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

[haveyoumetmark]

As @Casper Gutman has told you, he was the first one to use that phrase in this thread in the context of box office bombs and successes. He first said the phrase last Friday, and it was instantly hilarious to quite a few of us here.



I just used the nifty search function for this, because the phrase was repeated quite a bit after that by Mr. Gutman...

Just as recently as this past Tuesday, he used it four separate times in four different posts here. Then a gaggle of additional references to it as "the network" throughout the past 5 days.

The phrase showed up randomly, and again struck many of us here as hilarious, but the concept appears to be a global cabal or "network" of right-leaning media and bloggers and Internet comments that steer the 3 or 4 Billion consumers of American movies and entertainment on this planet to avoid certain Disney films rated G or PG that don't fit the traditional mold of Disney family films.

Because I don't think Disney should introduce gay characters into G or PG (the new G) cartoon family films aimed at young children, that they should save that material for PG-13 movies from Marvel or their other studios, I am apparently a member of The Hate Network. I haven't paid any dues money, and I haven't received a logo THN windbreaker or even a coffee mug, but I guess I'm a part of it.

I've got that and my Costco membership, but I shouldn't be bragging.

He really doesn’t deserve yours or anyone else’s derision for this. A ‘network’ loosely connected by shared messaging, not some conspiratorially coordinated cabal as has been repeatedly explained and described in this thread. He is objectively and demonstrably correct, but I guess that doesn’t matter here when we’re determined to misunderstand and mock what he’s saying.

 

[erasure fan1]

My assertion (which you didn't even respond to) is that they would've done fine. It would have been a poor year, but not one deemed a colossal failure.

I thought I did by saying none of them would do substantially better.

Their 2023 movies were largely... fine. And fine Disney movies typically still make a silly amount of money. Is it unreasonable to think that they might have been able to make up the $700m shortfall (or at least most of it) if there weren't a whole lot of toxicity around Disney?

Guardians and elemental were good. Haunted mansion was fine. All the others were sub par in my eyes. Indy, wish, the marvels, lightyear, strange world, mermaid, all not very good.

There's always been a hate campaign around Disney. That's what happens when you are the top dog. I know plenty of people who have hated Disney since the 90s just because they feel they are a greedy company so they refuse to watch anything of theirs. Sniping at Disney is nothing new.

A reason I don't think the hate network diminished their earnings as significantly as you say. Is because if people had issues with the "controversial" stuff. It wouldn't take long after release for word of mouth to do it's thing. People talk, and they'd say did you know lightyear has a gay crush in it? If that's something you won't go to the movies for, just because you eliminate the hate network doesn't mean they'll go see it.

That's the flaw in this whole debate. If you hate diversity, why on earth would the hate network matter? You aren't going to go anyway, it's not like any of it was a secret. And if Disney hid it, once those people found out it was there, they tell their friends and they probably don't show up to your next film.

That's why I say the impact would be minimal. If people are going to hate, they're going to hate. They don't need someone to tell them to hate. So I'm just curious as to why people think that those people would show up no matter the situation?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Read 'em, thanks. I'm not really afraid of much in this world. Not nearly so much as the consumers of said information ecosystem are.

Then you shouldn’t pay much mind to a select handful of dusters conspiracy theories

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

You're not going to find anyone willing to say things would have been a "huge success" because that would be a ridiculous statement to make, other than to say that a red-headed Little Mermaid remake of the same quality sadly would have made substantially more.

However, it's not ludicrous to assert that the constant sniping at Disney in the public discourse had a cumulative effect on their slate. Their 2023 movies were largely... fine. And fine Disney movies typically still make a silly amount of money. Is it unreasonable to think that they might have been able to make up the $700m shortfall (or at least most of it) if there weren't a whole lot of toxicity around Disney? I don't think so.

Are you feeling ok?

They lost like…a billion at the box office…not to mention what was undoubtedly much more in product damage…

Tanked like 7 of 8 consecutive movies

And there was nothing “fine” about that…bad ideas…bad execution…bad publicity

 

[TP2000]

‘Inside Out 2’ Headed For Juneteenth Box Office Record With Near $30M

Sources tell us that Disney/Pixar's Inside Out 2 is heading for a near $30 million Juneteeth at the domestic box office.

deadline.com

Inside Out 2 remains gangbusters.

Let's see where the box office for Inside Out 2 is currently as it will clearly make a tidy profit, and even I am sick of talking about The Gays now.

Here's where things stand by my count as of Wednesday, June 19th.

IO2: $200 Production, $100 Marketing, $141 Domestic B.O. Take, $81 Foreign B.O. Take = $78 Million Loss And Shrinking Fast!

And what is particularly encouraging for Burbank is that Inside Out 2 has very, very strong legs at the domestic box office, going into its second weekend which should prove very strong!

Inside Out 2 (2024) - Financial Information

Financial analysis of Inside Out 2 (2024) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.

www.the-numbers.com

 

[brideck]

There's always been a hate campaign around Disney. That's what happens when you are the top dog. I know plenty of people who have hated Disney since the 90s just because they feel they are a greedy company so they refuse to watch anything of theirs. Sniping at Disney is nothing new.

