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

[DKampy]

3) Apple has a current strategy of funding massive budgets for “prestige” films by famous directors (Napoleon, Flowers, etc.) to generate interest in their streaming service and develop credibility in the creative community knowing full well they will lose hundreds of millions at the box office in the process

Where is the source that this is Apple’s strategy…. I have my doubts Apple was planning on losing money… In the most likely scenario they were taking chances on Killers and Napoleon figuring if they got all this award consideration it would help the grosses in the Long run… which in past years it would of been… less likely now… plus word of mouth is not helping Napoleon… it is dropping like a rock… I am sure Apple did not plan for that

 

[Casper Gutman]

Well that shows me you not knowing of marketing.
Me saying a branding issue does not mean I said anything on Disney's "social messaging" that is a quote you put up after responding to me. I never used that term. I have openly stated all movies have messages, it is part of a story. How well it is told is different. Read my earlier post in this thread referencing Emily Dickenson's famous quote on the subject.
Disney's branding issue is because their standards of storytelling have slacked, declined by degrees and rested on laurels for years. Like your buddy Bob Iger, who in damage control even admits there has been bad quality storytelling giving in to quantity.

I did not bother answering your second part because it was a really crappy question. You want me to tell you why some other movies bombed? Movies bombed before and after the pandemic. It is always a risk.

Disney's constant failures have shown brand rejection. The critics and audiences, even those who went to see it say Wish is not up to standard. The Marvels, Lightyear, Strange World, Turning Red all consistently meh and even the love for some marvel is an oversaturated exhausted market.

Why is Wish going to end up with half the daily performance of Napoleon, a big budget Rated R movie that is currently one of one of this year's disappointments?

Could it be, brand rejection and continuing that it is not very good? Or are the majority of critics and general audience lying?

The brand is bad because many of their films have been bad and the perception, and going by recent reviews in masses of the latest film, the promise and experience is still bad. That castle in front of the movie does not mean much to people right now the way it did twenty or even five years ago. It can change, but it takes work.

Turning Red was good.

The list of universally agreed “bad” films is very small - Strange World, Ant-Man 3, Lightyear, SOMETIMES Thor 4. Those are the movies that are listed CONSTANTLY, the three or four movies that supposedly undid a reputation that had seen Disney dominate the box office for many, many years. When people talk about the decline of the theme parks (which still make money hand over fist), there are hundreds of examples and a multi-decades consistent decline to cite. When people talk about the films, it’s three movies and some handwaving.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Where is the source that this is Apple’s strategy…. I have my doubts Apple was planning on losing money… In the most likely scenario they were taking chances on Killers and Napoleon figuring if they got all this award consideration it would help the grosses in the Long run… which in past years it would of been… less likely now… plus word of mouth is not helping Napoleon… it is dropping like a rock… I am sure Apple did not plan for that

Ehhhhh… he’s pretty much right here. Apple is fine with losing money on streaming content because streaming supports their other, wildly lucrative endeavors. It doesn’t mean those films don’t bomb, however, or that they weren’t subject to the same changes market forces as everyone else.

Where the post to which you’re responding is deeply disingenuous is in its transparent attempt to dismiss the struggles of the other studios.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Mario is bargain basement animation. No sane person should want Disney (or Dreamworks) to sink to that level.

Really, it was a fun movie my kids loved it and it made 1.3 billion.
I think Disney should be looking at making films between 100 and 150.
Barbie was make for 145 million.

These two movies are huge franchises and they made them on a reasonable budget.
I'm the sane person that congratulates these cost conscious moves and still creates enjoyable movies.

Friday night at Freddies cost 20 million to make and made 287 million world wide.
Godzilla minus one has made 40 million in 5 days off a 15 million dollar budget.

If fewer people are going to the movies. Disney needs to spend less and be more creative in their execution.

 

[el_super]

Apple has a current strategy of funding massive budgets for “prestige” films by famous directors

So it's OK for Apple to lose money on movies but not Disney? As long as it eventually leads to gains in the streaming business right?

Doesn't AppleTV have about half the subscribers of Disney+? How does the math work out on that?

 

[CinematicFusion]

Ehhhhh… he’s pretty much right here. Apple is fine with losing money on streaming content because streaming supports their other, wildly lucrative endeavors. It doesn’t mean those films don’t bomb, however, or that they weren’t subject to the same changes market forces as everyone else.

Where the post to which you’re responding is deeply disingenuous is in its transparent attempt to dismiss the struggles of the other studios.

Apple has been making some solid series. Monarch, Ted Lasso, For All Mankind, Lessons in Chemistry, Silo, Shrinking are all very good shows. Invasion is decent.... Morning Show season 2 and 3 is terrible.

 

[el_super]

Well that shows me you not knowing of marketing.

Oh. So it's marketing now? Ok. All of the studios are having issues marketing movies except the one or two that do well that were marketed well? Is that it?

I did not bother answering your second part because it was a really crappy question. You want me to tell you why some other movies bombed? Movies bombed before and after the pandemic. It is always a risk.

If you can't figure out why other movies are struggling, you are not in a position to dictate why Disney's movies are struggling.

