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

[LittleBuford]

I don't think I did. I did say people didn't want the negative talk. But I put the negative in quotes because the "negative" we've been talking about this whole discussion was the box-office negativity. So I'm sorry if that wasn't clear, I assumed it would be taken in the context of the discussion.

Thank you for clarifying. I think what some of us were objecting to was the degree to which the box-office talk had taken over the thread. The film itself got lost in the process, and the tone of the thread shifted to an unhealthy sort of schadenfreude.

 

[erasure fan1]

Its why the way @MisterPenguin does it is better. He still posts his comments on the data elsewhere, even in the same thread sometimes, but the data is allowed to stand on its own when presented.

I can get that. I would just say I'm not sure why post the data if no one is going to interact with it? As I said, the data is available a hundred different ways. If people wanted the numbers without opinion, wouldn't it just be easier to get it from the source?

 

[Disney Irish]

I can get that. I would just say I'm not sure why post the data if no one is going to interact with it? As I said, the data is available a hundred different ways. If people wanted the numbers without opinion, wouldn't it just be easier to get it from the source?

Where did I say no one should interact with it? I didn't even say the poster posting it shouldn't interact with it after posting it. Of course the data can be gotten elsewhere, so can the Nielsen data. But that isn't the point, and I think you know that.

 

[erasure fan1]

Where did I say no one should interact with it? I didn't even say the poster posting it shouldn't interact with it after posting it. Of course the data can be gotten elsewhere, so can the Nielsen data. But that isn't the point, and I think you know that.

I just went and looked he commented on the data once in, I think I went back 15 pages. And the one comment was the 2023 year end numbers. And it was a short little comment. I didn't say you said no one should interact with it. I said why post if no one is going to interact with it. There's some interaction, but there's sometimes 2 or 3 pages that go by where there's one or two comments. Then it's 3, 4 weeks with nothing.

Don't get defensive, I'm not criticizing your opinion. I just personally think, if you take the time to get the data, and come here week after week to update it, there's nothing wrong with saying what you think of the data. I know I don't pop in very often because there's never much discussion. If he were to post the data, like you say, to stand on it's own. Then start a small discussion on it, I think that would spark more discussion that's all. And as I said, I think that's what most of us are here for, the discussion.

 

[Disney Irish]

I just went and looked he commented on the data once in, I think I went back 15 pages. And the one comment was the 2023 year end numbers. And it was a short little comment. I didn't say you said no one should interact with it. I said why post if no one is going to interact with it. There's some interaction, but there's sometimes 2 or 3 pages that go by where there's one or two comments. Then it's 3, 4 weeks with nothing.

It happened way more than that, just going back 15 pages of a 581 page thread isn't enough it determine how often it happened. It obviously happened enough that several of us noticed it and are pretty much saying the same thing to you, so take that for what its worth.

Don't get defensive, I'm not criticizing your opinion. I just personally think, if you take the time to get the data, and come here week after week to update it, there's nothing wrong with saying what you think of the data.

I'm not defensive at all, its just a discussion. And its not like its takes more than 3-5 minutes to copy, highlight, and then paste the image here. So don't make it seem like its an exhaustive effort made to get the data. lol

If he were to post the data, like you say, to stand on it's own. Then start a small discussion on it, I think that would spark more discussion that's all. And as I said, I think that's what most of us are here for, the discussion.

And if it was done that way I think a majority of us would appreciate that. I think the discussions would also be way more productive as well.

 

[erasure fan1]

It happened way more than that, just going back 15 pages of a 581 page thread isn't enough it determine how often it happened.

Wait, what thread are you looking at? The Nielsen thread is 19 pages on my phone with only 363 replies.

I'm not defensive at all, its just a discussion. And its not like its takes more than 3-5 minutes to copy, highlight, and then paste the image here.

Sorry, it felt like you were thinking I was criticizing you and I wanted you to know I wasn't. Now I don't know if he's updated it every week. But at 5min, that's like 13hrs of his life.

And if it was done that way I think a majority of us would appreciate that. I think the discussions would also be way more productive as well.

That's my only point.

 

[TP2000]

No one here has issues with the box office data, as long as it allowed to stand on its own when its posted. Its the commentary used to frame that data into a narrative that goes along with the posting of the box office data that many had issues with.

