'Strange World' Disney's 2022 Animated Film

[TP2000]

Wait, wait, wait, so because of Strange World, and Lightyear because I know you'll throw that in there, didn't make back their budgets Disney can no longer meet payroll? That is what you're claiming? You're serious with this post?!?

No, they'll meet payroll this month. And this quarter. And this year. It was a joke.

But if they keep vaporizing $100 Million on a summer film, then lose another $175+ Million on a Thanksgiving film, and then another big flop next summer.... the studio can't continue operating. Something must change. Either the films change, or the studio changes.

But it's not a sustainable business model long term. Especially when your budgets are bloated up beyond $150 Million per film.

 

[Disney Irish]

No, they'll meet payroll this month. And this quarter. And this year. It was a joke.

But if they keep vaporizing $100 Million on a summer film, then lose another $175+ Million on a Thanksgiving film, and then another big flop next summer.... the studio can't continue operating. Something must change. Either the films change, or the studio changes.

But it's not a sustainable business model long term. Especially when your budgets are bloated up beyond $150 Million per film.

You do realize that TWDC is not reliant on just WDAS and Pixar, right? You're making it seem like the revenue from these two studios are the only money Disney is relying on to make or break the company. WDAS and Pixar for the next decade could continue losing money and the company overall would still be fine financially. And it should be reminded that many Disney films over the years have been flops at the box office, and the company is still here to celebrate its 100th anniversary. So I'm not worry about them making payroll or whatever else you want to claim.

However with that said, and has been discussed MANY times in this thread and others, long term the company will make changes to hopefully make sure future WDAS and Pixar films aren't flops. Iger it appears is already be making those changes, such as the recent reorg to give decision making powers back to the studio heads.

 

[Heppenheimer]

You do realize that TWDC is not reliant on just WDAS and Pixar, right? You're making it seem like the revenue from these two studios are the only money Disney is relying on to make or break the company. WDAS and Pixar for the next decade could continue losing money and the company overall would still be fine financially. And it should be reminded that many Disney films over the years have been flops at the box office, and the company is still here to celebrate its 100th anniversary. So I'm not worry about them making payroll or whatever else you want to claim.

However with that said, and has been discussed MANY times in this thread and others, long term the company will make changes to hopefully make sure future WDAS and Pixar films aren't flops. Iger it appears is already be making those changes, such as the recent reorg to give decision making powers back to the studio heads.

If that were to ever happen, those two studios would likely be spun off from the larger company and canibalized for spare parts. Only during WWII did Disney films consistently lose money, and the studio only stayed afloat then because of US government contracts.

 

[Disney Irish]

If that were to ever happen, those two studios would likely be spun off from the larger company and canibalized for spare parts. Only during WWII did Disney films consistently lose money, and the studio only stayed afloat then because of US government contracts.

Nah that wouldn't happen as they would reorg the company first before it ever came to spinning off a whole studio let alone two or more.

 

[BuddyThomas]

Its a message board, it is kind of the point.

Also very substantial as not since "Waking Sleeping Beauty" Great Mouse Detective era has Disney not done well as their most famous game for the entire year this badly.

It's a message board, it's kind of the point of several members on here (not referring to you) to endlessly bash everything that has a gay character in it? Nope. I don't think that's kind of the point of a message board, but I think it is kind of the point of these haters. Also, they have not even seen the movie, but the obsessively post about it endlessly.

 

[Phroobar]

Strange World was not nominated for Best Animated Movie. My bet is Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio.

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio
Marcel the Shell with Shoes On
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
The Sea Beast
Turning Red

 

[LittleBuford]

Strange World was not nominated for Best Animated Movie. My bet is Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio.

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio
Marcel the Shell with Shoes On
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
The Sea Beast
Turning Red

Of the nominated films, I’ve seen only Turning Red. I didn’t love it. I’ll have to check the rest out at some point.

 

[DKampy]

Strange World was not nominated for Best Animated Movie. My bet is Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio.

