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

[Wendy Pleakley]

Especially since they brought back the cast with the last film… I feel that was perfect… as kind of a passing of the torch for the new characters… the trailer is all nostalgic bait… the way forward is looking towards the future not always back at the past

Well, as someone pointed out online, the new movie seems to forget what the original movie was. It was a comedy about friends going into business together. It wasn't about ghosts. They could have been exterminators.

So many sequels miss the point of the original. Someone out there said, a Ghostbusters sequel needs more effects. It needs more ghosts. It needs a convoluted plot.

Ghosts were a tool to tell a comedic story. That should be the first priority.

Regardless, if Bill Murray is willing to make a Ghostbusters movie, I'm not going to suggest putting him aside for a new generation.

 

[TP2000]

So now we are playing guessing games to point out Disney’s failures?

In the big ball game of $200+ Million dollar losses for some of Disney's movies in 2023, I don't know that a loss of $5 Million or less is a "failure". The on set snack table budget for Indy 5 or the hairspray budget for The Marvels probably cost more than the entire production budget for All Of Us Strangers, after all.

It's just sort of an interesting aside relating to box office on how these tiny arthouse movies work from Searchlight.

Indy 5: $300 Production, $100 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $105, Overseas B.O. Take $83 = $212 Million Loss
The Marvels: $220 Production, $100 Marketing, USA B.O. Take $51, Overseas B.O. Take $46 = $223 Million Loss
All Of Us Strangers: Production $10?, Marketing $2?, USA B.O. Take $2.4, Overseas B.O. Take $5.6 = $4 Million Loss

 

[brideck]

Looking at some interest metrics on IMDb/TMDB and it looks like The First Omen is more or less keeping pace with both Immaculate and Late Night with the Devil despite still being two weeks away from release, so prospective audiences are at least starting to become aware that it exists. Whether that'll translate into butts in seats is another matter altogether.

Also in 20th Century news, the teaser to Alien: Romulus dropped today. It looks like a real throwback to classic claustrophobic horror in space. I think you can see why they opted to bring it to theaters.

 

[BuddyThomas]

View attachment 773990

Wow. Maybe it will grow virally to a wider release...;-)

It’s supposed to be fantastic.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Looking at some interest metrics on IMDb/TMDB and it looks like The First Omen is more or less keeping pace with both Immaculate and Late Night with the Devil despite still being two weeks away from release, so prospective audiences are at least starting to become aware that it exists. Whether that'll translate into butts in seats is another matter altogether.

Also in 20th Century news, the teaser to Alien: Romulus dropped today. It looks like a real throwback to classic claustrophobic horror in space. I think you can see why they opted to bring it to theaters.

I am so there.

 

[Disney Irish]

It turns out the data online is very spotty for the production budgets for Searchlight Pictures. But here's what I could find for Searchlight in recent years. If someone has some other budget sources they've found, feel free to weigh in:

2023:
Poor Things = $35 Million
Chevalier = $46 Million

2022:
The Menu = $30 Million
Banshees of Inisherin = $20 Million
Fire Island = $10 Million

2021:
Nightmare Alley = $60 Million
The French Dispatch = $25 Million
See How They Run = $40 Million

The average Searchlight production budget seems to be around $25 Million, and the cheapest budget I could find was the $10 Million for Fire Island two years ago.

If we assume All Of Us Strangers had a very small production budget of $10 Million, and a practically nonexistent global marketing budget of only $2 Million, we get this box office result...

All Of Us Strangers: Production $10, Marketing $2, USA B.O. Take $2.4, Overseas B.O. Take $5.6 = $4 Million Loss

View attachment 774011

If the budget isn't public its likely its not $10M, it could be less. For example in 2019 Searchlight put out Ready or Not on a budget of only $6M. And that one had a much larger cast.

Basically stop trying to guess, they are low budget films. It did exactly what Disney/Searchlight wanted it to do, it got nominated for a bunch of awards.

 

[Dranth]

Looking at some interest metrics on IMDb/TMDB and it looks like The First Omen is more or less keeping pace with both Immaculate and Late Night with the Devil despite still being two weeks away from release, so prospective audiences are at least starting to become aware that it exists. Whether that'll translate into butts in seats is another matter altogether.

