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

[brideck]

That's a tough one. I agree with the sentiment behind what he's saying. The smaller films are great, but not something the majority of people go to the theater for. American fiction made 22mil on a reported budget of 25mil. I'm sure the advertising budget was fairly small. So even at 5mil for advertising, the film lost almost $40mil. Not really a ringing endorsement. Would a bigger advertising budget have helped? I doubt enough to push it past 70+mil at the box office. The answer is probably, every film doesn't need to be 200/250mil plus event film. Just be smarter with the budgets.

With streaming what it is, I think it is doubly a mistake to think of box office-only when it comes to the profitability of small releases.

Not small budget movies, but Apple has allegedly reported that both Napoleon and Killers of the Flower Moon were a financial success despite what BO math on your napkin would tell you about them. [Source: https://variety.com/2024/film/news/...ires-napoleon-flower-moon-argylle-1235931957/]

ETA: No idea where you got that budget figure for American Fiction. I see "significantly less than $10m." [Source: https://www.screendaily.com/feature...jefferson-to-american-fiction/5188935.article]

 

[TP2000]

Box Office data is out for this past weekend. Most notable for us Disney watchers is that Kung Fu Panda 4 (budget $85 Million) just made nearly as much money in its debut weekend as Wish (budget $200 Million) made in its entire domestic theater run.

Also of note is that Migration held on to the #8 spot and Wonka is at #11 even with Kung Fu Panda 4 being the top movie of the weekend. Clearly there's a willing market for family movies that parents can take their children to! Why is Disney no longer dominating that lucrative market for family entertainment from its flagship studios?

Poor Things is now at #15. Searchlight's other film, All Of Us Strangers, appears to have left all US theaters now.

And rather incredibly, but useful for tracking purposes, Wish continues on in 32nd place in 55 theaters.

The Numbers - Weekend Box Office Chart for August 2, 2024

Weekend Domestic Box Office Chart for the weekend of August 2, 2024

www.the-numbers.com

 

[DKampy]

I don't see most movies in general.

I usually only go to the movies once, maybe twice, per year with family in summer or on holiday weekends. But I do enjoy watching some historical films and World War II documentaries on YouTube.

I'll likely see Oppenheimer at home at some point.

Have you decided on your one 2024 movie yet?

 

[TP2000]

Have you decided on your one 2024 movie yet?

Not yet. I'll await instructions from my sister's family this summer when we all meet at the beach. Last summer I put my foot down and insisted we all go see Barbie together, so I may need to be more flexible this year.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

Also targeted to some of the previous conversation in this thread, I thought that Cord Jefferson's speech (Best Adapted Screenplay: American Fiction) was interesting. He attempted to tell the studios that making 20 $10m movies (and letting the American public know they exist) can be just as good of an investment (if not better) than making one risky $200m tentpole. Given the tentpole success rate post-pandemic, maybe that's something that the bigwigs will actually hear.

Probably not.

I feel like studios are well aware of the average return on investment on different types of movies. It comes off as pretentious to act like he's telling them something they haven't considered.

Having said that, a variety of movie types isn't a bad thing. Especially when streaming is so important to the studios.

Poor Things is on Disney+ in many markets outside of the USA and it's good to have movies in your service that aren't just cartoon, Marvel, or Star Wars.

Netflix is successful no doubt in part because there so much content that they appeal to just about everyone.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Poor Things is on Disney+ in many markets outside of the USA and it's good to have movies in your service that aren't just cartoon, Marvel, or Star Wars.

I agree, but it's also hilarious that a movie like Poor Things is on Disney+ after all the handwringing that happened when Deadpool and Daredevil were first uploaded.

 

[Disney Irish]

Poor Things is on Disney+ in many markets outside of the USA and it's good to have movies in your service that aren't just cartoon, Marvel, or Star Wars.

Its on D+ in the US also for those that have the Hulu bundle.

I agree, but it's also hilarious that a movie like Poor Things is on Disney+ after all the handwringing that happened when Deadpool and Daredevil were first uploaded.

That really only happened in the US, as D+ has offered adult content outside the US with Star since almost the beginning.

 

[TalkingHead]

Oscar gonna Oscar. IMO Spider-verse was good enough to be nominated for Best Pic, so losing to an okay mid-tier Miyazaki is on-brand for the Academy.

Will say IMAX getting props during the Best Pic acceptance might be a reminder to the interests in the room: there’ve been a lot of hits and misses post-COVID, but the movies that have been made specifically with premium large format screens in mind have all been met with success - Avatar, Oppenheimer, and now Dune. If anyone is awake at Disney, the next Star Wars should be a stand-alone large-screen spectacle that’s marketed as such. Of course, diluting the brand by sticking a big chunk into streaming series probably makes it harder to sell that message.

On that point, unless I missed it, did Iger not get his customary cutaway shot during the telecast?

Just to add Maverick last year had the same see-it-in-IMAX marketing. Obviously that title had other factors at play, but this does feel a bit like Revenge of the Cinerama (ok by me!)

