Elemental (Pixar - June 2023)

BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
You know, this may be one of those weird movies that finds its semblance of success post theatrically. I have no allusions that it started out way too low, but the holds indicate it might find actually find an audience eventually.

That doesn't help its financial performance, but people may actually watch it on D+ since clearly there is some nice word of mouth that the marketing never managed to get across.

All of which is to say this movie deserved to do better.
 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
All of which is to say this movie deserved to do better.
Click to expand...

They should have played up the Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? angle more. And also Catherine Freaking O'Hara.

The kids running the marketing department in Burbank are idiots.
 
Sir_Cliff

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
You know, this may be one of those weird movies that finds its semblance of success post theatrically. I have no allusions that it started out way too low, but the holds indicate it might find actually find an audience eventually.

That doesn't help its financial performance, but people may actually watch it on D+ since clearly there is some nice word of mouth that the marketing never managed to get across.

All of which is to say this movie deserved to do better.
Click to expand...
I'm increasingly coming down on the side of Elemental being a brand rebuilding exercise for Pixar, albeit an expensive one.

After the dumping of films on streaming over the past few years and noise around Turning Red and Lightyear (as well as Strange World), this film at least seems to be liked by those who are seeing it and the holds (particularly internationally) are suggesting that response is encouraging people to make the trip to the cinema rather than just waiting for it on Disney+. Hopefully that leads to a better response for Elio.

To me, it seemed an open question whether families could still be coaxed to spend the significant sums involved taking the family to see Disney-branded entertainment when presumably part of the logic of paying the monthly Disney+ fee is that it's cheaper than a trip to the movies. I also feel Little Mermaid is a positive sign in that regard for Disney as it shows the audience is still out there to bring in hundreds of millions at the box office.

Whether all of that supports $200million+ budget films is another question. Again, though, I agree that Disney+ revenues are not irrelevant to this equation. The service isn't turning a profit yet, but it is bringing in around $2billion in revenue every quarter for Disney in part based on the promise Disney will regularly have new films like TLM and Elemental coming onto the service. I don't know how you calculate that into the revenue that each of these films ultimately brought in to the company, but it's certainly not nothing.
 
Last edited:
Ghost93

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
You know, this may be one of those weird movies that finds its semblance of success post theatrically. I have no allusions that it started out way too low, but the holds indicate it might find actually find an audience eventually.

That doesn't help its financial performance, but people may actually watch it on D+ since clearly there is some nice word of mouth that the marketing never managed to get across.

All of which is to say this movie deserved to do better.
Click to expand...
It may also give the movie a second life in merchandising.

Remember, The Princess and the Frog was also a financial disappointment. However, the Disney company has still made a lot of money off of Tiana merch due to the movie finding an audience on home video.
 
Ghost93

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
TP2000 said:
They should have played up the Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? angle more. And also Catherine Freaking O'Hara.

The kids running the marketing department in Burbank are idiots.
Click to expand...
Now that you mention it, the movie WAS very much "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" while the marketing made it seem more "Romeo and Juliet."
 
BrianLo

BrianLo

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
Whether all of that supports $200million+ budget films is another question. Again, though, I agree that Disney+ revenues are not irrelevant to this equation. The service isn't turning a profit yet, but it is bringing in around $2billion in revenue every quarter for Disney in part based on the promise Disney will regularly have new films like TLM and Elemental coming onto the service. I don't know how you calculate that into the revenue that each of these films ultimately brought in to the company, but it's certainly not nothing.
Click to expand...

Apparently they have been paying about 50-200 million towards theatrical films. 55 on the low end to Strange World, Lightyear 95, Thor was 160, Wakanda 170, Doctor Strange 180, and Avatar WoW 200 on the high end.

They seem to be paying somewhat, what they think the films are worth, if they had not been sent to D+. Roughly.

We don't have receipts but I think they footed the entirety of the bills for the direct to stream Pixar movies. Probably why loses re-escalated with Chapek despite the service 'making' more and more money the entire time.

So I'd imagine with strong audience reception, they may allot on the 100 million end to Elementals.
 
