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

[flynnibus]

I realise this was published before Barbie and Oppenheimer, but I assume much of what it says still holds true:

Disney, Despite ‘Indy’ & ‘Elemental’ Misfires, Leading 2023 Global Box Office With $3.4B

Disney Leads 2023 global box office with $3.4 billion despite Indiana Jones, Elemental bombing

deadline.com

I’d be curious to know what those who understand these things—and I truly don’t—make of the article, especially in relation to the very different picture (repeatedly) painted by a number of posters here.

Boasting about revenue really is just hot air when you're talking business. It's only one part of the picture... and the real story with Disney is being #1 in revenue and STILL being in the red.

It's like the guy on your street that has all the fancy cars... but 6months later you see his house foreclosed. You can buy eyeballs, but it doesn't mean you are a success or sustainable.

 

[TP2000]

Theater camp just started it’s limited theater run… can you wait to see if it expands further… smaller movies often start smaller and see if they catch and expand later on

Yes, I will be tracking Theater Camp's financial performance now through at least August in this thread.

I had no idea it existed until a few hours ago (did anyone really?), but Disney spent $8 Million to make it so it's a valid movie for '23.

 

[LittleBuford]

Boasting about revenue really is just hot air when you're talking business. It's only one part of the picture... and the real story with Disney is being #1 in revenue and STILL being in the red.

It's like the guy on your street that has all the fancy cars... but 6months later you see his house foreclosed. You can buy eyeballs, but it doesn't mean you are a success or sustainable.

But @Casper Gutman has noted a few times that Disney is making no less than other studios in terms of ROI.

 

[Disney Irish]

Yes, I will be tracking Theater Camp's financial performance now through at least August in this thread.

I had no idea it existed until a few hours ago (did anyone really?), but Disney spent $8 Million to make it so it's a valid movie for '23.

Searchlight movies, have been, and will continue to be for their award plays...

They aren't meant to be huge box office draws except for the audiences that follow award films. It may not mean much to some around here, and yes I knew about all these films, but it does mean something to those in the industry.

Again all studios have these low budget award plays that get released.

Now every once in awhile one of these films will make a huge splash in the box office, for Searchlight Slumdog Millionaire and 12 Years a Slave comes to mind. But by an large they aren't going to be huge at the box office.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

But people keep moving the goalposts! The usual version of the narrative has it that audiences are no longer interested in watching films associated with Disney. When it’s pointed out that Disney is continuing to outsell other studios overall, the narrative shifts to a criticism of Disney’s bloated budgets and meagre profit margins.

People should decide what point they’re trying to make and make it straightforwardly.

I feel mostly the same way and freely admit that I have no idea how studios make money on these films.

It seems to me that budgets have ballooned for various reasons and box office receipts have been relatively depressed. It doesn't seem that suddenly no-one wants to see Disney films while box office receipts rain down on other studios, at least from what I can tell. There are plenty of what would have been sure bets a few years ago that have decent reviews but have flopped in 2023 for other studios, too. I also have to be honest and say that I don't know whether this situation is sustainable or close-to when you factor in Disney+ as a new avenue through which they distribute content.

What I do feel pretty confident about is that it's not that Disney has for some reason (wink wink, nudge nudge) started making terrible films and they just need to stop and look to Sound of Freedom and Greg Gutfeld apparently burning up late night for a way forward.

 

[DisneyHead123]

But people keep moving the goalposts! The usual version of the narrative has it that audiences are no longer interested in watching films associated with Disney. When it’s pointed out that Disney is continuing to outsell other studios overall, the narrative shifts to a criticism of Disney’s bloated budgets and meagre profit margins.

People should decide what point they’re trying to make and make it straightforwardly.

I guess it depends on how much of an advantage one thinks a big budget is out of the gate.

If you think it’s a nominal advantage in a creative endeavor because those aren’t the types of things money can buy, then Disney is still earning its share of viewers. If you think it’s a big advantage, the POV is more like “Well sure, anybody can get some viewers if they spend 80 kazillion dollars.” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

 

[DKampy]

Yes, I will be tracking Theater Camp's financial performance now through at least August in this thread.

I had no idea it existed until a few hours ago (did anyone really?), but Disney spent $8 Million to make it so it's a valid movie for '23.

I did… I have been wildly anticipating it’s expansion later this month…which looks like it could get to 800 theaters at least… have you seen the trailer… it looks great

 

[LittleBuford]

I guess it depends on how much of an advantage one thinks a big budget is out of the gate.

If you think it’s a nominal advantage in a creative endeavor because those aren’t the types of things money can buy, then Disney is still earning its share of viewers. If you think it’s a big advantage, the POV is more like “Well sure, anybody can get some viewers if they spend 80 kazillion dollars.” The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

I don’t recall any posts that have framed the high budgets as an advantage. The argument seems to go that the films in question are irredeemably unappealing, and that their high budgets make an already bad situation worse.

 

[DKampy]

Searchlight movies, have been, and will continue to be for their award plays...

They aren't meant to be huge box office draws except for the audiences that follow award films. It may not mean much to some around here, and yes I knew about all these films, but it does mean something to those in the industry.

