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

[Prince-1]

Yep, see TP2000 analysis in the TLM section.

So a newbie is using another person on here as proof. Man are you bad at this. You said that TLM lost $100 million and I asked for proof and you had none. In the future if you are going to post something outrageous as this you might want to have the back up or you look like you do now: totally clueless or a liar. Here are two actual websites and the important quotes from them that indicate that the movie made money. It wasn't a lot but it was profitable:


"In the case of The Little Mermaid, Disney's $284.8 million share of the box office left it with a $44.6 million profit after deducting its $240.2 million net spending."

Disney Sinks $300 Million Into ‘Over Budget’ ‘Little Mermaid’ Movie

Disney has revealed that the cost of making the live action version of The Little Mermaid swelled to nearly $300m by the end of August last year, eight months before the movie opened.

www.forbes.com

"The film grossed $298 million domestically and $569 million worldwide. This does push the movie beyond the estimated break-even point, but just barely."

Was The Little Mermaid a Box Office Success?

The Little Mermaid's box office has been analyzed to fit many narratives, but here is a closer look at how the film did at the box office.

movieweb.com

 

[Disney Irish]

Time for another round in January and February!

I'll be sure to let Bob know that is what you demand, I'm sure he'll put that suggestion in the bin.

 

[TP2000]

So a newbie is using another person on here as proof. Man are you bad at this.

Slightly OT, but why do several folks here keep calling @jrice a "newbie" and using that as an epithet?

According to this website, jrice joined this community on April 3rd, 2019. That was almost 5 years ago now.

Much like the difference between a flop and a bomb, is there a definition on when a poster stops being "new"?

 

[Prince-1]

Slightly OT, but why do several folks here keep calling @jrice a "newbie" and using that as an epithet?

According to this website, jrice joined this community on April 3rd, 2019. That was almost 5 years ago now.

Much like the difference between a flop and a bomb, is there a definition on when a poster stops being "new"?

He may have joined in 2019 but seeing that he has hardly any posts in the past 4 years and that most of them are probably from today I feel pretty comfortable calling him a newbie.

 

[Disney Irish]

Slightly OT, but why do several folks here keep calling @jrice a "newbie" and using that as an epithet?

According to this website, jrice joined this community on April 3rd, 2019. That was almost 5 years ago now.

Much like the difference between a flop and a bomb, is there a definition on when a poster stops being "new"?

Because they hadn't posted enough (until today) to have the "New Member" tag removed from their account.

I believe this site has a minimum number posts before that tag is removed, I think its 25 which that poster just hit.

 

[TP2000]

And with international box office of only $900K for Bottoms and $32M for Strange World, it tells you how ready the rest of the world outside the Burbank and Manhattan zip codes are for this type of entertainment.

No kidding. It also bears repeating that Strange World wasn't even allowed to be shown in many countries because of the gay character in a children's movie. Notably, the film was banned in over a dozen Muslim countries in the Middle East and in Communist China where gays are not allowed to be shown in even adult media.

That might be why the Lesbian character in Elemental had all her recorded dialogue removed from the movie, and only was introduced briefly with a passing mention of "my sister and her girlfriend" which is a phrase that can still be seen as non-sexual in many cultures, like saying "I"m going to play tennis with my girlfriends", etc.

It could get by the censors, and so Elemental was allowed to be released in China and Muslim nations this past summer.

That is just a financial reality that Disney is going to have to navigate going forward.

Aside from the Muslim and Communist nations with official government censorship, there's also the issue of many other countries that have freedom of expression, but are culturally much more conservative than the USA. The box office results from conservative countries like Mexico, southern and central Europe, Southeast Asia, almost all of the African continent except for South Africa, etc.

At some point, some sharp pencil boy has to speak up and remind the Silver Lake brunch crowd of global realities.

 

[TP2000]

Because they hadn't posted enough (until today) to have the "New Member" tag removed from their account.

I believe this site has a minimum number posts before that tag is removed, I think its 25 which that poster just hit.

Ah, well then congratulations to @jrice! Look at you jrice, earning your spot among the stars!

 

[celluloid]

Perhaps because we're not primarily concerned with profits. I'm a fan, not an accountant.

Psst. You are in the Box Office thread. Financial is the focus here.
Critically, things were not much better.

If you enjoyed the movies most people found disappointing to terrible this year, great for you. But I hope you enjoyed it, because you won't see the company persue the trends you liked.

Disney is art, but it is commercial art.

 

[LittleBuford]

Psst. You are in the Box Office thread. Financial is the focus here.

One doesn't have to be focused on financials to have thoughts on the topic. If this thread didn't interest me at some level, I wouldn't be here.

If you enjoyed the movies most people found disappointing to terrible this year, great for you. But I hope you enjoyed it, because you won't see the company persue the trends you liked.

I saw no consistent trends being pursued in this year's releases. Did you? If so, what?

Disney is art, but it is commercial art.

Sure, the company has to make money. But I'm not going to panic every time they lose some at the box office. That's been happening for as long as Disney's been making films.

 

[erasure fan1]

I'm not sure why you and others are framing it in terms of my feelings. I'm being perfectly calm and rational in what I'm saying.

Oh I'm not saying you aren't calm, or even mad. I said that as a clarifier for flop. You asked if Cleopatra was a flop. I answered and you still came back with, I struggle to see how we can apply the term “flop”. So I figured that would give it better context as to why I thought it was a flop.

That isn't true. If it were, I wouldn't call Wish a flop.

Well it seems like it. Wish is a flop no matter what you consider a flop. It's not considered a good film artistically, critically or financially. You do seem to side more on the side of, if you like the film or it was generally well received, not calling it a flop. Even if it lost a good chunk of money.

