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

[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.

 

[Disney Irish]

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.

Dunno, you tell me why the original Dracula movie in 1931 was release on February 12th. Or why the Bride of Frankenstein was released on April 22nd, 1935. Or the Creature from the Black Lagoon also on February 12th, 1954. Or every Friday the 13th movie. And so on and so on with many more horror movies released outside the "spooky season".

Hollywood has released horror movies all through out the year for 100 years.

 

[brideck]

Dunno, you tell me why the original Dracula movie in 1931 was release on February 12th. Or why the Bride of Frankenstein was released on April 22nd, 1935. Or the Creature from the Black Lagoon also on February 12th, 1954. Or every Friday the 13th movie. And so on and so on with many more horror movies released outside the "spooky season".

Hollywood has released horror movies all through out the year for 100 years.

Or, you know, last year's successes with Scream VI and Evil Dead Rise in March/April.

 

[brideck]

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.

Elsa is Adele Dazeem, er, I mean Idina Menzel, Broadway star. Aladdin was the guy who played Steve, DJ's boyfriend on Full House. You got me on Mowgli. Some kid from the '70s... [Having looked at the answer, I should have my Disney animation fan card revoked.]

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 can't even with this. Why on earth would you be advocating for the destruction of human creativity and performance? Many great things in these movies are ad libbed or improved by the actors bringing unexpected approaches to their characters. You would be losing the potential for all of that if you just let a "perfect" AI do it.

 

[brideck]

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

I guess, technically? By my count, there have been 21 wide releases this year and 22 over the comparable period last year.

 

[DKampy]

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?

You have had some awful takes in this thread… but this one takes the cake…The only assumption I can have is you must be one of those all Hollywood must burn types

 

[celluloid]

You have had some awful takes in this thread… but this one takes the cake…The only assumption I can have is you must be one of those all Hollywood must burn types

I am no dystopia person, but if you can't see it likely and going to happen, starting with animation...
You are not being realistic.


It will not make for abetter product, but it will make for consistent profitable one.

Let us try not to makeup someone into a random label or disagree with anything starting with "You must be one of those..."

 

[Heppenheimer]

I said talented, not famous.

Human talent will always trump AI.

In animation, I've often found that being a famous actor doesn't always translate to a good vocal performance. Classic Disney had the knack for casting just the right voice for the role. Even many Disney fans probably wouldn't know the names or faces of Bill Thompson, Cliff Edwards, Thurl Ravenscroft, Eleanor Audley, Paul Winchell, Ed Wynn, Verna Felton, Sterling Holloway, Phil Harris or Paul Frees, but they'll recognize their voices instantly.

I've seen plenty of Dreamworks and other studios animation where the "celebrity" voice work could basically be described as "Where's my paycheck?".

 

[celluloid]

I've seen plenty of Dreamworks and other studios animation where the "celebrity" voice work could basically be described as "Where's my paycheck?".

While they were well cast and did good for results, Pixar really started that with Toy Story with top tier celebs of the time.

Also, I can assure you that when The Jungle Book came out, many knew who Phil Harris and Louis Prima were. They were celebs more picked for the musical styles.

 

[DKampy]

I am no dystopia person, but if you can't see it likely and going to happen, starting with animation...

You are not being realistic.


It will not make for abetter product, but it will make for consistent profitable one.

Let us try not to makeup someone into a random label

I am sure there are studios who would like that to happen… as it would save them a. Buck…. That was the main sticking point in the various strikes that almost or did happen… my issue is he’s advocating for AI to take over…and anyone who enjoys films would be against this as that would destroy any creativity in the art form…of course he has already said he does not like movies but continues to post here to point out any failure narratives he can find

 

[celluloid]

I am sure there are studios who would like that to happen… as it would save them a. Buck…. That was the main sticking point in the various strikes that almost or did happen… my issue is he’s advocating for AI to take over…

He proposed "Why not?" That that he would prefer it. Valid question to propose from the executives, because clearly they are desperate and want to. And know that enough would still go that they would profit from.

Strikes or not...it can happen. And likely will. The strikes specifically had more to do with royalties of future uses of recordings. It was not a situation where Studios can never use AI.

If studios keep testing it and now for a long while they can get a movie made as decent as the blah ones for 40 million that people will eat up for 80 million and then all the streaming revenue. People are always watching AI crap that is making money on social media. And when the studios can do consistently, it is understandable why we would be asking this question. Animation is a fair thought to where it will start, because it would be cheaper.

Where does he advocate for it?

 

[brideck]

Where does he advocate for it?

By even bringing it up. If you're a humans over dollars person, you would never even consider it. But as we know, in our silly world, dollars almost always trump humans.

To put this in some perspective, my employer is actually a player in the AI field, and we always advocate for AI assistance of humans, not replacement of humans with AI. What we're talking about here is replacement.

 

[celluloid]

By even bringing it up. If you're a humans over dollars person, you would never even consider it. But as we know, in our silly world, dollars almost always trump humans.

Brinigning it up is not advocating for it. It is not Voldemort.(and the lesson there is speaking its name does not give it power) You can speak its name and ask why won't they use it? It is a valid question and we are not going to stop it from happening.

How is the person advocating for it?

AI is already used extensively in post production.

It is happening. It will happen.

You are a bit extreme stating the person is advocating for it to take over.

You lost a lot of meaning when you say "You must be one of those..." Sounds like a tribalism kind of framing.


Disney loves doing it.

They choose dollars over human experience all of the time. So there is no "some other studios" or "some studios" as if Disney won't be one of the first to continue to utilize it.

A human leading Listen/Living with The Land was ideal.
Stuntronics have entered the arena.
Queues that are themed with environments created by people vs less theming and budget for software that calculates selling Genie Plus would also be ideal.
Disney reservation phone lines have been automated voice recognition vs the experience that used to be there for a long time.

But we know reality there is balance to where AI will be used and humans will be taken from the roll.

 

[brideck]

You are a bit extreme stating the person is advocating for it to take over.

There's really no other way to read "Why not..." He also called AI "perfect" (which is laughable), which pretty clearly indicates what he thinks about its capability and utility. [It's also not nearly as cheap to generate as the proliferation of OpenAI, etc. would lead you to believe, but that's neither here nor there.] If TP comes back on here after reading the rest of the thread and says, "Gosh, y'all are right. We don't want computers replacing humans even if it saves costs", then I'll know he wasn't advocating for it. But I work in the field and I would never think to bring it up in the space of generating voices for top-shelf animation projects.

You lost a lot of meaning when you say "You must be one of those..." Sounds like a tribalism kind of framing.

Wasn't me. Thanks for paying attention to who's writing to you.

Disney loves doing it.

They choose dollars over it all the time. So there is no "some other studios" or "some studios" as if Disney won't be one of the first to continue to utilize it.

Much to the chagrin of some people on this board, they absolutely do not do this when it comes to making movies. If they did, they would already be farming out the animation and SFX work for their stuff to the cheap global market (like nearly everyone else) in order to slash their budgets in half.

 

[LittleBuford]

Where does he advocate for it?

Here:

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]

In animation, I've often found that being a famous actor doesn't always translate to a good vocal performance.

I’ve noticed this in particular with guest appearances on The Simpsons.