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

[LittleBuford]

Apropos of the current discussion, I should note that there are posters in this very forum who view Disney’s supposed agenda as the (main) reason for the company’s recent box-office troubles. For such posters, Inside Out 2 is doing well precisely because it is free of any “agenda”.

I mention this because some of the posts of the last few pages would seem to imply that it’s only Disney’s defenders who are invoking ideological factors to account for what we’ve seen at the box office in recent years. That is not the case; the company’s critics are saying the same thing, and much more vociferously.

 

[Phroobar]

Did you even read what I said? I said in MOST situations. Yes, sometimes something that checks all the, this should be a hit boxes, doesn't do well. Just like something that has failure written all over it, becomes a hit.

Muppets mayhem was really good, one of the best D+ shows they've done. It didn't click, it happens. That doesn't mean some hate mob influenced people not to watch it because of minority leads. What it means is Disney has mishandled the muppets and people didn't care. So instead of looking at how it was received, the great buzz and a #1 album and building off it. They cancelled it.

Nothing is always or never and by this stage of life you should know that. Maybe the fallguy was a victim of the I'm just sick of remakes sentiment. I know remake is a loose term for it. Lots of people don't know that it's a show, but people Google, and if you see, based on the tv show from the 70s, you could just say I'm out. And people who do know, might have just rolled their eyes and moved on.

So because inside out 2s success means the hate network is debunked? You can't pick and choose the situations that only fit your argument. That's not how it works. People can't say if barbie was Disney it would have failed because they're not going after other studios. Well rings of Power says otherwise. If you don't think that good content gives studios the best chance to be successful, you're looking at things all wrong in my opinion. It kind of seems like it's being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative.

For me I meant to see the Fall Guy. I just didn't think about it. It wasn't a priority. They had a fun preshow at USH Water World. I'll see it on streaming. I loved the show as a kid. It had Lee Majors, Heather Thomas and Markie Post (from Night Court). Lee Majors was a part time stunt man and bounty hunter. All three would hunt down bad guys and do stunts. Somehow Heather and Markie always ended up in bikinis. Great times!

The plot of the movie really had nothing do with the show since Goslings character wasn't a part time bounty hunter. They do try to find a missing person so it could have been a one off episode. It was written by Glen Larson from the original show and Magnum PI and Battlestar Galactica.

 

[Basil of Baker Street]

Reading the last few pages, sounds like some could benefit from loosening the tinfoil hat strap a notch or 2. It may be affecting circulation.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Apropos of the current discussion, I should note that there are posters in this very forum who view Disney’s supposed agenda as the (main) reason for the company’s recent box-office troubles. For such posters, Inside Out 2 is doing well precisely because it is free of any “agenda”.

I mention this because some of the posts of the last few pages would seem to imply that it’s only Disney’s defenders who are invoking ideological factors to account for what we’ve seen at the box office in recent years. That is not the case; the company’s critics are saying the same thing, and much more vociferously.

Did you just recycle your June 2023 deep dive posts?

(That’s rhetorical…by the way)

 

[LittleBuford]

Did you just recycle your June 2023 deep dive posts?

(That’s rhetorical…by the way)

You may get further if you actually read what others posted and engaged in good faith.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You may get further if you actually read what others posted and engaged in good faith.

It was a year of “the vast bigot conspiracy”…but that was wrong. It was given more than enough air (and more respect than it ever deserved)…now it’s time to move on.

Inside out 2 has been well recieved and is resonating. That’s a good movie.

Ones that struggle and lose money…nobody streams…and are forgotten months later are bad movies.

See the difference?

Failure on its own merits…not conspiracy.

Someone can realize that people don’t always act the way you want and still not be an evil regressive. Pragmatism is still a real thing.

The gang of 5 around here had plenty of time to throw veiled accusations. They were never correct.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Just when you thought it was safe to read a thread again, the usual suspects come up with even more insipid and inane ways to try and defend bad output.

