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

[doctornick]

So do any of the Disney doomers want to tell me what studio in Hollywood is really knocking it out of the park right now?

It's definitely not a great time to be a company whose revenue depends on the film industry. Or streaming. Or TV networks. Well, really any sort of media.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Avatar 2 was in development for about 8 years before roberts doped big shot Bob into buying fox….
Perhaps Disney paid fox “back” for it…or even Cameron…
But they had no creative control whatsoever. The timing doesn’t work.

We’re talking Cameron here…not some lap dog like abrams

Filming began 6 months before the announcement of Disney’s INTENT to buy fox…it took 18 months longer to actually buy it.

Avatar 2 had already been completely filmed by the time Disney bought 20th century fox. Disney paid to finish much of the CGI but it's hard to say how much due to the circumstances.

My point is that there's no indication Cameron bankrolled the movie himself.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

My point is that there's no indication Cameron bankrolled the movie himself.

I’m sure he had some kind of financing deal…which the top 5/10 directors all have since some minor space franchise you may have heard of?

They wield real power.

If Cameron didn’t have to put up a dime…while maintaining full creative control (which he did/does)…then that’s BETTER FOR HIM…
Disney inherited whatever deal with him for 2 and 3…which was filming concurrently.

they have ZERO creative control over avatar - for now.
That’s the actual point.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

No Way Home is technically a coproduction with Columbia Pictures, Marvel, and Pascal Productions, distributed by Sony. It's a weird mix, but it's part of the MCU, and I would still tie it to Disney, even if it's not technically correct.

The Spider-Man franchise has benefitted from joining the MCU but I would attribute the success of NWH primarily to it being a follow-up of sorts to the original Sony films. People didn't flock to see it because Dr. Strange was in it, they went to see Tobey and Andrew.

So mixed credit to Disney for that success. Who knows to what degree the involvement of Feige and the MCU contributed to getting the original actors on board.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I’m sure he had some kind of financing deal…which the top 5/10 directors all have since some minor space franchise you may have heard of?

They wield real power.

If Cameron didn’t have to put up a dime…while maintaining full creative control (which he did/does)…then that’s BETTER FOR HIM…
Disney inherited whatever deal with him for 2 and 3…which was filming concurrently.

they have ZERO creative control over avatar - for now.
That’s the actual point.

Okay? I was merely correcting an incorrect statement that Cameron bankrolled the films.

Yes, the creative control element is important.

Is Disney meddling too much and not letting writers/directors do their thing? Are they stifling creativity in order to make a product that is going to be crowd pleasing based on certain factors, like insisting that something like The Force Awakens be familiar to the point of rehashing much of what came before?

Maybe. But, on the other hand, how many people have the draw and track record Cameron has? I can't think of anyone else where I'd bankroll a $400 million dollar plus budgeted movie and allow them complete control. The running time alone would be a deal breaker for almost any other filmmaker or franchise.

 

[Ghost93]

If Cameron didn’t have to put up a dime…while maintaining full creative control (which he did/does)…then that’s BETTER FOR HIM…
Disney inherited whatever deal with him for 2 and 3…which was filming concurrently.

they have ZERO creative control over avatar - for now.
That’s the actual point.

Since the Disney brand isn't doing too hot these days, I wonder if Avatar being marketed as a "20th Century Studios" movie might have helped it at the box office? Many Disney movies have a reputation of being assembly-line, committee-driven products. Maybe emphasizing the film as a James Cameron/20th Century Studios movie in the marketing helped alleviate that stigma?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Okay? I was merely correcting an incorrect statement that Cameron bankrolled the films.

Yes, the creative control element is important.

Is Disney meddling too much and not letting writers/directors do their thing? Are they stifling creativity in order to make a product that is going to be crowd pleasing based on certain factors, like insisting that something like The Force Awakens be familiar to the point of rehashing much of what came before?

Maybe. But, on the other hand, how many people have the draw and track record Cameron has? I can't think of anyone else where I'd bankroll a $400 million dollar plus budgeted movie and allow them complete control. The running time alone would be a deal breaker for almost any other filmmaker or franchise.

Ok…my mistake.

I thought the simple “Disney paid for avatar” implied they should be given credit for its success?
Not the case. They got lucky on the coattails last year when they REALLY needed it.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Ok…my mistake.

I thought the simple “Disney paid for avatar” implied they should be given credit for its success?
Not the case. They got lucky on the coattails last year when they REALLY needed it.

It's a point in Disney's favour in terms of how good an idea the Fox purchase was. Avatar alone could be good for $10 billion+ in revenue, not to mention the merchandise and benefit to the theme parks. How many people decried Avatarland as a bad idea because it was based on a movie "no one cares about"? Now that it's clear Avatar has long-term popularity, that theme park land is confirmed to have been a good idea.

