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

[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.

 

[CinematicFusion]

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.

 

[LittleBuford]

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.

As I pointed out in the post that began this exchange, most of the posts tying Disney’s failures to its supposed agenda are coming from the company’s critics, not its defenders. Multiple members of this forum have stated that they oppose Disney’s films for featuring gay characters, belittling men, “race swapping”, etc. These people aren’t being accused of anything; they’re openly owning it.

 

[Casper Gutman]

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



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

He’s a shameless liar. No amount of proof will satisfy him. Best to ignore him, as hard as the volume of nonsense makes that.

 

[brideck]

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

And yet, the Bad Boys franchise continues to exist and succeed.

The vast majority of massively successful films are mediocre at best, and are often just shiny/glossy trainwrecks of storytelling.

Tentpoles that fail…consistently blow

Just two posts before this Mr. Gutman gave you examples of failed tentpoles that were actually good. History is indeed littered with good, big budget movies that failed to find an audience.

 

[LittleBuford]

He’s a shameless liar. No amount of proof will satisfy him. Best to ignore him, as hard as the volume of nonsense makes that.

I don’t consider him a liar. Rather, he doesn’t read or remember as well as he thinks he does, which often gives rise to these unnecessarily tense and inflammatory exchanges.

 

[Casper Gutman]

And yet, the Bad Boys franchise continues to exist and succeed.

The vast majority of massively successful films are mediocre at best, and are often just shiny/glossy trainwrecks of storytelling.



Just two posts before this Mr. Gutman gave you examples of failed tentpoles that were actually good. History is indeed littered with good, big budget movies that failed to find an audience.

One of the most successful films of 2024 is Godzilla x Kong, by far the worst reviewed entry in a bad franchise. It feels silly bringing up examples because there are so many and the point is so obvious.

To get back to Disney, the live action Little Mermaid was no worse then it’s predecessors Lion King or Aladdin or Jungle Book.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

These are commercial enterprises…not arthouse

You’re conflating critical review with commercial success and that doesn’t align. Maybe it should…but it doesn’t.

The Wire was behind a paywall 20 years ago. And it was violently adult

CSI was on every Booms tv with a clicker.

There are always gonna be outliers to try and make a larger point.

Shawshank bombed. Forest gump was the biggest movie of the year (about the same as the lion king)…

Which one was better? Doesn’t matter…Forest gump was the hit. Hollywood likes that. So does Wall Street.

It’s doesn’t make sense today anyway.

Inside out 2 is doing well and that’s welcome news for Disney/pixar. A Victory.

That does not validate the quality of recent bad movies or alter what they were. Bad.

 

[Casper Gutman]

I don’t consider him a liar. Rather, he doesn’t read or remember as well as he thinks he does, which often gives rise to these unnecessary tense and inflammatory exchanges.

I used to think that.

 

[Casper Gutman]

These are commercial enterprises…not arthouse

You’re conflating critical review with commercial success and that doesn’t align. Maybe it should…but it doesn’t.

The Wire was behind a paywall 20 years ago. And it was violently adult

CSI was on every Booms tv with a clicker.

There are always gonna be outliers to try and make a larger point.

Shawshank bombed. Forest gump was the biggest movie of the year (about the same as the lion king)…

Which one was better? Doesn’t matter…Forest gump was the hit. Hollywood likes that. So does Wall Street.

It’s doesn’t make sense today anyway.

Inside out 2 is doing well and that’s welcome news for Disney/pixar. A Victory.

That does not validate the quality of recent bad movies or alter what they were. Bad.

What you’re doing here is acknowledging that external factors determine the success of pieces of media and quality is often irrelevant.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

He’s a shameless liar. No amount of proof will satisfy him. Best to ignore him, as hard as the volume of nonsense makes that.

You went too far…too often…and I said something. After far too much leash and too much time.

Stop indicating evil when there is none. You don’t know us. We are debating a conglomerate that sells entertainment. We can tell Bob when he sucks. He’s paid to handle it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

What you’re doing here is acknowledging that external factors determine the success of pieces of media and quality is often irrelevant.

I’m also acknowledging that saying “it’s good but people don’t like it” is the ultimate coffee house crap.

That and a $1 will get you half of a bus fare.

We all live on the same rotating 3 dimensional sphere

Unfortunately it’s not space ship earth

 

[Dranth]

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.

This.

A lot of bad movies do very well, and a lot of great movies fall on their face. Truth is that time and place have a huge role to play in how well a movie does. Not that being a great movie doesn't help, of course it does, but it isn't the sole determining factor.

As for the rest of the last few pages, the hate network, as people are calling it, doesn't influence many who aren't already on team anger or who aren't at least hate curious. Obviously, they have some influence, but most people who have their backside permanently clenched because someone, somewhere may do or say something they don't agree with are already on board.

Thankfully, they out themselves pretty quickly and generally all have the same simple narrative.

• Movie is a failure and has something they don't like?
  • It failed because it had that thing I object to, and this proves the majority agrees with me!
• Movie is a failure and has nothing objectionable to their world view?
  • It was just a bad movie.
• Movie is a success and has nothing they deem inappropriate?
  • See, I was right, exclude the objectionable thing and it succeeds.
• Movie is a success and has something objectionable?
  • Pretend the objectionable part doesn’t exist or reinterpret it to prevent the kind of cognitive dissonance that would come with acknowledging they enjoyed a movie with that kind of content.

 

[Casper Gutman]

You went too far…too often…and I said something. After far too much leash and too much time.

Stop indicating evil when there is none. You don’t know us. We are debating a conglomerate that sells entertainment. We can tell Bob when he sucks. He’s paid to handle it.

You consistently fail to accurately read and/ or understand posts and fill threads with comments that have little to no relationship to what is actually being said. You also let your rage at Iger overwhelm you and lash out intemperately at tangentially related targets in deeply odious ways and then get very upset when called on the comments you have chosen to write and post on a public forum.

I would ask you to attempt to temper your hyperbole, acknowledge nuance, control your vitriol, and try to respond directly and coherently to posts.

 

[brideck]

Shawshank bombed. Forest gump was the biggest movie of the year (about the same as the lion king)…

Which one was better? Doesn’t matter…Forest gump was the hit. Hollywood likes that. So does Wall Street.

Did we really just compare the #1 rated movie of all-time (per IMDb) with <checks notes> the #11 rated movie of all-time? The "entertaining" one succeeded because that's the one that always succeeds. The masses (writ large) are always merely seeking to be entertained, or even worse as I hear often these days, merely looking for something to "put on in the background".

Movies that seek to do anything other than entertain are largely ignored by the masses, and therefore by your definition can never be good. Entertaining tentpoles from the last few years did their job (see Gutman's list), but failed to penetrate people's awareness/existence.