The sniping is not new. The full-court amplification and regurgitation of said sniping is. It reached a far wider audience than just the inside baseball types that lurk here.

A reason I don't think the hate network diminished their earnings as significantly as you say. Is because if people had issues with the "controversial" stuff. It wouldn't take long after release for word of mouth to do it's thing. People talk, and they'd say did you know lightyear has a gay crush in it? If that's something you won't go to the movies for, just because you eliminate the hate network doesn't mean they'll go see it.

By making it a known, amplified story before the release, you torpedo the opening weekend itself, which not only is a big chunk of lost revenue, but is also a big source of potential positive/neutral word of mouth. Why assume that a sizeable chunk of that word of mouth would have mentioned the kiss, etc. or even looked negatively upon it?

That's the flaw in this whole debate. If you hate diversity, why on earth would the hate network matter? You aren't going to go anyway, it's not like any of it was a secret. And if Disney hid it, once those people found out it was there, they tell their friends and they probably don't show up to your next film.

People end up watching all sorts of things that they don't necessarily agree with, if they're popular or their friends are doing it or what have you.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

My partner and I have been together since some of our nieces and nephews were toddlers. They have no memories or knowledge of us as anything but a couple. How would the arbitrary “not below 12” cut-off point work in a case like ours? For that matter, what should my partner and I do when we’re walking hand-in-hand down a street where someone else’s child might catch sight of us?

The horse has already bolted. If society is claiming to treat us as equal to our straight counterparts, we can’t be expected to hide away in the closet again.

I think there’s a difference between hiding something from children and waiting until they can understand it. I’d place talking about sexuality on the same level as talking about sex, we don’t ”hide” the concept of sex from children but we keep it very vague (birds and bees) until they can understand it, I think the same is true of sexuality, we keep it very vague (some boys like boys) until they can fully understand it.

I think the pushback comes from introducing a subject in a kids movie that many parents aren’t ready to clarify to their kids yet, nothing Disney has done has crossed the line in my opinion, some boys like boys, some girls like girls covers everything they’ve done, but that’s going to vary by person.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Let's see where the box office for Inside Out 2 is currently as it will clearly make a tidy profit, and even I am sick of talking about The Gays now.

Here's where things stand by my count as of Wednesday, June 19th.

IO2: $200 Production, $100 Marketing, $141 Domestic B.O. Take, $81 Foreign B.O. Take = $78 Million Loss And Shrinking Fast!

View attachment 793543

And what is particularly encouraging for Burbank is that Inside Out 2 has very, very strong legs at the domestic box office, going into its second weekend which should prove very strong!

View attachment 793544

Inside Out 2 (2024) - Financial Information

Financial analysis of Inside Out 2 (2024) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.

www.the-numbers.com

It’s gonna clear $200-$300 mil at the box office…

And in 2 months…I’ll expect we be here saying that’s NOT a success…because it’s only a success when it goes to Disney Plus and drives a quarterly drop in subscriptions…
Right?

Goalposts on wheels

 

[Tony the Tigger]

I think there’s a difference between hiding something from children and waiting until they can understand it. I’d place talking about sexuality on the same level as talking about sex, we don’t ”hide” the concept of sex from children but we keep it very vague (birds and bees) until they can understand it, I think the same is true of sexuality, we keep it very vague (some boys like boys) until they can fully understand it.

Yes, that’s common sense; and no one is pushing for more than that.

When you show a heterosexual couple incidentally in an animated film, it requires no explanation.

Same sex couples are no different.

If you make no issue of it, there is no issue. No one is talking about sex, and no description of sex or mentioning sex is required to show that a gay couple exists or a gay person exists.

This was my argument against the law that started this whole fight with Disney. No sex talk is required to acknowledge gay persons. If some adults only define people by sex, that’s their problem to solve for themselves; but it’s that perspective that fuels the whole “hide your gay people” nonsense because they think “gay = sex.”

My husband and I will have been married 17 years come this September. Many gay couples have lasted far longer over the years, if not legally recognized. We’ve outlasted many heterosexual marriages in our families (some of which, handled badly, are clearly negatively affecting children.) There are many young children in our family, and no one hides us. We are an example to them of a solid, intact, respectful marriage. No one is confused. Nothing is awkward. There is nothing to hide. And my husband’s side are all Trump voters, including some who have served the State of Florida as Republican elected officials.

A drive by shot of a gay couple in a Disney animated film does us justice. It’s only a problem if you wish it to be. It shows current little 10-12 year-olds who are starting to wonder or realize something about themselves that it’s no big deal. That’s important. It’s more important than the people who still, after all these years, can’t grasp the basics on the subject.

 

[TP2000]

The hate network expanded exponentially, the way it was originally used I took it to mean FN, the YouTube channles, etc but then it was used by someone else as a factor in the global numbers, it took on a life of its own after that because it kept getting expanded to explain away more and more.

