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

[easyrowrdw]

And as always you avoid the actual point like its the plague.

Follow along with me here -

The goal is not for a movie to have a loss overall, of course the goal is to have a movie that is profitable at the end of the day, its just that the box office is no longer the goal of where those profits need to happen. The box office is now secondary to where a movie makes its profit, it is use to setup the primary market for profit which is the post-theatrical space.

The short answer, if a movie fails at the box office as long as those losses are minimized Disney is able to absorb those losses and turn a profit on a movie due to its post-theatrical strategy, ie the primary driver of where a movie now makes profits.

You're a rather intelligent guy, as is TP, and I know you actually both get this point, even if you're being stubborn and won't admit that Disney has positioned itself for this new era of post-theatrical earnings.

The statement you’re quoting from Disney doesn’t say these things. That doesn’t mean they can’t be true - gotta check the breakdowns for Disney movies. But it’s still not what Disney’s statement says.

 

[celluloid]

I'm really not. I'm just reporting the numbers from a variety of studios that are attributed to non-Theatrical income. I'm making no assumptions as to what specific sources that income is coming from (like you are).

To use Cap 4 as an example, I am not saying that it's some dramatic moneymaker. But in Disney's ledger in the end, there's probably a "small" black number next to it, like $10m.

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

Diney is not making 200 million dollar budget films to make ten million on a ledger years later.

And no one saying Cap 4 was a flop, but it is showing the tired grouping.


And it proves my point that box office is still the primary driver, not against the point.

 

[celluloid]

Again, untrue. Only the top 4 or 5 movies last year clearly made more money at the box office than elsewhere. Source: Deadline

Again, not isolated to time in theaters, but directly correlated.

You are confusing primary driver of success in revenue to "just counting how much it made in theaters"

You joined a conversation with a different argument proposed.

 

[Disney Irish]

The statement you’re quoting doesn’t say these things. That doesn’t mean they can’t be true - gotta check the breakdowns for Disney movies. But it’s still not what Disney’s statement says.

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So wait, is it the primary driver or not?

You guys took a long walk around the block to agree.

You can’t change the stripes on a contrary contrarian leopard

 

[Disney Irish]

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

If you want to get exact on an analogy it would be 10 on 180 investment, and that would be a 5.56% return on investment. Which to many would be a good return.

 

[celluloid]

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

Common sense should tell you that they are explaining they also make money outside of the box office when reporting about bad box office results. Cushioning the blow.

It is no secret that there are ways for home viewing to make the loss less or reach an audience for profit.
It is hopeful and explainining how it works.

You are jumping to a conclusion that this is the new norm.

Common sense shows that if a movie's marketing budget so it can get to theaters is still near half the budget for the film or more, than they would save a ton if they did not feel box office is the primary driver for success.

So again, your stance has no basis.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Again, untrue. Only the top 4 or 5 movies last year clearly made more money at the box office than elsewhere. Source: Deadline

There it is folks. The box office does not matter any more.

In the old days the box office mattered because it was the only place to see a movie.

So if the box office is no longer the measuring stick, the media should stop reporting it and sites like The Numbers should shut down.

The reality is, everyone still uses it as a measuring stick whether we like it or not.

 

[Disney Irish]

So wait, is it the primary driver or not?

You guys took a long walk around the block to agree.

I think you've missed again on this one. As its me you keep referencing with these "primary driver" things, let me try to clear it up since people seem to have gotten it confused.

What I've said is that the box office is no longer the primary driver of PROFITS for a movie, not that it wasn't the primary driver of revenue.

 

[brideck]

Again, not isolated to time in theaters, but directly correlated.

You are confusing primary driver of success in revenue to "just counting how much it made in theaters"

I'm not confusing anything, other than assuming that you were one of the people who didn't understand that movies make a lot of money outside of the box office these days. [There are many of them around these parts.] I would guess that many people are guilty of reading you to be saying share of income as opposed to driver of income.