Again all studios have these low budget award plays that get released.

Now every once in awhile one of these films will make a huge splash in the box office, for Searchlight Slumdog Millionaire and 12 Years a Slave comes to mind. But by a large they aren't going to be huge at the box office.

I believe the smaller movies are also a PVOD play… as general population may not run out to the theater to watch it… when at home looking for something to watch they may say hey that movie was up for some awards let’s check that out

 

[DisneyHead123]

I don’t recall any posts that have framed the high budgets as an advantage. The argument seems to go that the films in question are irredeemably unappealing, and that their high budgets make an already bad situation worse.

From the point of view of “are people still seeing Disney movies or not, budgets aside” - yeah, I don’t think anyone can argue that Disney is like some kind of indie production company. When people call Disney films box office “disappointments” I think that’s very much a relative term, taking their bohemoth status and budgets into account. But plenty of people still watch Disney movies, clearly.

 

[Tha Realest]

But @Casper Gutman has noted a few times that Disney is making no less than other studios in terms of ROI.

Is that really true?

He likes to compare Universal, but when Fast X and Cocaine Bear functionally break even, is that the same thing as the successive losses on stuff like Strange World, Lightyear, Indy?

 

[flynnibus]

But @Casper Gutman has noted a few times that Disney is making no less than other studios in terms of ROI.

'making' is an ambigous term. ROI is also another hard to qualify because you have to scope it to have a fair comparison between different things. I think you need a more precise topic to have a meaningful comparison.

To the article you shared... the topic is revenue. Revenue is always step #1 - it however is not in itself all telling.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Is that really true?

He likes to compare Universal, but when Fast X and Cocaine Bear functionally break even, is that the same thing as the successive losses on stuff like Strange World, Lightyear, Indy?

Feel free to check my math, but by the famous “rule of thumb,” Fast X is about $330 million short of breaking even. Cocaine Bear is about breaking even IF we accept the very lowest end of budget estimates, otherwise it’s about $15 short.

Several pages back I took a look at how much each studio was spending to earn a dollar back at the global box office. Sony was doing the best thanks to Spidey and cheap horror followed by Universal. Disney and Paramount were almost exactly tied while Warner Bros brought up the rear. Without Mario, Uni was doing as badly as WB (as was Disney without Guardians). Since then, Paramount will have have lost ground and Uni and WB gained it. The lesson is that outside of a few hits which are few and far between and don’t reach the heights of previous years (Mario would have been #3 overall in 2023 and Barbie’s opening weekend would have been #3 as well), every studio is having similar box office struggles. The only thing that sells reliably, the reason Sony is on top even without Spidey, is cheap horror.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

I believe the smaller movies are also a PVOD play… as general population may not run out to the theater to watch it… when at home looking for something to watch they may say hey that movie was up for some awards let’s check that out

Kevin Smith said that for his (small) movies the theatrical release was basically an advertisement for the home video release.

Makes sense for smaller movies.

While the risk is losing hundreds of millions I imagine a big budget movie that breaks even theatrically would be considered a win. I'd be curious to see what home viewing revenue is like nowadays. Are they selling a lot of Little Mermaid copies on iTunes or are people waiting for Disney+ a month later? Does Disney+ revenue make up for the changes in viewing habits?

 

[Casper Gutman]

So I got to thinking about that "rule of thumb" and decided to see how it worked historically.

According to the calculation, films that lost money include Cars 2, Tangled, Incredible Hulk, Captain America, Thor: The Dark World, Avengers: Age of Ultron, and Doctor Strange

Films that just about broke even (that is, were about 12.5 million on either side) include Wall-E, Brave, Fast & Furious 6, Wreck-It Ralph, Iron Man 2, Thor, and Ant-Man.

Man, look at all those big Marvel stinkers. Glad the studio stopped THAT!

Or, perhaps, the "rule of thumb" is an incredibly inaccurate measure of a film's overall value to a studio and a reliance on it is a sign of a profound misunderstanding of how modern Hollywood studios work.

For one thing, as Pleakley says above, a theatrical release's marketing budget is intended to promote not only it's theatrical showings but its entire ancillary lifespan - it is promotion for the film as content, on into perpetuity. Indeed, the entire theatrical release itself can be partially viewed this way, introducing and legitimizing a film for its subsequent ancillary existence, as Smith explains. It's incredibly arbitrary and distorting to insist marketing budgets be included in calculations of a film's profitability but not its ancillary outlet profits, since the marketing budget is INTENDED TO PROMOTE THE PROPERTY ACROSS THOSE OUTLETS.

 

[TP2000]

I saw Barbie tonight with my multi-generational family. We're all Deplorables. We all loved it.

I thought it was hysterical, and I enjoyed the rather emotional bits more than I'd normally admit to.

One thing I think applies to this forum is how willingly and openly Mattel was to poking fun at itself. It was even more blatant in the movie than it was in the trailers. Like when the President said that bad word towards the end and they bleeped it out with the Mattel logo; I laughed out loud at that, as did the entire theater.

