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

[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.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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 opening owning it.

And I ignore or call out those people…quite often on threads.

However I know who isn’t one…and I’ll be the expert on that.

Example:
I think TLM was a terrible idea. It lacked any creativity and was boilerplate…I also think it was cynical and cultural appropriating on DISNEY’S part.

There’s a stance that never came up, huh? But I thought it 5 mintues into it. It’s a disrespectful, outdated Hollywood approach.

So when I was told - speaking for only me
- what I was “like” by strangers…I didn’t really respond. Because I don’t need to prove my character or detail a now long history for believing in sticking out my neck for other humans who are 100% like me.
Here Endeth that lesson.

Now back to inside out…cause relitigating 2023 failure is a cry for help.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Over a latte at Starbucks is there no comparison? Maybe

Both are great movies…by the way.
But this is a DISNEY forum. You can’t check what Disney does and their goals at the door when convenient.

They’d pick forest everyday of the week and twice on Sunday over shank If they released this Friday.

People disagree…that’s why we come here and do this…
But nobody can declare victory irrelevant of the details. And for gods sakes…we’re talking about one of the two biggest entertainment corps in the western world…not undergraduate film projects

 

[Casper Gutman]

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 is by far 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.

With the caveat that I don’t think the hate network is the primary determining factor in a target films success or failure, I think folks here consistently underrate its effect. Huge numbers of people get their news from Facebook, where members of the network dominate the most circulated and viewed posts. Major news networks and prominent public figures amplify it. It is not fringe, it is mainstream. Even the many people who reject its excesses reason that it must have some truth to it (“the truth is in the middle”). It creates “vibes” that influence people without conscious thought and determines what people see as “for them” or “against them.” Even if its message is fully rejected, it politicizes escapist entertainment in an unappealing way. We’ve seen ample evidence of its ability to influence. A small, online hate movement focused on video games incubated an ideological movement that has become one of the dominant forces in the country and elected numerous powerful public officials.

In short, this isn’t just about watching some idiot screaming on YouTube.

 

[Casper Gutman]

And I ignore or call out those people…quite often on threads.

However I know who isn’t one…and I’ll be the expert on that.

Example:
I think TLM was a terrible idea. It lacked any creativity and was boilerplate…I also think it was cynical and cultural appropriating on DISNEY’S part.

There’s a stance that never came up, huh? But I thought it 5 mintues into it. It’s a disrespectful, outdated Hollywood approach.

So when I was told - speaking for only me
- what I was “like” by strangers…I didn’t really respond. Because I don’t need to prove my character or detail a now long history for believing in sticking out my neck for other humans who are 100% like me.
Here Endeth that lesson.

Now back to inside out…cause relitigating 2023 failure is a cry for help.

“Cultural appropriating”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

With the caveat that I don’t think the hate network is the primary determining factor in a target films success or failure, I think folks here consistently underrate its effect. Huge numbers of people get their news from Facebook, where members of the network dominate the most circulated and viewed posts. Major news networks and prominent public figures amplify it. It is not fringe, it is mainstream. Even the many people who reject its excesses reason that it must have some truth to it (“the truth is in the middle”). It creates “vibes” that influence people without conscious thought and determines what people see as “for them” or “against them.” Even if its message is fully rejected, it politicizes escapist entertainment in an unappealing way. We’ve seen ample evidence of its ability to influence. A small, online hate movement focused on video games incubated an ideological movement that has become one of the dominant forces in the country and elected numerous powerful public officials.

In short, this isn’t just about watching some idiot screaming on YouTube.

So did the hate network bomb 7 of 8 2023 movies or was it only a minor factor?

I’m spinning trying to keep up with the “vortex of revisionism”

 

[Dranth]

With the caveat that I don’t think the hate network is the primary determining factor in a target films success or failure, I think folks here consistently underrate its effect. Huge numbers of people get their news from Facebook, where members of the network dominate the most circulated and viewed posts. Major news networks and prominent public figures amplify it. It is not fringe, it is mainstream. Even the many people who reject its excesses reason that it must have some truth to it (“the truth is in the middle”). It creates “vibes” that influence people without conscious thought and determines what people see as “for them” or “against them.” Even if its message is fully rejected, it politicizes escapist entertainment in an unappealing way. We’ve seen ample evidence of its ability to influence. A small, online hate movement focused on video games incubated an ideological movement that has become one of the dominant forces in the country and elected numerous powerful public officials.

In short, this isn’t just about watching some idiot screaming on YouTube.

Which is a problem when you put out a less than stellar movie like Strange World. It gives people who think that way something to glom onto instead of focusing on the actual problem which is Disney made a very pedestrian and boring movie. "It failed cause it has the gay" is the talking point that helps reinforce the tin foil tendencies.

Once something is popular, they are suddenly on board while having to perform an amazing display of mental gymnastics to explain why the thing they claim the majority cares about suddenly doesn't matter.

Barbie is a great example of this. Those groups were out in DROVES trying to put the fix in before it came out. The narrative was being spread in all the usual places, and they were ready to pounce only Barbie didn't fail and instead they had to come up with gems like "Barbie is actually anti-feminism".

Let's put it this way, they have more influence the worse the delivered product is because there are no opposing forces making people actually take a closer look for themselves.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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 is by far 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.

Acknowledging the existence of nonsense like Michael bay and the fast and furious does not flip the paradigm upside down and lead us too: “people reject the good and gobble up crap”

Ok…maybe Taco Bell proves that…but not entertainment