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

[TalkingHead]

Have you met my friend, Netflix? Disney absolutely can survive without theatrical grosses. Should it abandon a format it is very successful in and generally causes their movies to be even better received on their DTC platform? Absolutely not. But the company has pivoted away from theatrical dependency.



Why are we lumping in Encanto exactly? Disney is rushing to spend easily a half billion dollars on semi permanent park infrastructure for that one franchise. It’s when you guys have to realize that theatrical is not the sole arbiter of success… though usually a very good surrogate. Encanto and possibly Elemental if it keeps up, are massive properties. Encanto is an A-lister, alongside Frozen and Moana.

Is Disneys record solid right now? No. But they are also one of the few (not only) studios in the industry creating viable new franchises in the last few years. Even if they’ve had many misses.

Elemental a huge property? Did I read that correctly?

 

[Dranth]

I don't think that's really the case. Box office can be great indicator. Sometimes not so much. Movies like lightyear, wish, the marvels all did in the 200s. Not only is that not profitable it's pretty cut and dry not popular. Mermaid you could make a case either way. It did 570mil, so it had an ok turn out. But it's also not really talked about anymore. Enconto had a weak box office but caught popularity on a song that went bonkers.

Of course it isn't yet, but we still have people in this thread who regularly say a movie is disliked because it did not make money at the box office for the studio. If we are going to look at how well liked a movie was, profit is meaningless. Revenue and audience reviews are all we have which was the point I was making using sarcasm.

If people want to talk about how well something did for the studio, great, profit it is. Otherwise its less relevant than other numbers we can all readily pull.

Remember, there's a difference between a overall flop and a financial flop. And I think that's been established on here many times. Tangled, was a financial flop at the box office, 100%. But I wouldn't say it was an overall flop. It did very well post theatrical and at about 600mil (850mil adjusted for inflation), it had a pretty good turnout.

Agreed, the whole point of using Tangled is because we all know it lost money in the theaters and then did VERY well in the home market. It ended up making Disney a lot of money and was a great movie.

We've seen no movement post theatrical on almost all the box office disappointments of the last few years.

Maybe but I am not sure you can say that with confidence for many if not most movies. The problem is the post theatrical layout is different now. DVD/Blu-ray sales are closing in on a rounding error for many releases. The world has shifted to the point that digital rentals and streaming are the current indicators of a movies post theatrical success. Unfortunately, we have no good way to access those numbers or how to monetize them even if we could see them. That leaves us without a good way to compare releases across the post streaming takeover divide.

So yea, the box office results have been pretty indicative of popularity.

Agreed, if we are talking revenue and not profit.

 

[celluloid]

Imagine thinking that a company has pivoted away from a theatrical dependency when same said company is rushing to turn a multi part series based on a popular first installment into a theatrical release because nothing else this year gets them that close to a guarantee.

They would not be rushing to get Moana 2 into theaters by thanksgiving if they were not desperate for that theater prestige and money.

 

[Dranth]

Sure about that? Someone said earlier Encanto was on the same popularity level as Frozen and Moana. Moana maybe...kind of close but not really. Frozen? Heck no.

If we are talking all time, which I assume we are, Frozen and Moana are higher. If we are just talking recently, I wouldn't be shocked to find out Moana is currently on top. I could even see Encanto out performing Frozen short term though I wouldn't expect it to stay that way.

 

[Dranth]

But it resonated…like alot.

Laid the groundwork for frozen and the “new” style animation.

Has alot of legs…

So while the upfront box office math - like princess and the frog - isn’t great…it sticks.

It’s a great movie. Unlike wish and the little mermaid…which steamed on the front porch

Agreed. Hence why profit is a bad way to measure a movies impact and overall popularity.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Agreed. Hence why profit is a bad way to measure a movies impact and overall popularity.

….ahhh…

No.

Just missed on that slider away

There are exceptions to the rules…
Tangled has been hanging around for 15 years…I’d say we make an exception

That 2023 slate was as popular as a kale milkshake. Nobody wanted it…nobody cared…nobody is coming around

Not all things are equal. I’ll give you another example of the box lying: Star Wars 7

 

[celluloid]

There is Pete's Dragon

And there is Pete's Dragon remake.

Back to the point of you can't seek to make something cult/resonating home following. It just happens.

It is silly to think that Disney is just going to have five of these ifrom 2021- 2023.

 

[Dranth]

….ahhh…

No.

Just missed on that slider away

There are exceptions to the rules…
Tangled has been hanging around for 15 years…I’d say we make an exception

That 2023 slate was as popular as a kale milkshake. Nobody wanted it…nobody cared…nobody is coming around

Not all things are equal. I’ll give you another example of the box lying: Star Wars 7

????