So anyone who doesn't like a movie that some of the movie experts in here like is now a member of "the hate network". And this alleged "network" has the power to influence tens of millions of people to not go watch a movie based on their word only.

"Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me - What color is the sky in your world?" - Dr. Frasier Crane

All that huffing and puffing for naught, easily avoided with more astute reading comprehension.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

It’s time. For some, it’s long overdue.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Just when you thought it was safe to read a thread again, the usual suspects come up with even more insipid and inane ways to try and defend bad output.

So anyone who doesn't like a movie that some of the movie experts in here like is now a member of "the hate network". And this alleged "network" has the power to influence tens of millions of people to not go watch a movie based on their word only.

"Hello in there, Cliff. Tell me - What color is the sky in your world?" - Dr. Frasier Crane

The hate network doesn’t affect tens of millions…

It’s consolidated control over billions with access to movie theaters in 200 countries…so that the minuscule number needed to buy tickets don’t show and they can’t turn a profit.

It started with the good dinosaur…the network has been in full control ever since

 

[LittleBuford]

It was a year of “the vast bigot conspiracy”…but that was wrong. It was given more than enough air (and more respect than it ever deserved)…now it’s time to move on.

Inside out 2 has been well recieved and is resonating. That’s a good movie.

Ones that struggle and lose money…nobody streams…and are forgotten months later are bad movies.

See the difference?

Failure on its own merits…not conspiracy.

Someone can realize that people don’t always act the way you want and still not be an evil regressive. Pragmatism is still a real thing.

The gang of 5 around here had plenty of time to throw veiled accusations. They were never correct.

I have never subscribed to or advanced anything resembling “the vast bigot conspiracy”. On the contrary, I was originally very dismissive of the idea that Disney’s box-office performance was in any meaningful way impacted by ideological factors, though I now think these factors may have played at least some role in certain demographic quarters.

In any case, my post was about where the claims were coming from, not their validity. Had you paid attention to what I actually wrote, you would have seen that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

All that huffing and puffing for naught, easily avoided with more astute reading comprehension.

…that’s usually in the same bucket of futility as excuses made for mega corps with bad leadership

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have never subscribed to or advanced anything resembling “the vast bigot conspiracy”. On the contrary, I was originally very dismissive of the idea that Disney’s box-office performance was in any meaningful way impacted by ideological factors, though I now think these factors may have played at least some role in certain demographic quarters.

In any case, my post was about where the claims were coming from, not their validity. Had you paid attention to what I actually wrote, you would have seen that.

…stop the presses…
You never said “we know what you’re like/mean” in your posts on the struggles of the movie studios?

You positive? Judgment day always come

 

[LittleBuford]

…stop the presses…
You never said “we know what you’re like/mean” in your posts on the struggles of the movie studios?

You positive? Judgment day always come

I have never denied the toxicity of the discourse. How could I when the forum offers multiple examples of it daily? But I have always been more sceptical than not of the role such discourse plays in the marketplace. My posting history here will back me up, so by all means feel free to search what I’ve written.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have never denied the toxicity of the discourse. How could I when the forum offers multiple examples of it daily? But I have always been more sceptical than not of the role such discourse plays in the marketplace. My posting history here will back me up, so by all means feel free to search what I’ve written.

No need to…I never forget a fish I’ve seen before…

But this is semi-reasonable so I take it at face value. Progress has been made

 

[LittleBuford]

No need to…I never forget a fish I’ve seen before…

Apparently you do, because I posted this back in December 2022:

I tend to think the film would have done well if Disney had marketed it more effectively and if critics had liked it more than they did. I’m not convinced that the brief depiction of a gay crush is enough to have kept significant numbers of parents away.

There are other examples; this is just the first I found through a simple search.

 

[brideck]

Inside out 2 has been well recieved and is resonating. That’s a good movie.

Ones that struggle and lose money…nobody streams…and are forgotten months later are bad movies.