Also in 20th Century news, the teaser to Alien: Romulus dropped today. It looks like a real throwback to classic claustrophobic horror in space. I think you can see why they opted to bring it to theaters.

Boy do I hope this is good. The franchise needs some new life and leaning more into the original in terms of feel would be ideal.

 

[brideck]

If the budget isn't public its likely its not $10M, it could be less. For example in 2019 Searchlight put out Ready or Not on a budget of only $6M. And that one had a much larger cast.

Man, what a great movie that is. Not Searchlight, but I'm looking forward to Abigail from the same team.

 

[Disney Irish]

Man, what a great movie that is. Not Searchlight, but I'm looking forward to Abigail from the same team.

I saw the trailer it looks pretty good.

 

[DKampy]

The two above back-to-back are hilarious.

I don’t know what this means… but if you are referring to me guessing if the new Ghostbusters will be good or not… I have not seen it… I hope it is good… I do plan on seeing the film at some point.., I did like the last one well enough… The 46 percent on Rotten Tomatoes is not instilling confidence

If you liked the trailer I am happy for you…IMO… I did not care for the trailer… it all felt like Nostalgic bait to me…oh here’s slimmer again… oh remember the State Puff Marshmallow… how about we bring the old cast back again… I like Bill Murray as much as the next person but as someone said earlier they have never matched the charm of the original… I feel like the nostalgia is all from the first movie… I would have more confidence if Jason Reitman was back in the directors chair.

 

[DKampy]

Looking at some interest metrics on IMDb/TMDB and it looks like The First Omen is more or less keeping pace with both Immaculate and Late Night with the Devil despite still being two weeks away from release, so prospective audiences are at least starting to become aware that it exists. Whether that'll translate into butts in seats is another matter altogether.

Also in 20th Century news, the teaser to Alien: Romulus dropped today. It looks like a real throwback to classic claustrophobic horror in space. I think you can see why they opted to bring it to theaters.

The first teaser looks great… I think people forget Alien started off as a horror movie not Science Fiction

 

[brideck]

I don’t know what this means…

I was wondering that, too, although I think (and celluloid can correct me if I'm wrong) that it's because you said "the way forward is looking towards the future not always back at the past" and then immediately addressed yet another post that was looking at past performance.

 

[celluloid]

I was wondering that, too, although I think (and celluloid can correct me if I'm wrong) that it's because you said "the way forward is looking towards the future not always back at the past" and then immediately addressed yet another post that was looking at past performance.

A bit of that and the. Talking about past performances from a company that is 90 percent sequels and remakes including the disappointment that starred an old guy in a fedora who was done treading fifteen years before that. There are nostalgia bait critiques and that is fine but hard to compare and slam Sony for putting those guys and gals as supporting cast. They are not leads.
but hey, Moana 2 before live action Moana that is canceled(?) and hooray new alien that is trying to be the Original. That is why it was funny considering.

 

[brideck]

A bit of that and the. Talking about past performances from a company that is 90 percent sequels and remakes including the disappointment that starred an old guy in a fedora who was done treading fifteen years before that. There are nostalgia bait critiques and that is fine but hard to compare and slam Sony for putting those guys and gals as supporting cast. They are not leads.

Every significant recent success save Oppenheimer has been a sequel/franchise or nostalgia play, and that trend has only continued with Wonka, Kung Fu Panda, and Dune. To single anyone out for it is wrongheaded, as it's unfortunately all too clear that it's the only thing people will show up in theaters for anymore en masse. For my money, though, it stinks to high heaven to pull someone like Dan Aykroyd out of mothballs for these -- he's literally not been in any other movies over the last 10 years. The concept of the Ghostbusters, if it actually has any value, should be able to stand on its own without these excessive links to the past. And I say this as a member of the generation that they're pandering to with this.

 

[TP2000]

Every significant recent success save Oppenheimer has been a sequel/franchise or nostalgia play, and that trend has only continued with Wonka, Kung Fu Panda, and Dune. To single anyone out for it is wrongheaded, as it's unfortunately all too clear that it's the only thing people will show up in theaters for anymore en masse.

