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

[Wendy Pleakley]

It is interesting to me that box office duds and losses are now acceptable if there is at least an opportunity to make it up later through merch, streaming, etc. They cannot aim for box office success AND then reap even more benefits down the line that comes from that??

Studios obviously want both.

It might be different for smaller films. I think it was Kevin Smith who said the theatrical releases for his movies were basically advertisements for the home video release.

I don't think it's a case of studios not caring about theatrical profits. They may, however, have a good idea how much money a film will typically take in from other revenue sources.

That could be a factor in a film's budget and influence the level of "risk" they're taking. If they know a middle of the road Marvel movie like Ant-Man for example earns X amount of dollars from home video, digital purchases, merch, streaming, etc. they might green light a sequel or other Marvel movie at a similar budget, knowing that will likely see X dollars from all sources.

 

[Disney Irish]

I feel like this is a good idea...but at the same time I still open the separate Hulu app to view Hulu content.

Hulu will continue to be available as a separate app, for now.....

 

[Phroobar]

Just so you know Pulp Fiction is Technically a Disney Movie

I'll bite. What is the link? I know it was distributed by Miramax.
I found the link.

Bender brought the script to Miramax, the formerly independent studio that had recently been acquired by Disney. Harvey Weinstein – co-chairman of Miramax, along with his brother Bob – was instantly enthralled by the script and the company picked it up.[78] Pulp Fiction, the first Miramax project to get a green light after the Disney acquisition, was budgeted at $8.5 million.[a] It became the first movie that Miramax completely financed.[79]

I'll never look at a Quarter Pounder with Cheese the same again.

 

[Disney Irish]

But during the fiscal quarter that Soul was released on Disney+, Q2 of Fiscal '21, Disney+ lost over $250 Million in just those 90 days that Soul was being offered "for free!" on Disney+.

So Disney already lost $250 Million while streaming Soul on Disney+ back in the winter of 2021. That doesn't "pay" for the movie that was supposed to go to theaters, it means Pixar failed to recoup their production budget of $150 Million. And on top of that, Disney lost a lot more doing it that way on Disney+.

That loss is not attributed to Soul specifically, or any other particular piece of content for that matter. That is a loss for all operational expenses which also includes content spend.

So it was paid for by the subscription fees, whether you want to accept that or not.

 

[Disney Irish]

I'll bite. What is the link? I know it was distributed by Miramax.

Miramax was owned by Disney at the time Pulp Fiction was released.

 

[Phroobar]

Miramax was owned by Disney at the time Pulp Fiction was released.

Yup. Just found that. But there is no Castle at the beginning.

 

[BrianLo]

But during the fiscal quarter that Soul was released on Disney+, Q2 of Fiscal '21, Disney+ lost over $250 Million in just those 90 days that Soul was being offered "for free!" on Disney+.

So Disney already lost $250 Million while streaming Soul on Disney+ back in the winter of 2021. That doesn't "pay" for the movie that was supposed to go to theaters, it means Pixar failed to recoup their production budget of $150 Million. And on top of that, Disney lost a lot more doing it that way on Disney+.

Sure, if you really, really want to posit it that way. But you cannot also (which you will want to) start claiming Disney is 750 million in the hole this year after Soul, Turning Red and Luca.

Beyond that, while D+ lost 250 million that quarter, it also made 4 billion in revenue. Was none of that the responsibility of Soul then? Soul lost 250 million and every other release that quarter I guess was just neutral? Unfortunately, for your argument, the company already wrote off a lot of content from back then. So they blamed the loss on ‘that content’ and paid off Soul.

The point is the company has already amortized away the production costs on all of these films via D+ and publicly declared them success stories on D+. So as much as you are going to be all too eager to start counting up those loses for this year, you cannot… unless you want to rewind time and actually make D+ profitable? Which you don’t want to do either.

Gotta pick an intellectual lane on this one.

If you really want something to annoy you, I wouldn’t be surprised if they report the box office take on these films as DTC revenue. I think D+ essentially is the distributor in technicality.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yup. Just found that. But there is no Castle at the beginning.

