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

[erasure fan1]

The larger question is can the theatrical market survive after the last couple of years on just small to medium budget films if they don't have the same draw as big budget films. Yes those might be profitable for studios as they don't need as many butts in seats for that to happen. But they aren't for theater owners who depend on those butts to buy popcorn and soda.

True, I get that, especially from a corporate theater chain standpoint. But I would say that getting back to the mid budget film does a couple things. First, you stop, or at least drastically reduce, the whole flop narrative. You lose the whole, XYZ film is set to lose $100mil! headline. That can play a big role in people going to the theater, or waiting to stream. Secondly that can lead to more films being made that have a slightly bigger risk that could turn into that billion dollar smash. When you make a film that doesn't need $700 or $800mil to break even, you don't always have to play it so safe. None of that guarantee's anything of course, because releasing a bunch of crummy mid budget films won't fix anything. But in my opinion, if you can get great talent, and let them make a great film, it's an overall win. But when the company has to worry about hitting $700mil, it changes how they approach the films.

 

[Disney Irish]

True, I get that, especially from a corporate theater chain standpoint. But I would say that getting back to the mid budget film does a couple things. First, you stop, or at least drastically reduce, the whole flop narrative. You lose the whole, XYZ film is set to lose $100mil! headline. That can play a big role in people going to the theater, or waiting to stream. Secondly that can lead to more films being made that have a slightly bigger risk that could turn into that billion dollar smash. When you make a film that doesn't need $700 or $800mil to break even, you don't always have to play it so safe. None of that guarantee's anything of course, because releasing a bunch of crummy mid budget films won't fix anything. But in my opinion, if you can get great talent, and let them make a great film, it's an overall win. But when the company has to worry about hitting $700mil, it changes how they approach the films.

The problem here though is that what we see as the consumer and what Hollywood in general sees are usually two different things. What you see is the chance for them to take more risks because they don't have to spend as much. What Hollywood sees is, we can't take as many risks because we can't rely on the large budget successes to cover those costs if we fail. So they take less risks and we get more of the mediocre films that everyone is complaining about. If you want Hollywood to take risks they need to make the large budgets movies and for them to do well, its counterintuitive I know but its just the nature of business.

 

[erasure fan1]

These movies may have all done okay but the lack any big hits through the entire holiday season seems to paint a picture.

Maybe it's a blip, maybe it's a trend.

Also need to keep in mind movie studios have costs to cover above and beyond production costs of a specific movie. Those Avengers grosses cover a lot more than just the movie, and allow Disney to stay in business even if Wish or Marvels or whatever underperform.

For studios with less assets, moderately successful movies may not cut it.

You also have to spend money to make money sometimes. I don't disagree that mid budget movies are a good thing, but theaters and studios still rely on blockbusters.

Theaters want/need full houses so they can sell popcorn, which is where they make a good chunk of their money. That packed house for Avengers might be what the theater needs to offset the Trolls screening with a handful of people. I don't know the true ins and outs of the business, so mostly speculating here.

I get all that. But how do you get back to blockbusters? While I can't say for sure how to get back to that point. I can say it won't be continuing the status quo. If you see what I'm saying, it's not that blockbusters aren't important. They are. But you have to get back to event movies. And maybe getting some new franchises going, that don't need to make nearly a billion to break even can help. Otherwise we're just throwing in the towel and saying it's helpless.

 

[_caleb]

I get all that. But how do you get back to blockbusters? While I can't say for sure how to get back to that point. I can say it won't be continuing the status quo. If you see what I'm saying, it's not that blockbusters aren't important. They are. But you have to get back to event movies. And maybe getting some new franchises going, that don't need to make nearly a billion to break even can help. Otherwise we're just throwing in the towel and saying it's helpless.

Disney's already identified its path to addressing the challenges faced by the industry, and it isn't blockbusters or event movies, it's Direct-to-Consumer.

 

[TP2000]

Box office is out for the day after Christmas. I imagine this is how the rankings will go from now until New Year's Day.