How is that different than what I said?

Original thesis was revenue is a direct indication of the number of people that went to see it so a better number to use for measuring box office popularity. Audience reviews help put those numbers in context.

Once you start including post box office a ton of other factors come in. For example you point out Tangled lead to Frozen which I would argue was a larger impact on the company as a whole then the extra DVDs Tangled sold. That Tangled ended up profitable is minor compared to the juggernaut it directly lead into.

As for your Star Wars example, you may not have liked it (I wasn't a big fan either) but your personal opinion is in the overwhelming minority. A ton of people went to see it and it got great reviews. That you or I thought it was bad or average is meaningless. Factually, all we can say is that it was well liked and a ton of people went to go see it but we didn't personally care for it.

You can't even blame 7 for 8 and 9 as nothing in 7 was setup for the aimless mess that followed. Regardless, trying to claim nobody wanted it or nobody cared is just ignoring facts, much like the group that try to claim the prequals were anything other than a terrible pile of burning trash (except burning trash likely has better acting).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

????

How is that different than what I said?

Original thesis was revenue is a direct indication of the number of people that went to see it so a better number to use for measuring box office popularity. Audience reviews help put those numbers in context.

Once you start including post box office a ton of other factors come in. For example you point out Tangled lead to Frozen which I would argue was a larger impact on the company as a whole then the extra DVDs Tangled sold. That Tangled ended up profitable is minor compared to the juggernaut it directly lead into.

A ton of people saw tangled…and it had legs…but the budget killed that comparison. I’ve seen it referred to as the most expensive movie ever…more than a few times

As for your Star Wars example, you may not have liked it (I wasn't a big fan either) but your personal opinion is in the overwhelming minority. A ton of people went to see it and it got great reviews. That you or I thought it was bad or average is meaningless. Factually, all we can say is that it was well liked and a ton of people went to go see it but we didn't personally care for it.

You can't even blame 7 for 8 and 9 as nothing in 7 was setup for the aimless mess that followed. Regardless, trying to claim nobody wanted it or nobody cared is just ignoring facts, much like the group that try to claim the prequals were anything other than a terrible pile of burning trash (except burning trash likely has better acting).

Think?

People remember the flood and their couch floating down the street…but the crack in the damn is just as significant

 

[TP2000]

Box Office is out for Thursday, previewing this weekend's Box Office take as several new movies arrive.

The First Omen dropped down to 10th place on Thursday, and just crested $16 Million domestically.

 

[Ghost93]

The First Omen was actually a pretty good movie, but I wonder if it being a slow burn and an old-fashioned type of horror movie might be why it isn't being as profitable as some other horror movies that put more emphasis on jump scares and grusome kills.

It also has the same premise as Sydney Sweeny's Immaculate, which came out only a few weeks earlier. While both movies had went in very different directions in the third act and ended on completely different notes — if you were to assess the film's just based on the marketing, they appear to be the exact same movie.

 

[BrianLo]

Elemental a huge property? Did I read that correctly?

Never said Tangled was a flop. I never even said Encanto was.(beyond theatrically) What it is not, is it is not on the same level as Frozen or even likely Moana. You would certainly need your head checked if you think Encanto is as popular as Frozen is. Even now. That is what I originally responded to from another poster.

Holy moly, have I touched some nerves or something? No need for insult hurling! I was just quoting streaming data.

Yes, Encanto IS currently popular. Frozen has the benefit of extreme longevity, multiple sequels and multiple generations whom have seen it. But yes, Encanto IS currently being received on those same levels. It of course needs to stick long term to reach the pantheon. I’m not claiming it’s better than Frozen.

I don’t know how Elemental looks long term, but it’s doing massive numbers for them. I don’t think it’s a Moana/Frozen though, but it seems in the Coco wheelhouse. Keep in mind it only had 4 months of release in 2023.

 

[BrianLo]

I don't know if I would say Encanto is on par with Frozen. That seems like a bit of a stretc.h as by now Disney would be rushing Encanto 2 to chase. But it is valid that it found a life in home viewing (as have many from Disney on home video sales over the decades) They can't all do reach success later was the point.
The point for Every Encanto there is a Haunted Mansion, Wish or The Marvels level stinker losing the company towards a billion a year, not just disappointment.
Also, Encanto is not going to be the sole franchise in that expansion you speak of.

Completely fair. Sorry the language started out very reasonable here in my absence and spun up against me needing my head checked.

I didn’t mean or even think what I was saying was controversial. I don’t know how things will react long term. Saying Aladdin, Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast and Lion King are on the same level isn’t meant to be controversial either. While acknowledging Lion King obviously reigns supreme. That’s all I was going for.

