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

[Miss Rori]

Disney wants a slice of what Kung Fu Panda 4 and Despicable 4 Me will have this year.

I honestly think they wouldn't have done this if not for how badly Wish did last Thanksgiving. They really don't want Universal to have a hit with Wicked Part One because that's more-or-less a family musical, and they had staked out the Thanksgiving slot for Mufasa: The Lion King before they pushed a lot of stuff to 2025. I figure they don't want to make the same mistake they did last year and bet their whole holiday season on just one movie, as they did with Wish, so they moved Mufasa to Christmas (where it's going up against Sonic the Hedgehog 3) but needed something for the Thanksgiving slot. Perhaps they should have moved Elio there - at least that was ready to go.

 

[celluloid]

I honestly think they wouldn't have done this if not for how badly Wish did last Thanksgiving. They really don't want Universal to have a hit with Wicked Part One because that's more-or-less a family musical, and they had staked out the Thanksgiving slot for Mufasa: The Lion King before they pushed a lot of stuff to 2025. I figure they don't want to make the same mistake they did last year and bet their whole holiday season on just one movie, as they did with Wish, so they moved Mufasa to Christmas (where it's going up against Sonic the Hedgehog 3) but needed something for the Thanksgiving slot. Perhaps they should have moved Elio there - at least that was ready to go.

Yeah. Putting a musical film from a TV series without music yet against arguably the most well liked Broadway and touring musical of all time(with themes of fantasy ad magic) being a film was a weird choice.

 

[TP2000]

Unmm. I don't think that is where Disney is saving much dough from Pixar nor do they care about criticisms considering they just terminated like 20-30 percent off their workforce.
If casting is where money could have been saved, they could have replaced more in many of their works.
Bill Hader was not going to launch Pixar's costs. Nor did Wish cost 200 million for its cast. Nor did Disney mind having costly names in Haunted Mansion.
https://careerhub.students.duke.edu/blog/2024/01/19/significant-layoffs-to-hit-pixar-in-2024-report/#:~:text=Sources told Techcrunch that the,but disputed the publication's numbers.

I have to wonder... Why do you even need human, much less higher cost human celebrity, voices in animation now? Why can't you just create an AI voice that fits the animated character perfectly instead of hiring a human? Then as part of the production process, have an audio engineer tweak the AI voice for whatever nuance the director wants or needs from that voice.

It's a cartoon. You can't see the human doing the voiceover work. Just get AI to do it, and that could cut way down on the bloated budgets Disney and Pixar use for their animated films that no longer seem to break even at the box office.

 

[LittleBuford]

I have to wonder... Why do you even need human, much less higher cost human celebrity, voices in animation now? Why can't you just create an AI voice that fits the animated character perfectly instead of hiring a human? Then as part of the production process, have an audio engineer tweak the AI voice for whatever nuance the director wants or needs from that voice.

It's a cartoon. You can't see the human doing the voiceover work. Just get AI to do it, and that could cut way down on the bloated budgets Disney and Pixar use for their animated films that no longer seem to break even at the box office.

Because just as AI can’t write as well as humans, it can’t act as well as humans either.

Those of us who actually watch the films in question care about their quality.

 

[celluloid]

I have to wonder... Why do you even need human, much less higher cost human celebrity, voices in animation now? Why can't you just create an AI voice that fits the animated character perfectly instead of hiring a human? Then as part of the production process, have an audio engineer tweak the AI voice for whatever nuance the director wants or needs from that voice.

It's a cartoon. You can't see the human doing the voiceover work. Just get AI to do it, and that could cut way down on the bloated budgets Disney and Pixar use for their animated films that no longer seem to break even at the box office.

For sure the stardom stacking of celeb names has hurt the great voice acting talent outnthre thst actualpy chsnge their voices. Some, like Steve carrel for Despicable actually at least changes his voice for the character. The rest is either contract work for the studio or stacking names for a draw to attention.

But yet, some "experts" say the star system is dead.

Disney's overspending is not soley, or even majority talent based though.