Sir_Cliff

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
BrianLo said:
Apparently they have been paying about 50-200 million towards theatrical films. 55 on the low end to Strange World, Lightyear 95, Thor was 160, Wakanda 170, Doctor Strange 180, and Avatar WoW 200 on the high end.

They seem to be paying somewhat, what they think the films are worth, if they had not been sent to D+. Roughly.

We don't have receipts but I think they footed the entirety of the bills for the direct to stream Pixar movies. Probably why loses re-escalated with Chapek despite the service 'making' more and more money the entire time.

So I'd imagine with strong audience reception, they may allot on the 100 million end to Elementals.
Click to expand...
Very interesting! Thanks for that context.

It does also put into some context all of Disney+'s losses if so much of the money they 'lose' is just paid to another division of the company.
 
Ghost93

Ghost93

Well-Known Member
Has anyone else had this song from the movie stuck in their head the past two weeks? Not so much the lyrics, but the tune.

 
TP2000

TP2000

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
I'm increasingly coming down on the side of Elemental being a brand rebuilding exercise for Pixar, albeit an expensive one.
Click to expand...

I can easily agree with that assessment, and if true, I wish them well with that needed process.

My only hesitation is the belief they are doing this on purpose, and planned it this way. Luckily for them they had an Elemental to start the process with instead of a Strange World. I think they just lucked out on having Elemental land on the calendar where it did.

Ghost93 said:
Now that you mention it, the movie WAS very much "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner" while the marketing made it seem more "Romeo and Juliet."
Click to expand...

It was a huge missed opportunity with the marketing. I really think most of the kids working in Burbank now are not bright people.
 
Tha Realest

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
Sir_Cliff said:
Very interesting! Thanks for that context.

It does also put into some context all of Disney+'s losses if so much of the money they 'lose' is just paid to another division of the company.
Click to expand...
This line of thought doesn’t hold up when you consider Disney has removed a bunch of its own produced content because of the recurring costs it entails. Tons of original movies and shows were taken off to save hundreds of millions of dollars. So, the “Disney’s just paying themselves so it’s not a problem” notion doesn’t give much comfort to the producers of Artemis Fowl or Cheaper by the Dozen
 
Disney Irish

Disney Irish

Premium Member
EPCOT-O.G. said:
This line of thought doesn’t hold up when you consider Disney has removed a bunch of its own produced content because of the recurring costs it entails. Tons of original movies and shows were taken off to save hundreds of millions of dollars. So, the “Disney’s just paying themselves so it’s not a problem” notion doesn’t give much comfort to the producers of Artemis Fowl or Cheaper by the Dozen
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that Kenneth Branagh and Kenya Barris (creator of Blackish) respectively will be just fine, especially since both have been paid already for each respective works.

Its the nature of the business, so lets not start crying crocodile tears.
 
Sir_Cliff

Sir_Cliff

Well-Known Member
EPCOT-O.G. said:
This line of thought doesn’t hold up when you consider Disney has removed a bunch of its own produced content because of the recurring costs it entails. Tons of original movies and shows were taken off to save hundreds of millions of dollars. So, the “Disney’s just paying themselves so it’s not a problem” notion doesn’t give much comfort to the producers of Artemis Fowl or Cheaper by the Dozen
Click to expand...
I didn't say that there are no issues in terms of Disney+'s profitability, but if part of those losses included things like payments of $50million or so essentially to themselves to show Strange World then it at least suggests that the headline figure is not the whole story. It also helps bring us back to the point that Disney as a company is still wildly profitable.

I suspect culling so much content in an effort to find quick cost savings also has a lot to do with the short-term bias of Wall Street, which quickly swung from wanting everyone to be all-in on streaming whatever the cost to the opposite end of the spectrum. Ripping stuff off the service that people won't miss is probably one of the easiest ways to cut costs when that's where all the investor focus is directed. They're less likely to cut the fees they pay to themselves as I'm sure that's saving them plenty in taxes and helps other divisions look healthier.
 
Last edited:

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

Back
Top Bottom