Now as far as sequels go, ya I suspect that’s coming eventually. But as far as rushed Park additions go, an E ticket in animal kingdom is pretty on the level with flipping Maelstrom back in the day. We’re just punishing Encanto a bit too much for Frozen’s clear longevity. Give it time, if this popularity holds the sequels and multi-resort roll out of more Encanto will continue worldwide. Though I suspect Frozen is the ‘Lion King’ of this generation. Although Moana has been working some absolute magic and is about to get truly tested with the response to the sequel.

 

[erasure fan1]

Of course it isn't yet, but we still have people in this thread who regularly say a movie is disliked because it did not make money at the box office for the studio. If we are going to look at how well liked a movie was, profit is meaningless. Revenue and audience reviews are all we have which was the point I was making using sarcasm.

If people want to talk about how well something did for the studio, great, profit it is. Otherwise its less relevant than other numbers we can all readily pull.


Agreed, the whole point of using Tangled is because we all know it lost money in the theaters and then did VERY well in the home market. It ended up making Disney a lot of money and was a great movie.


Maybe but I am not sure you can say that with confidence for many if not most movies. The problem is the post theatrical layout is different now. DVD/Blu-ray sales are closing in on a rounding error for many releases. The world has shifted to the point that digital rentals and streaming are the current indicators of a movies post theatrical success. Unfortunately, we have no good way to access those numbers or how to monetize them even if we could see them. That leaves us without a good way to compare releases across the post streaming takeover divide.


Agreed, if we are talking revenue and not profit.

I think we pretty much agree. I was just disagreeing with the thought that the majority of people here equate box office to popularity. When an exception comes a long, its been noted in my observation. When a tent pole does 200/300mil, it's pretty accurate, not popular. When it does 500/600mil but doesn't make budget, it doesn't always work out. I think that's been fairly consistent.

 

[choco choco]

What did you dislike so much about it?

There is no point to the project. There is no spark of inspiration from which the film naturally grows. It is blatantly obvious that everybody hired onto this movie is doing it for a paycheck. In fact, it is blatantly obvious that many people over the years were hired onto the project and then left, and that the final film is some cobbled together assembly of various people's ideas without any single person caring enough to unite it under some through-line.

- There's some storyline idea involving a foxy CIA agent and her working with the villain. Forget the fact that scenes showing the backstory and inner workings of the villains are pretty much non-existent in the Indiana Jones franchise, but this storyline takes up valuable minutes of the film's first half, and then is resolved by simply shooting the CIA agent in the head; after which it is never mentioned again. I have no idea where this was supposed to go and why, but it literally could have been excised from the film entirely and not one iota of the ending will have changed.

- The long, flashback sequence in the beginning is completely unnecessary, gives no information that a couple lines of dialogue don't already handle later in the film, is visually murky and hard to make out, and is uninspired as an action set piece. Spielberg used to build out his action scenes like jokes, which kept building and building until the final move arrives like a punchline. I can forgive that nobody is Spielberg, but this action scene has literally no clever ideas at all. The whole thing reads like a placeholder first draft scene from another version of the screenplay that is a different screenplay from the one involving the CIA agent above. But nobody bothered to re-write it, because nobody cared, and they simply filmed it and stuck it into the begining because it doesn't fit anywhere else.

- There's a long exposition scene between Indiana Jones and the newly introduced god-daughter to bring the audience up to speed on their relationship. Fine. Then, incredulously, later in the movie they flashback to the scene that was explained in that exposition. The flashback shows us exactly what was already explained. What is the point this? To make us sit through five extra minutes to show us something that we already knew?

- They introduce a kid character. The kid character follows them around and makes snide remarks and is generally told to sit in the corner. I kept waiting and waiting for him to factor into the story, and it turns out that the kid's purpose in the screenplay is so that he can drive the rescue plane at the end. Incredible. Like....there are simply cheaper and more economical ways of doing this than to drag a dead weight human being around for ninety minutes and who does nothing during the whole adventure simply so he can, literally, trail the action from a safe distance until the characters are ready to be picked up afterwards by him, like he's their Uber driver or something. Again, it seems like this kid is from yet another version of some separate, early screenplay that they never bothered to excise or rethink, they found it easier to let the expenses on their film mount rather than judiciously write out deadweight.

