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

[LittleBuford]

I work with AI, so when someone posts in complete sentences with no grammar or spelling errors, correct syntax, and no discernible dialect, it calls my attention as possibly being a chatbot.

For example, I just asked:

“Why were Star Wars fans so upset by the depiction of Luke Skywalker in the Last Jedi?”

Response:

“The portrayal of Luke Skywalker in "The Last Jedi" sparked mixed reactions among Star Wars fans. Some were upset because they felt the character's depiction differed from their expectations and the established heroics of Luke in the original trilogy. The film presented Luke as a conflicted, disillusioned hermit, which deviated from the more optimistic and heroic image fans had of him.

Additionally, the decision to have Luke contemplate killing his nephew, Ben Solo, due to a fear of his potential darkness, contradicted the traditional Jedi values. Fans found this departure from Luke's character arc disheartening, as they anticipated a more conventional hero's journey.

Overall, the variance in character development, combined with unexpected choices, led to a polarized response among fans, with some embracing the fresh take on the character and others feeling it diverged too much from their expectations.”

I think I know which posts you’re referring to. You may have picked up on something I missed.

 

[TP2000]

I thought Poor Things was a great movie, but it's not going to be making blockbuster-levels amount of money. It's a very weird and extremely sexual movie, which will make the movie more polarizing for general audiences.

Oh, really? I didn't know it was smutty. I assumed it was artsy, but it's also smutty?

And it's only at $11 Million at the box office after 3 weeks? Huh. Is it regular smut, or weirdo smut? I don't like weirdo smut, but I'm not opposed to brief, general smut if the actors/actresses are very attractive and it has stretches of normal movie in between the brief smuttiness, just so people don't think you are sitting there only watching smut.

I think cinephiles will generally love it, but it may be too much the average moviegoer. And that's okay. It's not a bad thing for niche films to exist. But it won't reverse Disney's fortunes.

I will say, I think it's the best performance of Emma Stone's career.

All that is great, but it cost $35 Million to make. And a shoestring marketing budget would be $15 Million. So it needs $100 Million at the global box office in order to break even.

It seems on a trajectory to lose at least $30 Million. Golden Globe nominations be damned.

 

[Disney Irish]

Determining whether a post was written by AI or a human is challenging without additional context. The content seems well-structured and focused on Star Wars analysis, which could be written by either a knowledgeable human or a well-trained language model.

There are quite a few posters I've long thought were chatbots on this site.

 

[Bullseye1967]

Yep, the reason overlaps with vinyl: collectors.

Something like 40% of new vinyl sold today is purchased by people who don’t have a turntable.

This does not compute. I actually collect a few things myself, some for display and some for bragging rights but also for my enjoyment. OK they are all for my enjoyment, but if vinyl was something I collected, I would want to enjoy hearing it. Music is a huge part of my life. I marched in DCI. I played in a band for many years. Can you explain the rationale? My father has a ton of vinyl but think 50's, 60's, gospel stuff. He has a full house system I put in years ago, but I integrated a USB turntable into it maybe 8 years ago. For years he told me it was the best gift I ever gave him. Until last year. I got him blue tooth headphones for his phone. He is 90 and has cancer. He spends a lot of time in the hospital or getting treatments outpatient. Now his music goes with him. There is no doubt where my love of music came from.

 

[TP2000]

I remember Are You Being Served? airing on PBS when I was younger. It was quite funny.

I discovered it on PBS in the late 80's, and it was more than funny. It was hysterical.

I own the DVD's of all the seasons now. Sadly, absolutely none of the cast members are left. They all passed away, some at a very old age, and some far too young. It was a hilarious TV show that stands the test of time.

To this day, I still quietly say "It will ride up with wear" whenever I'm trying things on at Nordstrom.

Less often, but with equal enthusiasm, I will channel Mrs. Slocombe and say "And I am unanimous in this!". This usually happens when I am by myself in the kitchen trying a new recipe and finding surprise success. Or utter failure. It works for both.

One more random thought: About 20 years ago I chaperoned my nephews for a day at Sea World in San Diego. They had a 3D show about a haunted castle by the sea, or something dumb like that. This 3D show featured Captain Peacock in the lead role, as sort of a stuffy old English guy as only the actor who played Captain Peacock could be. The 3D show was forgettable, but it was so wonderful to see Captain Peacock again much later in life still working. I believe he passed soon after that.

 

[TP2000]

There are quite a few posters I've long thought were chatbots on this site.

Gang, I'm dying here! Do you really think so? Like we've been talking to a few robots for the past few years?