Anyway I will skip to the end to save time: it's not a branding issue. It's not a marketing issue. People are less inclined to go to the theaters due to cost, access, and the wide variety of at-home entertainment. It's impacting ALL studios and having a more drastic impact on Disney because of how successful their streaming business has been.

If Migration ends up falling flat, are you going to blame Disney's marketing?

 

[CinematicFusion]

So it's OK for Apple to lose money on movies but not Disney? As long as it eventually leads to gains in the streaming business right?

Doesn't AppleTV have about half the subscribers of Disney+? How does the math work out on that?

Apple is a tech store, it's a side gig for them.

• Apple generated $383.2 billion revenue in 2023, 52% came from iPhone sales
• In 2022, Apple TV+ brought in $1.5 billion in revenue. In 2023, that number increased to $2.2 billion. Apple TV+ is estimated to make up 2% of Apple's services revenue.
  
  
• The Walt Disney Company (DIS) had a total annual revenue of $88.9 billion for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2023. This was a 7.47% increase from 2022.
  

 

[celluloid]

Oh. So it's marketing now? Ok. All of the studios are having issues marketing movies except the one or two that do well that were marketed well? Is that it?

Dude. The word branding. Branding is what marketing is related to. Take the hint.

Disney is the only one with a brand as damaged as it is. It is a fact.


If Migration falls flat. Why would I blame Disney's marketing? It is a Universal Illumination film. It would be a disappointment in the most successful movie studio of the year and the most succesful film year I believe Universal has had since 1993. No one has said that every movie has to be a hit. Universal had some duds this year too. It was not consistent enough to hurt their brand. WB also had some big wins for them among all of their mess. Disney's brand is far more hurt.

I never said the problem was due to marketing. I pointed out you don't know anything of marketing becuase you do not understand the concept of branding. I said the brand is damaged. Branding is what marketing is and they have a lot of work to do if Disney let's them do it as well. Disney's marketing has their work cut out for them due to the business choices of making meh movies consistently and oversaturated. That is what hurts the brand perception, promise and experience fulfillment. All the good marketing in the world can't help Disney's current brand image right now because the product is not good for most.



I am sorry a company you care about has lost so much trust with its customers and internal customer base, but it is happening. It does also not mean permanent. They have work to do, and it probably won't start getting better until their current leadership is quite different in growth mindset or physically out.

 

[erasure fan1]

Disney needs to reduce production cost to around 100 million for animation, just like Mario. Barbie cost 145 million to make.
Disney needs to stay within that range.

297 million to do a remake of Mermaid is a joke. After marketing expense, the movie made 9 million at the box office. Movie was 150 million over budget.

There's zero chance Mermaid broke even let alone made 9mil. The numbers the article reference seem to be close enough from what has been reported about budget and marketing. Where the article misses is that they don't factor in Disney doesn't take all of that box office, only about half on average. So once you factor that in, the movie fell short, by a lot.

That said, you are right on with budgets. Does Disney Animation need to drop to a Mario budget? Not really. Do they need to do better than 200+ million? Absolutely. $130/$140 should be where they are falling. If you take the higher end at $140mil. That would put them at a $400mil or so break even as long as marketing isn't out of whack. That's a very doable target in my opinion.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Really, it was a fun movie my kids loved it and it made 1.3 billion.
I think Disney should be looking at making films between 100 and 150.
Barbie was make for 145 million.

These two movies are huge franchises and they made them on a reasonable budget.
I'm the sane person that congratulates these cost conscious moves and still creates enjoyable movies.

Friday night at Freddies cost 20 million to make and made 287 million world wide.
Godzilla minus one has made 40 million in 5 days off a 15 million dollar budget.

If fewer people are going to the movies. Disney needs to spend less and be more creative in their execution.

Mario was fun. It’s was also very basic CGI animation, Hannah-Barbera to Disney, Pixar, and Dreamwork’s… well, Disney. If Disney decided to be Illumination it would be a tragedy.

Mario, Five Nights, and Barbie (particularly the first two) are unicorns - massively popular IPs with tremendous cultural resonance that hadn’t been tapped for films. They don’t show a repeatable way forward. What we’re going to get is a flood of mediocre movies based on toys and games (yes, we have done this cycle before). I’ve asked this before, but if anyone has any ideas for huge untapped IPs like those three that Disney (or any other studio) could mine, I’d genuinely love to hear it.

 

[Casper Gutman]

There's zero chance Mermaid broke even let alone made 9mil. The numbers the article reference seem to be close enough from what has been reported about budget and marketing. Where the article misses is that they don't factor in Disney doesn't take all of that box office, only about half on average. So once you factor that in, the movie fell short, by a lot.

That said, you are right on with budgets. Does Disney Animation need to drop to a Mario budget? Not really. Do they need to do better than 200+ million? Absolutely. $130/$140 should be where they are falling. If you take the higher end at $140mil. That would put them at a $400mil or so break even as long as marketing isn't out of whack. That's a very doable target in my opinion.