In Disney news, the lack of any Christmas bump for Wish will make it easier to tally its mega losses for 2023.

 

[el_super]

They are. But you have to get back to event movies. And maybe getting some new franchises going, that don't need to make nearly a billion to break even can help. Otherwise we're just throwing in the towel and saying it's helpless.

It might already be hopeless for big blockbusters.

Streaming services, YouTube, TikTok, Video games ... they are all eating away at the time available to go see a movie in a physical cinema. The experience is devalued to a point that it's just too costly, really at any price, to endure the inconvenience. You can get two hours of entertainment, almost for free, at home.

Budgets need to be adjusted to match expectations for profitability in the DTC space and not via Theaters/Traditional distribution.

 

[erasure fan1]

If you want Hollywood to take risks they need to make the large budgets movies and for them to do well, its counterintuitive I know

Maybe, I'm no Hollywood insider so I don't really know. I do know businesses like making money. And if studios see success with mid level budgets, others will follow. Hollywood is very monkey see, monkey do. But again, it's not about the elimination of blockbusters. It's about cultivating a path to new blockbusters. If the studios want people to stay home and wait for streaming, by all means, keep doing what you're doing.

Disney's already identified its path to addressing the challenges faced by the industry, and it isn't blockbusters or event movies, it's Direct-to-Consumer.

Some of Bobs statements say that's not entirely true. Sure they're willing to take some lumps for the greater objective. But they know they have to do much better at the box office if they want to keep making these $250/300mil films. I doubt D+ is going away anytime soon. But if the idea is to fill it with a bunch of mediocre high budget blockbuster type films that had very little success in the theater. They might be in a world of hurt. Yes, they need DtC, they have no other choices at this point outside of scrapping the whole thing and selling content to netflix, max... But they also need profit from theatrical as well in my opinion.

 

[TP2000]

So TLM is finishing 2023 in 6th place domestically. Still calling that a flop? Regardless of financial break even point, it sold more tickets than almost every other movie that came out all year, with so much going against it.

Yes, I would call it a financial flop. Especially here in the Box Office thread where we discuss finances. It was a huge flop.

The Little Mermaid, owing to its hugely bloated $250 Million production budget, and then the $140 Million marketing budget that Disney bragged about, it was a flop. The weak overseas box office was a particular blow to it financially. Americans were modestly interested in it, but the foreigners weren't as willing to give it a shot in comparison to us Americans.

Thus, The Little Mermaid lost $103 Million for Disney. That's most definitely a flop.

TLM: Production $250, Marketing $140, Domestic B.O. Take $179, Overseas B.O. Take $108 = $103 Million Loss

 

[TP2000]

Poor Things is still only playing in about 800 theaters… I expect the number of theaters to grow as we get closer to Oscar Nominations

Really? Why?

Poor Things is still in 800 theaters this week, arguably one of the biggest movie going weeks of the year. It's in 10th place in 800 theaters.

 

[_caleb]

Some of Bobs statements say that's not entirely true. Sure they're willing to take some lumps for the greater objective. But they know they have to do much better at the box office if they want to keep making these $250/300mil films. I doubt D+ is going away anytime soon. But if the idea is to fill it with a bunch of mediocre high budget blockbuster type films that had very little success in the theater. They might be in a world of hurt. Yes, they need DtC, they have no other choices at this point outside of scrapping the whole thing and selling content to netflix, max... But they also need profit from theatrical as well in my opinion.

They don't want to keep making those $250M-$300M films. They've said so a lot, and we've said it here a lot, too. And the idea isn't to fill D+ with a bunch of mediocre high-budget blockbuster-type films, it's to attract the biggest audience possible on the front end (the last three years) and then settle into right-sized projects that viewer data shows will resonate with subscribers.

They will continue to show movies in theaters, but it isn't going to be the main driver of studio revenue like it has been up to this point. Direct-to-Consumer means that the studio will relate to and deliver their products directly to the consumers largely without middlemen like retail, licensed platforms, or theaters.