- And besides, that rescue - the one the kid is sticking around for - is never shown! In one of the most inexplicable endings to an action franchise ever, the heroes get out of their predicament by - and I'm not joking - simply knocking out Indiana Jones and then cutting to black. And then, get this, the next shot is of him waking up safe and sound in his own bed in his own house. This is the franchise's main character, the hero! In his own action-adventure film! There probably should be an attempt at a rousing final showpiece? But no! Disney was so lazy they couldn't even bother with a climax to their own film. They literally cut to black and then bee-line straight to the happy denounement. I mean, nobody cares. Nobody cares at all. Nobody who worked on this at all gave two s**ts about what was going on. They punched in and collected the paycheck, and Disney was happy to pay them because the executives didn't care either.

I could go on and on. Whatever. There was no motivating force behind this movie other than to trick people into giving the corporation money. It's gross and Disney deserve to lose all of it. Whatever Disney's budget and marketing for this film, losing even double that amount is too good for them.

 

[FettFan]

What did you dislike so much about it?

What was there to LIKE?

 

[WorldExplorer]

- They introduce a kid character. The kid character follows them around and makes snide remarks and is generally told to sit in the corner. I kept waiting and waiting for him to factor into the story, and it turns out that the kid's purpose in the screenplay is so that he can drive the rescue plane at the end. Incredible. Like....there are simply cheaper and more economical ways of doing this than to drag a dead weight human being around for ninety minutes and who does nothing during the whole adventure simply so he can, literally, trail the action from a safe distance until the characters are ready to be picked up afterwards by him, like he's their Uber driver or something. Again, it seems like this kid is from yet another version of some separate, early screenplay that they never bothered to excise or rethink, they found it easier to let the expenses on their film mount rather than judiciously write out deadweight.

- And besides, that rescue - the one the kid is sticking around for - is never shown! In one of the most inexplicable endings to an action franchise ever, the heroes get out of their predicament by - and I'm not joking - simply knocking out Indiana Jones and then cutting to black. And then, get this, the next shot is of him waking up safe and sound in his own bed in his own house. This is the franchise's main character, the hero! In his own action-adventure film! There probably should be an attempt at a rousing final showpiece? But no! Disney was so lazy they couldn't even bother with a climax to their own film. They literally cut to black and then bee-line straight to the happy denounement. I mean, nobody cares. Nobody cares at all. Nobody who worked on this at all gave two s**ts about what was going on. They punched in and collected the paycheck, and Disney was happy to pay them because the executives didn't care either.

I could go on and on. Whatever. There was no motivating force behind this movie other than to trick people into giving the corporation money. It's gross and Disney deserve to lose all of it. Whatever Disney's budget and marketing for this film, losing even double that amount is too good for them.

The kid is supposed to be a parallel to Shortround and make you like Helena more because "see! She's got a heart and she's actually a lot like Indy!". I think they have the same "he tried to pick my pocket" backstory.

He just doesn't have any of the stuff that made Shortround likeable, and and their relationship doesn't have any of the stuff that made Indy and Shortround's endearing, and her taking a kid under her wing doesn't make her any less obnoxious and unpleasant (or scrub away the whole "left Indy for dead" thing).

 

[LittleBuford]

There is no point to the project. There is no spark of inspiration from which the film naturally grows. It is blatantly obvious that everybody hired onto this movie is doing it for a paycheck. In fact, it is blatantly obvious that many people over the years were hired onto the project and then left, and that the final film is some cobbled together assembly of various people's ideas without any single person caring enough to unite it under some through-line.

- There's some storyline idea involving a foxy CIA agent and her working with the villain. Forget the fact that scenes showing the backstory and inner workings of the villains are pretty much non-existent in the Indiana Jones franchise, but this storyline takes up valuable minutes of the film's first half, and then is resolved by simply shooting the CIA agent in the head; after which it is never mentioned again. I have no idea where this was supposed to go and why, but it literally could have been excised from the film entirely and not one iota of the ending will have changed.

- The long, flashback sequence in the beginning is completely unnecessary, gives no information that a couple lines of dialogue don't already handle later in the film, is visually murky and hard to make out, and is uninspired as an action set piece. Spielberg used to build out his action scenes like jokes, which kept building and building until the final move arrives like a punchline. I can forgive that nobody is Spielberg, but this action scene has literally no clever ideas at all. The whole thing reads like a placeholder first draft scene from another version of the screenplay that is a different screenplay from the one involving the CIA agent above. But nobody bothered to re-write it, because nobody cared, and they simply filmed it and stuck it into the begining because it doesn't fit anywhere else.

- There's a long exposition scene between Indiana Jones and the newly introduced god-daughter to bring the audience up to speed on their relationship. Fine. Then, incredulously, later in the movie they flashback to the scene that was explained in that exposition. The flashback shows us exactly what was already explained. What is the point this? To make us sit through five extra minutes to show us something that we already knew?

