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

C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
LSLS said:
So, I'm stepping in as an expert of "People who had heard some Marvel stuff before any movie came out but didn't ever see comics or know that stuff." I think you are off on Iron Man. TOTALLY agree it was not the most popular Marvel character (my expert analysis, he's behind X-Men, Spiderman, Hulk, Thor, and probably F4 at least before even the fist X-Men movie), but I had heard of him. I knew almost nothing about him, but I knew the name. The guys you had talked about I know nothing on.

BUT, I think your Guardians analogy is SPOT on. I don't think anyone outside of die hard comic book fans had a CLUE about those people other than Chris Pratt and Batista were in it.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That is the difference. Outside of Comic book world. Iron Man was def in the top five to ten zeitgeist of pop culture itself.
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
el_super said:
That you can't answer a simple question should be all we need to know about your ability to assess Disney's theatrical position.
Click to expand...

What simple question have you asked?

All studios have duds/bombs.

Disney's issue currently with their brand is that this is a consistent.

It is a fallacy to say that all other studios had this issue. Why can WB, Universal, and even Paramount animation outperform Disney? But Disney can't match what Disney used to do? Even a Toho International limited release that is subtitled for English holding up better than Wish could.

We? You and the gnome in your pocket? Others get it man. Live in the now. Take the L, or el.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Apples business isn’t based on brand recognition from its movies

I see you’re doing an excellent job of playing the fool today?

I’m gonna call Webster’s and see if they’ll just rename it permanently? 🤔
 
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
el_super said:
If that is truly your explanation for why Flower Moon made less money than The Marvels, than so be it. Some companies have duds. And it has nothing to do with branding.

Glad you can finally accept that.
Click to expand...

All you did was point out two movies have duds. Their results are totally different as you only focus on those two movies. This added nothing to the conversation and you get zero points for effort. That is totally branding. Apple is not seen as an entertainment company. This is still pretty darn new for them, brand new for theaters(see the term brand new? This is why the term exists)

Someone died in a car. The one was in a car accident, the other was left with no heat on in the winter.
Disney needs to turn the heat on at least once in awhile when they drive in the winter.

Universal had duds too, but they have had massive successes, so it is not an industry wide issue the way it is for Disney. It is old hat, it has been debunked. Bob even says their movies have not had quality. Take the L.
 
Last edited:
LSLS

LSLS

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
People had heard of Iron Man, although many knew little beyond a name. He was an old character, created in the 60s. He never sold very well and only a relatively few consumers could have been said to “care” about him. The Young Avengers are much, much newer characters. Their names haven’t had nearly as much time to penetrate the popular consciousness. Like Iron Man prior to the MCU, relatively few consumers care about them - their book sales were comparable. The consumers who DO, however, are younger and thus not represented much on this board. Older folks have a tendency to think particular aspects of pop culture stopped when they stopped paying attention and that the new-fangled stuff is less valid. The point is that, yes, people care about the Young Avengers and the number is comparable to those who cared - not just recognize the name but actually care - about Iron Man.

It’s a bit similar to how many posters here were baffled by the existence and popularity of Five Nights at Freddy’s. The Young Avengers are nowhere near as popular, but it’s an analogous case of older folks assuming there is no pop culture that isn’t their pop culture.
Click to expand...
But you are making a case for their being known in the world of comics, my case is for everywhere else. The Iron Man name was known by people outside of comics, I can't imagine the young avenger characters are. BUT, I'll again state while I don't agree with Iron Man, the case with Guardians makes a ton of sense. And, unlike with Guardians, they have the opportunity to introduce those characters before giving them their own film. I honestly could see that being a logical step, the only thing I really took issue with was saying they are as known as Iron Man was when that film came out (unless you weren't speaking of the general public, just comic book fans).
 
Willmark

Willmark

Well-Known Member
Sirwalterraleigh said:
You just answered why they didn’t buy them 10 years ago…

Studios are a mess to handle…especially one with baggage such as Disney

No…it’s more Disney than anyone else

Nice try though
Click to expand...
It’s a question of what’s valuable to Apple? Would Disney be worth it a the whole company to Apple or any other company that would buy them?

