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

[easyrowrdw]

How many decisions have you made on behalf of the WDC?

My recommendation would have been not to remake Snow White at all. The material is too outdated and slow-moving for a frame for frame remake and it’s just too old for anyone to be clamoring for any kind of remake.

Given that you hate the movie isn't Snow White the perfect movie to be remade? They can only make it better! lol

An argument I read was that Disney should focus remakes on the movies that didn't work (someone in this thread made a similar case). I think I agree with that.

 

[Chi84]

Given that you hate the movie isn't Snow White the perfect movie to be remade? They can only make it better! lol

An argument I read was that Disney should focus remakes on the movies that didn't work (someone in this thread made a similar case). I think I agree with that.

Hate is a strong word. I found it hard to sit through but I understand how others can love it. The movie was a masterpiece for its time and made was a box office hit.

 

[DKampy]

The cleaning scene is charming. The interaction between Snow White and the animals is full of whimsy and humour.

Yes it can be charming….The film is a masterpiece and groundbreaking for pushing the boundaries of what animation could be…. But at the same time that film
Is of it’s era… a woman who spends most of the film cleaning and taking care of 7 men…Which in the end is saved by the prince’s kiss

Without going into detail due to forum rules… I am sure some of these hacks(as some posters call them)would like to go back to that era….and for all the complaining those individuals would never watch the film anyway

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That is primarily an article taking about even longer run times of 160-180 minutes, not the average of just over 120 minutes. They even say "A long movie that's a box-office smash is still financially worth it for a movie theater to show." And "I think the audiences have generally proven that if it's the right case or the right filmmaker, they don't care about the length"

... except these are movies that aren't box-office smashes. And they would be more financially worth it (to the theater) of they had shorter run times and they could have more showings per day.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I mean how dare I actually read an article to learn about something some poster was talking about instead of just the headline. Even if one just skimmed the article they can still get the context.

Oh hey ... let's read the article together ...

Long movies are costing movie theaters​

For a movie theater, playing a longer movie can often mean fewer showtimes, which in turn means less business coming through the box office.

And if the theater doesn't want to cut down their showtimes, they'll have to pay staff to work longer hours to keep the moviehouse open later.

"Long runtimes are difficult for theater operators," Russell Vannorsdel, the vice president of the Iowa-based chain Fridley Theatres, told Business Insider.

"What you find with these really long movies is in order for the guest to be able to have a lot of available showtimes to work within their schedule, you want as many shows as possible. But even putting it on two screens and being that long, it takes a lot longer to clean auditoriums between shows. All of a sudden, you just don't have very many shows available to your guests."

-------

"It becomes where you ask yourself, where are you making your sacrifice?" Michael Barstow, executive vice president of Main Street Theatres, which operates out of Nebraska and Iowa, told BI. "Is it your 7 p.m. set? Maybe you're pushing your start to 6 p.m. so you can get a 9 p.m. or 9:30. Or you focus on getting a 7 or 7:30 showtime, but then you get a 10 p.m. late show and tank on the 9. That definitely is a thing there. That is more prevalent in our smaller complexes of three or four screens, where we can't have it on multiple screens."

These executives say theaters lose tens of thousands of dollars when screen times are taken away. For an industry that's still trying to recover from the pandemic (The New York Times reported in 2023 that there are about 5,000 theaters running in the US, compared to 5,869 in 2019), it's troubling for business.

 

[Baloo124]

I love that scene!

Agreed…it’s one of the best scenes in the OG

I don’t love it but I don’t understand what’s wrong with it either.

The scene itself wasn't bad or anything, and was fun from the audience perspective. I was just thinking (probably overthinking) from the storyline perspective of Jafar, how it doesn't make much sense. From his standpoint, all he wants to do is take this street rat out into the desert, have him go into the Cave of Wonders and fetch the lamp for him, then KILL him right there. That's his endgame. Get the lamp; kill the boy. Go back to Agrabah with power.
So why go to all the trouble of playing dress-up and pretending to be a hermit/beggar? I thought the remake made more sense with him just being Jafar, no dress-up needed since after all, he thinks he's gonna come back with the lamp and the boy be dead and never heard of again.

 

[Chi84]

Oh hey ... let's read the article together ...

Long movies are costing movie theaters​

For a movie theater, playing a longer movie can often mean fewer showtimes, which in turn means less business coming through the box office.

And if the theater doesn't want to cut down their showtimes, they'll have to pay staff to work longer hours to keep the moviehouse open later.

"Long runtimes are difficult for theater operators," Russell Vannorsdel, the vice president of the Iowa-based chain Fridley Theatres, told Business Insider.

"What you find with these really long movies is in order for the guest to be able to have a lot of available showtimes to work within their schedule, you want as many shows as possible. But even putting it on two screens and being that long, it takes a lot longer to clean auditoriums between shows. All of a sudden, you just don't have very many shows available to your guests."

