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

[Casper Gutman]

Barbie is not a success because of nostalgia, that merely enticed some people to attend. A solid script, inspired visual direction, and a host of intellectual jokes surprised viewers in the best way.

There was some nostalgic highlighting of sought after Barbie merch, but again it was twisted into an intellectual joke. I really think nostalgia explains about 5% of the positivity.

Come on, nostalgia was a HUGE part of the hook. It's a toy that is currently popular AND was popular several generations ago, giving it tremendous appeal to multiple age groups. If the draw were "a solid script" and "intellectual jokes," its success would have been seen less in a huge opening weekend and more in long-term legs. Multigenerational groups of women (and a lot of men) aren't showing up in huge numbers dressed in pink because of "intellectual jokes."

People trying to make Mario and Barbie the second coming of New Hollywood are being silly and desperate. These are two incredibly well established, multigenerational IPs that hadn't been the basis for major films until now. Mario vies with Mickey as the most well-known fictional character in the world. That's not a recipe that studios can do much with - what other unused IPs enjoy popularity that is anywhere CLOSE to the same league as Barbie and Mario?

 

[Jedijax719]

We thought the post-pandemic world of cinema was strange and different. That will pale in comparison to how strange the post-strike cinematic atmosphere will undoubtedly be.

 

[TP2000]

This means you’re going to do all the other independent studios, like the faultless A24, which took a huge bath on Beau is Afraid, right?

No you’re not, because these endless posts are utterly useless as genuine analysis and serve only as trolling.

Hang on, let me double check the thread title here. Yup, it's still "Disney At The Box Office - So What Happens Now?".

Which means in this thread we talk about... wait for it... wait for it... Disney at the box office.

In its defense, I had no idea Theater Camp was even a movie until about 5 days ago. That's when someone here (I forget who) politely yet pointedly complained that I wasn't including the minor studio releases that Disney has had lately, and that Searchlight Pictures was a thing owned by Disney and that Theater Camp was a thing released by Searchlight Pictures this summer and it deserved mention. So I started mentioning it in the box office updates.

Disney's small studios like Searchlight have also lost a lot of money, but only tallied in the tens of Millions of dollars lost instead of the hundreds of Millions of dollars lost that Disney's big summer tentpoles have vaporized in the last 90 days.

Anyone want to bet when Disney will release a movie that actually makes a profit at the box office?

Wish? The Marvels? Snow White's Leadership Adventure?

 

[Casper Gutman]

Hang on, let me double check the thread title here. Yup, it's still "Disney At The Box Office - So What Happens Now?".

Which means in this thread we talk about... wait for it... wait for it... Disney at the box office.

In its defense, I had no idea Theater Camp was even a movie until about 5 days ago. That's when someone here (I forget who) politely yet pointedly complained that I wasn't including the minor studio releases that Disney has had lately, and that Searchlight Pictures was a thing owned by Disney and that Theater Camp was a thing released by Searchlight Pictures this summer and it deserved mention. So I started mentioning it in the box office updates.

Disney's small studios like Searchlight have also lost a lot of money, but only tallied in the tens of Millions of dollars lost instead of the hundreds of Millions of dollars lost that Disney's big summer tentpoles have vaporized in the last 90 days.

Anyone want to bet when Disney will release a movie that actually makes a profit at the box office?

Wish? The Marvels? Snow White's Leadership Adventure?

Oh, Disney only. Which is why you haven’t been running on and on about Barbie or Mario or any other non-Disney films you try endlessly to drag into this thread.

Come on. You’re not fooling a single poster.

 

[TP2000]

Oh, Disney only. Which is why you haven’t been running on and on about Barbie or Mario or any other non-Disney films you try endlessly to drag into this thread.

Come on. You’re not fooling a single poster.

So when do you think a mega-budget Disney movie will actually be profitable at the box office and lead to a happier tone in this thread?

Wish? The Marvels? Snow White's Leadership Adventure? Franchise Installment #4?

2024? 2025?

 

[TP2000]

In a recent interview with the Director of the new Haunted Mansion flop. The director was asked about Iger's statements against the striking unions.

He said he had never met the guy but imagines a civil conversation where he can tell him what he said did not go over well and how it came across.

I know CEO's are very busy, but, when your company is majority a film business first, you would have at least introduced yourself or visited the set of one of your big summer releases at least once to check on things.

Was he busy in Sun Valley then too?

That's fascinating. And also terrifying. Yet somehow believable. Did I say terrifying? Cause it's terrifying.

