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

[Disney Irish]

As pointed out earlier, why it is often futile. It is all assuming.

Even Arthouse movie genre is a business.

Investors like doubling their money. Producing to break even or lose is a hobby.

The 100 million was apparently arbitrary anyway from someone not that poster.

I agree its all assumption, as I've said numerous times on this thread, none of us actually know the real financial numbers of any of these films. But that doesn't stop anyone, including yourself, from calling winners and losers.

And while breaking even isn't the goal with most films, with art house films it is actually a good achievement (or hobby as you call it). Anything beyond that is gravy for most art house films. And now that it has likely moved past its assumed breakeven point it moves into profitability.

So if we're calling things fairly and not just "everything Disney bad", then we have to mark Poor Things in the win column for Disney. Which I think we can all agree they need right now.

 

[DKampy]

Right, and the two can co-exist. Just like Lego Batman and The Avengers can.
Or a movie like Jason Bourne and Fast and The Furious have. Both have heros and car chases.

perhaps I was misunderstanding your original point as I thought you said the 2 would cannibalize each other… I agree they can coexist… although one appears to be a hit and the other is not

Movies can always be made if they are not expected to be profitable, like anything else can be made as a hobby, passion or goal of other reason.

Hollywood is an industry theatrically, so yes, that is the case. Those thousand plus names you may see in the credits and the many more uncredited, all like to earn a living working hard for the projects, even though they love what they do.

WTH…. You quoted me on something I don’t ever remember posting

 

[Ghost93]

That's fine. I imagine the 100 million was domestic. As that is typically the threshold where you have one deemed so by the "rule of thumb" after marketing and such. A movie typically will be seen as a financial investment and theatrical success by doubling its cost in the theatrical window.

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

 

[Andrew C]

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

word of mouth after the nominations?

 

[MrPromey]

I completely agree. What I was saying wasn't a knock against the film or anything. It was just more of a why it has come under the microscope here. If Disneys big tent poles had hit, no one would be talking about a small film like this not making it's budget back.

Oh no, I gotcha'.

My only point was, the awards for Searchlight films don't mean much for Disney other than the potential for them to make a little more scratch that way - the prestige part is more about the individual players and how when they (Disney) do stuff like this, it is more about an investment in those people than it is in the film, itself.

 

[DKampy]

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

Everyone wants to bash Disney anytime they perceive them of making a mistake… so I think Disney should be applauded that they took a risk and it paid off

 

[celluloid]

You think Gladiator 2, a sequel to a 24-year-old film with little place in the current zeitgeist and none of the original cast, is a strong bet to have a box office of nearly a billion? It’s a good thing you’re not just reflexively anti-Disney.

(Check's Top Gun Maverick)

It is likely, I mean Tom Cruise was there but others were showing face and most were not original cast. Many who saw it did not even care that it was a sequel who care who Tom Cruise is. It was all the rage with many HS aged students and youngins when it played.

310 million for a movie is a big budget but as EPIC as a gladiator film in the current climate is not unreasonable compared to Haunted Mansion needing to cost near 200 million pre Writers and actors changes.

You just like being unreasonable.

 

[brideck]

I would look to Everything Everywhere All at Once for a gauge on what you are describing.

If EEAaO is the yardstick for art films then nothing would ever get made again. It was such a massive box office outlier for indies. No one is making these expecting to get that kind of result. Hoping, sure, but it's not part of the business plan.

 

[Casper Gutman]

(Check's Top Gun Maverick)

It is likely, I mean Tom Cruise and some showing face came back but most were not original cast. Many who saw it did not even care that it was a sequel who care who Tom Cruise is. It was all the rage with many HS aged students and youngins when it played.
310 million for a movie is a big budget but as EPIC as a gladiator film in the current climate is not unreasonable compared to Haunted Mansion needing to cost 200 million pre Writers and actors changes.

You just like being unreasonable.

Top Gun has a tremendous cultural footprint and a returning superstar, one of the last in Hollywood. You’re reaching so hard…

 

[brideck]

I completely agree. What I was saying wasn't a knock against the film or anything. It was just more of a why it has come under the microscope here. If Disneys big tent poles had hit, no one would be talking about a small film like this not making it's budget back.