 

[Disney Irish]

Unmm. I don't think that is where Disney is saving much dough from Pixar nor do they care about criticisms considering they just terminated like 20-30 percent off their workforce.
If casting is where money could have been saved, they could have replaced more in many of their works.
Bill Hader was not going to launch Pixar's costs. Nor did Wish cost 200 million for its cast. Nor did Disney mind having costly names in Haunted Mansion.
https://careerhub.students.duke.edu/blog/2024/01/19/significant-layoffs-to-hit-pixar-in-2024-report/#:~:text=Sources told Techcrunch that the,but disputed the publication's numbers.

Studios try to reduce costs where they can, including in casting. Disney has said they were reducing budgets on all their content.

Based on the article you provided, or this one from Variety, what I see is further cost reductions for the studio happening. Something that many here claim should have happened long ago with Pixar when this story was first discussed months ago. So I'm not sure you're proving what you think you are. Especially since as Pixar has stated all their budgets include the costs to run the studio. So if they are reducing staff to reduce costs then budgets on future movies should be lower as a result.

 

[Disney Irish]

I have to wonder... Why do you even need human, much less higher cost human celebrity, voices in animation now? Why can't you just create an AI voice that fits the animated character perfectly instead of hiring a human? Then as part of the production process, have an audio engineer tweak the AI voice for whatever nuance the director wants or needs from that voice.

It's a cartoon. You can't see the human doing the voiceover work. Just get AI to do it, and that could cut way down on the bloated budgets Disney and Pixar use for their animated films that no longer seem to break even at the box office.

Given that at least some basic protections regarding AI were put into the the most recent SAG/AFTRA (which also covers voice acting) agreement that might make that at least a bit difficult.

And I can't imagine that SAG/AFTRA is going to stop trying to put full protections into future contracts.

 

[brideck]

If casting is where money could have been saved, they could have replaced more in many of their works.
Bill Hader was not going to launch Pixar's costs. Nor did Wish cost 200 million for its cast.

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Amy Poehler is getting $5m to reprise Joy and then they offered everyone else $100k. Hader and Kaling, rightfully so, probably viewed that as a slap in the face, so Pixar found different people they could hire for that amount instead. One could say that Pixar shaved ~$10m off the budget by not doing what it took to bring Hader and Kaling back, though they obviously never would have even made the attempt.

 

[celluloid]

I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that Amy Poehler is getting $5m to reprise Joy and then they offered everyone else $100k. Hader and Kaling, rightfully so, probably viewed that as a slap in the face, so Pixar found different people they could hire for that amount instead. One could say that Pixar shaved ~$10m off the budget by not doing what it took to bring Hader and Kaling back, though they obviously never would have even made the attempt.

One could say that l. But we don't know. 100k seems low for talent of returning main cast.
So at most, that would account for 10 million less if your source is true.
But in reality, probably not even thst for Hale likely got more but gets him out of or into a Pixar contrsct. (Prob helps that he is Forky.)

Chris Pine was the only expensive talent for Wish, and that movie still cost near 200 million. .

 

[brideck]

Hi gang, the first pass at Box Office estimates are out for this weekend!

Yet another horror movie misses its estimate, this time by a full $2m, as Abigail opened really soft this week. Night Swim (at a whopping $11.8m) still, somehow, remains the largest horror opening of the year out of 6+ movies in the genre.

Overall, we continue to be well under 2022 levels on a month-by-month basis.

 

[celluloid]

Yet another horror movie misses its estimate, this time by a full $2m, as Abigail opened really soft this week. Night Swim (at a whopping $11.8m) still, somehow, remains the largest horror opening of the year out of 6+ movies in the genre.

Overall, we continue to be well under 2022 levels on a month-by-month basis.

It's saturated right now in bot horror and R rated market. I imagine Abigail will hold a lot more than the others as weeks go on.
The situation is also why you see Kong x Godzilla, Kung Fu Panda and Ggostbusters getting a boost.

Overall, We would be as the strike impact there have been less releases.

 

[brideck]

So at most, that would account for 10 million less if your source is true.

The reporting was from Vulture -- https://web.archive.org/web/2022091...e.com/2022/09/inside-out-2-pixar-details.html

Took me a little while to track it down.

 

[brideck]

Overall, We would be as the strike impact there have been less releases.

Do you mean fewer tentpole releases? Because there have actually been more releases overall so far in 2024 than over the comparable period in 2023. I'm way behind on seeing stuff that I'd like because there's been so much hitting theaters, but people are definitely not going out to see much of any of it.