-------

"It becomes where you ask yourself, where are you making your sacrifice?" Michael Barstow, executive vice president of Main Street Theatres, which operates out of Nebraska and Iowa, told BI. "Is it your 7 p.m. set? Maybe you're pushing your start to 6 p.m. so you can get a 9 p.m. or 9:30. Or you focus on getting a 7 or 7:30 showtime, but then you get a 10 p.m. late show and tank on the 9. That definitely is a thing there. That is more prevalent in our smaller complexes of three or four screens, where we can't have it on multiple screens."

These executives say theaters lose tens of thousands of dollars when screen times are taken away. For an industry that's still trying to recover from the pandemic (The New York Times reported in 2023 that there are about 5,000 theaters running in the US, compared to 5,869 in 2019), it's troubling for business.

Lol you left out the whole first part where the article explained what it meant by “really long” movies.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Lol you left out the whole first part where the article explained what it meant by “really long” movies.

... which is completely irrelevant to my point that theater owners prefer shorter runtimes because it lets them have more showings. Less runtime = more showings = more opportunities to have people buy tickets. And that's not even considering the parents who prefer shorter runtimes because (1) they don't have to sit through a longer film they don't want to watch, and (2) they know their kids have short attention spans that can't last 2+ hours.

 

[Chi84]

... which is completely irrelevant to my point that theater owners prefer shorter runtimes because it lets them have more showings. Less runtime = more showings = more opportunities to have people buy tickets. And that's not even considering the parents who prefer shorter runtimes because (1) they don't have to sit through a longer film they don't want to watch, and (2) they know their kids have short attention spans that can't last 2+ hours.

That makes no sense. No one is going to go to a film they don't want to watch just because it's shorter.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Hate is a strong word. I found it hard to sit through but I understand how others can love it. The movie was a masterpiece for its time and made was a box office hit.

Yeah. I was just poking a little fun

 

[Disney Irish]

... which is completely irrelevant to my point that theater owners prefer shorter runtimes because it lets them have more showings. Less runtime = more showings = more opportunities to have people buy tickets. And that's not even considering the parents who prefer shorter runtimes because (1) they don't have to sit through a longer film they don't want to watch, and (2) they know their kids have short attention spans that can't last 2+ hours.

Except your point originally was about this -

It doesn't need to be a 2 hour movie. They could make the movie an hour and a half and theater owners (and parents) would be thrilled because it means they'd get extra showings per day.

But in the article they describe this -

"The exec said when production heads ask what runtime will impact the number of showtimes per day, his answer is over two hours and 20 minutes."

So this article isn't even proving the point you're making because A. Snow White 2025 is going to be ~110 minutes, under that 2hr20min mark where it affects the number of showings per day, meaning owners already can shove in more showings per day of Snow White or any other movie they want to and B. parents aren't going to have to worry about a 2+ hour movie affecting short attention spans with this movie. So you've lost the whole thread of your argument with your own article, making the whole article itself irrelevant.

In addition the point you're trying to argue isn't by and large affecting a majority of movies released into the marketplace today, only specific movies from certain directors or large franchise blockbusters. For example even the latest MCU movies (which you'd expect to have some of the longest run times in the market today) Brave New World is only 118 minutes, just under 2 hours, and even Deadpool 3 was 128 minutes, just over 2 hours, so both still under the 2hr28min mark that affects showings per day. So this point you're trying to prove isn't even a thing for a majority of movies.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

That makes no sense. No one is going to go to a film they don't want to watch just because it's shorter.

If I had a dollar for every time I have taken a child in my family to the movies and sat through a film I did not want to watch ... I could almost purchase a park hopper. Almost. And every single time I have wished it was shorter - often while the kid has fallen asleep or has asked to go to the bathroom for the third time.

EDIT:
Correction ... it wasn't "every single time" because I really didn't want to see Elf, but when I took my niece, it turned out to be awesome. Every other time, I wished it was shorter.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

So this article isn't even proving the point you're making because A. Snow White 2025 is going to be ~110 minutes, under that 2hr20min mark where it affects the number of showings per day, meaning owners already can shove in more showings per day of Snow White or any other movie they want to and B. parents aren't going to have to worry about a 2+ hour movie affecting short attention spans with this movie. So you've lost the whole thread of your argument with your own article, making the whole article itself irrelevant.

THE. SHORTER. THE. RUNTIME. THE. MORE. SHOWINGS. OF. THE. FILM. PER. DAY. TAKE. PLACE.

THE. MORE. SHOWINGS. OF. THE. FILM. THAT. TAKE. PLACE. PER. DAY. THE. MORE. OPPORTUNITIES. THERE. ARE. FOR. PEOPLE. TO. BUY. TICKETS. AND. ATTEND.

Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't even something debated in the movie industry. It's been accepted as fact for decades. Everyone knows this. It's why directors' cuts exist - the studios/producers simply step in and say, "You can't have your movie be that long," and they force the runtime down. Again ... everyone knows this. You sound foolish arguing about it.

 

[Disney Irish]

THE. SHORTER. THE. RUNTIME. THE. MORE. SHOWINGS. OF. THE. FILM. PER. DAY. TAKE. PLACE.

THE. MORE. SHOWINGS. OF. THE. FILM. THAT. TAKE. PLACE. PER. DAY. THE. MORE. OPPORTUNITIES. THERE. ARE. FOR. PEOPLE. TO. BUY. TICKETS. AND. ATTEND.

Whether you agree with it or not, this isn't even something debated in the movie industry. It's been accepted as fact for decades. Everyone knows this. It's why directors' cuts exist - the studios/producers simply step in and say, "You can't have your movie be that long," and they force the runtime down. Again ... everyone knows this. You sound foolish arguing about it.

Ok so let’s make every movie 15 mins long and then owners can fit like 1000 showings per day, it’ll be like a theme park ride and they can charge the same as a Disney Park per ticket and make Stonk!1!1!

Or just realize that it’s a balance and that some movies will be longer but that a majority of movies released today fit within the less than 2hr20min mark that owners want. Especially the movie this whole debate started over Snow White WILL. BE. UNDER. 2 HOURS. SO. THIS. WHOLE. DEBATE. YOU. STARTED. IS. MOOT.

 

[LittleBuford]

The scene itself wasn't bad or anything, and was fun from the audience perspective. I was just thinking (probably overthinking) from the storyline perspective of Jafar, how it doesn't make much sense. From his standpoint, all he wants to do is take this street rat out into the desert, have him go into the Cave of Wonders and fetch the lamp for him, then KILL him right there. That's his endgame. Get the lamp; kill the boy. Go back to Agrabah with power.
So why go to all the trouble of playing dress-up and pretending to be a hermit/beggar? I thought the remake made more sense with him just being Jafar, no dress-up needed since after all, he thinks he's gonna come back with the lamp and the boy be dead and never heard of again.

My interpretation is that Jafar is not necessarily certain his plan will work and so plays it safe by appearing in disguise—he wouldn’t want Aladdin to be able to identify him in the event that he (Aladdin) escapes unharmed.

Plus it makes for a fun bit of storytelling!

 

[Farerb]

To me, it seems unnecessary to keep painting the animated film in a bad light just to vindicate the live-action version. Of course sensibilities have changed since the ’30s; that doesn’t mean the original hasn’t held up beautifully in the eyes of many of us. Taste is too personal a matter to be reduced to the kinds of assumptions and blanket statements being voiced here.

But when I say that this thread is filled with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs haters, people say I'm over exaggerating. Honestly sometimes I feel people here started liking Disney only since 2010.

 

[Farerb]

Rachel Zegler’s ‘Snow White’ Tracking for $53M Box Office Opening

Disney's live-action update stars Zegler as the iconic princess, while Gal Gadot plays the evil queen.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

 

[LittleBuford]

But when I say that this thread is filled with Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs haters, people say I'm over exaggerating. Honestly sometimes I feel people here started liking Disney only since 2010.

I think “haters” is a strong word, and I didn’t see the need to frame the cutting of “With a Smile and a Song” as an ideological decision. I personally feel the discussion has become unnecessarily heated and defensive on both “sides”.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Ok so let’s make every movie 15 mins long and then owners can fit like 1000 showings per day, it’ll be like a theme park ride and they can charge the same as a Disney Park per ticket and make Stonk!1!1!

Or just realize that it’s a balance and that some movies will be longer but that a majority of movies released today fit within the less than 2hr20min mark that owners want. Especially the movie this whole debate started over Snow White WILL. BE. UNDER. 2 HOURS. SO. THIS. WHOLE. DEBATE. YOU. STARTED. IS. MOOT.

If the same amount of tickets sold, yes, a 15 minute movie would be preferable to a 2 hour movie (from a theater owner point of view). Now, of course, most people aren't going to spend full ticket price for a 15 minute movie. But would they spend full ticket price on a 90 minute movie, made for kids, when they know their kid can't sit still for a full two hours, and they (the parent) don't want to be in the theater for two hours? Would even more people pay full ticket price for a childrens movie with the shorter runtime? Those are the relevant questions.

 

[Farerb]

I think “haters” is a strong word, and I didn’t see the need to frame the cutting of “With a Smile and a Song” as an ideological decision. I personally feel the discussion has become unnecessarily heated and defensive on both “sides”.

We know they cut "Someday My Prince Will Come" and "One Song" because romance and longing for love is problematic nowadays, but what's really the excuse for "With a Smile and a Song"? I guess looking at the goodness of the world after being sad and frightened is also problematic. We live in cynical times.