Okay.

If only franchises sell now, I look forward to tracking the box office data for Planet Of The Apes 9 and Inside Out 2.

 

[celluloid]

Every significant recent success save Oppenheimer has been a sequel/franchise or nostalgia play, and that trend has only continued with Wonka, Kung Fu Panda, and Dune. To single anyone out for it is wrongheaded, as it's unfortunately all too clear that it's the only thing people will show up in theaters for anymore en masse. For my money, though, it stinks to high heaven to pull someone like Dan Aykroyd out of mothballs for these -- he's literally not been in any other movies over the last 10 years. The concept of the Ghostbusters, if it actually has any value, should be able to stand on its own without these excessive links to the past. And I say this as a member of the generation that they're pandering to with this.

Yeah...too many controls for this claim.

Universal alone had hits last year that had never been films before.

And what do you consider a nostalgia play? You have to define that term for it to make any sense. Nostalgia play has always been a part of show business. Can it even be based on a video game or book? Every was such a crazy word to use here, even in italics.

Also, what did Dan Aykroyd do to you? Him acting not as much anymore does not equate to the quality of a film he is in. He's worked various gigs and written. Him not being in a variety these last ten years has nothing to do with the subject.


I never said anything was wrong with nostalgia. I merely quoted that it was funny that Ghostbusters was being singled out as if it was the only one revisiting. Nostalgia can always be done right.

Just because Sony, WB and Universal have had success with nostalgia and Disney, the king of nostalgia has tapped their resources out lately does not mean you have to throw shade at. You avoid calling anything Disney out about it.

The last two years the winner of the best award at the Oscars have been original screenplays. Both of those movies were huge profits for the studio. I think that is sigifigant don't you?

Barbie was totally an original take on the character, so while it played into nostalgia, that is not why people enjoyed it. They enjoyed it for its satirical story.

If it was the only thing people will show up to theaters for en masse, then that points to just how awful Disney is at this industry anymore. Because that is 90 percent plus what they have pumped out.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Every significant recent success save Oppenheimer has been a sequel/franchise or nostalgia play, and that trend has only continued with Wonka, Kung Fu Panda, and Dune. To single anyone out for it is wrongheaded, as it's unfortunately all too clear that it's the only thing people will show up in theaters for anymore en masse. For my money, though, it stinks to high heaven to pull someone like Dan Aykroyd out of mothballs for these -- he's literally not been in any other movies over the last 10 years. The concept of the Ghostbusters, if it actually has any value, should be able to stand on its own without these excessive links to the past. And I say this as a member of the generation that they're pandering to with this.

They made a Ghostbusters movie that was completely separate from the originals, and got a lot of backlash for it. A lot of that was sexism, but a lot of people were simply very resistant to a story that wasn't part of that original universe.

As noted before, these are movies about a group of friends going into business together. Ghostbusting is just a premise to hang that story on. If it's not connected to those original characters in any way, then it's a different movie. There's no need to even have it in the same timeline. Again, that didn't go over well.

For what it's worth, from the IGN review of the movie:

Of the three, Ray feels the most successfully integrated into the Spenglers’ story. In contrast to Stantz’s struggle to let go of his ghostbusting days, Aykroyd’s warmth, and the actor’s comfort with taking a back seat to the next generation, end up buying him a lot of goodwill.

 

[brideck]

Don't confuse the claim to think that I mean that all franchises/sequels or nostalgia plays are successful. There are too many of varying quality for that to possibly be true. But I'll definitely stand behind the statement that the overwhelming majority of movies having the kind of BO grosses that people in this thread are seeking are part of franchises and/or well-established IPs.

I'll do some work for y'all. Here's the complete list of Top 20 films since 2018 [truncated to movies that made >$100m domestically] that I see that don't fall into that category:
- Bohemian Rhapsody (grudgingly -- Queen is obviously a successful brand, but biopics are in a unique space)
- A Quiet Place
- Crazy Rich Asians
- Us
- Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
- Knives Out
- 1917
- Little Women
- Free Guy
- Jungle Cruise
- Elvis (again debatable)
- Uncharted (based on a video game series)
- Nope
- Smile
- The Lost City
- Bullet Train
- Oppenheimer
- Sound of Freedom (which people didn't actually go see, but had viral ticket sales/donations)
- Taylor Swift
- Elemental
- Five Nights at Freddy's (based on a video game series)
- Migration

Some of those are very generous decisions on my part to not consider them a well-established IP, so at best that makes only 22 of the last 97 domestic hits something relatively new/original, and only two of those (Oppenheimer & Bohemian Rhapsody) made more than $200m here. So, sure... only 80-85% of recent hits have been franchises, and only >95% of the megahits.

