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

[Chi84]

So weird how many "Disney fans" are just okay trashing the film that literally made Disney what it is just to prop up a lousy remake that will be completely forgotten in a few months.

At the very most we're disputing the notion that a remake would not have to be updated in any way.

 

[WoundedDreamer]

You assume that Shareholders care how much they spent on their latest movie. I never really see one question at any shareholder meeting or earnings call from anyone complaining the movie budgets are too high.

Also stakeholders have a different priority than monetary. So they don't care about budgets either.

The only people that care about budgets are those that are focused on trying to mark the latest film a "flop".

Shareholders care about profitability of the firm. The shareholders that ask questions at annual meetings are generally small retail investor "super fans." They tend to be more interested in the company's content than the company's performance. The actual number of retail investors who are in this group is comparatively tiny. The vast majority of shareholders (including institutions, pensions, hedge funds) are very concerned with the profitability of The Walt Disney Company. That includes box office grosses.

The Walt Disney Company has more than ten studio releases due in 2025. Because of this diversification, Disney is well positioned to handle individual poor performing films. However, multiple movies underperforming in a year can absolutely impact overall profitability and performance. Each film does matter, but the impact is blunted by diversification.

@Disstevefan1 is presenting a reasonable strategy for dealing with the shifting media landscape. By reducing budgets, Disney can accept lower box office grosses while turning handsome profits. The only complication are audiences expectations. Will audiences accept films that are less flashy? The other way to reduce budgets is to have projects more fleshed out when they are approved. That could reduce expensive reshoots, but that might hamper the creative team's ability to adjust to the film as it's realized. It's tricky business.

 

[Chi84]

That wasn't making out, it was a tender kiss goodbye.

I'm fairly sure he was kidding around in response to my post.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Fairytales are about symbolism, they are not meant to be taken literally. This attitude is why we don't get good fairytale movies anymore.

Fairytales embody the ideals and beliefs of the time in which they are told. Thus, they change depending on the time in which they are told. Disney changed all the fairytales it made into films from earlier versions - this is why silly people constantly complained about "Disney-fication" as though it was wrong or unusual. The people complaining about the new version changing the animated version are making the exact same dumb mistake.

 

[Disstevefan1]

So weird how many "Disney fans" are just okay trashing the film that literally made Disney what it is just to prop up a lousy remake that will be completely forgotten in a few months.

The film that made the company came out in 1937 and it made so much money it allowed Walt to build his studios and pay off debts.

 

[MagicMouseFan]

For a girl he only met for 30 seconds. It wasn't a long relationship is the point, especially not one that would warrant the need for a "goodbye kiss" as if he was a grieving widow.

Also… a wooden marionette could never turn into a boy if we are getting real about things.

 

[Farerb]

Symbolism? What does the kiss at the end of the movie symbolize?

Snow White's journey symbolizes a coming of age. A little girl becoming a woman. Eating the apple is the loss of innocence we experience as we grow up, but also the entire scenery with Snow White evokes life while the Queen evokes death and decay, hence why when she eats the apple the entire atmosphere changes from sunny to raining, as if the world died with her, and the power of true love is what wakes Snow but also brings life to the world again.

 

[Disney Irish]

Shareholders care about profitability of the firm. The shareholders that ask questions at annual meetings are generally small retail investor "super fans." They tend to be more interested in the company's content than the company's performance. The actual number of retail investors who are in this group is comparatively tiny. The vast majority of shareholders (including institutions, pensions, hedge funds) are very concerned with the profitability of The Walt Disney Company. That includes box office grosses.

The Walt Disney Company has more than ten studio releases due in 2025. Because of this diversification, Disney is well positioned to handle individual poor performing films. However, multiple movies underperforming in a year can absolutely impact overall profitability and performance. Each film does matter, but the impact is blunted by diversification.

@Disstevefan1 is presenting a reasonable strategy for dealing with the shifting media landscape. By reducing budgets, Disney can accept lower box office grosses while turning handsome profits. The only complication are audiences expectations. While audiences accept films that are less flashy? The other way to reduce budgets is to have projects more fleshed out when they are approved. That could reduce expensive reshoots, though that might hamper the creative team's ability to adjust to the film as it's realized. It's tricky business.

Assumptions are being made there however. If it was such an issue it would be brought up during earnings calls or shareholder meetings.

As an example, the no good very bad year of 2023 when very few movie made money and many were over budget there was not one single question about movie budgets.

It makes a nice headline and something we discuss about here, but very few if any major shareholder cares if a movie is over budget, just if the overall division is making money.

As far as strategy goes, ALL of us here have discussed the need for Disney to bring down budgets. So this is not some revolutionary stance that is being taken here. So lets put this into perspective.

 

[Agent H]

Snow White's journey symbolizes a coming of age. A little girl becoming a woman. Eating the apple is the loss of innocence we experience as we grow up, but also the entire scenery with Snow White evokes life while the Queen evokes death and decay, hence why when she eats the apple the entire atmosphere changes from sunny to raining, as if the world died with her, and the power of true love is what wakes Snow but also brings life to the world again.