 

[BuddyThomas]

I really think this was the best Oscars in years. I loved how they had five actors in each acting category paying tribute to the five nominees. That created some truly beautiful moments. The song performances were fantastic, although I will never understand why that dumb song from Flaming Hot got nominated, other than the fact that it was written by Dianne Warren. I’m Just Ken was on fire! The John Cena thing was hysterical. In Memorium was tear inducing. There were several upsets, which was exciting. The speech from Mstyslav Chernov following the win for 20 Days in Mariupol was incredible. The Kimmel moment at the end that I’m sure we’re forbidden from discussing- priceless. The fact that it ended earlier than expected. I loved all of it, even though I came in eighth in my office Oscar pool, with only 14 correct.

 

[erasure fan1]

ETA: No idea where you got that budget figure for American Fiction. I see "significantly less than $10m."

It could be. I did a quick search and it said 20-25mil. Even at 10mil it's maybe breaking even depending on marketing. I get there's more to financials than just box-office. But I'll stand by saying a bunch of 10mil dollar films isn't the answer. It needs to get back to films like Apollo 13 or Forest Gump. Budget of 65 and 55mil, so by todays standard that's about 100 and 120mil. Apollo 13 most likely made the studio over 100mil. If you are counting on a movie needing to make 700+mil before you start making money. That's a bad bet. The movies that took the biggest hit are the 70 to 120mil mid budget films.

 

[TP2000]

I would anticipate some kind of bump for Poor Things.

I don't know. From who and where would the bump come from?

The 2024 Oscars had historically disappointing ratings of just under 19.5 Million viewers last night. That's less than half the viewers the Oscars had just 10 years ago when the 2014 Oscars had 43.7 Million viewers, which was already a drop from the 50 to 55 Million that were watching in the 1990's.

I'd imagine that most of the remaining audience for the Oscars are hardcore movie fans who have already seen Poor Things. I can't imagine any movie getting much of a bump (5% or less?) based on the low TV ratings for the Oscars ceremony, except for maybe Oppenheimer which is the headline for the media today as Best Picture.

 

[BuddyThomas]

I don't know. From who and where would the bump come from?

The 2024 Oscars had historically disappointing ratings of just under 19.5 Million viewers last night. That's less than half the viewers the Oscars had just 10 years ago when the 2014 Oscars had 43.7 Million viewers, which was already a drop from the 50 to 55 Million that were watching in the 1990's.

I'd imagine that most of the remaining audience for the Oscars are hardcore movie fans who have already seen Poor Things. I can't imagine any movie getting much of a bump (5% or less?) based on the low TV ratings for the Oscars ceremony, except for maybe Oppenheimer which is the headline for the media today as Best Picture.

View attachment 772537

Thanks for your never ending commentary about things you have not watched. It was a fantastic ceremony. Whether or not the ratings were low, people are able to look up all the great moments (and there were many) on YouTube and other streaming platforms. You don’t score a win just because ratings were low. That is always the case. Also, you are trying to twist the situation. Try again.

Oscar Viewership Rises 4% As ‘Oppenheimer’-Dominated Ceremony Starts An Hour Earlier

The 2024 Oscar ratings are in. Read more on Deadline.

deadline.com

 

[DKampy]

I really think this was the best Oscars in years. I loved how they had five actors in each acting category paying tribute to the five nominees. That created some truly beautiful moments. The song performances were fantastic, although I will never understand why that dumb song from Flaming Hot got nominated, other than the fact that it was written by Dianne Warren. I’m Just Ken was on fire! The John Cena thing was hysterical. In Memorium was tear inducing. There were several upsets, which was exciting. The speech from Mstyslav Chernov following the win for 20 Days in Mariupol was incredible. The Kimmel moment at the end that I’m sure we’re forbidden from discussing- priceless. The fact that it ended earlier than expected. I loved all of it, even though I came in eighth in my office Oscar pool, with only 14 correct.

I agree with everything you said…I can’t put my finger on it…but I thought the acting tributes worked much better this year then when they tried it a few years ago…anyway this was a spectacular Oscars…it was immensely entertaining while still celebrating movies

 

[Miss Rori]

Just to add Maverick last year had the same see-it-in-IMAX marketing. Obviously that title had other factors at play, but this does feel a bit like Revenge of the Cinerama (ok by me!)

Apparently a reason Dune Part Two isn't posting even bigger grosses straight out of the gate is because some people can't see it in premium formats right away, but are willing to wait. (This goes back to how the first film was day-and-date streaming, but apparently a chunk of people who first caught it on Max went on to see it theatrically too, particularly IMAX screenings.)

 

[Ghost93]

Apparently a reason Dune Part Two isn't posting even bigger grosses straight out of the gate is because some people can't see it in premium formats right away, but are willing to wait. (This goes back to how the first film was day-and-date streaming, but apparently a chunk of people who first caught it on Max went on to see it theatrically too, particularly IMAX screenings.)