And that is great, but literally but a waste and bad business relatively to exist if it made ten million.

None of us would say an investor giving us five bucks after letting them borrow 200 bucks for two years was a solid deal.

And yet, that's what movie making looks like in general (albeit usually on a smaller scale). It's like playing the lottery for investors -- you're likely to lose, but there's a chance you'll make a mint.

I gave Steven Soderbergh $6 to make a spy thriller, but I only got 50¢ back. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Ok, if you don't believe that, then please quote directly from the FY24 earnings where it says otherwise. Please include the page number so we can review it, because I have provided that and quoted directly from it.

What are you talking about?

Capitalistic goals is still the priority at Disney today, same as it was in Walt's day, but that doesn't mean its goals are primarily driven by the box office receipts anymore. We're in a new era of consumer consumption where the box office is now becoming secondary and used to drive primary consumption which is the secondary market.

As noted before, from Disney's own FY24 earnings report right at the top of page 6 -

"The Company incurs significant marketing and advertising costs before and throughout the theatrical release of a film in
an effort to generate public awareness of the film, to increase the public’s intent to view the film and to help generate consumer interest in the subsequent home entertainment and other ancillary markets. These costs are expensed as incurred, which may result in a loss on a film in the theatrical markets, including in periods prior to the theatrical release of the film"

https://thewaltdisneycompany.com/app/uploads/2025/01/2024-Annual-Report.pdf

I know its hard for some to wrap their head around, but theatrical is no longer the same as it was in the previous decades. Just a fact that some will have to get used to as I don't see this changing.

You quoted this and said all that stuff above. But it does not say the things you’re saying it does about post-theater being the primary driver of revenue (correction: profit). Your interpretation goes far beyond what is stated. You can feel free to support your position with numbers but it’s not in what you quoted.

 

[Disney Irish]

What are you talking about?

You quoted this and said all that stuff above. But it does not say the things you’re saying it does about post-theater being the primary driver of revenue. Your interpretation goes far beyond what is stated. You can feel free to support your position with numbers but it’s not in what you quoted.

Again I think people are getting confused in what I'm saying, so let me quote myself what I just posted -

I think you've missed again on this one. As its me you keep referencing with these "primary driver" things, let me try to clear it up since people seem to have gotten it confused.

What I've said is that the box office is no longer the primary driver of PROFITS for a movie, not that it wasn't the primary driver of revenue.

 

[celluloid]

I'm not confusing anything, other than assuming that you were one of the people who didn't understand that movies make a lot of money outside of the box office these days. [There are many of them around these parts.] I would guess that many people are guilty of reading you to be saying share of income as opposed to driver of income.



And yet, that's what movie making looks like in general (albeit usually on a smaller scale). It's like playing the lottery for investors -- you're likely to lose, but there's a chance you'll make a mint.

I gave Steven Soderbergh $6 to make a spy thriller, but I only got 50¢ back. It seemed like a good idea at the time.

Well at least you are honest. Assuming is more dangerous than confusing. I made no obvious incidentals. I said primary driver.


The rest is obvious and has been stated a lot.

Disney is more often only making 50 cents on the six dollars than not. And branding is not in a good place when that keeps happening.

 

[Disney Irish]

Common sense should tell you that they are explaining they also make money outside of the box office when reporting about bad box office results. Cushioning the blow.

It is no secret that there are ways for home viewing to make the loss less or reach an audience for profit.
It is hopeful and explainining how it works.

You are jumping to a conclusion that this is the new norm.

Common sense shows that if a movie's marketing budget so it can get to theaters is still near half the budget for the film or more, than they would save a ton if they did not feel box office is the primary driver for success.

So again, your stance has no basis.

You want to say its jumping to conclusions, fine, but you're also the one who said that the box office would be back to pre-pandemic levels. So let me take what you say with a grain of salt here.