Without going back 12 months through thousands of posts, I do remember in '23 there was a general feeling among some here that the anti-Disney pushback from the audience to attend many films was an exclusively American phenomenon. There was a definite opinion that it was the rubes and bigots in flyover country that weren't sophisticated enough to take their children to Disney's family movies any more. They had too much hate in their hearts.

But then we started looking at the box office data from overseas, and it was an even bigger dropoff in attendance in foreign lands. Mexicans stayed away from Strange World like the plague, for instance. Live action Little Mermaid flopped in Japan, etc., etc. And on most of the African continent, or in the Middle East and Muslim countries worldwide, some of Disney's recent films were outright banned from public screenings.

So who are the rubes and bigots again that the hate network informs and instructs? Mexicans? Kenyans? Japanese?

 

[Ghost93]

I think racism played a part in The Little Mermaid flopping worldwide. In America it wasn't noticeable because Black audiences showed up in droves to make up for the difference in white people boycotting the film (I live in an area that is 50% Black and they made up many of the attendees in my theater). Worldwide, you had people boycotting out of dislike of a Black mermaid without the Black population's support to offset it. Worldwide audiences also weren't able to hear Halle Bailey's amazing voice due to dubbing I imagine.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

As you yourself acknowledge, none of the films we're talking go beyond the vague treatment you deem acceptable. It puzzles me, then, that you would like posts characterising Strange World as inappropriate for children.

Because I agree with the general concept that Disney is straddling the line and I understand why some would choose not to go as a result.

I like a lot of your posts that I’m not in full agreement with also, I agree with the overall sentiment though.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

As you yourself acknowledge, none of the films we're talking about go beyond the vague treatment you deem acceptable. It puzzles me, then, that you would like posts characterising Strange World as inappropriate for children.

He addressed that. The concept that it takes kids a certain amount of time to be able to grasp and analyze the differences they see in society.

That’s a legitimate concern…even if a tad traditional.

It doesn’t mean you or I have to share that concern…but it’s not so unreasonable that we can dismiss it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think racism played a part in The Little Mermaid flopping worldwide. In America it wasn't noticeable because Black audiences showed up in droves to make up for the difference in white people boycotting the film (I live in an area that is 50% Black and they made up many of the attendees in my theater). Worldwide, you had people boycotting out of dislike of a Black mermaid without the Black population's support to offset it. Worldwide audiences also weren't able to hear Halle Bailey's amazing voice due to dubbing I imagine.

There were no significant calls to “boycott” the little mermaid. There are always trolls and loudmouths that try to sink everything for clicks…but it wasn’t an organized effort.

But it was assumed coordinated racism here. Particularly the Chinese…who I’ll remind DON’T CONSUME Disney core IP at the level of really any of the NATO markets. It’s been that way forever. To the point where they built parks to downplay Disney (look it up)

 

[Casper Gutman]

Because I agree with the general concept that Disney is straddling the line and I understand why some would choose not to go as a result.

I like a lot of your posts that I’m not in full agreement with also, I agree with the overall sentiment though.

How is Disney “straddling the line” exactly?

 

[haveyoumetmark]

There were no significant calls to “boycott” the little mermaid. There are always trolls and loudmouths that try to sink everything for clicks…but it wasn’t an organized effort.

But it was assumed coordinated racism here. Particularly the Chinese…who I’ll remind DON’T CONSUME Disney core IP at the level of really any of the NATO markets. It’s been that way forever. To the point where they built parks to downplay Disney (look it up)

Only enough review-bombing globally for IMDb to overhaul its system.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How is Disney “straddling the line” exactly?

Because they want to be progress trendsetters (for ego mostly) while still increasing quarterlies revenues from one of the longest established, traditionalist customer bases in the free world?

 

[LittleBuford]

He addressed that. The concept that it takes kids a certain amount of time to be able to grasp and analyze the differences they see in society.

That’s a legitimate concern…even if a tad traditional.

It doesn’t mean you or I have to share that concern…but it’s not so unreasonable that we can dismiss it.

I believe it is an unreasonable concern. Parents who feel their children can’t understand the concept are merely projecting.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Only enough review-bombing globally for IMDb to overhaul its system.

So like 8 billion people give a crap about reviews? Or better yet…remember what IMDb even is?

Does it show up on people’s MySpace pages?

Edit: I just looked it up…they get about 200 mil hits a month…which is about how many more people would have had to buy $15 tickets for that breathtaking copied remake to have achieved the lofty projections tossed around here…

Guess that proves that?

 

[Casper Gutman]

The impasse we have is, you are on team it's killing all the movies. While I have said it has an impact, but I don't believe it is enough to hurt these movies to account for the amount of underperformance. I'm not determined to pretend anything. You know what's also not useful? Looking at everything with a jaded eye, always looking for the hidden motivation.

It's so odd that you edited out this entirely relevant section from my original post: "You also continually ignore the fact they folks aren’t claiming the hate campaigns are wholly or even primarily responsible for the 2023’s slates underperformance, just that it played some reasonably significant role," which CLEARLY and DIRECTLY refutes your above paragraph. I'd say this demonstrates that the impasse stems from the fact that you constantly mischaracterize arguments and shift goalposts to avoid acknowledging things you don't want to acknowledge.