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

[MisterPenguin]

Says right on top of the article -

"This post is an Op-Ed and shares the author's personal views."

But in general I would consider Buzzfeed as tabloid "journalism", heavy on the tabloid.

How strenuous is their footnoting of each entry in their listicles?

 

[Disney Irish]

How strenuous is their footnoting of each entry in their listicles?

Sorry I wasn't grading, so didn't check their reference documents.

 

[TP2000]

I think either one works. As with most things, it probably comes down to personal preference as to how one would want to be referred to.

At a cocktail party that works, when you can see the person in the flesh and get verbal or non-verbal indications how he or she refers to themselves. But even then, you don't really bring it up in conversation, or do so rarely. But as a blanket statement on something like a message board? That's where you have to fall back on the seemingly ever-changing buzzwords du jour.

Just a few years ago all the Smart People were still using the word "Latinx" in emails and conversation. Until actual Latinos spoke up and said "Hey, white folks, that's not a real word. We call ourselves Latinos." and then suddenly the HR ladies and the Smart People in the faculty lounge had to quietly forget they ever invented that word in the first place.

I had no idea the word "dwarves" was offensive to someone who has the medical condition of dwarfism. But if someone who is a dwarf tells me they'd rather be called a "little person", I'll oblige. (Even though that phrase seems demeaning to me).

I can think of so many other folks who have medical conditions used to describe themselves; diabetics, hemophiliacs, asthmatics, autistic, etc. It's odd to me that the root word of "dwarfism" became taboo for some.

Dwarfism - Symptoms and causes

www.mayoclinic.org

And some of us <gasp> don't even find her to be particularly offensive at all. <double gasp>

True. But something tells me the people who don't find Rachel Zegler's controversial public statements the past few years to be offensive are going to need to buy extra movie tickets to cover the losses of the offended people who will stay away from the upcoming Snow White remake because of Miss Zegler's own statements and persona.

The box office on that one will be interesting to watch. Will the social media dustups of 2023-2024 from Miss Zegler still matter this March? My hunch is the response will be muted more than if the movie had been released as planned last year, but her old social media scandals will still resurface about six weeks from now. Stay tuned!

It also depends on the target audience. Wicked was designed to appeal to theater kids who don't tend to mind when actors get overly emotional and act a little extra. So while the Internet made fun of Cynthia and Ariana, the actual core fanbase of Wicked wasn't deterred. However, if Cynthia and Ariana had a similar press tour while appearing in a Marvel or Star Wars movie, their antics would have likely been received differently by the Marvel fandom.

To be clear, Cynthia Erivo and Ariana Grande didn't really do anything egregiously wrong on the Wicked press tour. I'm just saying they were fortunate that the Wicked fanbase isn't nearly as toxic as other ones.

Bingo! Another really good assessment on your part!

I mentioned previously that over the holidays I was talking to someone's date at a party, and he had already seen Wicked five (5!) times, he goes with friends who have seen it multiple times, and he was planning to see it a sixth time with his friends on New Year's Day to celebrate 2025.

This was a grown man, but most definitely fit the description of a "theater kid". The disparity in the box office for Wicked between the USA and overseas is still notable. Apparently most foreign countries don't have the "theater kid" demographic?

 

[TP2000]

Okay gang, while we await the arrival of Captain America next month (and the social media cleanup campaign Burbank suddenly now has with it thanks to some odd comments by its star... Oof!), let's see where Disney's last 3 movies of 2024 now stand at the box office in late January...

Mufasa: Production $200, Marketing $100, Domestic $133, Overseas $163 = $4 Million Loss and closing
Moana 2: Production $150, Marketing $75, Domestic $270, Overseas $231 = $276 Million Profit
A Complete Unknown: Production $70, Marketing $35, Domestic $38, Overseas $5 = $62 Million Loss and closing

The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

The Numbers provides detailed movie financial analysis, including box office, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, and release schedules.

thenumbers.com

 

[Disney Irish]

Okay gang, while we await the arrival of Captain America next month (and the social media cleanup campaign Burbank suddenly now has with it thanks to some odd comments by its star... Oof!), let's see where Disney's last 3 movies of 2024 now stand at the box office in late January...