 

[celluloid]

Do you mean fewer tentpole releases? Because there have actually been more releases overall so far in 2024 than over the comparable period in 2023. I'm way behind on seeing stuff that I'd like because there's been so much hitting theaters, but people are definitely not going out to see much of any of it.

Nope. Less new wide releases from holiday season until now compared to last year due to strike, which also hurts thus years total numbers.

 

[TP2000]

Because just as AI can’t write as well as humans, it can’t act as well as humans either.

Those of us who actually watch the films in question care about their quality.

In 2024, it would seem we're about at the point where human-guided AI could create perfectly acceptable voiceovers for animation.

And where will the technology be in 2026? In 2028? Etc.?

It seems that AI is definitely one of the ways this new tech could replace human talent. Human talent that is often costly, depending on what type of ratings their latest sitcom or movie recently got.

 

[TP2000]

Yet another horror movie misses its estimate, this time by a full $2m, as Abigail opened really soft this week. Night Swim (at a whopping $11.8m) still, somehow, remains the largest horror opening of the year out of 6+ movies in the genre.

Overall, we continue to be well under 2022 levels on a month-by-month basis.

I said this earlier, but I still don't understand the strategy of releasing dark horror movies in April. It's five months too early.

I am spending a long weekend in sunny La Jolla for the Concours. If you haven't spent a sunny weekend in April in San Diego, it's about as sunshiny fresh and perky as things can possibly get on this planet. The kids were out in droves, the tops were down (convertibles, not blouses), the sun was out, the guns were out, music was in the air, and it was fun-fun-fun!

So why release dark and gory horror movies in April? I don't get it. And apparently, neither does the box office.

 

[LittleBuford]

In 2024, it would seem we're about at the point where human-guided AI could create perfectly acceptable voiceovers for animation.

And where will the technology be in 2026? In 2028? Etc.?

It seems that AI is definitely one of the ways this new tech could replace human talent. Human talent that is often costly, depending on what type of ratings their latest sitcom or movie recently got.

"Perfectly acceptable" isn't good enough. Since it seems you don't ever watch the films you keep posting about, it's neither here nor there to you, but as an actual fan of Disney and Pixar movies, I want to hear talented voice actors rather than soulless bots.

 

[TP2000]

"Perfectly acceptable" isn't good enough. Since it seems you don't ever watch the films you keep posting about, it's neither here nor there to you, but as an actual fan of Disney and Pixar movies, I want to hear talented voice actors rather than soulless bots.

So when you are watching these Pixar or Disney films, do you think "Oh, that's Bill Hader!" or "Oh, that's So-and-so!"???

There's a few folks who I could probably recognize their voice without seeing them, but they're a minority. And when I think back on Disney animation through history, I struggle to think who the voice actors and actresses were. Who was Elsa? Who was Aladdin? Who was Mowgli? Who cares? A few rare exceptions stand out, like Robin Williams as the Genie, or Angela Lansbury as the teapot. But mostly, I had no idea at the time and no idea today who the voices were.

But now that we have AI technology that can replicate human voices, and be more controllable and more adaptable than human voices, why not use it? Why does some guy who used to be on Saturday Night Live have to be the voice of a squirrel or a court jester or whatever? Why not just program AI to do it perfectly for much cheaper?

 

[LittleBuford]

So when you are watching these Pixar or Disney films, do you think "Oh, that's Bill Hader!" or "Oh, that's So-and-so!"???

There's a few folks who I could probably recognize their voice without seeing them, but they're a minority. And when I think back on Disney animation through history, I struggle to think who the voice actors and actresses were. Who was Elsa? Who was Aladdin? Who was Mowgli? Who cares? A few rare exceptions stand out, like Robin Williams as the Genie, or Angela Lansbury as the teapot. But mostly, I had no idea at the time and no idea today who the voices were.

But now that we have AI technology that can replicate human voices, and be more controllable and more adaptable than human voices, why not use it? Why does some guy who used to be on Saturday Night Live have to be the voice of a squirrel or a court jester or whatever? Why not just program AI to do it perfectly for much cheaper?

I said talented, not famous.

Human talent will always trump AI.

 

[TP2000]

I said talented, not famous.

Human talent will always trump AI.

Tell that to the girls in the Steno Pool.