Guillermo del Toro's Pinocchio
Marcel the Shell with Shoes On
Puss in Boots: The Last Wish
The Sea Beast
Turning Red

One of the easiest bets to make outside of Avatar winning best visual effects

 

[Phroobar]

One of the easiest bets to make outside of Avatar winning best visual effects

They might go Asian girl power and go Turning Red. However, I think Everything Everywhere All at Once might sweep.
Definitely Avatar wins best visual effects.
They will probably go with Angela Bassett best supporting actress with Michelle Yeoh for best actress.

 

[DKampy]

They might go Asian girl power and go Turning Red. However, I think Everything Everywhere All at Once might sweep.
Definitely Avatar wins best visual effects.
They will probably go with Angela Bassett best supporting actress with Michelle Yeoh for best actress.

I don’t think Turning Red has a shot…if there is an upset that would be the last one to cause a stir…but Pinocchio has it in the bag…Angela Basset is good bet for best supporting…but I think the academy older voters could favor Cate Blanchett over Michelle Yeouh…but I would not be surprised if it was either one….I am rooting for Everything Everywhere at this point…I have a couple more movies to see though…going to see The Fablemans this weekend

 

[Phroobar]

It is strange there isn't a Disney Animated Studios nomination. Typically you have a Disney nomination, Pixar nomination, Dream Works/Illuminations/Blue Sky nomination, Netflix nomination and independent nomination. Pinocchio took that spot for two Netflix nominations.

Turning Red was probably the weakest of the list. Even Marcel the Shell had a kind of charm to it.

 

[Phroobar]

Everything Everywhere felt like a lower budget version of Doctor Strange 2 but with a much better story, far better acting and less CG crap. It was a pretty manic movie but so much fun.

 

[LittleBuford]

It is strange there isn't a Disney Animated Studios nomination.

Not really. I just checked the list of winners and nominees since the category was established in 2001, and there were no Disney Animated Studios films in 2001, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2010, 2011, 2015, 2017, 2019, and 2020 (though it should be noted that Disney didn’t produce any films in four of those years).

The critics didn’t love Strange World, and neither did audiences. It is no surprise at all that it wasn’t nominated. Had it been, many in this thread would be loudly complaining about progressive conspiracies and agendas.

 

[TP2000]

The foreign box office numbers were just updated this afternoon, as they only get updates about once per week.

@RobWDW1971 brought up this angle to the Strange World saga weeks ago, and it's really come into focus now that Puss In Boots has opened in almost all foreign markets except the UK. Foreign audiences disliked Strange World even more than American audiences. Or, did Disney market Strange World in foreign countries at an even weaker to non-existent level than they did in the USA?

Whatever the reason, Strange World's foreign numbers are alarmingly low for a brand that likes to think of itself as a "global" presence.

Strange World foreign box office only amounted to 80% of its already extremely weak domestic box office.

Puss In Boots had a domestic box office over thee times that of Strange World, but then also made 138% of that in foreign markets. The foreign box office for Puss In Boots is six times that of Strange World's foreign box office!

 

[LittleBuford]

So Strange World underperformed in foreign markets even worse than it did in the USA...

The fact is that Strange World underperformed (the polite way of saying bombed) in overseas Western countries that allowed it to be shown at a greater rate than it bombed in the USA.

And it bombed even worse in foreign countries where allegedly hip and enlightened people live, unlike unfashionable American places like Ohio or Texas or Idaho. But the British and Belgians and French and Australians disliked Strange World even more than we did! Shocker!

Strange World continues to underperform at an even greater rate in foreign countries than it has in the USA, historically speaking with previous family animation. It's not just an American thing. If anything, Strange World was more popular in America that it is overseas.

The trend continues for Strange World that it is actually much weaker in foreign markets than it is in domestic markets.

If our betters can whiff their nose at Midwesterners who didn't flock to Strange World, they'd have to wear an N95 mask lined with fresh lavender to deal with the middle-class Australians and Japanese and Swedes and Germans! And the Mexicans and Poles and Filipinos and Indians really, really don't like Strange World.

Yet the facts still remain, regardless of anything any of us here say or do. Strange World flopped during the same holiday season that Puss In Boots did quite well. Especially in foreign markets, where Strange World flopped even harder than the USA. Why is that?

