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

[LittleBuford]

I said it earlier, but I'll say again to me, a flop is a movie that doesn't make a profit, and underperforms expectations. To me, TLM would fall into that. Now, there are degrees of flops, but those are the criteria I would use personally.

Then you would hold Cleopatra to be a flop?

 

[jrice]

Get your facts straight. $569 million at the box office and 5th highest grossing film of the year is not a flop.

That is a solid number for maybe another studio but not Disney. Also, most of Disney’s remakes were above a billion. Plus, it lost money on reshoots, production and marketing costs. Sorry it is a flop. It lost over $100MM.

 

[jrice]

So, where does that fit into almost all of the Disney shows? And why has there not been backlash for the other studios doing the same thing if that's truly an issue?

Alll major studios are losing money. That is why they are retooling, looking at costs, cutting the number of movies they will be creating, and will focus on quality. It takes time to turn around a big ship.

 

[jrice]

Then you would hold Cleopatra to be a flop?

Pardon my ignorance, the original or the one on Netflix?

 

[LSLS]

Then you would hold Cleopatra to be a flop?

Possibly. I mean, you are talking to somebody who has said multiple times the only thing he cares about is if the movie is entertaining. I don't know what it was supposed to do or anything like that from movies when I was a kid, let alone decades before I was alive. Nor would I sit here and tell you what is my conception of a flop in 2023 applies to a move 60 years ago.

 

[jrice]

Another lying time waster going on my ignore list. BYE!!!!

I think you need to look at the data TP2000 and others online have stated online. Obviously, you love the movie and that is great but Disney cannot sustain this model. Remakes and sequels will not keep this company afloat.

 

[LittleBuford]

Pardon my ignorance, the original or the one on Netflix?

The 1963 blockbuster Oscar-winning film, which took years to break even.

 

[LittleBuford]

Possibly. I mean, you are talking to somebody who has said multiple times the only thing he cares about is if the movie is entertaining. I don't know what it was supposed to do or anything like that from movies when I was a kid, let alone decades before I was alive. Nor would I sit here and tell you what is my conception of a flop in 2023 applies to a move 60 years ago.

The issue I have with a definition that takes only profit into account is that it results in what I perceive as strange breaks in logic. By such a definition, The Little Mermaid wouldn't be considered a flop had it made less money but had a minuscule budget. That doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Prince-1]

No, it is not weak. Guardians was an excellent movie because of the character development, a great story and well executed. Yes, they were not popular but James Gunn had a fantastic vision.

And now you are changing your argument. Before you said that no one wanted to see characters that are D list that they didn't know and now you are saying something completely different. Please make up your mind what is your criteria that you want to use. GotG was much better all around but still made of D list characters.

 

[Prince-1]

Sorry it is a flop. It lost over $100MM.

I am sure you have facts to back this up. I know I have some receipts showing that it made money. Not a lot of money but definitely didn't lose $100 million.

 

[jrice]

And now you are changing your argument. Before you said that no one wanted to see characters that are D list that they didn't know and now you are saying something completely different. Please make up your mind what is your criteria that you want to use. GotG was much better all around but still made of D list characters.

At the time Guardians was released it was a surprise by mostly everyone. I am not changing my argument. Today is a lot different because we had so many iconic characters in the MCU. Now, Disney switched to the M-She-U and the collective audience (including women) is not attending. That is a problem.

Again, Guardians were “D” level characters but not anymore. The story, character development and execution elevated these characters much higher now.

 

[jrice]

I am sure you have facts to back this up. I know I have some receipts showing that it made money. Not a lot of money but definitely didn't lose $100 million.

Yep, see TP2000 analysis in the TLM section.

 

[erasure fan1]

I would call it a disappointment rather than a flop. I struggle to see how the latter term can be applied to the seventh highest-grossing film globally (and fifth domestically) of the year.

If losing money is the only criterion that matters, then one would have to consider Cleopatra a flop, even though it was the highest-grossing film of 1963 and won four Oscars.

This all goes back to definition. I would call Cleopatra a big financial flop from the numbers I see. It doesn't mean it was a bad movie. Unfortunately this type of debate is a neverending battle. Personally I am able to separate what I like versus what the financial results are. Just doing a quick box office mojo search, says Cleopatra had a 44mil budget and did 58mil. That's a huge budget for 1963. If made today, that's a budget of over 440mil. When you make a movie with that sort of budget, you expect a profit. Anything less is failure. Again, that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. But when you miss that big, that's a flop in my opinion. Especially when the expectation had to be blockbuster results. Sure some studios release films for Oscar considerations and the "respect/legitimizing" it brings to a studio. But rarely do those films command blockbuster type budgets.