- They introduce a kid character. The kid character follows them around and makes snide remarks and is generally told to sit in the corner. I kept waiting and waiting for him to factor into the story, and it turns out that the kid's purpose in the screenplay is so that he can drive the rescue plane at the end. Incredible. Like....there are simply cheaper and more economical ways of doing this than to drag a dead weight human being around for ninety minutes and who does nothing during the whole adventure simply so he can, literally, trail the action from a safe distance until the characters are ready to be picked up afterwards by him, like he's their Uber driver or something. Again, it seems like this kid is from yet another version of some separate, early screenplay that they never bothered to excise or rethink, they found it easier to let the expenses on their film mount rather than judiciously write out deadweight.

- And besides, that rescue - the one the kid is sticking around for - is never shown! In one of the most inexplicable endings to an action franchise ever, the heroes get out of their predicament by - and I'm not joking - simply knocking out Indiana Jones and then cutting to black. And then, get this, the next shot is of him waking up safe and sound in his own bed in his own house. This is the franchise's main character, the hero! In his own action-adventure film! There probably should be an attempt at a rousing final showpiece? But no! Disney was so lazy they couldn't even bother with a climax to their own film. They literally cut to black and then bee-line straight to the happy denounement. I mean, nobody cares. Nobody cares at all. Nobody who worked on this at all gave two s**ts about what was going on. They punched in and collected the paycheck, and Disney was happy to pay them because the executives didn't care either.

I could go on and on. Whatever. There was no motivating force behind this movie other than to trick people into giving the corporation money. It's gross and Disney deserve to lose all of it. Whatever Disney's budget and marketing for this film, losing even double that amount is too good for them.

Thank you for your detailed response. As a casual Indiana Jones fan (I can’t claim to know the films well), I liked it at least as much as the third installment.

 

[brideck]

Thought this was a pretty interesting, but bleak, piece about the current state of screenwriting in movies & TV -- https://harpers.org/archive/2024/05/the-life-and-death-of-hollywood-daniel-bessner/

Particularly relevant to this audience is the piece on Marvel's practices and how everyone's following the leader, in a bad way:

At the same time, the biggest IP success story, the Marvel Cinematic Universe, by far the highest-earning franchise of all time, pioneered a production apparatus in which writers were often separated from the conception and creation of a movie’s overall story. “Working on these big franchises is a little bit like being a stonemason on a medieval cathedral,” [Zack] Stentz (whose screenwriting credits include X-Men: First Class and Thor) told me. “I can point toward this little corner, or this arch, and say, That was me.” Within this system, writers have sometimes been withheld basic information, such as the arc of a project. Joanna Robinson, co-author of the book MCU: The Reign of Marvel Studios, told me that the writers for WandaVision, a Marvel show for Disney+, had to craft almost the entirety of the series’ single season without knowing where their work was ultimately supposed to arrive: the ending remained undetermined, because executives had not yet decided what other stories they might spin off from the show. Marvel also began to use so many writers for each project that it became difficult to determine who was responsible for a given idea. Multiple writers who worked on Guardians of the Galaxy, The Incredible Hulk, The Avengers, and Thor: Ragnarok have forced WGA arbitration with the company to recoup the credits and earnings that they believe they’re due.

Marvel’s practices have been widely emulated, especially for franchise productions. “Every other studio with big tentpole movies has tried to imitate the Marvel model,” Stentz told me, including “throwing waves of writers at the same project.” “In some cases,” he said, “they’ve gone even further, by convening entire writers’ rooms”—a standard practice only in television. Both the Avatar sequels (one of which is not yet out) and Terminator: Dark Fate were developed this way, he said.

“When there’s high-profile IP involved,” [John] Brancato told me, “writers tend to be treated as disposable.”

The big exception to this last year was of course Barbie, which gave Gerwig/Baumbach a lot of freedom to do their thing. Maybe someone somewhere will take a lesson that movies should have a more singular vision from that success.

The article also states that as of 2017 64% of all wide-release features were "franchise" movies, which is not a surprising figure given what we see nearly every week on the release calendar.

 

[Tha Realest]

Imagine thinking that a company has pivoted away from a theatrical dependency when same said company is rushing to turn a multi part series based on a popular first installment into a theatrical release because nothing else this year gets them that close to a guarantee.

They would not be rushing to get Moana 2 into theaters by thanksgiving if they were not desperate for that theater prestige and money.

This seems like a really bad play on what is currently one of their brightest IPs. It feels rushed and panicky. It had started as a TV series. It’s unclear if the principals have even done their voice work. And, let’s be real, with a few rare exceptions, Disney’s pretty bad at making sequels to their animated films.