Puss In Boots hasn't even opened yet in several huge foreign markets. Puss In Boots doesn't open for several more weeks in the United Kingdom, South Korea, Japan, etc. but it's overseas totals are still quite large compared to Strange World.

This really shows that Strange World was an even bigger flop globally than it was here at home. Foreign audiences really, really disliked Strange World compared to Puss In Boots. By almost 5 to 1 at this point.

Whatever the reason, Strange World's foreign numbers are alarmingly low for a brand that likes to think of itself as a "global" presence.

Strange World foreign box office only amounted to 80% of its already extremely weak domestic box office.

Puss In Boots had a domestic box office over thee times that of Strange World, but then also made 138% of that in foreign markets. The foreign box office for Puss In Boots is six times that of Strange World's foreign box office!

I ask this in all sincerity: What are you hoping to achieve by reiterating the same point again and again, particularly when no-one here is denying that Strange World flopped?

 

[TP2000]

I ask this in all sincerity: What are you hoping to achieve by reiterating the same point again and again, particularly when no-one here is denying that Strange World flopped?

I'd love to know what their global marketing strategy was for Strange World, wouldn't you?

Like, what leads a studio to spend $140 Million on a film, then abandon it as if it was an old pair of shoes?

Why did Puss In Boots do gangbuster business in foreign countries, but Strange World did the exact opposite? And what is Burbank going to do to make sure that never happens again for a $140 Million investment several years in the making?

 

[BuddyThomas]

I'd love to know what their global marketing strategy was for Strange World, wouldn't you?

Like, what leads a studio to spend $140 Million on a film, then abandon it as if it was an old pair of shoes?

Why did Puss In Boots do gangbuster business in foreign countries, but Strange World did the exact opposite? And what is Burbank going to do to make sure that never happens again for a $140 Million investment several years in the making?

By the way, Puss in Boots was a sequel to a huge franchise and is a known entity, and it has Antonio Bandares promoting it all over the place, including in my office the other day. So your little question about why Puss did better has a
pretty simple answer. I saw it and it is a lot of fun. So is Strange World. Did you see either one of them? No. And yet you continue….on and on…..

 

[Chi84]

I ask this in all sincerity: What are you hoping to achieve by reiterating the same point again and again, particularly when no-one here is denying that Strange World flopped?

This happens on other threads with other posters too. Maybe they think it’s a very important point that’s not getting across; maybe they’re a little too involved with the issue. The COVID threads were notorious for having the same people say the same thing over and over. It stops when people get tired of it and refuse to engage.

 

[Rich T]

Why did Puss In Boots do gangbuster business in foreign countries, but Strange World did the exact opposite? And what is Burbank going to do to make sure that never happens again for a $140 Million investment several years in the making?

PIBTLW is from a familiar franchise, it’s a sequel featuring a popular character, and a comedy with depth. SW is a new IP in a genre Disney struggles to find initial audiences for, but I hope they keep trying.

And PIBTLW is a much bettter movie. SW is good but flawed, while PIBTLW is funnier, scarier, more exciting, more entertaining and more emotional. Rave reviews always help. But again, Puss had out-of-the-gate advantage of familiarity, so it’s easy to describe: “Down to his last life, Puss faces his own mortality while being stalked by a terrifying bounty Hunter.”

Also, Puss 2 wasn’t abandoned PR-wise by its studio. But it’s no contest; Puss 2 is just a great film. Totally deserves its Oscar nomination.

It has nothing to do with cultural themes or politics; If SW had been better written, it could have been a hit.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'd love to know what their global marketing strategy was for Strange World, wouldn't you?

Like, what leads a studio to spend $140 Million on a film, then abandon it as if it was an old pair of shoes?

Why did Puss In Boots do gangbuster business in foreign countries, but Strange World did the exact opposite? And what is Burbank going to do to make sure that never happens again for a $140 Million investment several years in the making?

OK, but how does repeatedly and gleefully posting variations on the same data get us any further in answering these questions? If anything, it stifles meaningful discussion of the topic.