 

[celluloid]

One doesn't have to be focused on financials to have thoughts on the topic. If this thread didn't interest me at some level, I wouldn't be here.

You said not primarily. If you are somehow shocked or need to claim that you are not primarily focused on financial results(the box office) of theater performance, than you can't really blame the thread or be surprised to need to clarify that it is not your primary point when the thread is titled "Disney at the box office, so what happens now?"

 

[Prince-1]

The entire MCU is made up of characters that many in the public didn't know or didn't want, all, not one were A list characters to begin with. So you're argument here doesn't hold water in general based on the success of the MCU.

I think what you really mean to say is that The Marvels told a story that many didn't find compelling enough to go to theaters to see. And while I personally enjoyed it, I can see that being the case for many casual fans.

He likes to move the goal post with his argument.

 

[Andrew C]

Ah, well then congratulations to @jrice! Look at you jrice, earning your spot among the stars!

Is this really a good thing?

 

[LittleBuford]

You do seem to side more on the side of, if you like the film or it was generally well received, not calling it a flop. Even if it lost a good chunk of money.

I tend to reserve the term for films that were not well received critically and that lost substantial amounts of money. That's why I wouldn't hesitate to apply it to Wish, even though I myself enjoyed it, but cannot associate it with Cleopatra, which was a smash hit in its own time. Mermaid didn't do badly enough with critics or financially to qualify in my opinion. It's clear we're working with different definitions, and that's OK with me. We're not going to convince each other!

 

[Disney Irish]

But I hope you enjoyed it, because you won't see the company pursue the trends you liked.

Psst. Just an FYI, Disney and every other studio on the planet will still go after the trends that poster likes. This is because those trends lead to consumers that Disney and every studio wants. They may not go full force into those trends but they will still produce content that targets those trends because money can be made there.

 

[LittleBuford]

You said not primarily. If you are somehow shocked or need to claim that you are not primarily focused on financial results(the box office) of theater performance, than you can't really blame the thread or be surprised to need to clarify that it is not your primary point when the thread is titled "Disney at the box office, so what happens now?"

I was responding to @Epcot81Fan's observation that "those that support having gay characters in movies targeting children make the case that it will INCREASE box office results in markets around the world". It was a specific response to a specific point, not a criticism of the financial focus of the thread itself.

 

[celluloid]

Psst. Just an FYI, Disney and every other studio on the planet will still go after the trends that poster likes. This is because those trends lead to consumers that Disney and every studio wants. They may not go full force into those trends but they will still produce content that targets those trends because money can be made there.

Nah. I can't take you seriously when it comes to cinema predictions.
But what do I know? I am just the poster who has said all along that Wish would lose to Trolls 3 and lose to Migration. I am just the poster who said Haunted Mansion was too bad to be a hit.
Disney wants whatever trends will make them the most money what they are doing right now didn't and Bob Iger already talked about not doing that anymore.

Disney already has market share of most audiences they don't need to pander thus, they will have to focus on producing stories that entertain as well as inspire.

You can't teach or reach an audience if they don't like you. And right now, the brand is one many don't like enough to trust them for entertainment.

 

[Disney Irish]

I don't know of one. I'd bet two churros that originally Wish was supposed to have an 2SLGBTQQIA+ main character, but after 2022's double box office disasters of Lightyear and Strange World, it was edited out and removed.

Or at least that's what Disney studio executives were bragging about in interviews in 2021-22, that at least 50% of their movie characters would be 2SLGBTQQIA+/BIPOC from here on out. They seemed to wimp out on those lofty 2021 goals by making Asha just a pretty Black girl instead of delving into her sexuality.



I think enough brand damage was done in 2022 with the two children's animated movies Disney released that year.

Parents haven't forgotten in 2023, and the box office shows they aren't willing to return to the Disney brand yet.

It is an interesting conversation as I never hear those that support having gay characters in movies targeting children make the case that it will INCREASE box office results in markets around the world (especially with over a billion Catholics being in traditional key Disney theatrical markets).

Looking at it from a purely financial standpoint (and I understand it is hard for many posting here to do), if Disney wants to alienate a significant portion of the global audience with this strategy, it will have to dramatically alter its production budgets, marketing campaigns, and global theatrical footprint.

"Strange World" isn't "Bottoms". "Strange World" needs several hundred million dollars of box office to drive a substantial return on that investment (not just break even) and I never see anybody making the claim that having a central character being gay (voiced by a transvestite (or replace with current, more fashionable term)) is driving MORE families to the theater.

Just an FYI on LGBTQ representation in animation, Disney is hardly alone in this matter.

Every animation studio today is now producing animation that includes some LGBTQ representation. From Tiny Toons to even Baby Shark, they all now include at least one openly LGBTQ character.

So its something that is not going away.

 

[celluloid]

Every animation studio today is now producing animation that includes some LGBTQ representation. From Tiny Toons to even Baby Shark, they all now include at least one openly LGBTQ character.

Like anything, it can be done well, mediocrely or terribly. Also, a bit of an exaggeration to say every.

Disney is just doing it terribly in terrible movies.

But if you want to say every studio else is doing it, the fact is they are doing it more successfully. Sounds like another Disney problem.

 

[LittleBuford]

Psst. Just an FYI, Disney and every other studio on the planet will still go after the trends that poster likes. This is because those trends lead to consumers that Disney and every studio wants. They may not go full force into those trends but they will still produce content that targets those trends because money can be made there.

I don't know what trends are being referred to! The films released under the Disney umbrella this year had very little in common as far as I'm concerned. If "trends" is just a euphemism for "diversity", that's pretty much a standard goal in all mainstream entertainment today and not something that Disney is going to stop pursuing.