I’m guessing they don’t need the headache of running theme parks no matter how profitable they may be. Too outside their wheelhouse.

Studios? Don’t see that either. Agreed, who wants that mess?

ABC or ESPN? Nope and nope.

Disney as a company? As you correctly note they could have bought them and still can anytime they want but what does that get them?

That leaves the IP which is valuable. Not sure how’d they gather that in? Own the IP but license it back to Disney?

Note this is just musing (this is to anyone) not that this is the only thing that could or should happen, but around these parts needs to be stated.
 
Last edited:
C

celluloid

Well-Known Member
LSLS said:
But you are making a case for their being known in the world of comics, my case is for everywhere else. The Iron Man name was known by people outside of comics, I can't imagine the young avenger characters are. BUT, I'll again state while I don't agree with Iron Man, the case with Guardians makes a ton of sense. And, unlike with Guardians, they have the opportunity to introduce those characters before giving them their own film. I honestly could see that being a logical step, the only thing I really took issue with was saying they are as known as Iron Man was when that film came out (unless you weren't speaking of the general public, just comic book fans).
Click to expand...

Yeah. The claim that Iron Man was never popular is a factually incorrect statement in terms of pop culture. Somehow Casper got onto the comics world of him not being but originally stated Iron Man was never popular. Paramount went for Iron Man after Spidey, Xmen, Hulk and Fantastic Four were taken for a reason.

People forget that popular culture even indirect is part of the zeitgiest. Turbo Man was a mix of Iron Man and Power Rangers among a few other pop culture phenomenons and toy culture. The Black Sabbath song had no connection indented, but Iron Man is just as connected due to the public as Godzilla is to the Blue Oyster Cult Song.

To say Iron Man is never popular would be tone deaf to pop culture.

Millions of people have never been to a Disney theme park or even if they have, on Space Mountain/Thunder Mountain.

If you state those names around your American home town(and in many cases overseas) people will know you are speaking of a rollercoaster. They are popular.
 
Willmark

Willmark

Well-Known Member
As context some of Iron Man’s best arcs were from the 80s/early 90s like Demon in a bottle/Deliverance, Iron Monger/Obadiah Stane, Rise of War Machine, etc.

That’s not to say some of the later ones weren’t good but I can’t speak to exacting detail as the ones in most familiar with. One that sticks out in my mind is the paralyztion story line and Extremis later.

In addition to being a founding member of the Avengers he has been featured in various ways since the 1960s. So is he A+ list? Don’t know, but certainly a fairly well known character.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Willmark said:
It’s a question of what’s valuable to Apple? Would Disney be worth it a the whole company to Apple or any other company that would buy them?

I’m guessing they don’t need the headache of running theme parks no matter how profitable they may be. Too outside their wheelhouse.

Studios? Don’t see that either. Agred, who wants that mess?

ABC or ESPN? Nope and nope.

Disney as a company? As you correctly note they could have bought them and still can anytime they want but what does that get them?

That leaves the IP which is valuable. Not sure how’d they gather that in? Own the IP but license it back to Disney?

Note this is just musing (this is to anyone) not that this is the only thing that could or should happen, but around these parts needs to be stated.
Click to expand...

I would think you take the licenses and studios, outsource park ops, dump the rest
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
LSLS said:
But you are making a case for their being known in the world of comics, my case is for everywhere else. The Iron Man name was known by people outside of comics, I can't imagine the young avenger characters are. BUT, I'll again state while I don't agree with Iron Man, the case with Guardians makes a ton of sense. And, unlike with Guardians, they have the opportunity to introduce those characters before giving them their own film. I honestly could see that being a logical step, the only thing I really took issue with was saying they are as known as Iron Man was when that film came out (unless you weren't speaking of the general public, just comic book fans).
Click to expand...
The original comment to which I was replying was a snarky dig that nobody “cares” about the new characters. “Care” and name recognition are different things. Iron Man did have more name recognition, but that doesn’t translate to interest or popularity. Again the reason Marvel controlled the film rights in the 2000s was because of a universal understanding among studios that very few members of the general public cared about the character.
 