 

[TP2000]

TDL had Black Cauldron as part of a walk-thru at one time in their Cinderella Castle, it was around for 20 years, but likely rethemed due to being too scary and a few other reasons like not being popular overall -

I did that walk-thru attraction twice on two different visits. It was hysterical both times. It was very unique in that it was a guided tour, where a hostess would lead you on a walking tour of the Castle and had a scripted spiel, sort of like a walking version of StorbyookLand Canal Boats or the Jungle Cruise. But you walked through various rooms and the hostesses had this very energetic spiel they'd give. All in Japanese, which made it even better for me who barely speaks tourist Japanese.

It was bizarre, and hysterical, and obscure, and rather impressive all at once. Definitely one of those things "Only in Japan" things.

 

[TP2000]

Wonka is being heralded as a hit but hasn't cracked $100 million after two weekends. That's a very minor hit by modern box office standards.

Wonka is on a trajectory to make about $150 Million domestically and around $250 Million overseas. Assuming they spent half the production budget on marketing, that would get Warner's a slim profit of about $10 Million.

Wish is on a trajectory to make $60 Million domestically and around $100 Million overseas. Assuming Disney spent half the production budget on marketing, that would get Disney a net loss of over $200 Million.

Which studio would you rather be?

Warner Brothers who made $10 Million on Wonka, or Disney who lost $200 Million on Wish?

 

[TP2000]

It’s sad that you still don’t get it.

By having box office success, “Wonka” is BAD for downstream revenue including streaming on Max, but “Wish” being rejected by audiences in every market on Earth is GOOD for Disney+, EST/PPV, and downstream licensing.

I don’t know why that is so hard for you to understand.

I'm so sorry, I keep forgetting.

I also keep forgetting about all the money Disney is going to make off of DVD sales of Wish, and the pajama sets at Target that no one is buying.

Disney Wish Pjamas : Target

Shop Target for disney wish pjamas you will love at great low prices. Choose from Same Day Delivery, Drive Up or Order Pickup plus free shipping on orders $35+.

www.target.com

 

[Tha Realest]

You just need to be patient and wait for it to be "discovered and beloved" on Disney+ (once there is no longer any actual data to verify such a claim, of course) and then we can celebrate its popularity with future generations!

I'm hearing that Onward, Soul, Luca, and Turning Red are really catching fire with the five year olds now!

A bunch of people watched it for a month or two on the nascent D+ service during the pandemic. Sequels will be greenlit any day now.

 

[TalkingHead]

Starting to think the slow rollout of Poor Things is an attempt to misdirect so it won’t get a Deadline underperformance writeup. Feels a little like the Licorice Pizza strategy which just ended up making that movie an event for cinephiles and nobody else. Kinda feels like that’s probably Poor Things’ fate, too. But that’s seemingly where the movie business is in late 2023.

 

[HoustonHorn]

You just need to be patient and wait for it to be "discovered and beloved" on Disney+ (once there is no longer any actual data to verify such a claim, of course) and then we can celebrate its popularity with future generations!

I'm hearing that Onward, Soul, Luca, and Turning Red are really catching fire with the five year olds now!

No no no no - Soul, Luca and Turning Red are all going to go gangbusters once they are released theatrically over the next three months. Yeah, that's gonna do the trick - releasing movies people have already had access to on streaming for years theatrically....

And I know that's happening because my 8yo and I had a daddy-daughter double feature today. Between Wonka, Migration, Trolls and Wish, her choices were Wonka and Migration. She said she'd rather wait for the other two on streaming. Part of the commercials before both movies was the Soul/Luca/Turning Red theatrical release. And there were commercials for Disney resorts and DVC before Wonka.

 

[Disney Irish]

Maybe, I'm no Hollywood insider so I don't really know. I do know businesses like making money. And if studios see success with mid level budgets, others will follow. Hollywood is very monkey see, monkey do. But again, it's not about the elimination of blockbusters. It's about cultivating a path to new blockbusters. If the studios want people to stay home and wait for streaming, by all means, keep doing what you're doing.