A discussion forum without any discussion, huh? Sounds boring.

 

[Chi84]

Someone’s in 7th heaven!

 

[TP2000]

I disagree. I have no problem with commentary; on the contrary, I welcome it and think it has a very legitimate place in threads like this. What I don’t like is ideological stirring disguised as commentary.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads to me like what you don't like is opinions that differ from your own.

What is the difference from "ideological stirring disguised as commentary" (a new phrase for me, so pardon me if I'm not understanding it correctly), and "opinions that differ from mine".

The good news for the box office is that Disney, and much of Hollywood, is trying a course correct on the overly woke stuff they were pumping out in 2022-23 that were box office poison, one after another, with only a couple of exceptions. Disney sent Snow White back into a full rework and one year delay, and slimmed down their 2024 box office slate to the bare minimum compared to 2023's disastrous yet full slate of films from every studio. Someone in Burbank seems to have learned their lesson.

And I'm of the opinion that their disastrous box office the past few years across all their studios helped teach them that lesson.

 

[Disney Irish]

A discussion forum without any discussion, huh? Sounds boring.

Not what was said and you know it, this was even expanded upon is subsequent posts.

 

[Disney Irish]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that reads to me like what you don't like is opinions that differ from your own.

What is the difference from "ideological stirring disguised as commentary" (a new phrase for me, so pardon me if I'm not understanding it correctly), and "opinions that differ from mine".

The good news for the box office is that Disney, and much of Hollywood, is trying a course correct on the overly woke stuff they were pumping out in 2022-23 that were box office poison, one after another, with only a couple of exceptions. Disney sent Snow White back into a full rework and one year delay, and slimmed down their 2024 box office slate to the bare minimum compared to 2023's disastrous yet full slate of films from every studio. Someone in Burbank seems to have learned their lesson.

And I'm of the opinion that their disastrous box office the past few years across all their studios helped teach them that lesson.

Exhibit number 10,537

 

[TP2000]

I apologize for not circling in shaky thick red lines Nielsen data which is embarrassing to Disney.

You try and balance a lemonade and a laptop and see how straight your lines are!

Shame on you for posting fair and impartial data.

But that Nielsen thread, which I'm sure is interesting to some folks, is a relative backwater of discussion. It's 3 and a half years old and has 47,000 views and 364 comments. This thread is just over one year old and has 573,000 views and over 12,000 comments. This thread is where the action is!

 

[Disney Irish]

Wait, what thread are you looking at? The Nielsen thread is 19 pages on my phone with only 363 replies.

Sorry, it felt like you were thinking I was criticizing you and I wanted you to know I wasn't. Now I don't know if he's updated it every week. But at 5min, that's like 13hrs of his life.

That's my only point.

I’m sorry but you were talking about @MisterPenguin in that post?!? No clue, context, or indication that was who you were talking about when you said you searched 15 pages.

 

[BrianLo]

I don't know, I don't think there's anything wrong with posting data and giving your opinion. That's what, I think, most of us are here for. I can pull all the same data. I'm here to talk about it. As long as the data is posted accurately and not fabricated, if you want to give your opinion on what it means. Great! Nothing wrong with that. So if penguin wants say something after posting the numbers, great, lets have a discussion.

By the way, since I started it, I was never talking about you guys.

I’m talking about spending the better part of a year not correcting “the data”, but correcting the analysis. Which is often falsely presented to twist facts. Not in pursuit of the data, but to drive a narrative.

You can find me patiently explaining the calculations in probably hundreds of posts, recurrently for many months. Leading to consensus and it being promptly ignored a few weeks later. Over and over and over. Ad nauseum.

That’s trolling. It’s hard and impossible to report because it’s such a ‘genteel trolling’ as mentioned that it is just a series of micro aggressions.

Breathless misinformation week after week. Often monologuing at us. Not often actually engaging when corrected. From someone who doesn’t actually watch movies. Doesn’t understand financial box office metrics. Was only here to gloat in a less moderated sub forum because the politics one was shut down. A sub forum in which many of us predate all this nonsense.

