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

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
I agree the comments may have gone a bit too far but I think it’s just a sad remark on people these days being unwilling to look past their initial assumptions for the facts.

That's not an assumption; they were explicitly told it was going to have X and not have Y by someone who would know.

If I tell you I'm going to make a peanut butter, jalapeno, and anchovy sandwich and I would like you to buy one from me, then you leave because that sounds terrible, it's not your fault I wasn't able to sell the sandwich even if I give up the stupid plan and just make it peanut butter.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I think this is where the original comments hurt it. The first comments most of us heard about this movie was Gadot and Zegler talking about how It wasn’t going to be like the old, obviously outdated, original, she wasn’t going to be saved by a stalker Prince, she was going to find her role as a leader, etc. It sounded like a completely different, “woke” (I know people hate this use of the word but I don’t know how else to describe it), version of a movie we grew up with and love.

It sounds like the film ended up similar to the original but a ton of people will never know because the tone was set years before it actually released and that tone was mostly negative.
But what is now being decried as “woke” in this context—the move towards more robust portrayals of female leads—has been standard in Disney (and other family) entertainment since the ’90s. “She’s not gonna be saved by the prince” applies just as much—and indeed more so—to Frozen. The shift in discourse has been much more extreme than the shift in actual representation. Nothing Zegler or Gadot said about the remake should have been enough to cause the kind of reaction we’ve seen. I really think some people are just looking for reasons to feel ideologically affronted.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
That's not an assumption; they were explicitly told it was going to have X and not have Y by someone who would know.

If I tell you I'm going to make a peanut butter, jalapeno, and anchovy sandwich and I would like you to buy one from me, then you leave because that sounds terrible, it's not your fault I wasn't able to sell the sandwich even if I give up the stupid plan and just make it peanut butter.
So having seen the movie, their statements aren't incorrect based on the movie that was released though. And this is the problem with assuming based on a few comments 2-3 years before a movies is released without even seeing a trailer.

To use your analogy it would be like saying you're going to sell a sandwich and people deciding they don't want it a full 3 years before you open up the sandwich shop and list out all the ingredients of the sandwich just because you said you might use rye instead of white or wheat bread when talking about opening the shop. Not knowing that you'd still have white and wheat bread available in your sandwich shop when it opens.
 

Agent H

Well-Known Member
That's not an assumption; they were explicitly told it was going to have X and not have Y by someone who would know.

If I tell you I'm going to make a peanut butter, jalapeno, and anchovy sandwich and I would like you to buy one from me, then you leave because that sounds terrible, it's not your fault I wasn't able to sell the sandwich even if I give up the stupid plan and just make it peanut butter.
Good analogy. Let’s continue with that. If you marketed to me that you had made a new sandwich with jalapeños and cream cheese (I’m changing it because I don’t like peanut butter) I would probably come back.
 

Vegas Disney Fan

Well-Known Member
But again this makes the assumption that no studio is doing anything else but those delayed or cancelled movies. Most studios don't just have one or two productions going, Disney certainly doesn't, they have a pipeline of movies in various stages of production. So if one gets delayed or cancelled they fast track another into production so they have something always going. If they didn't we'd have no movies released to theaters because they wouldn't have anything in the pipeline. This is how the Hollywood engine works. No studio just completely shutdown all productions for months or years without an external force such as the strikes or a pandemic.
You are assuming there’s a huge backlog of demand just waiting for space and crews though, which isn’t true, soundstages are struggling to stay alive from lack of demand.

https://variety.com/2024/film/features/california-production-soundstages-survive-to-2025-1236194485/

This is the newest report I can find but both on location and soundstage productions days are substantially down.

IMG_7693.webp
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
You are assuming there’s a huge backlog of demand just waiting for space and crews though, which isn’t true, soundstages are struggling to stay alive from lack of demand.

https://variety.com/2024/film/features/california-production-soundstages-survive-to-2025-1236194485/
This is a strawman. That has nothing to do with Snow White bombing, or Disney potentially cancelling other live action films. That has to do more with a shift by Hollywood to do productions in other states and countries. One that is hopefully helped by CA upping its tax credits to bring productions back to CA. But nothing to do with studios cancelling a future movie because a previous one bombed.