People criticize Disney for acquiring rather than creating, but they do a good job in many cases taking over quality enterprises and not getting overly involved. They were smart to let Feige keep running Marvel his way and it paid off big time.

Is buying Fox and benefitting from Avatar any more "riding coattails" than hiring someone in general to make a movie?

The trouble is, they're so focused on remakes there's not much opportunity to bring in some great talent and make something new and compelling. Why aren't they bringing in people and asking them, what's a great idea you have that we could produce?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's a point in Disney's favour in terms of how good an idea the Fox purchase was. Avatar alone could be good for $10 billion+ in revenue, not to mention the merchandise and benefit to the theme parks. How many people decried Avatarland as a bad idea because it was based on a movie "no one cares about"? Now that it's clear Avatar has long-term popularity, that theme park land is confirmed to have been a good idea.

People criticize Disney for acquiring rather than creating, but they do a good job in many cases taking over quality enterprises and not getting overly involved. They were smart to let Feige keep running Marvel his way and it paid off big time.

Is buying Fox and benefitting from Avatar any more "riding coattails" than hiring someone in general to make a movie?

The trouble is, they're so focused on remakes there's not much opportunity to bring in some great talent and make something new and compelling. Why aren't they bringing in people and asking them, what's a great idea you have that we could produce?

I gave them the benefit of the doubt on the fox purchase…thinking there was some angle we didn’t know that they knew how to use it’s content

But it doesn’t fit at all, nothing for Disney…except for avatar.

I think that was a measuring contest and Bob went a bridge too far with his IP philosophy.

Disney got left holding an unattractive bag

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I gave them the benefit of the doubt on the fox purchase…thinking there was some angle we didn’t know that they knew how to use it’s content

But it doesn’t fit at all, nothing for Disney…except for avatar.

I think that was a measuring contest and Bob went a bridge too far with his IP philosophy.

Disney got left holding an unattractive bag

Controlling Star Wars distribution was an element of it as well.

Franchises? They're doing an Alien TV series I believe.

Simpsons, Family Guy, and other shows continue to be a draw.

It adds a lot of content to their streaming library. That FOX content allows them to charge more for Disney+ outside of the USA where the STAR channel holds FOX content.

 

[erasure fan1]

How many people decried Avatarland as a bad idea because it was based on a movie "no one cares about"?

Yea there were plenty who thought that for sure.

Now that it's clear Avatar has long-term popularity, that theme park land is confirmed to have been a good idea.

It was a good idea because they created a great ride. A great ride will trump the ip almost every time. Of all the IPs of Pixar, Cars wouldn't have been on too many peoples radar. But the land looks great and the ride is fantastic. SUCCESS! I wasn't real concerned with Avatar 2 being successful. But I'll stick with what I said before Avatar 2 came out. It's the 3rd film that will tell the story. Of course It's probably not smart to bet against Cameron. Lol

 

[TalkingHead]

Or nobody is to blame and it’s the result of technology, social behaviors, and the marketplace:

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/disney-warner-bros-failures-signal-the-end-of-the-theater-era

 

[Disney Analyst]

Or nobody is to blame and it’s the result of technology, social behaviors, and the marketplace:

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/disney-warner-bros-failures-signal-the-end-of-the-theater-era

This is something I have sort of stated also, based off my own personal behaviours.


This quote from the article you shared resonated with me:

We No Longer Need Movie Theaters​

Covid showed us that aside from a few films worth experiencing with a crowd, most movies play just fine at home. Why pay AMC, or Cinemark $11-15 for a ticket along with jacked up candy and popcorn prices to watch most movies in a crowd full of people just as likely to ruin the experience as make it better?

This was inevitable as soon as large televisions started to become cheap and common and streaming services began offering theatrical releases only a few months after their initial release. It's a perfect storm that covid hastened, but one that was always inevitable.
Watching a movie at home might be a different experience than seeing the film in a theater, but it's generally not worse. There are films that will bring out a crowd, just like there are bands people will pay over $100 to see in an arena or stadium, but the number of them will only decrease.


Disney, Comcast, and Warner Bros. Discovery will inevitably scale more of their product for streaming, not theaters. That makes AMC, Cinemark, and movie theaters in general, relics of an era that has mostly passed.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This is something I have sort of stated also, based off my own personal behaviours.


This quote from the article you shared resonated with me:

I’ll have to read it more closely, but this really seems like an article written in 2020. It smacks of banal, low-effort “ TV means the end of cinema” nonsense. The mission for the studios is to differentiate theatrical and streaming content, which may mean reestablishing the “cinema only” window. It may also mean that the studios need to start dabbling in a more diverse output again, seeing if star-driven mid-budget films have any draw (2022 suggested they did) or adult comedies can still sell (No Hard Feelings will be interesting). The issue is less that those flop then that Hollywood simply stopped making them.