 

[celluloid]

They made a Ghostbusters movie that was completely separate from the originals, and got a lot of backlash for it. A lot of that was sexism, but a lot of people were simply very resistant to a story that wasn't part of that original universe.

As noted before, these are movies about a group of friends going into business together. Ghostbusting is just a premise to hang that story on. If it's not connected to those original characters in any way, then it's a different movie. There's no need to even have it in the same timeline. Again, that didn't go over well.

For what it's worth, from the IGN review of the movie:

Of the three, Ray feels the most successfully integrated into the Spenglers’ story. In contrast to Stantz’s struggle to let go of his ghostbusting days, Aykroyd’s warmth, and the actor’s comfort with taking a back seat to the next generation, end up buying him a lot of goodwill.

That's the great thing about Dan. He wrote much of himself and hyperfocus passion into that character. It is a big part of why he is always able to jump right back in there.

 

[celluloid]

Don't confuse the claim to think that I mean that all franchises/sequels or nostalgia plays are successful. There are too many of varying quality for that to possibly be true. But I'll definitely stand behind the statement that the overwhelming majority of movies having the kind of BO grosses that people in this thread are seeking are part of franchises and/or well-established IPs.

I'll do some work for y'all. Here's the complete list of Top 20 films since 2018 [truncated to movies that made >$100m domestically] that I see that don't fall into that category:
- Bohemian Rhapsody (grudgingly -- Queen is obviously a successful brand, but biopics are in a unique space)
- A Quiet Place
- Crazy Rich Asians
- Us
- Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood
- 1917
- Free Guy
- Jungle Cruise
- Elvis (again debatable)
- Uncharted (based on a video game series)
- Nope
- Smile
- The Lost City
- Bullet Train
- Oppenheimer
- Sound of Freedom (which people didn't actually go see, but had viral ticket sales/donations)
- Taylor Swift
- Elemental
- Five Nights at Freddy's (based on a video game series)

Some of those are very generous decisions on my part to not consider them a well-established IP, so at best that makes only 19 of the last 94 domestic hits something relatively new/original, and only two of those (Oppenheimer & Bohemian Rhapsody) made more than $200m here. So, sure... only 80-85% of recent hits have been franchises, and only >95% of the megahits.

Wait, biopics are debatable but Jungle Cruise, a movie based on one of the most famous theme park rides of all time from the studio of the same name that owns such ride gets a pass? Not even a debatable parenthesis for you?
Free Guy? The movie that Chris Evans and a bunch of other cameos that entire movie was like a love letter to video game culture? Not nostalgia play? Why can Free Guy be on there but Ready Player one can't? Isn't Marvel ultimately one big nostalgia play done well?
I think I see what is going on here. Bullet Train was based on a well sold book.

Where is Migration?

Such an odd listing.

If you make everything that is ever based on a story selected to be a movie medium, you can go and consider anything a nostalgia play. Jaws, Potter, Psycho were all based on books ya know? My fair Lady was a musical from a playbook Pygmalion ya know? Why is your line drawn for others?

And Disney has made their money off nostalgic fairytales since the beginning of their studio. It can be done well, and not well.

At any rate, all of that is moot to the point that nostalgia has been around since the advent of film. It plays well. It certainly has leaned in a lot for Gen X and Y lately, but at the end of the day, it has always been a thing.

There is a reason the guy with the mustache built Main Street USA as the first impression and their biggest breadwinners or stories generations have told to their children.

It can be done very well, or it can be shallow.

Guess what Disney's product has mostly been lately?

They could use a Wonka, Dune or Ghostbusters Afterlife level liking.

Maybe even a Frozen Empire.