So lets play this out, Snow White bombs, this causes Disney to cancel the Tangled live action which was going to have its production in Pinewood Studios in the UK, instead because they already rented out the production space they spin up production on another movie that was ready and take up that spot in Pinewood Studios. No jobs were lost. And none of that has anything to do with the soundstages sitting empty in LA waiting for a production that never booked it in the first place.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
It's a shame that people aren't able to, you know, take in new information and overturn their preconceived notions. But that pretty much sums up modern society as a whole, so why would the conversation around one little movie be any different?
But why should they? It sounded like a trainwreck. The trailers looked like a trainwreck. And funny enough the majority of people think it's bad. Plus with the comments, why would they want to give it a chance?
I agree the comments may have gone a bit too far but I think it’s just a sad remark on people these days being unwilling to look past their initial assumptions for the facts.
I don't get this line of thinking. If your favorite store or restaurant said they hate you and they don't need your business, are you giving them your money? I highly doubt it. So why should the 10s of millions of people she insulted give the movie a chance? Especially since nothing they showed or said about the film looked good. Maybe, as I've said, more people give it a chance if this all stopped at, weird weird. But it didn't.
 

WorldExplorer

Well-Known Member
So having seen the movie, their statements aren't incorrect based on the movie that was released though. And this is the problem with assuming based on a few comments 2-3 years before a movies is released without even seeing a trailer.

To use your analogy it would be like saying you're going to sell a sandwich and people deciding they don't want it a full 3 years before you open up the sandwich shop and list out all the ingredients of the sandwich just because you said you might use rye instead of white or wheat bread when talking about opening the shop. Not knowing that you'd still have white and wheat bread available in your sandwich shop when it opens.

If what she said sounded like a "might" to you then I don't know what to tell you because you're clearly not arguing in good faith. She clearly said this is going to happen and this isn't; the only "might" was that they might cut her costar entirely (which just reinforces the comment about not being saved). People are not wrong to take information presented to them as something confirmed as confirmed. And you intentionally shift the analogy to bread choice instead of filling to make it seem more inconsequential: she's talking about the main character of the film. If that's the bread, what's the filling?

Dozens of movies open every year and Disney has to compete for their attention. People have this weird idea that people are obligated to give Disney more attention than normal; normally, when you see a film that is clearly heading in a direction you don't like, you stop paying attention. You don't keep watching it to see if it might turn around into something you like. Huge, visible changes can change minds (e.g. Sonic), sure, but that's not what happened here.

If Disney's marketing plan is to hope people give them a bunch of chances and keep checking in on the press releases to see if the movie has entirely changed course, then good luck to them.

Good analogy. Let’s continue with that. If you marketed to me that you had made a new sandwich with jalapeños and cream cheese (I’m changing it because I don’t like peanut butter) I would probably come back.

If their marketing was supposed to contradict what was said wasn't going to be in the film/was going to be in the film then I definitely missed it. I definitely didn't see anything indicating a guy saving her or indicating they dropped the leadership thing.

Maybe if you're really following closely it was there, but I have no reason to do that when there are dozens of other films to pay attention to and it's already been made clear to me that this film is not going to be something I want.
 
Last edited:

Disney Irish

Premium Member
This is the newest report I can find but both on location and soundstage productions days are substantially down.

View attachment 850554
You're trying to conflate a bunch of things together that have nothing to do with each other.

Look I'm all for having more local productions here in California. But you're doing a lot of heavy lifting trying to pin this on Snow White and it bombing and some domino effect that its going to have on the local LA region.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
To use your analogy it would be like saying you're going to sell a sandwich and people deciding they don't want it a full 3 years before you open up the sandwich shop and list out all the ingredients of the sandwich just because you said you might use rye instead of white or wheat bread when talking about opening the shop.
Here's the problem with what you are saying. There's a reason the saying, "you only get one chance to make a first impression". So not matter the analogy you want to use, it really doesn't matter. The first impressions of this film were bad. Therefore people wrote it off. Then all the comments pretty much guaranteed an extremely large group wasn't going to give it a shot. And the cherry was the movie was panned by most who saw it, giving it almost no chance of a bounce back.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
I don't get this line of thinking. If your favorite store or restaurant said they hate you and they don't need your business, are you giving them your money?
For this analogy to hold, Disney, not Zegler, would have to have authored the remarks in question. All of us have given our money to businesses whose many employees include individuals who may dislike us. Zegler was speaking for herself, not the Disney Company.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
If what she said sounded like a "might" to you then I don't know what to tell you because you're clearly not arguing in good faith. She clearly said this is going to happen and this isn't; the only "might" was that they might cut her costar entirely (which just reinforces the comment about not being saved). People are not wrong to take information presented to them as something confirmed as confirmed. And you intentionally shift the analogy to bread choice instead of filling to make it seem more inconsequential: she's talking about the main character of the film. If that's the bread, what's the filling?