View attachment 840633

Mufasa: Production $200, Marketing $100, Domestic $133, Overseas $163 = $4 Million Loss and closing
Moana 2: Production $150, Marketing $75, Domestic $270, Overseas $231 = $276 Million Profit
A Complete Unknown: Production $70, Marketing $35, Domestic $38, Overseas $5 = $62 Million Loss and closing

The Numbers - Where Data and the Movie Business Meet

The Numbers provides detailed movie financial analysis, including box office, DVD and Blu-ray sales reports, and release schedules.

thenumbers.com

FYI, anything under $10M is considered profitable, as its a rounding error (since we don't know the actuals) at that point. So even using the 60/40 split that you're using for Mufasa, its likely to have moved into profitability range. And using the 2.5x "rule" its way into profitability.

So for our discussions here, its profitable.

 

[erasure fan1]

But this implies Mackie said or did something inadvisable. I don’t believe he did. The last thing I want Disney to be doing is wasting resources on “improving” the free speech of actors who are just speaking their mind, as is their right.

I just don't see it that way. We have to get past the absolute, on either side. Just because something could maybe be worded better, doesn't mean he did wrong. It means there could be improvement. This looked like it was a interview for the new movie at a convention or something similar. It's a press tour type thing, so I don't feel the free speech thing is an issue. I haven't looked up where he is on his movie deal but as far as any of us know, he's going to be in the next couple avengers films. So guiding him as to what phrases to avoid, or how to say something a different way wouldn't be infringing on his rights.

I don't think it's wasting resources at all. Movies are more reliant on the pre release phase of the film. A good trailer, positive word of mouth...are all so important now. So why not try to make things as downhill as possible in my opinion.

 

[Disney Irish]

I just don't see it that way. We have to get past the absolute, on either side. Just because something could maybe be worded better, doesn't mean he did wrong. It means there could be improvement. This looked like it was a interview for the new movie at a convention or something similar. It's a press tour type thing, so I don't feel the free speech thing is an issue. I haven't looked up where he is on his movie deal but as far as any of us know, he's going to be in the next couple avengers films. So guiding him as to what phrases to avoid, or how to say something a different way wouldn't be infringing on his rights.

I don't think it's wasting resources at all. Movies are more reliant on the pre release phase of the film. A good trailer, positive word of mouth...are all so important now. So why not try to make things as downhill as possible in my opinion.

I think most of us see your point, at least I do. But I think that would be buying into the hype about this particular quote that was taken out of context.

So since your stance is that what he said could have been improved. Then can you please provide an example of what you would consider improved while still getting across what he meant based on his own personal feelings and background. Note you have to be aware of the person speaking in this context, so its not writing it your voice but in his voice. Honest question, can you do that?

 

[LittleBuford]

I just don't see it that way. We have to get past the absolute, on either side. Just because something could maybe be worded better, doesn't mean he did wrong. It means there could be improvement. This looked like it was a interview for the new movie at a convention or something similar. It's a press tour type thing, so I don't feel the free speech thing is an issue. I haven't looked up where he is on his movie deal but as far as any of us know, he's going to be in the next couple avengers films. So guiding him as to what phrases to avoid, or how to say something a different way wouldn't be infringing on his rights.

I don't think it's wasting resources at all. Movies are more reliant on the pre release phase of the film. A good trailer, positive word of mouth...are all so important now. So why not try to make things as downhill as possible in my opinion.

I'm speaking as a private individual who bristles at the idea of such coaching. If Disney considers it a sound business decision and the actors who work for the company consent, then by all means let them proceed with this approach. But do I myself believe that actors should be taught to avoid expressing inoffensive opinions that others may not agree with? No, I don't. Not that I follow what any of them say, but if I did, I'd rather hear their own unvarnished words than some corporate boilerplate.

 

[Ghost93]

This was a grown man, but most definitely fit the description of a "theater kid". The disparity in the box office for Wicked between the USA and overseas is still notable. Apparently most foreign countries don't have the "theater kid" demographic?

I don't think it's a lack of theater kids as much as many people in countries outside of the Anglosphere don't have the same nostalgia for the Wizard of Oz as North Americans do. So to many (although not all) overseas countries, Wicked is being treated more like a new original film rather than part of an existing IP.

I'll be curious to see if Wicked Part 2 gets a box office boost internationally after people get the chance to check it out at a low cost on streaming. The first Hunger Games movie was a big hit in the US box office, but didn't do amazing overseas. But then audiences around the world discovered the film on DVD, and the sequel Catching Fire did much, much better numbers at the international box office. Maybe Wicked: For Good will have a similar sequel boost.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Even just talking about Facebook, something changed for me in the algorithm in the middle of January. First of all, they automatically switched everyone who followed the office of the president to following the new president. That apparently led to some right wing content in my feed. When I unfollowed the president, that changed.