Avatar: The Way of Water had a similar situation where people waited to see it in IMAX or Dolby instead of rushing out to see it opening weekend once the premium screens were taken. Dune Part 2 is kind of like Avatar in the sense that it's a movie that NEEDS to be seen on the biggest screen possible. It would be perfectly entertaining at home, but it wouldn't have quite the same impact.

 

[brideck]

I don't know. From who and where would the bump come from?

The 2024 Oscars had historically disappointing ratings of just under 19.5 Million viewers last night. That's less than half the viewers the Oscars had just 10 years ago when the 2014 Oscars had 43.7 Million viewers, which was already a drop from the 50 to 55 Million that were watching in the 1990's.

I'd imagine that most of the remaining audience for the Oscars are hardcore movie fans who have already seen Poor Things. I can't imagine any movie getting much of a bump (5% or less?) based on the low TV ratings for the Oscars ceremony, except for maybe Oppenheimer which is the headline for the media today as Best Picture.

Except that if you divide the domestic gross ($34m) by the average ticket price (~$10.50), you'll find that only 3+ million people have actually seen Poor Things in theaters. So even if we're just talking about the universe of Oscars viewers, it sure seems like there are plenty more people out there. Even today, TV audiences really are an order of magnitude bigger than anything else. Only 8 movies outdrew last night's ceremony with their ticket sales in 2023.

Having said that, with Dune consuming the universe, I'm not sure how many screens are going to be made available for the customary short increase, post-Oscars runs of the big awards winners. The Best Picture showcase screen bump in the week leading up to it was more or less non-existent this year. The bump may prove to be invisible, since it could happen via Hulu. Anecdotally, I know quite a few people who have seen it (and enjoyed it) in the last week that I would not have expected to seek it out.

 

[TP2000]

Thanks for your never ending commentary about things you have not watched. It was a fantastic ceremony. Whether or not the ratings were low, people are able to look up all the great moments (and there were many) on YouTube and other streaming platforms. You don’t score a win just because ratings were low. That is always the case. Also, you are trying to twist the situation. Try again.

Oscar Viewership Rises 4% As ‘Oppenheimer’-Dominated Ceremony Starts An Hour Earlier

The 2024 Oscar ratings are in. Read more on Deadline.

deadline.com

If you look at it from the statistical data, since the USA has grown in population in the last 25 years, it's even worse than the raw data of losing over half the viewers in just the last decade.

Using a few notable ratings highlights of the past 40 years, based on the US population at the time;

2024: 19.5 Million viewers = 6% of the US population of 334 Million
2014: 43.7 Million viewers = 14% of the US population of 318 Million
2004: 43.5 Million viewers = 15% of the US population of 293 Million
1998: 55.2 Million viewers = 20% of the US population of 276 Million
1983: 53.1 Million viewers = 23% of the US population of 234 Million

Trust me, I remember well the blowout Oscars viewing parties of the latter 20th century, into the early 21st century. But that time has long since passed. Last night it was playing on one TV out of three in the bar, and no one was watching. Then when we were seated at the table, none of us mentioned the Oscars. Getting only 6% of the US population to tune in to an allegedly still "Big!" TV show is not impressive. The culture has moved on, and it's no longer 1998.

I can't imagine there will be a noticeable bump for Poor Things because just under 6% of the US population watched the Oscars last night.

 

[TP2000]

Except that if you divide the domestic gross ($34m) by the average ticket price (~$10.50), you'll find that only 3+ million people have actually seen Poor Things in theaters.

Really? 3 Million? Using the same sort of facts and data as my previous post, that means Poor Things was seen by...

Poor Things: 3 Million tickets sold = 0.9% of the US population of 335 Million (I rounded up from 0.88% because I felt bad)

So if 0.9% of the US already saw it, and 6% of the US watched the Oscars, that means.... Screw it, I hate math.

 

[Ghost93]

Really? 3 Million? Using the same sort of facts and data as my previous post, that means Poor Things was seen by...

Poor Things: 3 Million tickets sold = 0.9% of the US population of 335 Million (I rounded up from 0.88% because I felt bad)

So if 0.9% of the US already saw it, and 6% of the US watched the Oscars, that means.... Screw it, I hate math.

Poor Things earned more than $100 million on a $35 million budget and has won numerous Oscars including Best Actress. By all objective measures, Poor Things is a success. I know dunking on Disney (while claiming not to be) is your thing, but this is the wrong movie to use as an example of the company's failings.

Although I wouldn't even consider Poor Things a "Disney film." Since distributed by a subsidiary of Disney, I suppose it's relevant to the company's financials (in a way that benefits the company). But in spirit it's not at all a Disney film. Instead, it's a very weird, R-Rated arthouse film for adults that is very much driven by an auteur director. It's not at all the corporate-mandated, committee-approved, market-researched-to-death blandness that people associate with the worst modern Disney movies.

 

[LittleBuford]

I love that we’re now pretending that only people who watched the Oscars know about and are influenced by the results.