This is the part of the argument that always, always rankles. It's a circular definition of good. People went to see it, therefore it was good. As opposed to something's goodness being a feature that can be independent of a) the public's awareness of something and b) the public's embrace of something.

Just because people didn't go see something, doesn't mean it was bad. Especially today, it more likely means that people just weren't aware of it (see the discussion just upthread about The Fall Guy). We live in largely information-free echo chambers where first impressions (if any impression gets in at all) mean everything. There is so much choice that we're often not making any choice at all because we can't possibly know all of the options. We're just watching/doing/picking what's right in front of us because it's way easier.

Put another way, people are always harping on the importance of word of mouth, which is absolutely true. But I would argue that instead of word of mouth that something is good, like it maybe used to be, it's word of mouth that something exists. We, as individuals, need people (and probably more than one) to come into our lives and tell us that a thing exists and is good before we can make the choice to do anything with it. And if someone comes into our life telling us that a thing exists and is bad because of X, Y, & Z (which may not even be firsthand knowledge, but Internet scuttlebutt), heaven help that thing.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Apparently you do, because I posted this back in December 2022:



There are other examples; this is just the first I found thorough a simple search.

I don’t have any problem with that…I would say most agree…

The problem is people began to look for “other” motives for movie failures and then project it on anyone calling out the failure. It got really low brow.

There is a lot of ugly in the very lengthy post history here. Though I don’t claim to be a saint either.

 

[Casper Gutman]

And yet we have a movie like The Fall Guy, which by all measures is "good content" and should have been a hit, and it could barely rise above the bow. And before someone makes a comment, no that wasn't for political reasons.

So this idea that all it takes is for good content to be released and the audience will come flocking is bunk. Hollywood has been trying to crack the code for generations on what audiences want. And just when they think they crack the code the audience changes and you have what should be sure fire hits failing. Its making the whole industry question what the audience wants, and they really want to know....

What the Hell Do People Want Out of Movies?

‘The Fall Guy’ had all the makings of a massive summer blockbuster. So what went wrong? And why don’t audiences actually go to the sorts of movies they claim they want?

screencrush.com

The idea that the quality of content determines viewership is so utterly ahistorical that it’s laughable. We can go through the history of filmed entertainment and find tens of thousands of examples of how untrue the idea actually is. The greatest TV show of all time, The Wire, suffered low viewership while garbage like CSI and Big Bang Theory thrives. In the last year we’ve seen the dismal failure of all sorts of very good films - Furiosa, Fall Guy, Dungeons & Dragons, Mission: Impossible… on and on.

Does quality play a role in determining popularity? Sometimes. But the idea that quality and popularity have some sort of direct, predictable relationship is, quite frankly, Populist nonsense. The audience is changeable, irrational, and persuadable - and it always has been.

 

[MagicMouseFan]

Inside Out 2’s success (my family loved it) seems to be causing a lot of tension on this board, perhaps even more than the discussion around Acolyte Episode 3 (haven’t seen it yet, so I can’t comment on it).

I wonder what Disney is thinking right now?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is the part of the argument that always, always rankles. It's a circular definition of good. People went to see it, therefore it was good. As opposed to something's goodness being a feature that can be independent of a) the public's awareness of something and b) the public's embrace of something.

Just because people didn't go see something, doesn't mean it was bad. Especially today, it more likely means that people just weren't aware of it (see the discussion just upthread about The Fall Guy). We live in largely information-free echo chambers where first impressions (if any impression gets in at all) mean everything. There is so much choice that we're often not making any choice at all because we can't possibly know all of the options. We're just watching/doing/picking what's right in front of us because it's way easier.

With very infrequent exceptions…movies that aren’t good don’t succeed at the box office. They don’t drive buzz or repeat viewers.

So generally speaking a hit has that “formula”

Tentpoles that fail…consistently blow


We get into this kinda thing on Disney forums all the time. The fact that SOME people like everything doesn’t reclassify something bad as good.

It’s a mass audience that is the goal. Cause they are mass media. Less is failure.