For some reason, that just seems so hilariously funny to me. When I should feel dehumanized, somehow it's just funny.

 

[_caleb]

Gang, I'm dying here! Do you really think so? Like we've been talking to a few robots for the past few years?

For some reason, that just seems so hilariously funny to me. When I should feel dehumanized, somehow it's just funny.

Don’t worry, I’ve been reading your posts for years and never once suspected you of being a robot!

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh, really? I didn't know it was smutty. I assumed it was artsy, but it's also smutty?

And it's only at $11 Million at the box office after 3 weeks? Huh. Is it regular smut, or weirdo smut? I don't like weirdo smut, but I'm not opposed to brief, general smut if the actors/actresses are very attractive and it has stretches of normal movie in between the brief smuttiness, just so people don't think you are sitting there only watching smut.



All that is great, but it cost $35 Million to make. And a shoestring marketing budget would be $15 Million. So it needs $100 Million at the global box office in order to break even.

It seems on a trajectory to lose at least $30 Million. Golden Globe nominations be damned.

I would say that your estimate of $15M is a bit high for the marketing budget of Poor Things. It really hasn't had any marketing at all, outside some basic marketing like a small trailer distribution, so its probably under $10M.

Also as stated many times before, these type of movies aren't there to make huge amounts of money at the theater. They are award contenders, that is there intent. That is the exact reason why they are usually limited release in only a small number of theaters. This is a common practice, its not unique to Disney. They aren't expected to make their budgets back in the theaters.

 

[TP2000]

Don’t worry, I’ve been reading your posts for years and never once suspected you of being a robot!

That's one of the nicest things anyone has ever said to me!

 

[celluloid]

I think Lisa Frankenstein has a chance at overshadowing the Frankenstein creation theme of Poor things with its more PG-13 edginess and broader appeal by the time Poor Things picks up its steam. Obviously very different stories and tones but close enough to have the general appeal possibly win. That being said that movie has a whopping 80 million budget for its teen morbid horror fanfare, so it is going to possibly be a Renfield situation, but Universal can afford the gamble.

 

[Disney Irish]

This does not compute. I actually collect a few things myself, some for display and some for bragging rights but also for my enjoyment. OK they are all for my enjoyment, but if vinyl was something I collected, I would want to enjoy hearing it. Music is a huge part of my life. I marched in DCI. I played in a band for many years. Can you explain the rationale? My father has a ton of vinyl but think 50's, 60's, gospel stuff. He has a full house system I put in years ago, but I integrated a USB turntable into it maybe 8 years ago. For years he told me it was the best gift I ever gave him. Until last year. I got him blue tooth headphones for his phone. He is 90 and has cancer. He spends a lot of time in the hospital or getting treatments outpatient. Now his music goes with him. There is no doubt where my love of music came from.

Its seen as investment rather than a medium for enjoyment. Its like collectors that buy comics or action figures but seal them away in hope they increase in value.

 

[TP2000]

I would say that your estimate of $15M is a bit high for the marketing budget of Poor Things. It really hasn't had any marketing at all, outside some basic marketing like a small trailer distribution, so its probably under $10M.

I absolutely adore that you completely ignored by diatribe about smut, and instead focused in on my estimation that Searchlight only spent $15 Million on marketing for Poor Things. Bravo!

Apparently they sent the stars of the film off to several film festivals in private jets around the world in 2023. That alone, plus a modest campaign of posters and previews, would equal at least $15 Million.

I imagine the marketing budget for Poor Things was more than $15 Million, but let's just go with only $15 Million because it adds up to a tidy $50 Million with its production budget of $35 Million.

Also as stated many times before, these type of movies aren't there to make huge amounts of money at the theater. They are award contenders, that is there intent. That is the exact reason why they are usually limited release in only a small number of theaters. This is a common practice, its not unique to Disney. They aren't expected to make their budgets back in the theaters.

I don't disagree with you there, but.... So Searchlight, which lost over $100 Million at the box office in 2023, exists only to burn through corporate cash for Disney? For the unquantifiable monetary value of Golden Globe nominations?

It seems a great reset is in order for the entire Hollywood industry. Because this is not sustainable.

 

[Disney Irish]

I think Lisa Frankenstein has a chance at overshadowing the Frankenstein creation theme of Poor things with its more PG-13 edginess and broader appeal by the time Poor Things picks up its steam. Obviously very different stories and tones but close enough to have the general appeal possibly win. That being said that movie has a whopping 80 million budget for its teen morbid horror fanfare, so it is going to possibly be a Renfield situation, but Universal can afford the gamble.

