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

[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.

 

[brideck]

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?
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.

I'm sorry... Did you want me to make the list shorter? Because that would only further prove my original point about what actually gets audiences to show up. No one is debating on whether you still need to make something with some quality to it to find an audience, but having it be well-known ahead of time is practically a requirement. So when people say they're tired of all the sequels or that Disney makes too many sequels, I would say: If they want to make real money, they have to.

Crazy Rich Asians is also based on a book, and no... in general, (recent) books have much narrower cultural appeal so I left them on the list. I had no idea that Bullet Train was one, and I'm sure more people have heard of the Uncharted or Five Nights at Freddy's franchises than it. Ready Player One wasn't a Top 20 movie here (#22 in 2018, I think).

Migration might be #20 for 2023 releases, so sure... add it to the list. [It's tough to capture end-of-year releases with split grosses.] It's been a moderate financial success, but if it were a Disney animation picture with those grosses, people here would be dragging it.

 

[celluloid]

I'm sorry... Did you want me to make the list shorter? Because that would only further prove my original point about what actually gets audiences to show up. No one is debating on whether you still need to make something with some quality to it to find an audience, but having it be well-known ahead of time is practically a requirement. So when people say they're tired of all the sequels or that Disney makes too many sequels, I would say: If they want to make real money, they have to.

Crazy Rich Asians is also based on a book, and no... in general, books have much narrower cultural appeal so I left them on the list. I had no idea that Bullet Train was one, and I'm sure more people have heard of the Uncharted or Five Nights at Freddy's franchises than it.

Migration might be #20 for 2023 releases, so sure... add it to the list. [It's tough to capture end-of-year releases with split grosses.] It's been a moderate financial success, but if it were a Disney animation picture with those grosses, people here would be dragging it.

Migration earned higher than many on your list, so not sure why it was not in your top 20. Your list should be longer. To put Jungle Cruise on your list but not others is just an obvious bias situation. That is most certainly a nostalgic touting film and was not that successful at it either. Wild you left out Sonic, that never had a feature film before. Obvious nostalgia but if Uncharted and such can be on there...

Disney has to make things people want to see period. And that is not really happening anymore. We will see if Omen or Planet of the Apes changes that.

It still has to be good for people to keep seeing it.

Times change. Books used to be tirelessly what films were based on the same way movies are going to video games now. Cultural awareness of a story was always a part of hollywood.

"You can make a crappy or a great movie about anything." -Michael Mckean on Clue.

The point is nothing has really changed in that regard. You are just getting fewer quality attempts from some studios' bad streaks.

People would be not dragging Migration if it was a Disney flick because 1. They don't do original stories that often. Their closest was Elemental, and that is because they earned some of the audience trust back after so much garbage from Pixar. Plus it cost 200 million and made 150. Wish, that has nostalgia of a Disney traditional princess movie but did not even deliver on that promise with songs not many thoughts were good and cheap nostalgia on wishing upon a star and this being the star all Disney characters have always wished upon. Migration was a hit because it about doubled its income domestically. A low point for Illumination but even their lowest feature animation is far above Disney's recent "successes."

 

[brideck]

People would be not dragging Migration if it was a Disney flick because 1. They don't do original stories that often. Their closest was Elemental, and that is because they earned some of the audience trust back after so much garbage from Pixar. Plus it cost 200 million and made 150. Wish, that has nostalgia of a Disney traditional princess movie but did not even deliver on that promise with songs not many thoughts were good and cheap nostalgia on wishing upon a star and this being the star all Disney characters have always wished upon. Migration was a hit because it about doubled its income domestically. A low point for Illumination but even their lowest feature animation is far above Disney's recent "successes."

I've seen the "lack of original stories" complaint a lot, and it's just not true. 9 of the last 10 Disney and Pixar animated movies have been original stories. Only Lightyear was based on previous IP.

Dismissing their pandemic-era animated output as "garbage" is unfortunate. I enjoy the vast majority of those movies, and we'll never know how they would have done in a non-Covid disrupted world. Their Metacritic scores also indicate that there's not a particular quality issue with what's being made, although it is unfortunate that their least well-received movie (Wish) is the one that hit the market at a time when a different movie could've done much better business.