That’s trolling. Very successful I might add, because so many can’t seem to see through it. One for which I was actually willing to give more credit because it seemed actually maybe a genuine interest had developed. Until suddenly it stopped and abruptly stopped after too many weeks of boring success.

 

[erasure fan1]

I’m sorry but you were talking about @MisterPenguin in that post?!? No clue, context, or indication that was who you were talking about when you said you searched 15 pages.

The context of this whole thing was penguin posting the Nielsen ratings. That's what we've been back and forth on this whole time. Unless he's posting it somewhere else weekly that I don't know about.

 

[Disney Irish]

You try and balance a lemonade and a laptop and see how straight your lines are!

One can put down the drink for 30 seconds to draw a straight line. Take pride in your work man!

But that Nielsen thread, which I'm sure is interesting to some folks, is a relative backwater of discussion. It's 3 and a half years old and has 47,000 views and 364 comments. This thread is just over one year old and has 573,000 views and over 12,000 comments. This thread is where the action is!

While that thread might not be as active as this one, its data is used by others in other threads.

 

[Disney Irish]

The context of this whole thing was penguin posting the Nielsen ratings. That's what we've been back and forth on this whole time. Unless he's posting it somewhere else weekly that I don't know about.

Sorry but that wasn't obvious as I was discussing this thread and just using the Nielsen thread as an example. I didn't pick up on you changing the conversation in that post to now discuss the Nielsen thread in detail, it seemed to me you were still talking about this thread and I responded as such.

 

[TP2000]

You can find me patiently explaining the calculations in probably hundreds of posts, recurrently for many months. Leading to consensus and it being promptly ignored a few weeks later. Over and over and over. Ad nauseum.

That’s trolling. It’s hard and impossible to report because it’s such a ‘genteel trolling’ as mentioned that it is just a series of micro aggressions.

That's not trolling, that's just not agreeing with your formula that doesn't reflect the often broad sweeps of domestic vs. overseas box office many Disney films have.

You like a formula that takes a blanket approach, that a film breaks even at 2.4 times its production budget. Always.

I have a formula that has more nuance; a film's break even is determined by taking its production budget, adding 50% of that figure for distribution/marketing (unless Disney brags beforehand about spending even more, like they did with the $140 Million they announced spending on Little Mermaid global marketing last year), and then taking 60% of the domestic box office and 40% of the overseas box office. The result hopefully creates a profit for Burbank.

We can agree to disagree on which formula is better. Sometimes my formula helps Disney films when it does better domestically than overseas, and sometimes your formula helps Disney films when the domestic and overseas box office are even. But in the case of many Disney films, where overseas box office flopped spectacularly (Lightyear, Strange World, Little Mermaid, etc.) my formula can cause Disney films to be weaker than just giving them a blanket 2.4x treatment, as if the overseas box office created the same profit margin as the domestic box office (when it doesn't).

 

[Chi84]

Did no one here see Beetlejuice lol?

 

[Disney Irish]

That's not trolling, that's just not agreeing with your formula that doesn't reflect the often broad sweeps of domestic vs. overseas box office many Disney films have.

You like a formula that takes a blanket approach, that a film breaks even at 2.4 times its production budget. Always.

I have a formula that has more nuance; a film's break even is determined by taking its production budget, adding 50% of that figure for distribution/marketing (unless Disney brags beforehand about spending even more, like they did with the $140 Million they announced spending on Little Mermaid global marketing last year), and then taking 60% of the domestic box office and 40% of the overseas box office. The result hopefully creates a profit for Burbank.

We can agree to disagree on which formula is better. Sometimes my formula helps Disney films when it does better domestically than overseas, and sometimes your formula helps Disney films when the domestic and overseas box office are even. But in the case of many Disney films, where overseas box office flopped spectacularly (Lightyear, Strange World, Little Mermaid, etc.) my formula can cause Disney films to be weaker than just giving them a blanket 2.4x treatment, as if the overseas box office created the same profit margin as the domestic box office (when it doesn't).

The formula is 2.5x production budget, not 2.4x, and its an industry wide standard. The 60/40 split one was something that I believe was made up by someone here (I would guess they got it from some reddit discussion), and one that, unless I'm mistaken, I've never seen anyone in the industry actually use.