-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney (and others) at the Box Office - Current State of Affairs
- Thread starter Disney Analyst
- Start date
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
Well, I was never expecting Mufassa to be great, even though I hoped for better. I still maintain that the overall artistic direction for this movie was a mistake. Would have been better traditionally animated or even highly-stylized computer animated (in the vein of something like the Pixar movies or the Spiderverse movies). Aiming for photorealistic lions is just the wrong call for this type of story.
The negative reviews will likely put a dent in the box office as many were already on the fence about seeing Mufassa.
However, reading a lot of the reviews, it seems like some critics are treating the film harsher because they are Barry Jenkins fans and are mad he's dedicating his time to a mediocre studio film versus an artist-driven awards darling like Moonlight.
I think critics reacted similarly when Chloe Zhao — fresh off her Oscar win for Nomadland — directed Eternals. It wasn't the worst Marvel movie ever, yet I felt they treated it harsher because they expected more from the director and were mad she wasn't making the type of movie that made them fall in love with her in the first place.
The negative reviews will likely put a dent in the box office as many were already on the fence about seeing Mufassa.
However, reading a lot of the reviews, it seems like some critics are treating the film harsher because they are Barry Jenkins fans and are mad he's dedicating his time to a mediocre studio film versus an artist-driven awards darling like Moonlight.
I think critics reacted similarly when Chloe Zhao — fresh off her Oscar win for Nomadland — directed Eternals. It wasn't the worst Marvel movie ever, yet I felt they treated it harsher because they expected more from the director and were mad she wasn't making the type of movie that made them fall in love with her in the first place.
Absolutely this. Besides, when have critical scores mattered for family movies anytime recently? The Lion King (remake), Super Mario, etc. have all made bank despite having scores right in this neighborhood.
It's the Cinemascore and/or Popcorn-meter that are going to tell the story here.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Which was likely Disney’s main requirement for this film so that it could be clearly marketed as a follow-up to 2019.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
By my math, and confirmed by the banks of blinky lights here in the TP2000 Global Command Center, Moana 2 is on track to do about $14 Million this upcoming weekend (Dec. 20-22).
It will be interesting to see if Moana 2 can avoid another 50%-ish drop in box office this weekend and pull in something noticeably above $16 Million because of Mufasa being weak in its debut. But my gut tells me that won't happen, and Moana 2 will continue on its established trajectory this weekend, with or without Mufasa.
It's the following week where we'll have to see if Moana 2 gets a helpful big bump, once the children are out of school.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Wicked has been out in the UK for a full week (and weekend) longer than Moana 2. The trendlines weren't much different for Wicked based on that extra week of box office it has in the UK. But we'll need to wait until January when both movies leave UK theaters to track the tale of the tape. I'm just not seeing a huge bump for Wicked in the UK compared to Moana 2, it's more like a modest bump.
Both Moana 2 and Wicked are modest everywhere, except for Wicked's overseas box office (except the UK where its modest). Wicked's non-UK overseas box office is just plain crummy. It flopped overseas.
Using the four women-focused tentpole movies I thought of earlier, just because I loved Barbie and I can't be amazed enough at how much The Marvels bombed everywhere on a $275 Million budget, here's how those four movies looked at the UK box office...
Wicked after 4 weekends = $55 Million
Moana 2 after 3 weekends = $33 Million
Barbie in 2023 = $126 Million
The Marvels in 2023 = $9 Million
Neither Wicked nor Moana 2 have bombed horrifically like The Marvels did. But neither of them will approach the huge overseas box office of Barbie.
Wicked is doing modestly well at the box office in the UK, while it has flopped (or is simply ignored) everywhere else besides the USA. Wicked is apparently a movie that only Americans (plus Canadians) or Brits (plus Irishmen?) have much interest in.
-2-Full.jpg)
Wicked (2024) - Financial Information
Financial analysis of Wicked (2024) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.
thenumbers.com
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Exactly. The days of Siskel & Ebert, plus that guy with the crazy eyebrows and mustache on The Today Show (what was his name? I'll have to Google that) are long gone. Who cares what critics say? I knew I had to see Barbie about 8 seconds after watching the trailer the neighbor kids showed me on their phone at a Memorial Day barbecue. When you know, you know.
Like everything now, it's Social Media and a connected web of hundreds of millions of people, instead of just a half dozen pre-approved establishment "experts", that dictate trends and opinions today.
Agreed. That score seems plugged in to the way people communicate and get their information from now. It will be interesting to see how it differs from the currently 60% score Mufasa has from professional critics.
I will say that the Cinemascore and Popcorn-meter (like most scales that the public uses to vote) are fundamentally broken from giving a score that feels truly meaningful. But for the purposes of predicting great word-of-mouth, Disney would be looking for something in the A-range and a popcorn score of >90%.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
Quoting myself after Googling, because I'm sure some of the more, um, mature members here will also remember him as a famed movie critic.