Can you imagine if the CEO of General Motors approved a Buick executive to spend $225 Million on a new Buick product, but the CEO has never met or deigned to speak to that unknown executive in charge of $225 Million in company expenditures? And then that new Buick product fails in the marketplace and loses $100 Million for the company? Is it the fault of the Buick executive, or GM's CEO for giving them the money without even speaking to them once, or both of those people?

My hunch is that ultimately the CEO is responsible for huge capital outlays like that. But also the man or woman who built the faulty product that cost the company over $100 Million in losses, in this case the producer of the Haunted Mansion movie.

 

[TP2000]

I am a woman who worked in corporate America in the 80's, 90's and 00's. My experience was as you describe. I had many high level woman managers. I never felt my gender played any role in whether I moved ahead or not.

This basic topic came up tonight at dinner with my family when discussing Barbie and the politics of the Pacific and Mountain West in 2023, specifically the female family; my 60-ish sister and her two 30-ish daughters in law.

I was not at all surprised that their experiences mirror those of yours. (I already knew my sisters career experiences, but my nephews wives experiences were newer to me). All three of them are college-educated and successful career women, for those who keep track of that sort of thing so as not to dismiss them and their lived experience as "non college educated".

They all loved Barbie the movie. (No kidding, they were laughing their butts off the entire time) They are going to see it again this week for a Girls Night Out, which is likely why Barbie seems to have box office staying power now.

While the girls do that, my brother-in-law and I are organizing a poker night with the boys in my Mojo Dojo Casa House. I just wish I wasn't allergic to horses.

 

[GhostHost1000]

I’m starting to think Disney has hurt their brand image sometimes focusing more on making statements in some of their movies more than entertainment. It’s now affecting other movies as well.

 

[drizgirl]

This basic topic came up tonight at dinner with my family when discussing Barbie and the politics of the Pacific and Mountain West in 2023, specifically the female family; my 60-ish sister and her two 30-ish daughters in law.

I was not at all surprised that their experiences mirror those of yours. (I already knew my sisters career experiences, but my nephews wives experiences were newer to me). All three of them are college-educated and successful career women, for those who keep track of that sort of thing so as not to dismiss them and their lived experience as "non college educated".

They all loved Barbie the movie. (No kidding, they were laughing their butts off the entire time) They are going to see it again this week for a Girls Night Out, which is likely why Barbie seems to have box office staying power now.

While the girls do that, my brother-in-law and I are organizing a poker night with the boys in my Mojo Dojo Casa House. I just wish I wasn't allergic to horses.

Yes, college educated here as well. At one of the top 10 universities in the country (by US News and World Report).

But I'm still going to see it this week with my adult daughter, my adult son and his girlfriend, also all college educated (may or may not be relevant to the conversation but mom loves to throw that in you know).

Because people will overlook a lot if the movie is really good.

Here's the problem for Disney. From an op-ed in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Disney has elevated progressive pieties over originality and tradition, which may be alienating its customer base."

Thankfully it sounds like Barbie is original and entertaining enough that I can overlook whether it reflects my own lived experience.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I’m starting to think Disney has hurt their brand image sometimes focusing more on making statements in some of their movies more than entertainment. It’s now affecting other movies as well.

The wild thing is that The Way of Water had these sorts of statements in it. It was anti-colonialist, feminist (in the spirit of traditional notions of femininity), pro-family, pro-religion (or at least pro-spirituality), pro-nature, pro-traditional-gender-roles. It wasn't silent on social issues, it promoted them loudly. But people trust James Cameron and he can entertain people while making a point without preaching at them. People don't trust Disney anymore.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Hang on, let me double check the thread title here. Yup, it's still "Disney At The Box Office - So What Happens Now?".

Which means in this thread we talk about... wait for it... wait for it... Disney at the box office.

And yet, you can't stop talking about Barbie.

 

[MisterPenguin]

In its defense, I had no idea Theater Camp was even a movie until about 5 days ago.

Then maybe you should skip giving an analysis of the box office until you're better acquainted with it?

 

[MisterPenguin]

From an op-ed in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Disney has elevated progressive pieties over originality and tradition, which may be alienating its customer base."

The WSJ's editorial department is completely siloed from its journalistic department.

No one from the journalism side is fact-checking the editorials, which skew hard right.

Just want to get it out there that the editorials love to have the "WSJ" branding to give it a sheen of propriety, which it doesn't have.

Might as well be quoting from one of the YouTubers who has some form of "Disney failing" in every one of their click-bait thumbnails.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The wild thing is that The Way of Water had these sorts of statements in it. It was anti-colonialist, feminist (in the spirit of traditional notions of femininity), pro-family, pro-religion (or at least pro-spirituality), pro-nature, pro-traditional-gender-roles. It wasn't silent on social issues, it promoted them loudly. But people trust James Cameron and he can entertain people while making a point without preaching at them. People don't trust Disney anymore.