And there is no castle intro in front of Poor Things either. None of the 20th Century or Searchlight movies have the castle intro in front of them. So its no different then when Disney had Miramax or using Touchstone or Hollywood Pictures.

 

[TP2000]

So it was paid for by the subscription fees, whether you want to accept that or not.

Yes, it was paid for by the subscription fees of a Disney operating division that lost $250 Million that fiscal quarter.

 

[Disney Irish]

Feels like it’s 1989 again and we’re arguing over Blaze.

I just thought about it, this is no different then when Color of Night was released. Who remembers that was a Disney movie.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, it was paid for by the subscription fees of a Disney operating division that lost $250 Million that fiscal quarter.

And what is your point? It was paid for, whether the overall division that paid for it lost money operationally isn't relevant.

Think about it a different way, sub fees paid for the content they bought. The rest of the operational expenses is what lost the division money. If that makes it easier for you to accept.

 

[Andrew C]

Pretty Woman.

 

[TP2000]

Sure, if you really, really want to posit it that way. But you cannot also (which you will want to) start claiming Disney is 750 million in the hole this year after Soul, Turning Red and Luca.

I wouldn't count the massive losses from those three movies that happened back in 2020-2022 against 2024. That's double counting a failure. But I still don't understand how their lack of box office results and internal shell game payments from a money-losing division of the same company back in 2021 means those films are already "paid for". They aren't. They already lost huge amounts of money for Pixar back in 2020-2022.

If anything, I expect the 2024 box office results from those three Pixar films to be rather trivial. Perhaps disastrously ignored by the marketplace who already saw them "for free" on Disney+. And since they already lost hundreds of millions of dollars on those films several years ago, why rub their noses in it?

I may be snarky at times (after 6pm mostly), but I'm not mean.

 

[BrianLo]

Yes, it was paid for by the subscription fees of a Disney operating division that lost $250 Million that fiscal quarter.

If you want to make an argument D+ shouldn’t have been onboarding expensive theatrical films? Ya, that’s very much a discussion we can have.

On one hand it sort of saved Disney’s stock price in the pandemic. While other travel and leisure companies were in the pits, Disney hit an all time high. On the other hand the aftershocks have destroyed urgency to see Pixar films in theaters (you’re welcome @Andrew C). Very evident in Elemental that clearly didn’t suffer the same lack of audience desire that many of their other films did this year.

I think it was one of Chapek’s great follies in hindsight and probably the biggest thing that got him fired.

 

[Phroobar]

I just thought about it, this is no different then when Color of Night was released. Who remembers that was a Disney movie.

Oh yeah. Hollywood Pictures. If it Sphinx...it Stinks.

 

[CinematicFusion]

I just thought about it, this is no different then when Color of Night was released. Who remembers that was a Disney movie.

I remember Night Crossing

 

[Disney Irish]

I remember Night Crossing

Not even comparable when talking about Color of Night.

 

[Disney Irish]

Oh yeah. Hollywood Pictures. If it Sphinx...it Stinks.

I liked a lot of the Hollywood Pictures movies. And while they had some stinkers just like any other studio, there was a lot that was good. One of my favorites, Mr Holland's Opus, was a Hollywood Pictures release.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I liked a lot of the Hollywood Pictures movies. And while they had some stinkers just like any other studio, there was a lot that was good. One of my favorites, Mr Holland's Opus, was a Hollywood Pictures release.

Yup, they had quite a few hits, including The Sixth Sense, which made a bazillion dollars.

 

[brideck]

Just to get ahead of the forthcoming breathless posts (sorry to using your post as a jump off). These three Pixar movies are already paid for. This is more akin to re-release and calculating profitability based on ‘the rules’ does not apply. I’d say they are hoping for several million dollars on these things. Certainly not more than very low 8 figures, definitely not hundreds. They are just taking advantage of the dearth of releases to make a quick buck and theaters will happily allow it because they also have nothing to show.

It looks like AMC is offering all-day matinee prices for these 3 releases. So, not the "$5 fave" price point, but still at a discount. I imagine other chains might be doing something similar, although I haven't looked. If there are families that still wander into theaters looking for something to watch, it could be pretty tempting to them given the current (lack of) choices.