I can't imagine current Disney and current Disney senior execs being willing to have a movie poke fun of them like Mattel obviously can. Can you imagine Bob Iger agreeing to have Will Ferrel play a bumbling and slightly evil yet still loveable version of himself? Can you imagine current Disney allowing someone to poke a bit of fun at them, to mock their core products and some of their big mistakes (Pregnant Midge = Rocket Rods, or Magic Earring Ken = KiteTails or Puberty Busty Skipper = DCA 1.0???)

Nope, wouldn't happen. Because current Disney is so gosh-darned serious and humorless about everything they do. But Mattel obviously isn't, and I have a newfound respect and admiration for Mattel for that. Disney would do well to learn a few things from Mattel and the huge success of this summer blockbuster.

Hey Disney, you're just a movie and theme park company selling plastic crap made in China, you aren't curing cancer. Lighten up a bit.

 

[LittleBuford]

I saw Barbie tonight with my multi-generational family. We're all Deplorables. We all loved it.

I thought it was hysterical, and I enjoyed the rather emotional bits more than I'd normally admit to.

One thing I think applies to this forum is how willingly and openly Mattel was to poking fun at itself. It was even more blatant in the movie than it was in the trailers. Like when the President said that bad word towards the end and they bleeped it out with the Mattel logo; I laughed out loud at that, as did the entire theater.

I can't imagine current Disney and current Disney senior execs being willing to have a movie poke fun of them like Mattel obviously can. Can you imagine Bob Iger agreeing to have Will Ferrel play a bumbling and slightly evil yet still loveable version of himself? Can you imagine current Disney allowing someone to poke a bit of fun at them, to mock their core products and some of their big mistakes (Pregnant Midge = Rocket Rods, or Magic Earring Ken = KiteTails or Puberty Busty Skipper = DCA 1.0???)

Nope, wouldn't happen. Because current Disney is so gosh-darned serious and humorless about everything they do. But Mattel obviously isn't, and I have a newfound respect and admiration for Mattel for that. Disney would do well to learn a few things from Mattel and the huge success of this summer blockbuster.

Hey Disney, you're just a movie and theme park company selling plastic crap made in China, you aren't curing cancer. Lighten up a bit.

What did you make of the film’s rather serious social commentary?

 

[TP2000]

What did you make of the film’s rather serious social commentary?

I didn't think it was all that serious. It would have been serious in 1964 when Barbie could only be a stewardess or a nurse, but by 1974 Barbie could be anything she wanted to be.

I did enjoy that the humorless and dour young girl Sasha, who wore all black early in the film and just spouted mindless DEI approved slogans about "patriarchy" finally came around and became kind and loving and supportive of her mother by the end of the film. That gave me hope that young people today will see that the sloganeering they've been taught is rather vapid and empty and mean-spirited.

Her mom also had that very well written speech about the trials and tribulations of being the perfect 21st century woman.

I also enjoyed that by the end the Barbies kind of gave the Kens a slight position of power, by maybe letting them be circuit court judges instead of actual supreme court judges. That whole insulting thing from the 2010's of "The Future Is Female" seems so sexist and dead-end to me, just as much as saying that only men should be in positions of power. Men and women both should be in positions of power if they have the merits and talents and put in all the hard work needed to get there, but not because they just happened to be born male or female.

Overall, I thought the social commentary was great. And said a lot and left people thinking. We don't want a world where the "Future is Female" any more than we want a world where the "Future is Male". We want a world that values everyone for whatever talents and strengths they have and can offer to others. I love that message.

I also found it interesting that they stayed completely away from any gay themes. I assumed they'd put it in there, but because Barbie and Ken are entirely non-sexual and don't even know what to do when they spend the night together, they avoided it. That was refreshing, to be honest. I expected some heavy gay character to show up, but they never did. Although with Alan...

 

[LittleBuford]

One thing I think applies to this forum is how willingly and openly Mattel was to poking fun at itself. It was even more blatant in the movie than it was in the trailers. Like when the President said that bad word towards the end and they bleeped it out with the Mattel logo; I laughed out loud at that, as did the entire theater.

I can't imagine current Disney and current Disney senior execs being willing to have a movie poke fun of them like Mattel obviously can. Can you imagine Bob Iger agreeing to have Will Ferrel play a bumbling and slightly evil yet still loveable version of himself? Can you imagine current Disney allowing someone to poke a bit of fun at them, to mock their core products and some of their big mistakes (Pregnant Midge = Rocket Rods, or Magic Earring Ken = KiteTails or Puberty Busty Skipper = DCA 1.0???)

Nope, wouldn't happen. Because current Disney is so gosh-darned serious and humorless about everything they do.

Both Ralph Breaks the Internet (2018) and Chip 'n Dale: Rescue Rangers (2022) lampooned Disney quite a bit, even to the point of upsetting a few posters here who felt the films weren’t sufficiently reverential to the company’s history. Have you seen either of them?

 

[LittleBuford]

I didn't think it was all that serious.

I rather suspected that would be your response.

At any rate, I’m glad you enjoyed it.