And yet, Disney chose to distribute it.

This isn't a 20th Century *Fox* logo, it's "20th Century," which is a Disney studio.

And Disney chose to create Avatar land which is most decidedly anti-colonialism. Kinda falls on the left of the spectrum.

Trying to disassociate Avatar from Disney is, at best, odd.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

But for some, Disney is hard- and only-left. And thus, should never have put out a film with some right-leaning themes. But it did.

Disney sided with the left-leaning theme of anti-colonialism in the parks.

So, by *distributing* the film with 'family values,' Disney isn't the hard-left company people think it is.

But when you disassociate Disney from the movies it distributes, then... what? Disney neither agrees nor disagrees?

So, I'm not exactly sure of the point anymore.

"Disney" isn't anything, Disney is tens of thousands of individuals, each with their own feelings and beliefs. Individual creators on individual projects come with a particular point of view. It's up to the executive team to put up guardrails and establish guidelines on what's acceptable and what isn't. Chapek had the right impulse but didn't have the organizational clout to pull it off. Iger is much more savvy and *could* pull it off, but might not want to.

Anyhoos, others want to double down on the disassociation because Disney is *merely* a distributor because they don't want the movie's success to redound to Disney, because they hate Disney (now). A distributor normally gets 10-50% of the profit. But some don't want to acknowledge that success. And so, they want Avatar to have nothing to do with Disney.

The disassociation that I've seen most people make isn't really based on creator-versus-distributor, it's more based on the fact that the deal between Lightstorm and Fox predated Disney's acquisition of the latter. Disney didn't make a deal with Cameron, Rupert Merdoch did.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Here's the problem for Disney. From an op-ed in last week's Wall Street Journal, "Disney has elevated progressive pieties over originality and tradition, which may be alienating its customer base."

What a sweeping and meaningless statement - Disney has abandoned both originality AND tradition, two often opposed values… they’ve abandoned EVERYTHING!

Please tell me how a same-sex kiss in Lightyear or an African American mermaid indicate an abandonment of originality AND tradition, or are more forced and obtrusive then speeches delivered directly to the camera that stop the action dead.

 

[MisterPenguin]

"Disney" isn't anything, Disney is tens of thousands of individuals, each with their own feelings and beliefs. Individual creators on individual projects come with a particular point of view. It's up to the executive team to put up guardrails and establish guidelines on what's acceptable and what isn't. Chapek had the right impulse but didn't have the organizational clout to pull it off. Iger is much more savvy and *could* pull it off, but might not want to.


The disassociation that I've seen most people make isn't really based on creator-versus-distributor, it's more based on the fact that the deal between Lightstorm and Fox predated Disney's acquisition of the latter. Disney didn't make a deal with Cameron, Rupert Merdoch did.

And yet Cameron and Disney did make a deal with Avatar in DAK.

 

[celluloid]

That's fascinating. And also terrifying. Yet somehow believable. Did I say terrifying? Cause it's terrifying.

Can you imagine if the CEO of General Motors approved a Buick executive to spend $225 Million on a new Buick product, but the CEO has never met or deigned to speak to that unknown executive in charge of $225 Million in company expenditures? And then that new Buick product fails in the marketplace and loses $100 Million for the company? Is it the fault of the Buick executive, or GM's CEO for giving them the money without even speaking to them once, or both of those people?

My hunch is that ultimately the CEO is responsible for huge capital outlays like that. But also the man or woman who built the faulty product that cost the company over $100 Million in losses, in this case the producer of the Haunted Mansion movie.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ho...haunted-mansion-actors-strike-1235544639/amp/ For the sake of evidence of the director stating he has never even met Bob Iger.

 

[wtyy21]

1. Avatar was not created by Disney, it was distributed by Disney.
2. Avatar was not branded Disney.

Creative, distribution, and branding are all distinct.

If someone says "I'm going to watch a Disney movie," they don't mean Avatar.

Neither Marvel and Lucasfilm films are branded Disney despite being TWDC subsidiaries, they all separate branding from it's family-friendy Disney brand, so Disney logo does not shown in front of these films.

This maybe the exception if a film had direct co-production involvement from Walt Disney Pictures, as in case of now-flopped Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Neither Marvel and Lucasfilm films are branded Disney despite being TWDC subsidiaries, they all separate branding from it's family-friendy Disney brand, so Disney logo does not shown in front of these films.

Correct.

Star Wars' reputation is in the toilet because Star Wars ruined Star Wars' reputation, not because Disney ruined Star Wars' reputation.