Personally? It came under the microscope here because ignorant folks presented it as a massive flop after 2 weeks of sub-100 screen release in December. You can't just let that sort of nonsense narrative be presented as the truth.

 

[celluloid]

Top Gun has a tremendous cultural footprint and a returning superstar, one of the last in Hollywood. You’re reaching so hard…

You keep acting like they are so far. Why is 310 million unreasonable for a follow up? Post Strike EPIC movie cost.

 

[TalkingHead]

310 million for a movie is a big budget but as EPIC as a gladiator film in the current climate is not unreasonable compared to Haunted Mansion needing to cost near 200 million pre Writers and actors changes.

You just like being unreasonable.

Correction: $310m is ridiculous, especially if it was budgeted at half that.

 

[celluloid]

Correction: $310m is ridiculous, especially if it was budgeted at half that.

Why is the Hollywood market different from others effected by same thing? Everything about movie making now cost a lot more than it did eight years ago.

Ridiculous to me is an animated hour and a half feature costing 200 million.


It is only ridiculous when it doesn't work.

 

[brideck]

I'm honestly shocked Poor Things made that much money. I thought it was a very good movie, but it seems like it would be rather niche in appeal.

Ditto. I was surprised that it zoomed past The Favourite since that one would probably have had more broad appeal. I know that this is where people raise the "yeah, but inflation" point, but here's what's interesting to me. If you convert grosses to rough estimates of ticket sales, you'll see that roughly 1/3 (~32%) of pre-Covid sales are still missing for the US market as a whole. However, Poor Things has already made 83% of the sales that The Favourite did, and it's not done just yet.

I can't tell if that just means that the art film audience has retained a larger percentage of its audience than the mainstream one after the pandemic or if that means that Poor Things has really done pretty exceptionally.

 

[celluloid]

Ditto. I was surprised that it zoomed past The Favourite since that one would probably have had more broad appeal. I know that this is where people raise the "yeah, but inflation" point, but here's what's interesting to me. If you convert grosses to rough estimates of ticket sales, you'll see that roughly 1/3 (~32%) of pre-Covid sales are still missing for the US market as a whole. However, Poor Things has already made 83% of the sales that The Favourite did, and it's not done just yet.

I can't tell if that just means that the art film audience has retained a larger percentage of its audience than the mainstream one after the pandemic or if that means that Poor Things has really done pretty exceptionally.

Not picking on Poor Things, as it helped all movies that released and had more play time on screens, but writer's/actors strike impact not having many theatrical releases from late December through February certainly helped.

 

[Ghost93]

I can't tell if that just means that the art film audience has retained a larger percentage of its audience than the mainstream one after the pandemic or if that means that Poor Things has really done pretty exceptionally.

Art film enthusiasts are more likely to be adamant about seeing movies at "the cinema" over watching something at home.

 

[erasure fan1]

Personally? It came under the microscope here because ignorant folks presented it as a massive flop after 2 weeks of sub-100 screen release in December. You can't just let that sort of nonsense narrative be presented as the truth.

Yes I do remember that. And the reason was because almost every movie Disney released underperformed. Therefore bringing scrutiny to it, that was obviously premature. Again, the movie doesn't really even get talked about except for an awards blurb on here if the tent poles are knocking it out of the park.

 

[brideck]

Art film enthusiasts are more likely to be adamant about seeing movies at "the cinema" over watching something at home.

Yeah, I might do some comparisons year-over-year for limited releases as a whole to see what that trend looks like.

 

[DKampy]

Yes I do remember that. And the reason was because almost every movie Disney released underperformed. Therefore bringing scrutiny to it, that was obviously premature. Again, the movie doesn't really even get talked about except for an awards blurb on here if the tent poles are knocking it out of the park.

This is the dangers of people talking about box office even though the have no interest or wanting to understand the film business

 

[MrPromey]

Yes I do remember that. And the reason was because almost every movie Disney released underperformed. Therefore bringing scrutiny to it, that was obviously premature. Again, the movie doesn't really even get talked about except for an awards blurb on here if the tent poles are knocking it out of the park.

The cruel irony being that while it's being picked apart, it's not only one of the only movies they've had over the last couple of years to meet expectations, it seems to be surpassing those expectations, handily.

... but in this case, it's guilty by association, I guess.