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

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This is not trying to open a can of worms…

The loosely female audience when they are not being pandered to with trying to be onboarded to a ‘male franchise’ is exceptionally strong. We saw it with Barbie, I think this is in part the same audience.

The female audience may be finally having its turn controlling the tentpole franchise flow moving forward, if studios ‘get’ what it is they actually want. Hollywood has always been male first and it’s great if they can take it four quad, but we are seeing exceptions to that rule.

As you are saying I think we’re all watching something that’s quite puzzling to all of us. I got Barbie. Inside Out was not in their top ten annual movies being streamed. Coco, Zootopia, Turning Red, Luca, Frozen, Moana, Encanto, Elemental are all franchises I think Disney ‘thought’ were much bigger.

…so back to the fastball, huh?

 

[BrianLo]

…so back to the fastball, huh?

This movie has audience demographics and polling that skews female dominated. I’m not trying to be controversial with that statement, but this hasn’t been a thing until recently. I think we are about to see studios trying to recreate this phenomenon now, that wasn’t just a one off.

Strap in, because as Animaniac said, I also really don’t think studios understand how they did it. We’ve had lots of male dominated box office performers. Lots of fairly equal audience splits.

Frozen 2, Barbie, now IO2. I think these are all the only 1+ billion films that skewed so heavily to female audiences in exit polling. For the record, The first Captain Marvel was still 2/3rd male, shockingly.

Edit: I forgot titanic remotely, Beauty and the Beast more recently. Must be missing something else.

 

[TsWade2]

Huge.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

For the record, The first Captain Marvel was still 2/3rd male, shockingly.

Not shocking IMO, given the MCU as a whole.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

This movie has audience demographics and polling that skews female dominated. I’m not trying to be controversial with that statement, but this hasn’t been a thing until recently. I think we are about to see studios trying to recreate this phenomenon now, that wasn’t just a one off.

Strap in, because as Animaniac said, I also really don’t think studios understand how they did it. We’ve had lots of male dominated box office performers. Lots of fairly equal audience splits.

Frozen 2, Barbie, now IO2. I think these are all the only 1+ billion films that skewed so heavily to female audiences in exit polling. For the record, The first Captain Marvel was still 2/3rd male, shockingly.

Edit: I forgot titanic remotely, Beauty and the Beast more recently. Must be missing something else.

Really nothing in that movie has anything that makes one stop and think what “demographics” they are…

You can occasionally not try to reinvent the wheel/search for evil

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

We’re once again burying the lead here

“Streaming hurting box office” was straight outta damage control

IO2 Is GOOD. It’s making money because it’s good and word spread.

Guardians 3 was good…so it did well last year.

Guess what wasn’t good? Line em up.

Life is not this complicated

I’m not ready to discount the streaming affect on the box office yet, I think the big takeaway from IO2 (Barbi, Mario, TopGun, etc) is if your movie looks good and has positive word of mouth people will still pay to go see it, if your movie looks bad (or even average), and has negative word of mouth, people will wait to stream it.

Disney put out a string of stinkers last year, it makes sense it snowballed and more and more people waited to watch them for free, if they can put out a string of hits this year they should benefit from the same snowball affect.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I’m not ready to discount the streaming affect on the box office yet, I think the big takeaway from IO2 (Barbi, Mario, TopGun, etc) is if your movie looks good and has positive word of mouth people will still pay to go see it, if your movie looks bad (or even average), and has negative word of mouth, people will wait to stream it.

Disney put out a string of stinkers last year, it makes sense it snowballed and more and more people waited to watch them for free, if they can put out a string of hits this year they should benefit from the same snowball affect.

I’m not dismissing that there is a shift in the moviegoing public. But that really hurts the middle releases…not tentpoles

We see it today…when a movie is good people still want to go in a room and see it. All those movies you listed had that in common.

Not maybe critical darlings…but movies that make you not hate yourself and EVERYTHING about life for a couple of hours. Fun.

Disney should know how to get there. This week…they did

 

[erasure fan1]

I think the big takeaway from IO2 (Barbi, Mario, TopGun, etc) is if your movie looks good and has positive word of mouth people will still pay to go see it, if your movie looks bad (or even average), and has negative word of mouth, people will wait to stream it.

This has been something I've been harping on for a while now. Your first impressions are so important. That's why I think the trailers and early marketing are so important. It's a common thing on this site to hear, why don't you wait and see it before you judge it! Unfortunately that's not really how most of the average movie goers work. Streaming has made that all the more important. It's not all gloom and doom if the initial reaction isn't great. Because like you said, good word of mouth can take far.

I’m not dismissing that there is a shift in the moviegoing public. But that really hurts the middle releases…not tentpoles

I think it hurts all films that are meh to poor. The difference is people want to go for the tentpoles. The mid level stuff has to be great to blow up the box office. I know I haven't gone to a theater for a comedy or mid tier drama in probably 10+ yrs.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

For example, Hong Kong has lost money nearly every year it has existed but we would need to ask Eisner why he selected it. Shanghai on the other hand has largely been a success and been making money so what exactly is the problem?

Because when the idea for that started…it was still under British control…the assumption was a special economic zone. They held it for a little while…but then of course more recently started smashing heads in the streets. Funny how totalitarians with the biggest Napoleon complex in world history act?

Agreed. It’s unreasonable to expect anything to hit these levels. 100 percent I still believe Moana is the bigger franchise, but it’s unreasonable to expect a performance anything like this out of it.

Deadpool absolutely is tracking for the bigger opening, but it’s missing a huge audience quadrant with its rating. Spider-Man is the Deadpool equivalent when the rating is lifted though and that had the ability to outdo this performance.

Frozen and Mario are also clearly bigger franchises… Because no one is questioning that Mario and Frozen are big enough to support dedicated lands, yet Inside out is hitting in that realm.

