The Super Mario Bros. Movie not doing that great...

[flynnibus]

I think Turning Red is completely appropriate for kids 10 and up (potentially earlier if they are more mature), but I think a problem is — in America — all animation is viewed as something that must be okay for kindergarten-aged kids, and a lot of times parents feel angry if a movie opens up a conversation they weren't ready to have.

Yet Simpsons has been on broadcast TV for how many years?
Shrek?
Up?

I think you keep making up these rules to justify your beliefs - but they fail the litmus test every time to be universal as you keep trying to use them.

 

[Ghost93]

I think you keep making up these rules to justify your beliefs - but they fail the litmus test every time to be universal as you keep trying to use them.

What beliefs are those exactly? Say what you mean.

 

[DKampy]

They can be. Depends on who you're hiring.

I've used this example before, but when Dan Levy created Schitt's Creek, he wanted to create a hilarious show that also became a wonderful example of LGBT inclusivity and representation. When Billy Eichner created Bros, he wanted to create a "gay movie"

Interesting point. Peacock doesn't hurt Universal's releases but somehow Disney+ hurts Disney's releases. Maybe the Disney releases weren't popular enough when they were released in the first place?

Far more families have Disney plus than Peacock…. I would gather Disney plus is a staple streaming service in most families with kids…When you have a large family movies get expensive…might as well choose the movie whose streaming service you don’t have…

I still go the movies quite a bit as I still find that is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment, but it is only my wife and I…. I imagine prices add up once you have 2, 3, or more kids

 

[flynnibus]

What beliefs are those exactly? Say what you mean.

• "all animation is viewed as something that must be okay for kindergarten-aged kids, and a lot of times parents feel angry if a movie opens up a conversation they weren't ready to have." --- examples given to the otherwise

• blaming the poor reception of films on the D+ release window --- examples given where other animated films with short releases did great

• Acknowledging Mario's success = "want Disney movies to be more shallow"

• "The success of the movie has little to do with the quality of the film itself and more to do with the popularity of Mario in general." -- yet other films without the nostalgia nor the 'superiority' you highlight do great too.

You keep making up these excuses -- yet they all fail scrutiny.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Far more families have Disney plus than Peacock….

Doctor Strange did almost a billion, and that's on Disney+.

Marvel movies that end up on Disney+ still do big box office. Animated movies that end up on Peacock still do big box office. Consistent crappy financial performance is unique to Pixar and WDAS because their content has been crap.

 

[Phroobar]

Far more families have Disney plus than Peacock…. I would gather Disney plus is a staple streaming service in most families with kids…When you have a large family movies get expensive…might as well choose the movie whose streaming service you don’t have…

I still go the movies quite a bit as I still find that is one of the cheapest forms of entertainment, but it is only my wife and I…. I imagine prices add up once you have 2, 3, or more kids

I still think it is a straw man considering the number of kids and families that went to see SMB. Why don't they show up for a Disney/Pixar movie? I think it because Universal's ips are lot more hip than a story about Chinese-Canadian girl turning into a bear.

 

[DKampy]

Doctor Strange did almost a billion, and that's on Disney+.

Marvel movies that end up on Disney+ still do big box office. Animated movies that end up on Peacock still do big box office. Consistent crappy financial performance is unique to Pixar and WDAS because their content has been crap.

I specifically said families… and more people than families go for Marvel movies… plus Marvel is a different breed… as people trying to avoid spoilers… but I would argue even marvel is not making as much money as it could due yo Disney Plus

 

[DKampy]

I still think it is a straw man considering the number of kids and families that went to see SMB. Why don't they show up for a Disney/Pixar movie? I think it because Universal's ips are lot more hip than a story about Chinese-Canadian girl turning into a bear.

We will never know cause that “Chinese-Canadian girl turning into a bear” movie was never in theaters

 

[Ghost93]

I specifically said families… and more people than families go for Marvel movies… plus Marvel is a different breed… as people trying to avoid spoilers… but I would argue even marvel is not making as much money as it could due yo Disney Plus

Dr. Strange and the Multiverse of Madness would have made a billion had it not been released on Disney Plus less than two months after coming to theaters. Oh well.

 

[erasure fan1]

Anyway, if Pixar wants to move more in this direction of producing animation and telling stories targeted at older audiences, I'm cool with that but it's going to be at the cost of box office return and popularity simply because the market for that isn't fully mainstream, here.

The problem is even the older audience wasn't showing up. Even if they focus on the "older audience" they need to do a lot better of a job.

I still think it is a straw man considering the number of kids and families that went to see SMB. Why don't they show up for a Disney/Pixar movie?

Agreed. Plenty of movies made money while Disney wasn't. It's ok as a fan to say to Disney, you need to do better. If it was a one off thing, alright, call it a mulligan. But this is beyond a one off issue, it is a full on trend with everything. Live action, Disney feature animation, pixar, D+.