Sorry deleted my original post by accident. Anyway that’s an interesting way of looking at it but I don’t see why that would majorly the view of someone who thinks that the end of the movie is “weird” I don’t even share that view myself but a good amount of people do.

 

[DKampy]

and ended Zeigler's career as a leading lady).

I doubt any career is over for Zegler… by most accounts she was not the issue with the movie, but was the highlight

 

[Phroobar]

I gotta give this one to you.
Fact is, the only stock in my portfolio in the green at the moment is Disney.

And the fact is, the reason I keep Disney is because I am a fan of the company even though I disagree a lot with what they do at WDW and in the movies.

I do think Disney is too big to fail.

It's not too big to be corporate raided.

• Wendy Darling: And what's so terribly important about your terribly important business?
• Jack: Well, you see, when a big company's in trouble, Dad sails in, and if there's *any* resistance...
• Peter Banning: Well, he's exaggerating. I'm still into mergers and acquisitions. And I'm dabbling in some land development.
• Jack: Any resistance - and he *blows* them out of the water.
• Wendy Darling: So, Peter, you've become a pirate.

 

[Farerb]

Sorry deleted my original post by accident. Anyway that’s an interesting way of looking at it but I don’t see why that would majorly the view of someone who thinks that the end of the movie is “weird” I don’t even share that view myself but a good amount of people do.

No one thought that it was like that 20 years ago. It only started in the early 2010s when shallow faux feminist buzzfeed articles decided to have a vendetta against the Princess films, all of them including Beauty and the Beast and Mulan, and that only happened because of the popularization of the Princess franchise in the early 2000s and the Shrek films crapping on Disney. No one thought that it was off that Barbara Streisand sang "Someday My Prince Will Come" and no one thought that the idea of true love (even if unrealistic) was terrible. People have become more cynical. Guys gets to enjoy their fantasies without people picking them apart, why not women?, hence why there's a severe lack of romcoms and chick flick. Hollywood rarely makes fun movies for women anymore.

 

[Trauma]

I gotta give this one to you.
Fact is, the only stock in my portfolio in the green at the moment is Disney.

And the fact is, the reason I keep Disney is because I am a fan of the company even though I disagree a lot with what they do at WDW and in the movies.

I do think Disney is too big to fail.

It’s impressive to be green on Disney.

The stock is basically where it was 10 years ago.

 

[Chi84]

It only started in the early 2010s when shallow faux feminist buzzfeed articles decided to have a vendetta against the Princess films

What?! Where was I when this happened? I've always loved all the princess films including live remakes.

Maybe I wasn't reading the same articles. It's possible you're giving them way too much credit.

Hollywood doesn't make fun movies for women? Where are you getting all of this?

 

[AdventureHasAName]

Do you know what a non-disclosure clause is? Your statement makes no sense.

Yes, it's a clause that prohibits one or more parties from revealing certain information.

 

[Farerb]

What?! Where was I when this happened? I've always loved all the princess films including live remakes.

Maybe I wasn't reading the same articles. It's possible you're giving them way too much credit.

Not just articles, even YouTube videos. It was extremely trendy back then:

 

[Chi84]

Yes, it's a clause that prohibits one or more parties from revealing certain information.

Right, but it's a confidentiality agreement. If Disney puts an actor in front of the press and tells her to answer questions about the movie, any confidentiality is waived. And that's only the first reason a non-disclosure agreement makes no sense here.

 

[Chi84]

Not just articles, even YouTube videos. It was extremely trendy back then:

Good lord what kind of crap do you watch?!

Do you believe there is anything in any way, shape or form that is feminist about that, faux or otherwise? I'll admit I had to turn the sound off about halfway.

 

[AdventureHasAName]

I doubt any career is over for Zegler… by most accounts she was not the issue with the movie, but was the highlight

Studios aren't going to hire her if they think she could tank the entire film during a press junket.

 

[Disney Irish]

No one thought that it was like that 20 years ago. It only started in the early 2010s when shallow faux feminist buzzfeed articles decided to have a vendetta against the Princess films, all of them including Beauty and the Beast and Mulan, and that only happened because of the popularization of the Princess franchise in the early 2000s and the Shrek films crapping on Disney. No one thought that it was off that Barbara Streisand sang "Someday My Prince Will Come" and no one thought that the idea of true love (even if unrealistic) was terrible. People have become more cynical. Guys gets to enjoy their fantasies without people picking them apart, why not women?, hence why there's a severe lack of romcoms and chick flick. Hollywood rarely makes fun movies for women anymore.

I think you missed the point of those articles if you indeed read them. The passive "damsel in distress princess needs rescue" trope is what was being discussed, and its not a vendetta, its was to say that these characters don't have to be one dimensional and need to be saved all the time, they can have more agency. And Disney themselves tried to move away from using this type of princess trope way before the 2010s. Its why you started to see Mulan, Belle, Rapunzel and many other strong female princess characters emerge.

Society and times changes, and so does views on old tropes that are no longer popular.