What's funny is that Lisa Frankenstein is a retelling of a classic trope, doesn't look very original at all. Its also going for the 80s nostalgia play at the same time. I agree it'll possibly be similar to Renfield.

At least Poor Things is original in its telling of the creation theme.

 

[Disney Irish]

I absolutely adore that you completely ignored by diatribe about smut, and instead focused in on my estimation that Searchlight only spent $15 Million on marketing for Poor Things. Bravo!

Apparently they sent the stars of the film off to several film festivals in private jets around the world in 2023. That alone, plus a modest campaign of posters and previews, would equal at least $15 Million.

I imagine the marketing budget for Poor Things was more than $15 Million, but let's just go with only $15 Million because it adds up to a tidy $50 Million with the production budget.

I don't know what their budgets were for marketing on Poor Things. All I know is that it didn't have a huge marketing push outside of the award shows.

Also I've seen the film, its not smut, that is why I ignored that diatribe.

I don't disagree with you here, but.... So Searchlight, which lost over $100 Million at the box office in 2023, exists only to burn through corporate cash for Disney? For the unquantifiable monetary value of Golden Globe nominations?

It seems a great reset is in order for the entire Hollywood industry. Because this is not sustainable.

Welcome to Hollywood Math. You want to analyze this stuff you have to accept that Hollywood doesn't make decisions based purely on money. As for being sustainable, Hollywood has been doing this for longer than you've been alive, I think they'll survive.

 

[celluloid]

The larger theater chains around me are not even playing Poor Things yet. Weird.

 

[Disney Irish]

The larger theater chains around me are not even playing Poor Things yet. Weird.

Doesn’t surprise me, it’s only playing on 800 screens, ie mostly arthouse venues right now.

If it does well with the awards I suspect an increase in screens through mid-February.

 

[CinematicFusion]

Stuff happens. Things happen in life that change idealistic kids into realistic, sometimes troubled adults. That’s real. I’d say he went through plenty to justify that state, and to not want to risk further and possibly bigger failures.


You say respect, I say correct - both in substance and in perspective.

Nope. That would have been appropriate in a timeline closer to that of The Mandalorian. That’s already happened by the time he’s an old hermit. Blame Lucas and possibly Ford for not doing it when he had the chance.

I’m concerned about people who can’t handle storylines in fiction. How do they handle real life? Heroes are still people and will disappoint. That’s a solid life lesson.

So, we can’t handle complex storylines because we frowned at Luke’s gloomy turn in “The Last Jedi”? That’s like saying a chef can’t cook because they didn’t enjoy a burnt steak. We’re talking about a fanbase that has dissected every inch of the Star Wars universe. If Mark Hamill, the Jedi Master himself, raised an eyebrow at Luke’s hermit act, it’s more than just fan drama.

42% audience score on Rotten Tomatoes – seems like a lot of us prefer our space epics with a side of heroism, not existential despair.

Hey, if you cherish “The Last Jedi,” who’s stopping you? Pop in that DVD, revel in the sight of Luke Skywalker turning into a space cow milk connoisseur, and quitting when the galaxy needed him most. For those of us who find the whole hermit thing a bit hard to swallow, we’ll stick to our cherished image of the Jedi as a beacon of hope and courage. After all, Star Wars has always been about different galaxies for different folks.

 

[Communicora]

Fun fact. Someone on here might be the agent for The Women and the Clare Boothe Luce Estate.

It is either:

Mickey Mouse

Donald Duck
or

Me!

I'd love to see the play someday. Isn't it about time for another revival?

 

[Communicora]

I thought Poor Things was a great movie, but it's not going to be making blockbuster-levels amount of money. It's a very weird and extremely sexual movie, which will make the movie more polarizing for general audiences. I think cinephiles will generally love it, but it may be too much the average moviegoer. And that's okay. It's not a bad thing for niche films to exist. But it won't reverse Disney's fortunes.

I will say, I think it's the best performance of Emma Stone's career.

The trailer for Poor Things was off-putting for me, but it's getting good reviews from a wide variety of critics so I will have to see it soon.

I saw today that it's on the longlist for 14 BAFTA Awards.

 

[DKampy]

The larger theater chains around me are not even playing Poor Things yet. Weird.

It is still technically in limited release at 800 theaters… usually wide release is considered to be over 1000… although it is surprising that there is not At least 1 theater near you giving this at least a couple of screenings… I suspect Poor Things will be playing everywhere come the Oscar Nominations