 

[MrPromey]

The problem is even the older audience wasn't showing up. Even if they focus on the "older audience" they need to do a lot better of a job.

This year's Oscar winner only made $139.1 million, globally.

The catch?

It was made on a budget of $14.3 Million so under its own terms, it was wildly successful.

If Pixar could make an adult skewing movie that only cost $50 million, I'm sure they could be profitable, too.

... even if most people in the US continued to think that grown ups who go to animated movies without kids are weird.

Not Toy Story profitable with unlimited merchandise appeal, theme park tie-ins and promises of sequels but... Miramax-like profitability would be possible along with giving them the chance to be a perennial awards darling for the animation category.

I don't at all think anyone at Disney or Pixar wants to take things that direction.

I'm just saying it would be possible.

We'll see what happens with Elemental, though.

Maybe that will see a more successful wide release.

 

[GimpYancIent]

Per VARIETY:
"“The Super Mario Bros. Movie” soared higher than expected in its second weekend of release.
The animated adventure, from Universal, Nintendo and Illumination, took first place again with $92 million over the weekend, above Sunday’s already-huge estimate of $87 million. Those returns rank as the highest-grossing second weekend for an animated film, as well as the seventh-highest grossing second weekend for any film at the domestic box office, according to Universal."

Strong showing, now lets see what Disney's got.

 

[Phroobar]

So SMB has made more money globally in two weeks ($692,968,890) than Raya & the Last Dragon, Encanto and Strange World during their entire theatrical runs combined. It also had a bigger opening weekend than Frozen II. It is looking to make more money than Frozen II. Pretty good for a budget of $100 million.

 

[Ghost93]

So SMB has made more money globally in two weeks ($692,968,890) than Raya & the Last Dragon, Encanto and Strange World during their entire theatrical runs combined. It also had a bigger opening weekend than Frozen II. It is looking to make more money than Frozen II. Pretty good for a budget of $100 million.

I want to know how Illumination was able to make the Mario movie look so good for about half the cost of Disney's movies. All of my issues with the Mario movie have to do with the script and thin character development. But the animation itself was undeniably spectacular, and I don't see why Disney is incapable of animating their movies with a similar budget.

 

[erasure fan1]

I want to know how Illumination was able to make the Mario movie look so good for about half the cost of Disney's movies. All of my issues with the Mario movie have to do with the script and thin character development. But the animation itself was undeniably spectacular, and I don't see why Disney is incapable of animating their movies with a similar budget.

I think it's a culture issue within Disney. They can't seem to do anything without it costing at least double what anyone else does it for. It really is extremely strange. It doesn't matter if it's a movie, ride, restaurant or bathroom. EVERYTHING seems to cost way too much.

 

[Disney Irish]

I want to know how Illumination was able to make the Mario movie look so good for about half the cost of Disney's movies. All of my issues with the Mario movie have to do with the script and thin character development. But the animation itself was undeniably spectacular, and I don't see why Disney is incapable of animating their movies with a similar budget.

It probably comes down to pay for the animators, French vs US animators.

 

[Phroobar]

It probably comes down to pay for the animators, French vs US animators.

I was watching the credits for Turning Red. That thing went on for six minutes and included everyone that worked at Pixar and their dog! I was surprised on how short the credits were for SMB. Their team was much smaller and nothing was outsourced.

Antman Quantomania had no less than 15 outsourced effects companies with hundreds of employees listed for each one. The sure number of people that have their credits on a Disney movie vs others in the industry is huge.

 

[Disney Irish]

I was watching the credits for Turning Red. That thing went on for six minutes and included everyone that worked at Pixar and their dog! I was surprised on how short the credits were for SMB. Their team was much smaller and nothing was outsourced.

This may come down to credit requirements for US unions vs French unions, but don't know that for a fact.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

I want to know how Illumination was able to make the Mario movie look so good for about half the cost of Disney's movies. All of my issues with the Mario movie have to do with the script and thin character development. But the animation itself was undeniably spectacular, and I don't see why Disney is incapable of animating their movies with a similar budget.

I believe they get a tax credit from the French government, where the bulk of the animation is done.

Similar to how it used to be a lot cheaper to make movies in England if a certain % of the crew were English.

 

[doctornick]

Doctor Strange did almost a billion, and that's on Disney+.

Marvel movies that end up on Disney+ still do big box office. Animated movies that end up on Peacock still do big box office. Consistent crappy financial performance is unique to Pixar and WDAS because their content has been crap.

The box office for MCU films has definitely been down since the pandemic. I don't think it's clear how "much" of that is from availability on D+ but it's not zero. In particular, I think streaming availability might cut into the "watching multiple times in the theater" crowd the most and those folks only go once or twice instead.

And I would agree with the point that tons of people have D+. Comparatively few have Peacock. So there's a lot of people that can watch movies on D+ for "free" that don't have Peacock for "free" Universal films.