Some of Bobs statements say that's not entirely true. Sure they're willing to take some lumps for the greater objective. But they know they have to do much better at the box office if they want to keep making these $250/300mil films. I doubt D+ is going away anytime soon. But if the idea is to fill it with a bunch of mediocre high budget blockbuster type films that had very little success in the theater. They might be in a world of hurt. Yes, they need DtC, they have no other choices at this point outside of scrapping the whole thing and selling content to netflix, max... But they also need profit from theatrical as well in my opinion.

You're right it is monkey see monkey do...

Its why Mattel partnered Paramount to put out an American Doll movie, just announced 2 weeks ago, trying to capture lighting in a bottle again with that Barbie market. Forgetting that they did a bunch of direct to TV movies about 20 years ago that didn't do very well.

Then of course you got Hasbro trying to revive their toy live action films after the disappointing last Transformers, with yet another Transformers film next year, and a future GI Joe movie. And I kid you not a Monopoly movie, plus a bunch of other game movies including a reboot of Clue which is suppose to come out from Disney's 20th Century Studio. And lets not forget a Furby movie and a Play-doh movie, I'm serious.

Yep they are certainly monkey see monkey do. They try to find scripts that match what other studios were successful at and it ends up failing for the most part, and all mediocre. They take no risks....

 

[Disney Irish]

No no no no - Soul, Luca and Turning Red are all going to go gangbusters once they are released theatrically over the next three months. Yeah, that's gonna do the trick - releasing movies people have already had access to on streaming for years theatrically....

And I know that's happening because my 8yo and I had a daddy-daughter double feature today. Between Wonka, Migration, Trolls and Wish, her choices were Wonka and Migration. She said she'd rather wait for the other two on streaming. Part of the commercials before both movies was the Soul/Luca/Turning Red theatrical release. And there were commercials for Disney resorts and DVC before Wonka.

While I make no predictions on their performance, but you'd be surprised how successful re-releases can be (or in this case first release). Halloween, Avatar, Titanic, Godfather, Grease, Wizard of Oz, all saw success in recent years being re-released in theaters.

 

[BuddyThomas]

It's definitely a qualified success for WB all things considered. Aquaman 2 is not burning up the international box office, so it's certainly going to lose money, but so far The Color Purple is doing okay as an awards-season contender and that is an exceptional opening day, and again, if people like a musical it legs out. WB really seems to care more about the two musicals anyway, they had much more robust marketing. Would be funny to see them both in the top two this coming weekend.

We saw The Color Purple on Christmas Day and it was fantastic.

 

[TP2000]

Starting to think the slow rollout of Poor Things is an attempt to misdirect so it won’t get a Deadline underperformance writeup. Feels a little like the Licorice Pizza strategy which just ended up making that movie an event for cinephiles and nobody else. Kinda feels like that’s probably Poor Things’ fate, too. But that’s seemingly where the movie business is in late 2023.

Judging on its dollar take per theater, at $912 yesterday, it seems to be positioned appropriately in only 800 theaters. The five most popular movies are in the $1,200 to $2,300 take per theater. Using that metric, it does not seem to be the case that people are being turned away from Poor Things showings because it's only in 800 theaters.

Anecdotally for sure, but still interesting, I just pulled up the big 25 screen luxury megaplex a few miles east of Disneyland. Poor Things is only showing in 1 theater there, and the 7:15pm showing tonight is less than a third full. It's sold 18 seats, and the theater still has 46 seats available for purchase. It's an $11 ticket for the 7:15pm showing tonight.

The previous showtime is for 4pm there Pacific time, about 90 minutes from now. It's sold 9 tickets for the matinee price of only $8.75, in a theater that seats 110. Or less than 10% of the theater capacity.

This purely anecdotal info, almost comedically so, would still seem to suggest that Poor Things being in only 800 theaters nationwide is still appropriate for its audience demand, if not overly optimistic.