ETA: In case there was confusion, my list is not a Top 20 of anything. It's an aggregation of each year's Top 20 movies, so the cutoff for what makes the list is different depending on what year it came from -- that's especially obvious for 2020 (I took 7) and 2021 (I took 14) releases. I've also updated the list to include a couple omissions.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Sequels go back to black and white films. (A lot.)

That is all.

 

[brideck]

Sequels go back to black and white films. (A lot.)

That is all.

For sure. It's been a built-in feature of Hollywood since the beginning. If you want to make money, you adapt something that already exists, or build upon an existing property -- idea amplification, not generation. There are plenty of original stories, but people generally won't risk their $10 on those because they watch plenty of original stories on their glowing tubes at home.

So maybe what people are saying when they say they want Disney to "tell original stories", is that they really want them to adapt anew some more stuff? I can buy that. It's just not actually what they're saying.

 

[celluloid]

I've seen the "lack of original stories" complaint a lot, and it's just not true. 9 of the last 10 Disney and Pixar animated movies have been original stories. Only Lightyear was based on previous IP.

Dismissing their pandemic-era animated output as "garbage" is unfortunate. I enjoy the vast majority of those movies, and we'll never know how they would have done in a non-Covid disrupted world. Their Metacritic scores also indicate that there's not a particular quality issue with what's being made, although it is unfortunate that their least well-received movie (Wish) is the one that hit the market at a time when a different movie could've done much better business.

ETA: In case there was confusion, my list is not a Top 20 of anything. It's an aggregation of each year's Top 20 movies, so the cutoff for what makes the list is different depending on what year it came from -- that's especially obvious for 2020 (I took 7) and 2021 (I took 14) releases. I've also updated the list to include a couple omissions.

I never said that Pixar did not ever have original stories. I said Disney as a whole. Closest thing they had to original recently was Pixar with Elemental. I said that is working on brand damage from garbage that came out of Pixar. I am not even counting the ones you say because those were never theatrical and were pandemic produced. So I give even gave them the mulligan there.

I am talking about Lightyear After a run pre pandemic of Cars 2 and 3, Toy Story 4 Monsters University and Finding Dory. All within ten years. Its great that people like them. But it has been diminishing returns from Pixar for awhile. They were sequel heavy post Ranft and when Lassetter got tipsy touchy. They kind of phoned it into many families compared to what they were known for.

 

[celluloid]

Sequels go back to black and white films. (A lot.)

That is all.

As to remakes. What counts is that they are good stories.

Wizard of Oz that we all know is not even close to the first time on film. Totally another remake that picked up as a cult to family classic through repetition and being a quality that people enjoyed.

Disney needs to do better with the trust of their audience to go to the theaters, whatever they do.

 

[brideck]

I never said that Pixar did not ever have original stories. I said Disney as a whole. Closest thing they had to original recently was Pixar with Elemental. I said that is working on brand damage from garbage that came out of Pixar. I am not even counting the ones you say because those were never theatrical and were pandemic produced. So I give even gave them the mulligan there.

I am talking about Lightyear After and Cars 2 and 3, Toy Story 4 Monsters University and Finding Dory. Its great that people like them. But it has been diminishing returns from Pixar for awhile. They were sequel heavy post Ranft and when Lassetter got tipsy touchy. They kind of phoned it into many families compared to what they were known for.

Toy Story 4 and Finding Dory were both well-received and made a killing, so I have no idea why you would include them in that list. I don't like the Cars movies much either, but I'd think they mostly exist for the merch.

And I'm confused. Wish, Strange World, Encanto, Raya and the Last Dragon -- those aren't original stories either? I don't particularly care what you thought of them, just trying to make a statement about how frequently Disney has done new stories recently. And to my larger point, it's exactly because audiences don't have a good sense of what they'll get with those stories that they haven't turned out (at the theater) for them.

 

[celluloid]

Toy Story 4 and Finding Dory were both well-received and made a killing, so I have no idea why you would include them in that list. I don't like the Cars movies much either, but I'd think they mostly exist for the merch.

Even things making a killing have their oversaturation. Even Bob Iger admitted this. It is harder to gain trust in an original when you have done sequels for a decade and played it safe.

More specifically, it goes against what you said of only Lightyear being non original. Pixar went ham with only sequels for like ten years and then steered ship hard with Onward at a bad time and brand damaging culture.

 

[brideck]

More specifically, it goes against what you said of only Lightyear being non original. Pixar went ham with only sequels for like ten years and then steered ship hard with Onward at a bad time and brand damaging culture.