The Little Mermaid did slightly better than break even. This has been laboriously proven with numerous articles from reliable publications which use actual numbers.

 

[el_super]

Apple is a tech store, it's a side gig for them.

Double standard.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Dude. The word branding. Branding is what marketing is related to. Take the hint.

Disney is the only one with a brand as damaged as it is. It is a fact.


If Migration falls flat. Why would I blame Disney's marketing? It is a Universal Illumination film. It would be a disappointment in the most successful movie studio of the year and the most succesful film year I believe Universal has had since 1993. No one has said that every movie has to be a hit. Universal had some duds this year too. It was not consistent enough to hurt their brand. WB also had some big wins for them among all of their mess. Disney's brand is far more hurt.

I never said the problem was due to marketing. I pointed out you don't know anything of marketing becuase you do not understand the concept of branding. I said the brand is damaged. Branding is what marketing is and they have a lot of work to do if Disney let's them do it as well. Disney's marketing has their work cut out for them due to the business choices of making meh movies consistently and oversaturated. That is what hurts the brand perception, promise and experience fulfillment. All the good marketing in the world can't help Disney's current brand image right now because the product is not good for most.

The angrier you get the further you stray from the point and make ridiculous accusations.

I am sorry a company you care about has lost so much trust with its customers and internal customer base, but it is happening. It does also not mean permanent. They have work to do, and it probably won't start getting better until their current leadership is quite different in growth mindset or physically out.

Why is the “brand damaged?” Is it just those three or four pesky films again?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Double standard.

They’re right in this case - Apple’s films and TV are an odd situation.

And it doesn’t really matter, because the key point is that Apples films still failed - whether or not they expected them to or were upset by the results is entirely irrelevant.

 

[el_super]

Disney is the only one with a brand as damaged as it is. It is a fact.

Based on what? The axios poll? Where did Universal end up on that list? Or the other studios?

No one has said that every movie has to be a hit.

If you are so sure branding is the cause of Disney's issues, you should easily be able to explain why Migration is trending so badly. But you keep trying to excuse it as no big deal.

I said the brand is damaged.

Except when it comes to toys, and streaming, and the parks. Then everyone is able to love Disney. So strange.

 

[celluloid]

Based on what? The axios poll? Where did Universal end up on that list? Or the other studios?




If you are so sure branding is the cause of Disney's issues, you should easily be able to explain why Migration is trending so badly. But you keep trying to excuse it as no big deal.

You bias is showing.



Except when it comes to toys, and streaming, and the parks. Then everyone is able to love Disney. So strange.

I don't really care how well one company is doing. Your accusation of bias means nothing. Just stating the facts. Migration does not exactly look like The Citizen Kane of movies and t

Yes, the Axios poll is one of many metrics.

Theatrical box office is what this thread is about.

How they compare on any poll is really irrelevant. What matters to show that Disney's brand is hurt, is that they dropped, which they did.
Let's also get this straight.

Bad brand recognition is not the cause of Disney's issue, it is the result.

 

[celluloid]

Why is the “brand damaged?” Is it just those three or four pesky films again?

Everything a company does either enhances or diminishes the brand. Loss of quality and loss of revenue have become more consistent. It is not complicated.

The brand is not recognized like it once was. Simple as that. It could go up again, it could go further down.

 

[erasure fan1]

The Little Mermaid did slightly better than break even. This has been laboriously proven with numerous articles from reliable publications which use actual numbers.

Can you show me one? Because common sense would tell you that the math doesn't work. Let's add it up.
*298 was the domestic total. That means take home for Disney was about 178mil.
*International was 271. That would give it a take home of about 135mil. And I'm being generous, with international I've never seen reported at 50% take.
178+135=313
So unless they spent only 70mil on advertising and got the very highest % of both box offices, and was at the low end of the reported budgets, it didn't make it. So I'd love to see these "reliable" numbers from reliable publications. I've been told that before but no one can seem to prove anything. I'd also like to see these number breakdowns that you and a bunch of others seem to reference. Not to prove you wrong, but to be able to properly calculate these things so we can stop arguing about it.

 

[celluloid]

Mario, Five Nights, and Barbie (particularly the first two) are unicorns - massively popular IPs with tremendous cultural resonance that hadn’t been tapped for films. They don’t show a repeatable way forward. What we’re going to get is a flood of mediocre movies based on toys and games (yes, we have done this cycle before). I’ve asked this before, but if anyone has any ideas for huge untapped IPs like those three that Disney (or any other studio) could mine, I’d genuinely love to hear it.

This may shock your doom and gloom sense you want to believe but people will make original screenplay films again. It is going to be ok man. Also, people are still writing books and making video games, and even writing plays! More content will come. They just have to try harder. Box office is growing.


The Hannah Barbera basic CGI thing you keep touting has no basis either. Do you really think Mario looks basic compared to some of Disney's recent? Are Turning Red, Wish and Luca some sort of Fantasia or Snow White level standard for you?

Every year since 2020 more people have gone to the movies. Theaters have things are getting better. Writer's and sag strike will make 2024 interesting but the fact is more films have come out this year than last year, and the year before. It is up, not down.