Dozens of movies open every year and Disney has to compete for their attention. People have this weird idea that people are obligated to give Disney more attention than normal; normally, when you see a film that is clearly heading in a direction you don't like, you stop paying attention. You don't keep watching it to see if it might turn around into something you like. Huge, visible changes can change minds (e.g. Sonic), sure, but that's not what happened here.

If Disney's marketing plan is to hope people give them a bunch of chances and keep checking in on the press releases to see if the movie has entirely changed course, then good luck to them.



If their marketing was supposed to contradict what was said wasn't going to be in the film/was going to be in the film then I definitely missed it. I definitely didn't see anything indicating a guy saving her or indicating they dropped the leadership thing.

Maybe if you're really following closely it was there, but I have no reason to do that when there are dozens of other films to pay attention to and it's already been made clear to me that this film is not going to be something I want.
The "filling" is the core plot of the story which neither actually described in their actual comments, they gave broad strokes of the plot, again a full 2 years before a teaser was release and 3 years before the full release.

A perfect example, people assumed that by her saying "she's not going to be dreaming about true love" meant that there would be no love story at all in the movie which isn't the case. Many people made that assumption 3 years ago here. She didn't say "Snow White isn't going to be a love story anymore", she's gave a broad stroke to say that Snow's focus isn't going to be true love but rather the kingdom. And yet in the final cut a love story is still part of the movie. A people made an assumption and it was wrong.

I learned a long time ago that when announced so early that comments usually made about a film that early in production either aren't fully accurate (they are trying to keep things hidden) or can change based on changes during production. But no people made assumptions based on 3 year old comments that may or may not actually reflect that is in the actual released cut of the movie.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
For this analogy to hold, Disney, not Zegler, would have to have authored the remarks in question. All of us have given our money to businesses whose many employees include individuals who may dislike us. Zegler was speaking for herself, not the Disney Company.
Not only that she never even said she hated anyone, that is people putting their own spin on what she said.
 

Disney Irish

Premium Member
Here's the problem with what you are saying. There's a reason the saying, "you only get one chance to make a first impression". So not matter the analogy you want to use, it really doesn't matter. The first impressions of this film were bad. Therefore people wrote it off. Then all the comments pretty much guaranteed an extremely large group wasn't going to give it a shot. And the cherry was the movie was panned by most who saw it, giving it almost no chance of a bounce back.
And yet many a movie have bounced back after failing those first impressions. The famous one recently was "ugly sonic". Not to mention all the mocking of Chris Pratt's take on Mario's voice.
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
Since she has been brought up for comparative purposes, I’ll note that even though Carano espouses views that I find offensive and that indicate that I’m not her kind of person, I’m able to separate her from the company she works for and the product she appears in. Would I have stopped watching The Mandalorian had Disney kept her on? No, I wouldn’t have. That would be giving Carano much too much power over my life.
 

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
For this analogy to hold, Disney, not Zegler, would have to have authored the remarks in question. All of us have given our money to businesses whose many employees include individuals who may dislike us. Zegler was speaking for herself, not the Disney Company.
Well they sure as heck didn't disown the statements. So as I was told here, and many agreed with. If you don't condemn it you are endorsing it. No, I would never give my money at that moment to anyone who would disrespect me. And that's what we are talking about. She said it and people are staying away from that project. Just as you wouldn't eat at a place where the hostess insulted you and the manager did nothing. You might go back later with a new staff and management.
Not only that she never even said she hated anyone, that is people putting their own spin on what she said.
It's getting to the point of save the watches because it's getting deep. The only spin is this nonsense trying to justify what she said. I guess it's only hate when they don't agree with you right?
And yet many a movie have bounced back after failing those first impressions. The famous one recently was "ugly sonic". Not to mention all the mocking of Chris Pratt's take on Mario's voice.
Sure they have. But I would like for you to post the quote of Pratt insulting half the country. Or maybe the one of him saying I don't need your business if you don't agree with me. If you're going to criticize people on there analogies, you might want to work on yours a bit. I didn't say it couldn't bounce back, I said it probably has no shot because of her comments. People complained about Marios voice for sure. To liken it to the issues with snow white is Disney defense at it's finest.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom