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

[erasure fan1]

There’s got to be executives at Disney scratching their heads wondering how and why some movies blow up while very similar movies are struggling to meet expectations.

I feel like the marketing and then the opening week are extremely important now. Inside out all around was well received with the trailers and the film was well received right from the start. Even the "hater sites", although they weren't calling it the greatest movie ever, were fairly positive on it. Moana was questioned from the start. And the opening week I heard a lot more meh than good. Mufasa had lackluster trailers and it's a follow up to a film that's really not that liked anyway.

If your film has meh marketing and it turns out to be a lackluster to bad film, it's going to be an uphill battle. There's just too much incentive to not go to the theater for something that's not getting any real hype as a must see. After lion king 2019, there's no way I would go to the theater for mufasa unless it was getting really good reviews with people I trust. Otherwise I'll wait for D+. I can't be the only one who thinks that way.

 

[BrianLo]

‘Sonic The Hedgehog 3’ Races Past $200M Global; ‘Mufasa’ Roars To $328M & ‘Moana 2’ Nears $900M — International Box Office

Sonic The Hedgehog 3 has topped $200M global box office while Mufasa surged in its second weekend and Moana 2 is closing in on $900 million worldwide

deadline.com

These were the types of numbers I wanted to see out of Moana 2. Now 882million. I’m still pretty confident of its pace and would like to see it around 950 by the end of next weekend.

2 tales. Great start for Moana 2, low legs (but improving as promised with the holiday). Mufasa has excellent legs for its bad start, comparatively.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Do they know something we don’t re: America this weekend? Going for the full week or something?

 

[CinematicFusion]

So in the 60s and 70s it would have been alright if studios censored interracial relationships and friendships from media so long as that media might have been viewed by children? It would have been fine if that censorship was the result of direct governmental pressure?

You are being incredibly disingenuous here, pretending Disney “chose” to remove this content. They were pressured into it by an extremely high profile, multi-pronged campaign on the part of the state and federal government that included but was not limited to both legislative and legal action. That’s profoundly unprecedented and unconstitutional, no matter how inconvenient that fact is to your beliefs.

You are also trying to limit this to LGBTQ content. In fact, we now have reporting that Disney management is removing environmental themes from an upcoming Pixar film. Environmental messaging has been the safest, most banal type of content in children’s media for decades. Its removal is a demonstration of the extent of Disney’s capitulation and the complete irrelevance of the “parental oversight” talking point.

The idea that this isn’t “industry wide” is extremely naive. The point of these attacks on the most recognizable media company in the world and that media company’s total capitulation is to chill every other media company’s speech. That’s exactly what we’re seeing.

This is not something that can be handwaved away. This is not a fleeting news story. This is how countries change in ways that are nearly impossible to reverse. It’s a historical inflection point. On a more specific level, it will effect every story Disney and other studios tell.

I appreciate your response, but I think we’re coming at this from different angles. For me, the core of this debate is about parental choice and respecting the role parents play in determining what’s appropriate for their children at various stages of development. That’s why I agree with Disney’s stance: ‘When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.’

As a parent, I’ve made similar decisions. When my kids were younger, I carefully chose what content they consumed because I wanted to introduce certain topics in a way that matched their maturity and our family discussions. Now that they’re older
(Teenagers), I give them more freedom to explore content and form their own opinions. It’s not about censorship, it’s about ensuring conversations happen at the right time.

Disney could address this by adding a simple content toggle on Disney+. Parents who want their children to access certain themes can leave it on, while others can turn it off until they feel the time is right. This ensures the content stays available for families who want it while respecting the preferences of others. It’s a win-win, preserving creative freedom while empowering parents.

Casper, I’m curious… how did you raise your kids, or how are you raising them now? For me, the heart of this debate is about balance: letting creators tell diverse stories while ensuring parents have the ability to guide their children’s media consumption in an age-appropriate way. That’s really all I have, it’s my biggest point in this discussion and what I believe in.

 

[TP2000]

Hiya gang! A quick update on this weekend's box office.
I hope everyone had a fabulous Christmas, and now has their outfit picked out and is resting up for New Year's Eve!

I had a funny thing happen regarding Wicked on Friday night. I hosted a little sociable with some old friends, and one of the guys had a new date this year. His new gentlemen friend was notably younger and is of Filipino descent. (What happens in La Jolla stays in La Jolla, to borrow a phrase). This younger man couldn't have been more fun to talk to, and he let me know that he's seen Wicked five times in the past few weeks. Five! 5! And he's saving his sixth viewing for New Year's Day. He's obsessed with the movie, and has some friends who are the same way.

Is that why Wicked is doing so well domestically six weeks after it opened? There's a Wicked Gay Mafia who keeps going back to see it a fourth, fifth, sixth time? Something's going on obviously, especially with its comparatively dismal overseas box office.

Here's the data for this current weekend, first pass.

The Numbers - Weekend Box Office Chart for December 27, 2024

Weekend Domestic Box Office Chart for the weekend of December 27, 2024

thenumbers.com

 

[TP2000]

Jungle Book came close at $967 million. Probably the best a Walt-era remake could hope for.

Adjusted for inflation, the live action remake of Jungle Book from 2016 did almost $1.2 Billion globally. It appears that Mufasa will do about half of that global box office that Jungle Book did 8 years ago.

The budgets for the two films are nearly identical, per usual for Burbank's budgeteers. Which makes the uphill climb Mufasa has to making a profit even more steep.

 

[DKampy]

Now do an inflation on the budget for The Jungle Book for a better comparison

 

[TP2000]

Not the same… Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner was created for an adult audience, explicitly designed to challenge societal norms and foster meaningful dialogue on racial equality. Comparing it to the recent removal of a transgender storyline from a children’s show like Win or Lose ignores the vastly different audience and purpose.

Disney’s decision was not about removing LGBTQ representation. The company has stood firmly behind inclusivity, as evidenced by Strange World, which features an openly gay lead character—unchanged and fully intact on Disney+.

However, Disney has chosen to respect parental preferences, acknowledging that many families prefer to address complex topics, such as gender identity, on their own timeline.

What’s happening now is not unprecedented nor antithetical to the country’s ideals. It’s a nuanced approach to representation that balances inclusivity with the developmental needs of young audiences. Representation remains a priority, but context and audience matter just as much.

I already owe you a drink, you can stop making so much sense already!

Disney's recent statement was absolutely perfect on this topic. This is a decision on child development that parents want to, and must, make for their own children on their own time based on their own culture, religion, personal values and personal opinions. Not to mention the individual development of their child, which can vary wildly from child to child even within the same family at the same age range.

Guess Who's Coming To Dinner is an all-time fave of mine. I play the Blu-Ray about once per year and just love it. But that's a completely different scenario than Disney or Pixar cartoons aimed at young children.

"You can do the Watusi, but we are the Watusi" -Dr. Prentice

 

[Casper Gutman]

I appreciate your response, but I think we’re coming at this from different angles. For me, the core of this debate is about parental choice and respecting the role parents play in determining what’s appropriate for their children at various stages of development. That’s why I agree with Disney’s stance: ‘When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline.’

As a parent, I’ve made similar decisions. When my kids were younger, I carefully chose what content they consumed because I wanted to introduce certain topics in a way that matched their maturity and our family discussions. Now that they’re older
(Teenagers), I give them more freedom to explore content and form their own opinions. It’s not about censorship, it’s about ensuring conversations happen at the right time.

Disney could address this by adding a simple content toggle on Disney+. Parents who want their children to access certain themes can leave it on, while others can turn it off until they feel the time is right. This ensures the content stays available for families who want it while respecting the preferences of others. It’s a win-win, preserving creative freedom while empowering parents.

Casper, I’m curious… how did you raise your kids, or how are you raising them now? For me, the heart of this debate is about balance: letting creators tell diverse stories while ensuring parents have the ability to guide their children’s media consumption in an age-appropriate way. That’s really all I have, it’s my biggest point in this discussion and what I believe in.

You are absolutely free to control the media your children consume. If that means you don’t let them consume Disney products, that’s fine - Disney is absolutely not entitled to your money.

On the other hand, you are absolutely not entitled to determine what content other people’s children consume or what content Disney produces. When you cheer on or even ignore governmental assaults on a company’s speech because you like the outcome, you have crossed a bright line.

Governmental assaults on protected speech is THE issue here. It is immense, out of all proportion to the petty squabbles we’re used to in America. It will have a monumental impact on the country your children live in.

 

[TalkingHead]

Like it or not, it was a business decision made by Disney leadership, including Iger, not a command handed down by a government body.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

Governmental assaults on protected speech is THE issue here.

I don't really see any assault from any government on protected speech here.

A company decided to change something about the content they were putting out. That's it. I've disagreed with Disney's content decisions before, and now it seems like you disagree with this one.

 

[brideck]

Finally saw Moana 2 last night (6 tickets in our family unit) and really enjoyed it from start to finish. It didn't particularly feel like a direct-to-video sequel or even an animated series to me. Not really sure what people were looking for out of it -- solid musical numbers, an enjoyable larger cast of characters, a story that expanded the universe in a realistic/historical way, etc.

I agree with the kid in my theater who said loudly as the credits rolled, "That was a really good movie."

 

[CinematicFusion]

You are absolutely free to control the media your children consume. If that means you don’t let them consume Disney products, that’s fine - Disney is absolutely not entitled to your money.

On the other hand, you are absolutely not entitled to determine what content other people’s children consume or what content Disney produces. When you cheer on or even ignore governmental assaults on a company’s speech because you like the outcome, you have crossed a bright line.

Governmental assaults on protected speech is THE issue here. It is immense, out of all proportion to the petty squabbles we’re used to in America. It will have a monumental impact on the country your children live in.

I think we’re closer in agreement than it might seem, but we’re emphasizing different aspects of this issue.

I agree that no one has the right to dictate what content other people’s children consume or what Disney produces and that governmental interference in free speech is a critical issue that should concern all of us, no matter where we stand politically.

That said, there’s a distinction to be made between governmental overreach and a company responding to its audience’s preferences.

A private company like Disney has the right to decide what it produces, and families have the right to decide what aligns with their values.

A content toggle on Disney+ isn’t about limiting anyone else’s choices… it’s about providing tools that empower individual families of young children to navigate content… It doesn’t remove any content.
It allows parents to make decisions for their own kids without impacting what’s available to others.

The political pressures you’ve mentioned are concerning, and I’m not cheering on any government interference in Disney’s creative decisions.

If anything, I’d argue that solutions like a parental content toggle strengthen Disney’s ability to continue producing diverse content by giving families more flexibility, thus reducing the likelihood of external backlash.

At the end of the day, when it comes to kids 12 and under, I’m for protecting creative freedom while recognizing that it’s parents, not governments or companies, who should decide what’s best for their children. I appreciate this conversation.

It’s clear we both care deeply about the future our kids and that shared concern is solid common ground.

 

[TP2000]

Like it or not, it was a business decision made by Disney leadership, including Iger, not a command handed down by a government body.

Exactly.

Or, put another way, it was the free market of Billions of consumers across the planet voting with their wallets which cartoons they will take their children to see at a movie theater.

Like every other time the free market of mass consumers has spoken, their message was very clear.

The only real angle to this story is how long it took Burbank bosses to hear that message. It took a bit longer than it should have, but when you are in an echo chamber and sitting at the same Silver Lake brunch table every weekend, it's hard to hear.

 

[TP2000]

Governmental assaults on protected speech is THE issue here.

Which government agency, either at the Federal level the past four years, or at the State of California level the past 20 years, told Disney what they can and can't put in their children's cartoons that forced them to make this statement?

"When it comes to animated content for a younger audience, we recognize that many parents would prefer to discuss certain subjects with their children on their own terms and timeline." -Disney media statement, December, 2024

Which exact government agency or executive, federal or state, forced Burbank to issue that statement?

 

[TP2000]

Now do an inflation on the budget for The Jungle Book for a better comparison

It's already there in that inflation adjusted data I posted. Adjusted for inflation from 2016, the production budget for The Jungle Book was $218 Million in 2024 dollars. In 2016, the non-adjusted budget was $175 Million. Which given the budget inflation in many recent Burbank movies, makes the $200 Million they just spent on Mufasa seem like a modest discount.

Using the standard 60/40 split for domestic/overseas box office takes, plus a standard assumption that the marketing/distribution budget was one half of the production budget, the inflation adjusted profit or loss looks like this for those two Disney live action remakes of beloved classics...

Jungle Book '16: Budget $218, Marketing $109, Domestic Take $272, Overseas Take $293 = Profit of $238 Million
Mufasa '24: Budget $200, Marketing $100, Domestic Take $68 so far, Overseas Take $86 so far = Loss of $146 Million so far

Mufasa would seem to have about one more week of big box office potential globally, before it starts to drop off in January. Will it get to breakeven and pull in a small profit by February 1st? It seems to be uncomfortably close for Burbank right now.

 

[MisterPenguin]

the diminishing returns on established franchises,

Frozen II, Inside Out II, and Moana II would like to have a word with you...

 

[LittleBuford]

You are absolutely free to control the media your children consume. If that means you don’t let them consume Disney products, that’s fine - Disney is absolutely not entitled to your money.

On the other hand, you are absolutely not entitled to determine what content other people’s children consume or what content Disney produces. When you cheer on or even ignore governmental assaults on a company’s speech because you like the outcome, you have crossed a bright line.

Governmental assaults on protected speech is THE issue here. It is immense, out of all proportion to the petty squabbles we’re used to in America. It will have a monumental impact on the country your children live in.

I place the blame directly and solely at Disney’s feet. No government has forced them to take such a craven decision. The whole thing is a disgrace, and I hope the company’s reputation suffers accordingly. It certainly has in my eyes.

Since the inexcusable deletion of certain posts from a now-locked thread, I have been staying away from the forum (at least as an active participant) and have felt much better for it. I am grateful to you and @Mr. Sullivan for continuing to shine a light on the issue (even if your framing is rather different from mine).

 

[TP2000]

No government has forced them to take such a craven decision.

Agreed. But the decision was forced on Disney by the free market of Billions of consumers around the world who buy tickets to their movies. In particular, children's animated movies aimed at... their own children. No government agency was involved in the creative decisions behind Disney's or Pixar's children's movies, or needed to be involved to get the results Disney saw at the box office for those children's movies the past few years.

It was all done by the audience of a couple Billion free consumers, mostly parents, voting with their wallets.

The whole thing is a disgrace, and I hope the company’s reputation suffers accordingly. It certainly has in my eyes.

The reputation has begun to heal in many parents minds, but is still not healed. It will take time. Some folks may never return to their Disney-spending ways of the past. But some might return, if the product is good enough and the company seems to be genuinely trying to course correct from their decisions of 2020-2023. That will take some time to watch and observe.

As of now, Disney isn't quite as bad off as Bud Light (long term brand image damage and major long term market share loss), but seems to be as bad off as Jaguar (short term brand image damage that has yet to be seen if it can be corrected).

 

[Casper Gutman]

I place the blame directly and solely at Disney’s feet. No government has forced them to take such a craven decision. The whole thing is a disgrace, and I hope the company’s reputation suffers accordingly. It certainly has in my eyes.

Since the inexcusable deletion of certain posts from a now-locked thread, I have been staying away from the forum (at least as an active participant) and have felt much better for it. I am grateful to you and @Mr. Sullivan for continuing to shine a light on the issue (even if your framing is rather different from mine).

Disney absolutely deserves contempt, condemnation, and economic pushback for its cowardly capitulation.

The issue is that a corporation cravenly bowing to forces it fears will impact its profits, proving that it will only stand for civil rights when there is little to no risk, is not surprising. Sadly, it’s the way companies have tended to behave.

Multiple levels of the US government explicitly attacking a corporations right to free speech, employing legislative and legal action to punish and threaten that corporation because it was saying things the government didn’t like, IS new. I cannot think of a historical precedent in American history. And it’s a really big deal.