My 10 movies were both Disney and Pixar. See the above edit to see the ones I mean.

 

[celluloid]

Toy Story 4 and Finding Dory were both well-received and made a killing, so I have no idea why you would include them in that list. I don't like the Cars movies much either, but I'd think they mostly exist for the merch.

And I'm confused. Wish, Strange World, Encanto, Raya and the Last Dragon -- those aren't original stories either? I don't particularly care what you thought of them, just trying to make a statement about how frequently Disney has done new stories recently. And to my larger point, it's exactly because audiences don't have a good sense of what they'll get with those stories that they haven't turned out (at the theater) for them.

Yes, they have done some original. Notice I have said 90 percent this entire time you were too busy changing the subject or hating Dan Aykroyd.

The issue was never not being original. The issue is the margin of people seeing Disney as a trustworthy brand to spend theater dollars has gone from a smaller gap to they are below other family studios now.

The thing that I quoted that was so funny, was a post complaining that Ghostbusters is not original. Yet, all studios do it, and some not successfully at all lately.

 

[brideck]

Yes, they have done some original. Notice I have said 90 percent this entire time you were too busy changing the subject or hating Dan Aykroyd.

I haven't changed the subject? I've been defending my claim (and you've been helping) that a movie needs to be a known IP/franchise/sequel in order to make top box office in the current market.

And I have nothing against Dan Aykroyd at all, but when a movie franchise essentially pulls someone out of retirement it does smack of a cynical nostalgia play to me.

 

[celluloid]

I haven't changed the subject? I've been defending my claim (and you've been helping) that a movie needs to be a known IP/franchise/sequel in order to make top box office in the current market.

And I have nothing against Dan Aykroyd at all, but when a movie franchise essentially pulls someone out of retirement it does smack of a cynical nostalgia play to me.

Yeah. I never argued against nostalgia being important to selling stories.

Also. He has never retired from Ghostbusters. He may have been mostly on Ghostbusters projects for the last twelve years, but he has been working on things all the time. Your use of mothballed was way out of the context of what you probably meant.

What retirement are you talking about?

 

[brideck]

He has never retired from Ghostbusters. He may have been mostly on Ghostbusters projects for the last twelve years, but he has been working on things all the time. Your use of mothballed was way out of the context of what you probably meant.

What retirement are you talking about?

I do not think that he has actively worked on any of the things you're seeing on his credits list. He gets a character creation credit on anything that has to do with the Ghostbusters, but that does not mean that he is involved in the creation of the new things in any real way. You would see the same thing with Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, et al in the Marvel movies if comic book movies had a culture of properly crediting creators. I think the last thing he actually had a hand in writing was Blues Brothers 2000.

And he has literally not acted in any other movies since before the previous failed Ghostbusters relaunch outside of bit parts, narration, etc. I would guess that his role in Get on Up in 2014 was his last substantial gig.

 

[celluloid]

I do not think that he has actively worked on any of the things you're seeing on his credits list. He gets a character creation credit on anything that has to do with the Ghostbusters, but that does not mean that he is involved in the creation of the new things in any real way. You would see the same thing with Stan Lee, Jack Kirby, et al in the Marvel movies if comic book movies had a culture of properly crediting creators.

He has literally not acted in any other movies since before the previous failed Ghostbusters relaunch.

Thought wrong. You are thinking of story credit and characters created by.
.He gets for story credit. But he also wrote and voiced every liscensed Ghostbusters video game project.

He even recorded game narration for Planet Coaster with Ray Stantz. He is a main character (not playable) in Ilfonic's Ghostbusters: Spirits Unleashed.
He hosts a show on Discovery Network.
He has been on a couple of recent Sitcoms.
There is a Blues Brothers Tv show in the works he is assisting with.

Its not A list work lately, but he does what he wants and doesn't do what he does not want to. He enjoys the heck out of Ghostbusters still and likes selling Crystal Head Vodka.
He has a movie right now in production.

He has not retired. He did just get separated/divorced Donna Dixon, one of the longest Hollywood Marriages and lost his very old dad recently before that. So I imagine that was rough. He is not a healthy spring chicken anymore either. His performance is said to be the best in the latest installment. He snaps back into Ray, as it is a caricature of himself, very well.

Your mothballed term was very much misused.