I'm just looking at what Disney is presenting in their year-end results, adding that to the overall box office for all studios, and coming up with a result. Now some can disagree with me, but the numbers seem to add up. The box office is no longer the profit driver for most if not all studios like it was in the pre-pandemic days. That post-theatrical makes up for those losses at the box office as the majority profit driver now, again note I say profit driver, not revenue driver.

Disagree with that, fine, then please provide data to prove the counter, because several of us have now provided data that seems to confirm it.

 

[easyrowrdw]

Again I think people are getting confused in what I'm saying, so let me quote myself what I just posted -

I’m not confused. You quoted Disney and then interpreted it as saying something that it doesn’t. Supporting your position requires numerical breakdowns. You can feel free to provide them. But the statement you’re quoting doesn’t do it.

 

[Disney Irish]

I’m not confused. You quoted Disney and then interpreted it as saying something that it doesn’t. Supporting your position requires numerical breakdowns. You can feel free to provide them. But the statement you’re quoting doesn’t do it.

So you don't think that statement in their year end results is saying that the post-theatrical is making up for the losses at the theaters? I'm sorry, then what do you think it says?

As far as numerical breakdowns, @BrianLo and @brideck have provided the Deadline reports of the breakdowns that show many of Disney movies over the last couple years that were deemed box office losses were actually turning a profits due to post-theatrical revenue.

 

[Chi84]

Common sense should tell you that they are explaining they also make money outside of the box office when reporting about bad box office results. Cushioning the blow.

It is no secret that there are ways for home viewing to make the loss less or reach an audience for profit.
It is hopeful and explainining how it works.

You are jumping to a conclusion that this is the new norm.

Common sense shows that if a movie's marketing budget so it can get to theaters is still near half the budget for the film or more, than they would save a ton if they did not feel box office is the primary driver for success.

So again, your stance has no basis.

But didn’t Disney say it was incurring marketing costs not only to get people into theaters but also to get them to watch movies at home?

From what I’ve been reading, movie theater attendance is in a long-term decline. Common sense would dictate that people are choosing to wait a short time to see a movie at home on a streaming service.

Wouldn’t this make post-theatrical more important in coming years?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

So you don't think that statement in their year end results is saying that the post-theatrical is making up for the losses at the theaters? I'm sorry, then what do you think it says?

As far as numerical breakdowns, @BrianLo and @brideck have provided the Deadline reports of the breakdowns that show many of Disney movies over the last couple years that were deemed box office losses were actually turning a profits due to post-theatrical revenue.

For about the 10 billionth time: box office flops lower the potential for additional revenue for the short, intermediate, and longterm.

Scraping out “coverage” at the box office…which has now been extended to “after the box office” - because they can’t do it there anymore more often than not - is missing what the goals are.

It’s to make easy money…flops hurt that potential revenue and profit.

This is just a ridiculous, untenable stance.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

But didn’t Disney say it was incurring marketing costs not only to get people into theaters but also to get them to watch movies at home?

From what I’ve been reading, movie theater attendance is in a long-term decline. Common sense would dictate that people are choosing to wait a short time to see a movie at home on a streaming service.

Wouldn’t this make post-theatrical more important in coming years?

What would you say if you started tanking losses at the BO?

There’s no “truth serum” that can detect a pivot. It’s relying on “predictions” and “assumptions”

But it is a pivot. They’ll say that Snow White will make money on D+…but common sense is still a thing…for now.

Well…everywhere but on this thread - at least.

We debate whether bombs are actually bombing? Daily. Like as if the debate is being moderated by bobs stock broker.

Just look for the mushroom cloud above an AMC and the truth can be gleaned

 

[Chi84]

For about the 10 billionth time: box office flops lower the potential for additional revenue for the short, intermediate, and longterm.

Scraping out “coverage” at the box office…which has now been extended to “after the box office” - because they can’t do it there anymore more often than not - is missing what the goals are.

It’s to make easy money…flops hurt that potential revenue and profit.

This is just a ridiculous, untenable stance.

What is the exact stance that you are calling untenable?