Maybe merchandise in the back end is the secret sauce? Frozen, Mario, Moana (princess lineup). But is inside out about to get an entire ‘land’ (Pavilion) snap approved by Iger?

As far as lands/rides go…this idiot could have told you that Moana and Tangled Would have more longterm draw than some of their choices.

Inside out is a little more difficult…the characters are neurons firing

 

[BrianLo]

Really nothing in that movie has anything that makes one stop and think what “demographics” they are…

You can occasionally not try to reinvent the wheel/search for evil

Huh? I’m not talking about anything evil. You are reading something totally unrelated to my point.

The movies opening audience skewed more heavily female.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Huh? I’m not talking about anything evil. You are reading something totally unrelated to my point.

The movies opening audience skewed more heavily female.

Which doesn’t matter…so can we enjoy something good without flooding the zone?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think it hurts all films that are meh to poor.

As it should

 

[BrianLo]

I think it hurts all films that are meh to poor. The difference is people want to go for the tentpoles. The mid level stuff has to be great to blow up the box office. I know I haven't gone to a theater for a comedy or mid tier drama in probably 10+ yrs.

Even still it’s no guarantee of success when everything is right.

MI: Dead Reckoning was very well reviewed critically, has great audience reception and an A CinemaScore. All coming off the positive Tom vibes from Top Gun.

I think we’re still living in a bit of an erratic theatrical market. IO2’s second weekend is above the top end of the original opening weekend projections. I feel like the studios are constantly being caught off guard these days.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Even still it’s no guarantee of success when everything is right.

MI: Dead Reckoning was very well reviewed critically, has great audience reception and an A CinemaScore. All coming off the positive Tom vibes from Top Gun.

I think we’re still living in a bit of an erratic theatrical market. IO2’s second weekend is above the top end of the original opening weekend projections. I feel like the studios are constantly being caught off guard these days.

How many mission impossible we up to now?

How long did we wait for a top gun sequel?

I think that matters

One of the benefits of being James Cameron is it takes him 10 years to make anything

As far as Hollywood getting caught: I can help

Write complete stories (intro-conflict-resolution). If you don’t got it…don’t shoot it.

Don’t assume your audience is stupid. Write intelligent. If they’re not old enough to grasp everthing the first time (like Pixar)…they will the second and they’ll appreciate you more.
If you pic sinks cause it’s “too smart”…so be it.

And finally…the characters have to believe what they say in their own universe. They can’t look like garbage comic relief and more concern for the publicity stills than the emotion behind the film. This isn’t that hard.

I can be a consultant…and I work cheap

 

[Dranth]

Because when the idea for that started…it was still under British control…the assumption was a special economic zone. They held it for a little while…but then of course more recently started smashing heads in the streets. Funny how totalitarians with the biggest Napoleon complex in world history act?

I don't buy it.

The UK and China signed the agreement to transfer Hong Kong back to China in 1984, two months after Eisner took over as CEO. There is ZERO chance that Disney didn't know about that before planning the park and starting construction.

 

[erasure fan1]

Even still it’s no guarantee of success when everything is right.

MI: Dead Reckoning was very well reviewed critically, has great audience reception and an A CinemaScore. All coming off the positive Tom vibes from Top Gun.

Of course, I don't think there's much of a guarantee of anything anymore. But in this scenario, MI was on it's like what, 7th or 8th film? I know it reviewed well, people seemed to like it, but I had no real desire to see it. Top Gun on the other hand. I was ready for it from that first trailer. There was a lot of pent up demand for it. And since it was awesome, it blew up. Mission impossible not so much, the demand for it anyway.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I don't buy it.

The UK and China signed the agreement to transfer Hong Kong back to China in 1984, two months after Eisner took over as CEO. There is ZERO chance that Disney didn't know about that before planning the park and starting construction.

I don’t think they were caught flat footed…

But when has the central committee EVER told the truth to the west?

And remember: relations actually thawed in the 70s (panda diplomacy) and have gone downhill since…

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Of course, I don't think there's much of a guarantee of anything anymore. But in this scenario, MI was on it's like what, 7th or 8th film? I know it reviewed well, people seemed to like it, but I had no real desire to see it. Top Gun on the other hand. I was ready for it from that first trailer. There was a lot of pent up demand for it. And since it was awesome, it blew up. Mission impossible not so much, the demand for it anyway.

I don’t want to get into a side tangent about Jenny Connelly…err…”Tom cruise”…but what maverick did well was so simple/obvious that certain people can learn a lot from it…
We’ve been over that…

 

[Dranth]

I don’t think they were caught flat footed…

But when has the central committee EVER told the truth to the west?

And remember: relations actually thawed in the 70s (panda diplomacy) and have gone downhill since…

It was a joint announcement between the UK and China. It even spelled out how long it would continue under the one nation, two system setup. Disney knew all about it. Eisner just gambled he would be able to work with the Chinese government, just like Iger.

In that respect both of them were right, at least so far, as Disney has not had too many issues with the government at either location. For whatever reason though, Hong Kong Disneyland just never took off.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It was a joint announcement between the UK and China. It even spelled out how long it would continue under the one nation, two system setup. Disney knew all about it. Eisner just gambled he would be able to work with the Chinese government, just like Iger.

In that respect both of them were right, at least so far, as Disney has not had too many issues with the government at either location. For whatever reason though, Hong Kong Disneyland just never took off.

And I agree with you…that’s fair

What they skirted was Disney as a “brand” from Bobby’s mind is not popular there…it goes against their own traditions and modern society headwinds

It was never about getting foot traffic in fantasyland and buying plushies.
Fools errand.

Tokyo was…euro was (overshot there)…
Not this time