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

[TP2000]

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'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]

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.

 

[TP2000]

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".

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]

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”.

 

[Disney Irish]

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”.

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.

 

[MagicHappens1971]

This was actually gone over in this thread before.

Sorry if I missed it, this thread has become nauseating. I just popped in for the first time in a while.

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.

Gotcha. Not discrediting the fact that Disney has some financial issues in the Studios department, but discussing a very well nominated and what most likely will be an Academy Award winning film with a small budget split amongst other companies seems a little silly.

 

[Minnesota disney fan]

I wish they had a "confused" emoji for this thread. I understand about half what I read, I think?

 

[Phroobar]

I wish they had a "confused" emoji for this thread. I understand about half what I read, I think?

Think how hard it is to follow when one has half of them on ignore for being trolls.

 

[Eric Graham]

Has Disney had a hit since John Lasseter? The gem that he was...

 

[doctornick]

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.

It's a question to be had perhaps, but the MCU was thriving at at its peak in the past when both FOX and Sony were putting out (inferior) competing Marvel films so it seems that movie goers are likely at least a bit more discerning. It's not like Fant4stic bombing (for example) impacted the MCU and theatergoers certainly seemed to know the difference by and large between the products.

That said, with all the Marvel products out these days due to D+, there is probably more opportunity for confusion.

 

[TP2000]

Has Disney had a hit since John Lasseter? The gem that he was...

He left in 2018. As far as Disney movies since Covid ended, the only Disney movies that made a profit at the box office were Marvel movies in 2022 and 2023; Spiderman No Way Home, Dr Strange Multiverse, Wakanda Forever, and Guardians 3...

 

[Eric Graham]

He left in 2018. As far as Disney movies since Covid ended, the only Disney movies that made a profit at the box office were Marvel movies in 2022 and 2023; Spiderman No Way Home, Dr Strange Multiverse, Wakanda Forever, and Guardians 3...

Sorry, it was just a question. Didn't mean any offense... Kind of neat, when I was at a botanical garden here I met the stand in for Chadwick Boseman while they were filming the Black Panther. Same build and everything....

 

[TP2000]

Sorry, it was just a question. Didn't mean any offense... Kind of neat, when I was at a botanical garden here I met the stand in for Chadwick Boseman while they were filming the Black Panther. Same build and everything....

No offense taken. It's a valid question, and the results show how weak and underperforming almost all of Disney's flagship studios have become suddenly.

The only box office bright spot for Disney post-Covid was Marvel in 2022, but Marvel had a much weaker 2023.

And now it's 2024...

 

[Ghost93]

It's a question to be had perhaps, but the MCU was thriving at at its peak in the past when both FOX and Sony were putting out (inferior) competing Marvel films so it seems that movie goers are likely at least a bit more discerning. It's not like Fant4stic bombing (for example) impacted the MCU and theatergoers certainly seemed to know the difference by and large between the products.

That said, with all the Marvel products out these days due to D+, there is probably more opportunity for confusion.

I admittedly enjoyed Madame Web more than I did Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Thor: Love and Thunder or the Marvels. Madame Web was probably the worst-made, but it had some "it's so bad it's good" entertainment value, whereas the other three were just kind of "meh."

Marvel Studios needs like four AMAZING movies in a row to turn its reputation around.

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

 

[doctornick]

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

I wasn't trying to characterize all their films as inferior just that when poorer films from FOX or Sony came out (e.g. Fant4stic, Apocalypse, Amazing Spider-Man 2, etc.) that it didn't affect MCU movies released in the same timeframe. So the audience at least seemed to have some idea as to the different studios existing and different franchises despite all being "Marvel".

 

[BuddyThomas]

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.

Exactly. It has a total of four speaking roles in the entire movie.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I admittedly enjoyed Madame Web more than I did Ant-man and the Wasp: Quantumania, Thor: Love and Thunder or the Marvels. Madame Web was probably the worst-made, but it had some "it's so bad it's good" entertainment value, whereas the other three were just kind of "meh."

Marvel Studios needs like four AMAZING movies in a row to turn its reputation around.

Side note, I disagree that Fox always put out inferior competing content. The X-men franchise was never as consistent as the MCU, but when it was good, I thought it was far superior to anything the MCU put out. I consider X-men, X2: X-men Untied, X-men: First Class, X-men: Days of Future Past, Logan and the two Deapool movies to all be good-great movies.

I also keep reading that Madame Web is so bad it’s good. That type of thing is right up my alley. Was going to go tonight but was lucky to score a cheap ticket to Spamalot on Broadway, so Madame Web will have to wait.

 

[DKampy]

AI also keep reading that Madame Web is so bad it’s good. That type of thing is right up my alley. Was going to go tonight but was lucky to score a cheap ticket to Spamalot on Broadway, so Madame Web will have to wait.

I am jealous…I have seen some clips of Spamalot on YouTube…it looks like a hoot

 

[Disney Analyst]

FYI (related and unrelated to box office, but I dunno).

 

[doctornick]

Actually, Spider-Man:NWH was a huge Sony movie, not a Disney success.

Actually it’s both of them. The Spider-Man movies are co- productions between the two studios and Disney gets 25% of the profits (so obviously Sony benefits more from the box office). Disney also owns all the merchandising rights for the movies.