 

[Phroobar]

Cleopatra (1963) was one of the most expensive movies to date and where they spent it can defiantly be seen on screen. It is truly epic. However, there is a lot of overacting between Taylor and Burton. The ending is unsatisfying and it loses steam once Rex Harrison is gone. It just falls into melodrama. With all the problems they had on set, it's amazing it was made at all. It's saving grace is the epicenes of it however, it would be torn to shreds if it was made today.

 

[Phroobar]

This all goes back to definition. I would call Cleopatra a big financial flop from the numbers I see. It doesn't mean it was a bad movie. Unfortunately this type of debate is a neverending battle. Personally I am able to separate what I like versus what the financial results are. Just doing a quick box office mojo search, says Cleopatra had a 44mil budget and did 58mil. That's a huge budget for 1963. If made today, that's a budget of over 440mil. When you make a movie with that sort of budget, you expect a profit. Anything less is failure. Again, that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. But when you miss that big, that's a flop in my opinion. Especially when the expectation had to be blockbuster results. Sure some studios release films for Oscar considerations and the "respect/legitimizing" it brings to a studio. But rarely do those films command blockbuster type budgets.

Also the way the movies are made and marketed is different now. They were under the studio system back then.

 

[LSLS]

The issue I have with a definition that takes only profit into account is that it results in what I perceive as strange breaks in logic. By such a definition, The Little Mermaid wouldn't be considered a flop had it made less money but had a minuscule budget. That doesn't make sense to me.

But a part of the reason a studio green lights a major budget is because they expect it to bring back major returns. I don't consider small movies flops just because they don't make a ton of money. The goal would be to bring back more than you spent. And for larger movie budgets, I'd think you are at least aiming for something in the ballpark of expectations. Even the people who were not excited for that film thought it'd easily hit a billion (me included). To piggy back on erasure, I wouldn't say that makes it a bad film (though definitely not one I cared to see), but I don't think a flop and bad movie are synonyms.

I mean, not a perfect analogy, but if I went to a casino with $100k and went home with $70k, I'd be a lot more bummed than if I walked in with $100 and walked out with $200, even though I'm leaving with a lot more in the first scenario.

 

[LittleBuford]

This all goes back to definition. I would call Cleopatra a big financial flop from the numbers I see. It doesn't mean it was a bad movie. Unfortunately this type of debate is a neverending battle. Personally I am able to separate what I like versus what the financial results are. Just doing a quick box office mojo search, says Cleopatra had a 44mil budget and did 58mil. That's a huge budget for 1963. If made today, that's a budget of over 440mil. When you make a movie with that sort of budget, you expect a profit. Anything less is failure. Again, that doesn't mean it was a bad movie. But when you miss that big, that's a flop in my opinion. Especially when the expectation had to be blockbuster results. Sure some studios release films for Oscar considerations and the "respect/legitimizing" it brings to a studio. But rarely do those films command blockbuster type budgets.

It was the highest-grossing film of 1963 and won multiple Oscars. I struggle to see how we can apply the term “flop” to it.

 

[LittleBuford]

But a part of the reason a studio green lights a major budget is because they expect it to bring back major returns. I don't consider small movies flops just because they don't make a ton of money. The goal would be to bring back more than you spent. And for larger movie budgets, I'd think you are at least aiming for something in the ballpark of expectations. Even the people who were not excited for that film thought it'd easily hit a billion (me included). To piggy back on erasure, I wouldn't say that makes it a bad film (though definitely not one I cared to see), but I don't think a flop and bad movie are synonyms.

I mean, not a perfect analogy, but if I went to a casino with $100k and went home with $70k, I'd be a lot more bummed than if I walked in with $100 and walked out with $200, even though I'm leaving with a lot more in the first scenario.

To piggyback on your analogy, it wouldn’t make much sense to call the person who walked out with $70k impoverished. I suppose it boils down to how one uses and understands the term “flop”. To me, it denotes something rather extreme, closer in degree to “impoverished” than, say, “out of pocket”. Wish is a flop by my reckoning while The Little Mermaid is a disappointment.

 

[Phroobar]

It was the highest-grossing film of 1963 and won multiple Oscars. I struggle to see how we can apply the term “flop” to it.

It's not a flop. Adjusted for inflation it was made for $441,511,241.83 and made $581,992,091.50. That is over $140,000,000 difference and the studios self distributed and did their own marketing. End of the day, they kept all of the money.

 

[TP2000]

Get your facts straight. $569 million at the box office and 5th highest grossing film of the year is not a flop.

It is when it lost $103 Million due to its massive $250 Million production budget, and bloated $140 Million marketing budget.

Vaporizing $103 Million into thin air is not a sustainable business practice.

And it also means the movie flopped in the marketplace. Especially overseas.