However, my Facebook experience is still very different today than it was a month ago. I am inundated with little garbage pages that somehow have around 1 million followers, and the name of the page might be misleading as one of my interests, like music, but the articles are all click bait. Many, many of them are bashing the new Snow White and other Disney films, like at least 10 times a day. Many of these different pages keep showing me the same man wearing a dress, just to start fights. I block one of those pages, and another one pops up. It’s like getting spam calls or texts. (which I also get like crazy lol.)

People who are less Internet savvy will see these as “news articles.“ They are just drama. I wish I could get rid of them. I’m sure it’s because “Disney“ is one of my interests.

This is why I say there is a concerted effort to go after certain films, certain people, etc. It’s not just one site. It’s hundreds or more, all pushing the same false or exaggerated narratives. It’s a machine of disinformation, and people eat it up. They think it’s real. They think it’s journalism. They are just trolling for more, “That’s not my Snow White.“ “That’s not my Captain America.“ Then they have engagement because people get into fights back-and-forth.

 

[Agent H]

Even just talking about Facebook, something changed for me in the algorithm in the middle of January. First of all, they automatically switched everyone who followed the office of the president to following the new president. That apparently led to some right wing content in my feed. When I unfollowed the president, that changed.

However, my Facebook experience is still very different today than it was a month ago. I am inundated with little garbage pages that somehow have around 1 million followers, and the name of the page might be misleading as one of my interests, like music, but the articles are all click bait. Many, many of them are bashing the new Snow White and other Disney films, like at least 10 times a day. Many of these different pages keep showing me the same man wearing a dress, just to start fights. I block one of those pages, and another one pops up. It’s like getting spam calls or texts. (which I also get like crazy lol.)

People who are less Internet savvy will see these as “news articles.“ They are just drama. I wish I could get rid of them. I’m sure it’s because “Disney“ is one of my interests.

This is why I say there is a concerted effort to go after certain films, certain people, etc. It’s not just one site. It’s hundreds or more, all pushing the same false or exaggerated narratives. It’s a machine of disinformation, and people eat it up. They think it’s real. They think it’s journalism. They are just trolling for more, “That’s not my Snow White.“ “That’s not my Captain America.“ Then they have engagement because people get into fights back-and-forth.

Switch to blue sky it’s much better

 

[TP2000]

I'm speaking as a private individual who bristles at the idea of such coaching. If Disney considers it a sound business decision and the actors who work for the company consent, then by all means let them proceed with this approach. But do I myself believe that actors should be taught to avoid expressing inoffensive opinions that others may not agree with? No, I don't. Not that I follow what any of them say, but if I did, I'd rather hear their own unvarnished words than some corporate boilerplate.

I can make fun of corporate talking points with the best of them, and Disney has had some really bad talking points the past few decades ("DCA is a 'reality' park!"... "Every CM in Star Wars Galaxy's Edge will have their own backstory to immerse you with!"... "Downtown Disney isn't a shopping mall, it's a multi-cultural lifestyle space!", etc., etc. ) but at some point you have to draw the line when Hollywood types start badmouthing the company's culture or stories.

These are, after all, employees being paid to sell a product, and messaging is important to those sales.

Suddenly we find out that the movie's star thinks Captain America has nothing to do with America?!? Huh??? Why? Captain America isn't proud to wear the red, white and blue and fight for the American way? It makes no sense. And it reinforces the unfortunate stereotype that Hollywood isn't proud of their country.

A Jungle Cruise Skipper isn't allowed to bluntly tell the paying audience "Welcome aboard, I think you should know that all of these animals on this ride are fake, and I'm not really a skipper. I'm actually an Econ major at Kissimmee Junior College and I work at this amusement park for pizza and beer money. Remain seated, here we go!"

Similarly, the star of the new Captain America movie shouldn't be allowed to tell the audience "For me, Captain America represents a lot of different things, and I don't think the term, you know, 'America' should be one of those representations."

That's not just ignoring the approved talking points, that's going wildly off script and coming up with a bizarre new take on a pre-established character and story. It's weird, and seems really dumb from a business perspective.

 

[LittleBuford]

I can make fun of corporate talking points with the best of them, and Disney has had some really bad talking points the past few decades ("DCA is a 'reality' park!"... "Every CM in Star Wars Galaxy's Edge will have their own backstory to immerse you with!"... "Downtown Disney isn't a shopping mall, it's a multi-cultural lifestyle space!", etc., etc. ) but at some point you have to draw the line when Hollywood types start badmouthing the company's culture or stories.