Casper Gutman

Casper Gutman

Well-Known Member
celluloid said:
Yeah. The claim that Iron Man was never popular is a factually incorrect statement in terms of pop culture. Somehow Casper got onto the comics world of him not being but originally stated Iron Man was never popular. Paramount went for Iron Man after Spidey, Xmen, Hulk and Fantastic Four were taken for a reason.

People forget that popular culture even indirect is part of the zeitgiest. Turbo Man was a mix of Iron Man and Power Rangers among a few other pop culture phenomenons and toy culture. The Black Sabbath song had no connection indented, but Iron Man is just as connected due to the public as Godzilla is to the Blue Oyster Cult Song.

To say Iron Man is never popular would be tone deaf to pop culture.

Millions of people have never been to a Disney theme park or even if they have, on Space Mountain/Thunder Mountain.

If you state those names around your American home town(and in many cases overseas) people will know you are speaking of a rollercoaster. They are popular.
Click to expand...
“Paramount went for”… you don’t know the most basic information about what you’re arguing.
 
Wendy Pleakley

Wendy Pleakley

Well-Known Member
Casper Gutman said:
Deadline is a reliable, industry respected source. The numbers you want to use are an inaccurate rule of thumb for casual conversation and have never been presented as anything else in this thread. You are rejecting a trusted news source with access to actual numbers we lack because it doesn't it doesn't show what you want it to show - that happens a lot in our society at the moment. If you can find an actual, trustworthy news source to back up your arguments, go ahead, but there's no point in arguing if you're going to reject reliable sources.
Click to expand...

On top of this, very few people know the actual financials at play.

It was reported a while back the Disney budgets include costs related to running the business, i.e. something like janitorial services in the facilities is factored in. The Spider-Verse budgets only include the direct costs of making the movie. Something like that.

Not to mention the special effects budgets that Disney pays to ILM, in other words, pays themselves. A portion of those costs are actually profit for another division. Just like Disney+ fees offset some budget costs.
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
erasure fan1 said:
I'm guessing this is your "reliable" information. The only problem is how are they coming to these conclusions?

And this says it needs 560mil to break even. It did 570mil so I guess it's settled? Of course we are still missing one key piece of information. What's the percentage of box office take? According to your "reliable" sources, Disney is taking 70% of the box office worldwide? That's the only way it's profiting according to your reliable information. I don't think that is the accepted take by any measure, 50% average has been the standard estimate that I've seen. Now again, I am all for being shown the proper formula.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Using the unknown and unexplained formula that the Deadline article used, The Little Mermaid would require a 70% cut of the profits from the entire global marketplace to break even at $560 Million.

And yet it's been previously established that domestic box office take is 60%, and only around 40% overseas.

But if we pretend that Disney got to keep 70% of the global ticket revenue for Mermaid and thus its break even point was $560 Million, that means The Little Mermaid made a profit of $5,841,000 for Burbank. Or $5.8 Million.

Shall we add that to our end of year tally alongside the $16 Million profit that Elemental made? :)

Go Fish.jpg
 
erasure fan1

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
Agreed. Using the unknown and unexplained formula that the Deadline article used, The Little Mermaid would require a 70% cut of the profits from the entire global marketplace to break even at $560 Million.

And yet it's been previously established that domestic box office take is 60%, and only around 40% overseas.
Click to expand...
It's actually worse than that because like I pointed out. The article said it wouldn't break even in the low $400s. So I take that as it would break even in the mid $400s, correct? So let's say that mid is around $450mil. That means they're getting almost a 90% world-wide box-office take as an average? In what world does that make any sense? I don't care how reliable the source is, the conclusion doesn't add up. It doesn't pass the smell test as they say. And I even showed an article pointing out that theaters were mad at Disney for demanding 65% for a star wars that was coming off of one of the biggest movies in history. The little mermaid is not star wars so it's very doubtful it commanded that high a percentage.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom