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

TP2000

Well-Known Member
USAToday, the official newspaper of awful waiting areas, declares Madame Web a "bomb" in its headline, and a "Marvel character" in the first paragraph. So it's not just us that's confused about Marvel's products versus Sony's movies.

 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Not exactly. "Post-theatrical" would include some things that are not "direct-to-consumer." These typically involve getting money from middle-men, who then make money by screening the film for their own customers. Many of these are drying up as major sources of revenue, but they include:
  1. Home Entertainment: DVDs, Blu-rays, and digital downloads/rentals through iTunes, Amazon Prime Video, Google Play, etc.
  2. Streaming Services: Licensing deals with non-Disney streaming platforms such as Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, and a bunch you've probably never heard of.
  3. Television Syndication: licensing to linear networks for broadcast, either on cable channels or through syndication deals with local stations.
  4. Merchandising: toys, clothing, video games, board games, gifts, decor, etc.
  5. International Distribution: released in theaters in other countries after its initial run.
  6. Ancillary Markets: Airline, cruise ships, hotel screenings, educational screenings, and other non-traditional distribution channels.
  7. On-Demand Services, Pay-per-view: On-demand rental or purchase through cable and satellite providers.
  8. Licensing and Royalties: Revenue can also come from licensing the movie for use in other media, such as YouTube videos, music samples, books, or stage adaptations.
  9. Releases in Other Formats: IMAX, 3D, special editions, etc.
Direct-to-Consumer, on the other hand, is when there's no middle man, and Disney sells a film directly to the consumer. Disney is working to develop this as a business in Disney+, Hulu, ESPN, etc., and did invest boatloads of money into it as they work to make it a profitable and sustainable business.

Disney+ is on track to become profitable this year as they continue to reduce spending, raise prices, and sell ads, and they've yet to roll out additional services like games, gambling, and shopping, etc. that are sure to bring in a lot of revenue.
Oh, you’re posting those pesky facts again. 😛
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
Wonka’s an interesting case. It’s made good money for 2023/2024 but I haven’t heard anything about its musical qualities (i.e. are any of the songs showing signs of popularity, usually the hallmark of a culturally relevant musical?).
Musically, it’s a problem if the best song in the film is Pure Imagination, written decades before the rest of the score, almost all of which was totally forgettable. It was still a fun movie.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
You are very kind to call Madame Web's box office performance merely a "flop". Someone appreciates it, I'm sure. :)



I was certainly confused, until @MisterPenguin provided me a bullet list of explanations and legal reasons why/how Sony and Marvel handle Spiderman stuff. I appreciated it, and it makes more sense now, at least legally if not artistically.

Spiderman has a D Ticket ride at DCA's Marvel Avengers Campus, but Madame Web isn't mentioned there in the land. But why not, she's branded as a Marvel product. It's weird. And who would think Madame Web was not a Marvel product when it's branded as Marvel?

madame-web-poster-by-marvel.jpg
That is not even an official title card for the film. It has Marvel Studios logo which is not involved and has never been involved with Madam Web, and isn’t seen anywhere during the opening of the film. So it’s fake, probably made by someone on Reddit to troll people.

And while the Madam Web character might be an overall Marvel character it doesn’t mean she deserves to be in Avengers Campus.
 
Last edited:

Disney Irish

Premium Member
USAToday, the official newspaper of awful waiting areas, declares Madame Web a "bomb" in its headline, and a "Marvel character" in the first paragraph. So it's not just us that's confused about Marvel's products versus Sony's movies.

She is a Marvel character, in that she was created by Marvel comics, so they aren’t confused. But you appear to be.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
That is not even an official title card for the film. It has Marvel Studios logo which is not involved and has never been involved with Madam Web, and isn’t seen anywhere during the opening of the film. So it’s fake, probably made by someone on Reddit to troll people.

And while the Madam Web character might be an overall Marvel character it doesn’t mean she deserves to be in Avengers Campus.
She is a Marvel character, in that she was created by Marvel comics, so they aren’t confused. But you appear to be.

So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

Web Of Confusion.jpg
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

Who Is Confused.jpg


If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

View attachment 769396
There is a reason why it says "IN ASSOCIATION WITH MARVEL" and not "Marvel Studios".

"Marvel Studios" is used when its an MCU film. "IN ASSOCIATION WITH MARVEL" is used when its just Marvel characters used by other studios that are not in the MCU, as is the case with any Sony Marvel movies not starring Tom Holland.

So again its part of the overall Marvel brand in that Madam Web, and the Spider-Women, characters are created by Marvel Comics, but its not in the MCU and therefore will not be part of anything they do for Avengers Campus (since you brought that up previously).

