TP2000
Well-Known Member
Ongoing box office results and market data that directly reflects the financial health and success of the Walt Disney Company.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
Ongoing box office results and market data that directly reflects the financial health and success of the Walt Disney Company.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
All the same, I’d like to hear it from him, an honest answer, instead of an indignant “This is a box office thread, I’m just posting about box office results!” sort of thing. I am well aware that no such honest response will ever be posted.
Chi84
Premium Member
And to think we can stop it all with the touch of a button.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Had Madame Web succeeded at the box office, we all know what the spin would have been: “Why can other companies do Marvel well but not Disney?”
If Madame Web had succeeded at the box office and audiences really liked it and voted affirmatively with their wallets, then yes that would be a reasonable question to ask.
But apparently it's a really bad movie, and it's bombing. And so that begs the different question "How will this movie bombing with audiences impact the already weakened Marvel brand going forward?"
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
In other words, all roads lead to making Disney look bad.
It’s all so wonderfully predictable!
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Luckily, this Madame Web thing isn't technically a Disney movie. It's only branded as a Marvel product, but Sony Pictures takes the hefty financial loss for it. And yet the damage to the Marvel brand from this bad product still exists to an extent.
Honestly, Madame Web doing this poorly can't be spun as a good thing for Disney's investment in Marvel, can it?
Unfortunately, yes. The way for Disney to fix this is to start releasing movies that at least break even at the box office.
Or even, and this is where it gets wild, start releasing movies that make a profit at the box office. That is, make a profit before they get sent over to Disney+ so that separate division can lose hundreds of millions of dollars per fiscal year in addition to the losses at the Studios divisions.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
Oh look. A hit! Let’s not talk about it. Might be too inconvenient.
“Poor Things was named one of the top 10 films of 2023 by the American Film Institute and the National Board of Review and has grossed over $94 million worldwide. It received five wins at the 77th British Academy Film Awards, and was nominated in 11 categories at the 96th Academy Awards, including Best Picture.”
Shall I do All of Us Strangers for you next?
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
It actually can be spun as good for Disney. The weaker the Sony brand becomes with this less than stellar universe they keep trying to make. The closer Disney could be to regaining the rights to spiderman. Or at worst, they expand the deal to share the characters even further and let Marvel have creative control.
Spoken like a person that does not watch movies…most of the regular movie going public can follow
Meanwhile, Migration has overtaken Wish as the 4th highest-grossing animated feature of 2023:
www.boxofficemojo.com
2023 Worldwide Box Office
www.boxofficemojo.com
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I do think there is a conversation to be had about how the failed Sony Marvel movies might have an unintended negative impact on the Disney Marvel movies if there are many consumers who can't tell the difference.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't. It has lost even more money at the box office than Poor Things has.
All Of Us Strangers is financially disastrous, now that you mention it.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I would think so too. If only from a branding perspective with an eye to future audience response.
I can't think of a mechanism or process where a Sony produced movie branded as Marvel using a Spiderman character that bombs horribly at the box office can then be leveraged to make the Marvel brand stronger overall.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
To be fair, All of Us Strangers probably didn't cost a lot of money to make. It's also a phenomenal movie, so I'm glad it exists from an artistic standpoint.I wouldn't. It has lost even more money at the box office than Poor Things has.
All Of Us Strangers is financially disastrous, now that you mention it.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Well, sure there's a silver lining I guess.
But for most people, Disney already has the rights to Spiderman. They throw him at a building in DCA twenty times per day and most of the time he makes it, and Spidey has his own D Ticket dark ride in the same land.
Disneyland's Avengers Campus lets you sling (virtual) Spider-Man webs from your palm
Disneyland Parks gave us a sneak peek at California Adventure's superhero-filled Avengers Campus and Web Slingers: A Spider-Man Adventure attraction.
www.usatoday.com
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I'm in the @MrPromey camp now; if it keeps the creatives happy and employed waiting for their next money-making gig from a big studio blockbuster, it's okay for these little arthouse movies to lose money in the meantime.
But the problem is that none of Disney's flagship studios release blockbusters any more. In fact, most Disney movies of the past 15 months have lost a hundred million dollars or more during their box office run, before they were sent off unceremoniously to live out their days on the money-losing Disney+ division.
Looking at the numbers after All Of Us Strangers has been in theaters for two months, it would need to have been made for $4 Million or less, with only $2 Million spent on global marketing, in order to break even at its current box office status. I can't find any mention of a production budget for it online, just as it's hard to see that it even exists as a movie online.
Assuming it only cost a relatively tiny $10 Million to produce, and a shoestring budget of $5 Million was spent on global marketing, All Of Us Strangers has lost $9 Million for Searchlight.
All Of Us Strangers: Production $10?, Marketing $5?, USA B.O. Take $2.4, Overseas B.O. Take $3.6 = $9 Million Loss
brideck
Well-Known Member
I wouldn't. It has lost even more money at the box office than Poor Things has.
All Of Us Strangers is financially disastrous, now that you mention it.
We don't actually have any idea what the budget of All of Us Strangers is, so it'd be a leap to say that it lost/made money and certainly to call it "financially disastrous". If the budget was $5m or less, then it's at least already broken even, which is definitely plausible. It did not in any way shape or form cost $10m to make.
The interesting thing about this one is that it made exactly as much money as Disney seemingly wanted it to, at least domestically. It was never given a ton of screens or much publicity and still had fantastic per-screen numbers all the way until it was unceremoniously bumped out of theaters. Despite all that it was the 8th highest grossing limited release (<600 screens at its max) of 2023 and outshone plenty of movies with higher screen counts than it was granted.
ETA: Also, it's literally only been out in the UK (its country of origin) for 4 weeks and has already made $5.6m there.
Last edited:
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I can't find any online mention of a budget for All Of Us Strangers either. Based on its existing box office, it needed a budget of $4 Million or less in order to simply break even.
Looking at the budget data for Poor Things and the other movies in 2023 from Searchlight, their budgets were as follows:
Poor Things = $35 Million production budget
Next Goal Wins = $10 Million production budget
Theater Camp = $8 Million production budget
Chevalier = $46 Million production budget (powdered wigs are costly, apparently)
If the production budget for All Of Us Strangers was more than $5 Million, it has lost money at the box office. If the budget for All Of Us Strangers was $10 Million or more, I would definitely call it financially disastrous for that meager budget.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Question for the box office / movie budget aficionados here….
Poor Things was produced by 3 different production companies, none of which are owned by Disney, and was just distributed by Searchlight. Wouldn’t that mean that Disney mostly just footed the bill for marketing ?
Edit: think I answered my own question here, it appears out of the 2023 roster of Searchlight films Theatre Camp is the only one listed as “distribution only”.
Poor Things was produced by 3 different production companies, none of which are owned by Disney, and was just distributed by Searchlight. Wouldn’t that mean that Disney mostly just footed the bill for marketing ?
Edit: think I answered my own question here, it appears out of the 2023 roster of Searchlight films Theatre Camp is the only one listed as “distribution only”.
Disney Irish
Premium Member
This was actually gone over in this thread before.
TSG Entertainment is one of the producers on the film. TSG is the financing partner for 20th Century Studios including Searchlight. So while we don't know the exact breakdown, Disney does have some skin in the game on this film more than just marketing.
Unfortunately when talking about budgets and box office too many just put that on the distributor, even if they aren't the one footing the bill.