Using Pixar and DC as examples here is just very, very dumb - Pixar has very specific and unique issues with theater/streaming confusion and The Flash had so MANY issues working against its success that drawing broad conclusions from its failure seems staggeringly ignorant.

This is not a good article.

 

[Disney Analyst]

I’ll have to read it more closely, but this really seems like an article written in 2020. It smacks of banal, low-effort “ TV means the end of cinema” nonsense. The mission for the studios is to differentiate theatrical and streaming content, which may mean reestablishing the “cinema only” window. It may also mean that the studios need to start dabbling in a more diverse output again, seeing if star-driven mid-budget films have any draw (2022 suggested they did) or adult comedies can still sell (No Hard Feelings will be interesting). The issue is less that those flop then that Hollywood simply stopped making them.

Using Pixar and DC as examples here is just very, very dumb - Pixar has very specific and unique issues with theater/streaming confusion and The Flash had so MANY issues working against its success that drawing broad conclusions from its failure seems staggeringly ignorant.

This is not a good article.

I don't think the article itself is well written, but it does exemplify some of the thoughts I've had.

I do agree with it that I do think there will be movies that bring people out, but there will be a lot more that would have in the past, and no longer do.

 

[Disney Irish]

Or nobody is to blame and it’s the result of technology, social behaviors, and the marketplace:

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/disney-warner-bros-failures-signal-the-end-of-the-theater-era

A few of us have been saying this for awhile now. The pandemic only accelerated the inevitable demise of the theatrical box office, which in my opinion would have happened in about 3-5 years, and its never coming back to the way it was. Theaters will become more boutique premium experiences, such as you're already seeing, where you get dinner/drink service, etc., basically going back to the golden age of Hollywood where going out to the theater was a huge deal.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Personally, I would go see many more movies in theaters if tickets were $5, not $15.

I've said this before, but your average multiplex offers a lousy way to watch movies given what you pay. Dim projectors, inattentive staff, poor quality food etc. It's not a pleasant experience, especially if you get stuck with an obnoxious audience.

Years ago I realized it was cheaper to just buy these movies on Blu-ray (especially on Black Friday) vs paying to see them in theaters.

Streaming has made that value proposition even worse. A month of Disney+ or Netflix costs about the same as 1 adult movie ticket.

I've been to the movies once this year. I may only end up going 2-3 times total. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Or nobody is to blame and it’s the result of technology, social behaviors, and the marketplace:

https://www.thestreet.com/technology/disney-warner-bros-failures-signal-the-end-of-the-theater-era

Siskel and Ebert first talked about this in 1990 when 16:9 HD TVs started showing up at tech trade shows. That eventually you could get a similar quality to theatrical at home vs the theater.

Technically speaking, with 4K TVs, Ultra HD Blu-rays and 7.1 DTS surround sound, we're already there, even if most homes aren't.

But it looks like people choose convenience over anything else.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I don't think theaters will go away completely. No TV screen can offer a comparable experience.

Which is not to say modern technology isn't a factor. Back in the day if you watched a movie at home it was on a 32-inch CRT television via a full screen VHS tape. Seeing movies in the theater was more important. Today, a home TV won't be as good as a theater but it offers a good or even great experience. The need to see a movie theatrically has decreased dramatically.

Movie going has improved only in that reserved seating means no more lining up hours in advance to get a good seat.

Audience behaviour is an issue. Cell phones, talking, etc. It's just a crap shoot. Seeing a big movie with the right crowd is great, but when it's bad it's just awful.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Personally, I would go see many more movies in theaters if tickets were $5, not $15.

I've said this before, but your average multiplex offers a lousy way to watch movies given what you pay. Dim projectors, inattentive staff, poor quality food etc. It's not a pleasant experience, especially if you get stuck with an obnoxious audience.

Years ago I realized it was cheaper to just buy these movies on Blu-ray (especially on Black Friday) vs paying to see them in theaters.

Streaming has made that value proposition even worse. A month of Disney+ or Netflix costs about the same as 1 adult movie ticket.

I've been to the movies once this year. I may only end up going 2-3 times total. I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way.

$15.00?? Good for you. I can’t get in the door of a movie theatre in NY for less than twenty bucks. And then a small popcorn and a medium soda is another twenty bucks. Still, I value entertainment so I pay the price. Apparently so does every other New Yorker, unfortunately, because nearly every movie I go see is sold out or close to sold out. I saw a movie last night called Past Lives (whoever heard of that?) and every seat in the the theatre was sold. Fun fact - the woman next to me decided to pull a laptop out of her bag and surf the web during the film. Thankfully I didn’t have to get involved- a very large man on the other side of her screamed “Put that F-ing thing away!!!!” And she complied. Just to be clear, I usually encounter very respectful audience members. This was the exception to the rule.