These are, after all, employees being paid to sell a product, and messaging is important to those sales.

Suddenly we find out that the movie's star thinks Captain America has nothing to do with America?!? Huh??? Why? Captain America isn't proud to wear the red, white and blue and fight for the American way? It makes no sense. And it reinforces the unfortunate stereotype that Hollywood isn't proud of their country.

A Jungle Cruise Skipper isn't allowed to bluntly tell the paying audience "Welcome aboard, I think you should know that all of these animals on this ride are fake, and I'm not really a skipper. I'm actually an Econ major at Kissimmee Junior College and I work at this amusement park for pizza and beer money. Remain seated, here we go!"

Similarly, the star of the new Captain America movie shouldn't be allowed to tell the audience "For me, Captain America represents a lot of different things, and I don't think the term, you know, 'America' should be one of those representations."

That's not just ignoring the approved talking points, that's going wildly off script and coming up with a bizarre new take on a pre-established character and story. It's weird, and seems really dumb from a business perspective.

I just don’t care. You do, or claim to, which is your right, but an actor’s inoffensive personal opinions are so far down my list of priorities that I really do not and cannot understand the apparent fuss.

 

[LittleBuford]

I don't think it's a lack of theater kids as much as many people in countries outside of the Anglosphere don't have the same nostalgia for the Wizard of Oz as North Americans do. So to many (although not all) overseas countries, Wicked is being treated more like a new original film rather than part of an existing IP.

I would change “North Americans” to “English speakers”. Wicked has been massive in the UK (and other anglophone markets), and The Wizard of Oz was a staple of my British childhood.

 

[CaptJackSparrow]

Ya know... the whole plot of CA4 is that Captain America rebels against American law and the president, who turns himself into a monster.

What Mackie said represents the plot of the movie.

And the plot of the movie is the same as Civil War in which Captain America (Steve Rogers) and other heroes defy American law when it ratified the Sokovia Accords.

Both Captains America go against their own American government when they believe the American government is enacting laws that go against freedom.

Did he say anything about “American government” being what Captain America shouldn’t represent? I’ll admit I have not watched the entirety of the panel.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Switch to blue sky it’s much better

I did sign up there recently. The feed is more twitter style, not my favorite, but it’s fine. I have to build things up over there to make it more interesting and tailored.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I don't think it's a lack of theater kids as much as many people in countries outside of the Anglosphere don't have the same nostalgia for the Wizard of Oz as North Americans do.

Correct, there isn't really much of a precedent for an Oz movie doing huge business outside of USA/UK etc

Oz the Great and Powerful made $258 million at the foreign box office in 2013.

Wicked right now is at $248 million, with one market (Japan) yet to open.

 

[Ghost93]

I would change “North Americans” to “English speakers”. Wicked has been massive in the UK (and other anglophone markets), and The Wizard of Oz was a staple of my British childhood.

Your assessment is right, as Wicked is apparently doing very well at the UK box office (even surpassing Inside Out 2). Most of the articles reporting on box office tend to just refer to the international (non US) numbers as a whole rather than breaking them down per country which is why the performance in the UK likely isn't getting as much press as it should.

Still, I have hope that the movie will do well in Japan and that it will catch on with non-English speaking countries after it hits streaming sites like Peacock and Prime Video (not sure if it will make it to Netflix before Wicked: For Good comes out)

 

[LittleBuford]

Your assessment is right, as Wicked is apparently doing very well at the UK box office (even surpassing Inside Out 2). Most of the articles reporting on box office tend to just refer to the international (non US) numbers as a whole rather than breaking them down per country which is why the performance in the UK likely isn't getting as much press as it should.

Still, I have hope that the movie will do well in Japan and that it will catch on with non-English speaking countries after it hits streaming sites like Peacock and Prime Video (not sure if it will make it to Netflix before Wicked: For Good comes out)

If I'm not mistaken (and unsurprisingly), it's doing better in countries where people are already familiar with the stage version of Wicked and/or The Wizard of Oz. Japan, I believe, is one of those countries, with its own production of the musical, so the film does indeed have decent prospects there.

 

[LittleBuford]

Your assessment is right, as Wicked is apparently doing very well at the UK box office (even surpassing Inside Out 2).

Until reading this, I actually didn’t know that it had just this weekend become the highest-grossing 2024 release in the UK and Ireland. That’s a massive achievement, and absolutely deserved! In North America, by contrast, it remains a distant third behind Inside Out 2 and Deadpool & Wolverine.