The regular movie going public, you know people who actually go to the movies, have been trained to know that when they see the "Marvel Studios" logo that its an MCU film. Any other use of Marvel they know its not MCU related and probably a lesser quality film. People who don't go to the movies and just google things are the ones who don't really know the difference.
 

BuddyThomas

Well-Known Member
I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

View attachment 769397

If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.
Good lord. The misinformation never ends.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I just thought of another official source that potential audiences would use; the official movie trailer on YouTube.

Sure enough, at the 34 second mark of the movie trailer, this"MARVEL" title card sits on the screen for a few moments...

View attachment 769397

If these movies from Sony that use Marvel characters and branding are going to bomb this badly, perhaps it's time to figure out how to get Sony Pictures out of the process entirely.

Goodness knows the box office results for The Marvels already proved that Disney can waste hundreds of millions of dollars on box office bombs for Marvel all on their own. They don't need Sony's help with that.
That is not the "Marvel" title card for the MCU, and the movie going public knows the difference.

As for getting Sony out of the process, that would require Disney/Marvel to buy back the rights to Spider-Man and his family of characters from Sony. That is an expensive proposition, likely more than what Disney bought Marvel for in the first place, and one that requires Sony being willing to sell which they are not at this point.
 

_caleb

Well-Known Member
So I just now went and put into Google "Madame Web" and the first thing that popped up was the official movie website. So I clicked on it and a video started playing for the film, so I took a screen shot of it. And it says "MARVEL" on the official movie website, next to the PG-13 rating. So this movie isn't connected to the Marvel brand?

View attachment 769396
As we've tried to explain, Marvel is owned by Disney, but different companies have the rights to use the characters in different media. Variations of the logo is used to differentiate these:

Anytime you see the Marvel name, it always means "this has characters from the Marvel comic books."

If the Marvel logo includes the words "In association with Marvel" (circled in your screenshot), it means "We're not Disney, but we bought the rights to make this movie and followed the rules of that agreement."

Then there's "Marvel Studios," which are films/series that feature Marvel characters and was also made by Disney:
Marvel-Studios-logo.png
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
The regular movie going public, you know people who actually go to the movies, have been trained to know that when they see the "Marvel Studios" logo that its an MCU film. Any other use of Marvel they know its not MCU related and probably a lesser quality film.
I'm not sure that's really accurate. At least that I've seen. I've been asked countless times now if Madame web is part of the mcu. The joe average moviegoer doesn't really know the difference. The average marvel comics fan, yea they know. The joe average moviegoer accounts for a huge portion of tickets. So I can see how these terrible Sony films could tarnish the mcu a bit.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
I'm not sure that's really accurate. At least that I've seen. I've been asked countless times now if Madame web is part of the mcu. The joe average moviegoer doesn't really know the difference. The average marvel comics fan, yea they know. The joe average moviegoer accounts for a huge portion of tickets. So I can see how these terrible Sony films could tarnish the mcu a bit.
Oh sure, I think it varies from person-to-person, but I literally just went with someone this weekend to see it who doesn't follow this stuff and they said "I'm glad I didn't see the Marvel Studios intro in front of that".

Most of the general movie going public under 50 I'm confident to say likely understands the difference.
 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Good lord. The misinformation never ends.

Well, no. That's the official trailer for Madame Web on YouTube.

Unless you are accusing Sony Pictures and Marvel for the "misinformation" regarding Madame Web? But if that's the case, then a lot of people at both Sony and Marvel are misinformed about how they branded their Madame Web movie.

But the point remains, it's easy to imagine people not understanding that Madame Web is not technically a Marvel movie even though she's a "Marvel character" appearing in a movie branded with the MARVEL logo.

 

TP2000

Well-Known Member
As we've tried to explain, Marvel is owned by Disney, but different companies have the rights to use the characters in different media. Variations of the logo is used to differentiate these:

Anytime you see the Marvel name, it always means "this has characters from the Marvel comic books."

If the Marvel logo includes the words "In association with Marvel" (circled in your screenshot), it means "We're not Disney, but we bought the rights to make this movie and followed the rules of that agreement."

Then there's "Marvel Studios," which are films/series that feature Marvel characters and was also made by Disney:

Yes, I understand that. But it's also easy to see why the average moviegover who has not been briefed in legalese and complex marketing/branding agreements would think Madame Web is a Marvel thing. It says Marvel on it, after all.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Yes, I understand that. But it's also easy to see why the average moviegover who has not been briefed in legalese and complex marketing/branding agreements would think Madame Web is a Marvel thing. It says Marvel on it, after all.
It is a Marvel thing, but not Disney’s area of Marvel.

What does it matter anyway if average moviegoers confuse things?
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom