point to?

I fully agree about streaming being a liability. How long do the other studios generally wait before releasing their films to their streaming service?

 

[celluloid]

I'm incredibly surprised by your assessment. Paramount, for instance, has suffered the same kind of string of underperformers as Disney.

How do you figure that? Transformers, Ninja Turtles and to some extent even Mission Impossible's latest were not hits but closer to the gaps than Disney's ROI failures.

Their bombs did not often have the big budget gap that Disney's did. Less dollars in the pool to lose.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Disney has also been hurt by a concerted, bad-faith assault on their brand by some of the most powerful people in the country. The amount of damage is debatable, but its existence is not.

I also think Iger did the studio no favors with his comments during the writers/actors strike. He became the face against the movement and certainly made the company look worse to those on the opposite end of the spectrum who already disliked Disney for being the corporate behemoth that devalued their employees and stifled creativity.

Unless you're on a Disney-centric fan forum, it's not hard to imagine the general public not caring about the Disney corporate product like they used to for one reason or another. The predictability of their content and release pattern, constant bad press about the price hikes at their parks, drama about how their business is run, the relentless barrage of marketing etc. Disney is nothing special anymore, and hardly unique with what they put out.

As was said before, the studio has always had periods where they fall out of favor with the public and then rebound. We're just in that low point where the public either wants something different, or a break for a while. I also don't think anything will ever top the 2019 hype of Endgame, Frozen 2 and Star Wars 9 all in the same year.

 

[Ghost93]

I think Lightyear would have made more money without the lesbians, but not enough to be a success. It made about $226 million and I think without the lesbian controversy/boycott it probably would have made about $350-400 million. I think a lot of people just didn't like the overall concept and tone of the movie.

For the record, I think Disney made the right call in not cutting the kiss. While it caused a hit at the box office in the short term, in the long term, it will help break down barriers and taboos about same-sex families in family films.

Of course, I have always said that since there was bound to be controversy and box office losses surrounding any LGBT themes — no matter how small within the context of the overall film — Disney should have just bitten the bullet and have gone all out and made a gay romance movie. The company will probably hesitate to go there for a while due to the Lightyear/Strange World controversies.

 

[LSLS]

I'm incredibly surprised by your assessment. Paramount, for instance, has suffered the same kind of string of underperformers as Disney. Did you run the numbers yourself, or is their an article you could point to?

I fully agree about streaming being a liability. How long do the other studios generally wait before releasing their films to their streaming service?

The Numbers - Box Office Performance History for Paramount Pictures

Box Office performance history for Paramount Pictures

www.the-numbers.com

Apologies, Paramount's numbers per release were their 5th best year, not second. Also, keep in mind I'm not looking at how the performed based on their budgets, just total numbers. But you can see, their 2023 number is the best they have seen since 2016 for total revenue. Also note, for some reason it lists Indy as a Paramount film, but it was NOT counted in the total revenue (I went and pulled the numbers of all the movies myself to check).

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Of course, I have always said that since there was bound to be controversy and box office losses surrounding any LGBT themes — no matter how small within the context of the overall film — Disney should have just bitten the bullet and have gone all out and made a gay romance movie. The company will probably hesitate to go there for a while due to the Lightyear/Strange World controversies.

I see people saying Marvel is building up to Young Avengers, but I really don't see the Disney of today committing to anything with Wiccan and Hulking in it for the reasons stated above.

 

[Casper Gutman]

The Numbers - Box Office Performance History for Paramount Pictures

Box Office performance history for Paramount Pictures

www.the-numbers.com

Apologies, Paramount's numbers per release were their 5th best year, not second. Also, keep in mind I'm not looking at how the performed based on their budgets, just total numbers. But you can see, their 2023 number is the best they have seen since 2016 for total revenue. Also note, for some reason it lists Indy as a Paramount film, but it was NOT counted in the total revenue (I went and pulled the numbers of all the movies myself to check).

The Numbers counts movies released the previous year and rereleases as "movies in releases," which means movies are double counted. Thus Bumblebee is counted in both 2018 and 2019, but its 2019 returns are very small and drive down the average for the year. It makes sense this year would have much higher per movie earnings because their are far fewer holdover movies (and far fewer movies overall). I ran the numbers on a few years of Warners, for instance, and removed holdover movies and related box office, and the studio did much better per movie in 2017 and 2016, then it did in 2023. I didn't add the holdover movies box office to total box office in the year they were released, but this should only make their per movie performance even better. If my math is off, let me know.