It's Gene Shalit! And miracle of miracles, he's still alive and kicking at 98 years old! He was the movie critic on The Today Show starting in 1970, and in the 70's and 80's his movie reviews were solid gold. Shame on me for forgetting his name.
Can you believe those eyebrows and stache?!? I remember the Eugene Levy sendup of him from SCTV episodes in the late 70's more than the actual movie reviews Mr. Shalit did. But you just don't see mustaches and eyebrows like that anymore.
That's Barbara Wawa sitting next to him, and another Today Show anchor that doesn't seem familiar to me. Even in the 70's, I was not a morning person.
Honestly… I thought this film would open to way less, better than I thought, if this is the case.
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
You’re the only person out there saying this. It’s a very peculiar stance to be taking, but I’m sure you have your reasons.
ETA: That you’re describing even Moana 2’s global box-office performance as “modest” leaves me wondering what on earth you understand by that term.
Last edited:
Disney Irish
Premium Member
Calling Moana's $719M WW box office "modest" is really all you need to know.
What's even more funny is that Moana is now getting the more normal domestic to international split you typically see, sitting now at 47%/53% respectively. Will be closer to the normal 40%/60% when all is said and done.
Wendy Pleakley
Well-Known Member
Aggregate critic scores on something like Rotten Tomatoes are somewhat useful in that they show an overall trend on how a movie has been received.
Consumer scores are okay to a degree as well but can suffer from review bombing when a group decides they have an axe to grind.
The best thing for one to do is find one or two critics who they trust and have similar tastes to. One meaningful review is so much more useful than an average score.
Ratings aren't the be all and end all either. Roger Ebert pointed out that a good review describes a movie in a way that lets the reader know whether or not it's for them. A critic might give a movie a deservedly low score because it's mindless action or low brow humour. A reader can determine that they might like such a movie because it's the type of content they like.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Too lazy to look it up but how would that domestic opening compare to other live action remakes?
All I know is waaaay less than the first one.
Ghost93
Well-Known Member
I think the Wizard of Oz and the Wicked musical are simply much more popular in America than overseas, which is why Wicked is a phenomenon in the U.S. and flopping/underperforming in overseas countries. Similar thing happened earlier this year with Twisters doing great in the U.S. but poorly overseas.Wicked is doing modestly well at the box office in the UK, while it has flopped (or is simply ignored) everywhere else besides the USA. Wicked is apparently a movie that only Americans (plus Canadians) or Brits (plus Irishmen?) have much interest in.
Wicked (2024) - Financial Information
Financial analysis of Wicked (2024) including budget, domestic and international box office gross, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, total earnings and profitability.
There's a possibility, however, that Wicked Part 2 might do better overseas if foreign audiences discover the film more in streaming. I don't think other countries necessarily hate Wicked, they just don't have nostalgia for the IP.
Wicked fortunately kept it's budget fairly low for this type of movie by shooting both films back-to-back, so it will be profitable regardless.
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Looks like it would be more than Dumbo ($46 million) and less than Cinderella ($68 million), unadjusted for inflation. Mermaid had a $96 million opening last year. 2019 Lion King had a $191 million opening weekend.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Wicked has also yet to release in some foreign markets. I expect it to do well in Japan.
Animaniac93-98
Well-Known Member
Lion King: $191.7 million
Beauty and the Beast: $174.7 million
Alice in Wonderland: $116 million
Jungle Book: $103 Million
Little Mermaid: $95.5 million
Aladdin: $91.5 million
Maleficent: $69.4 million
Cinderella: $67.8 million
Dumbo: $46 million
Maleficent 2: $36.9 million
Alice Through the Looking Glass: $26.8 million
Cruella: $21.4 million [same-day Disney+ release you had to pay for]
The sequels to these remakes don't have a great track record.
That this is doing better than Alice or Maleficent 2 is proof of how much people like Lion King better in general.
TP2000
Well-Known Member
I couldn't agree with you more. There's clearly a disconnect on Wicked with foreign audiences, while it's been notably more successful with Americans. Luckily, it "only" had a $150 Million production budget, so it got itself to breakeven last week while still flopping in most overseas markets.
If Wicked had a Burbank-sized budget of $250+ Million, its path to breakeven would be almost impossible with its dismal overseas performance.
I grew up watching The Wizard of Oz on TV every Easter break. I vaguely remember it as NBC, with the ding-dong-ding jingle In Living Color. Do they still broadcast Oz on network TV, I wonder? I doubt most Europeans had that tradition, and many Europeans born after 1970 may have never even seen The Wizard of Oz on any format; broadcast TV, movie theaters, Disc/Cassettes. If so, and if they aren't West End London theater fans, why would they even care about Wicked?
The comparatively dismal overseas box office for Wicked seems to prove that point for us.