Toy Story Hotel Planned to replace Paradise Pier Hotel?

[No Name]

I didn't see it, so I don't actually know if it's a good movie. But it was a disaster at the box office. Like Ishtar bad.

Bad. Really bad. The team that released it and spent around $200 million to produce it and market it didn't want it to bomb. But it did. I'm not debating it's artistic merits. I'm just stating the facts on how it did with audiences. And it did really, really bad.

With just $36.6 million in ticket sales, âWest Side Storyâ is officially a box-office bomb

"West Side Story" is a box-office bomb, having only generated around $36 million in ticket sales on a $100 million production budget.

www.cnbc.com

No, 20 minutes ago you specifically and repeatedly called it a bad movie.

But many of them were just... bad movies. West Side Story, Death On The Nile, etc.

But at some point, you just have to admit that free consumers spending their own money simply won't spend it on bad movies.

 

[TP2000]

No, 20 minutes ago you specifically and repeatedly called it a bad movie.

I'm going to go back and add the word "financially" in front of the word "bad", since that what I meant. Financially bad.

I was talking about box office results. Which is the frame of reference we were using in the conversation why Disney didn't release Turning Red in theaters this month, even though the ticket sales for some movies are setting all-time records. Like Spiderman and Batman.

For whatever reason, Disney-Pixar was not about to risk releasing Turning Red in theaters last weekend. Why?

 

[TP2000]

So where are these good movies that aren't superhero movies that you claim exist but can't substantiate?

Remember that they MUST have made high box office grosses to be proven good movies according to your own criteria.

Uncharted did over $100 Million in the last month. No Time To Die did $160 Million last fall. Jungle Cruise did $120 Million last fall (beating Encanto by $25 Million).

We'd kind of talked about this in the Miscellaneous thread, where the Oscars are made up this year almost entirely of box office bombs (West Side Story) or funky little art films that almost no one actually saw (Licorice Pizza, Belfast, etc.)

At some point, Hollywood is going to have to remember they make movies to sell tickets at theaters. Not to impress a few dozen art school students.

 

[PiratesMansion]

Uncharted did over $100 Million in the last month. No Time To Die did $160 Million last fall. Jungle Cruise did $120 Million last fall (beating Encanto by $25 Million).

We'd kind of talked about this in the Miscellaneous thread, where the Oscars are made up this year almost entirely of box office bombs (West Side Story) or funky little art films that almost no one actually saw (Licorice Pizza, Belfast, etc.)

At some point, Hollywood is going to have to remember they make movies to sell tickets at theaters. Not to impress a few dozen art school students.

Jungle Cruise was released in July and is an IP movie.

No Time To Die is a James Bond film (IP).

Uncharted is the only thing that's NOT part of a pre-existing franchise that appears to have made any real money recently.

In "Good movie" discourse, Uncharted got a 41% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I guess it made money which is apparently all that is important.

So I'm still not sure that any of this proves what you think it proves. Ok, sure, some non-superhero films did good. But how many that weren't attached to pre-existing IP? One.

 

[No Name]

For whatever reason, Disney-Pixar was not about to risk releasing Turning Red in theaters last weekend. Why?

Because no original animated movie has turned a profit in theaters since the pandemic, or really since Coco in 2017. And multiple movies have taken off on Disney+, so the cost is better spent building up the streaming service, especially because that’s where the audience seems to be. That’s your answer.

 

[No Name]

Jungle Cruise was released in July and is an IP movie.

No Time To Die is a James Bond film (IP).

Uncharted is the only thing that's NOT part of a pre-existing franchise that appears to have made any real money recently.

In "Good movie" discourse, Uncharted got a 41% on Rotten Tomatoes, but I guess it made money which is apparently all that is important.

So I'm still not sure that any of this proves what you think it proves. Ok, sure, some non-superhero films did good. But how many that weren't attached to pre-existing IP? One.

Uncharted is based on a video game franchise, bringing the count to zero! And few of these movies did well to an extent that would be acceptable pre-pandemic.

 

[No Name]

@TP2000 both Spider-Man and Batman are characters that have been around since the mid-1900s, have around 10 films each spanning over 20 years, and are PG-13 sci-fi action movies mainly viewed by young adults.

Turning Red is completely new characters (I don’t even know their names) in an animated movie targeted toward and likely mainly viewed by children.

They’re not even remotely the same, case closed goodnight!

 

[TP2000]

@TP2000 both Spider-Man and Batman are characters that have been around since the mid-1900s, have around 10 films each spanning over 20 years, and are PG-13 sci-fi action movies mainly viewed by young adults.

Turning Red is completely new characters (I don’t even know their names) in an animated movie targeted toward and likely mainly viewed by children.

They’re not even remotely the same, case closed goodnight!

Huh?

Steering this back OT, when Toy Story was released in 1995, no one had heard of Woody and Buzz Lightyear. (At least Mr. Potato Head had some name recognition). And no one had heard of Pixar. But it did gangbusters business and created not just a franchise, but put Pixar on the American pop culture map for decades to come.

Anna and Elsa were new characters. Mary Poppins was a new character. The Incredibles were new characters. Han Solo and Princess Leia were new characters. And many more over many decades.

They all did gangbuster box office numbers, because their movies were great. And Americans rushed to buy movie tickets to see them. Disney wouldn't have dared sending them straight to the video store rental shelves, which is apparently the 2020's version of sending a film straight to Disney+.

 

[TP2000]

So I'm still not sure that any of this proves what you think it proves. Ok, sure, some non-superhero films did good. But how many that weren't attached to pre-existing IP? One.

I'm not entirely sure what it proves. The only thing I know for sure is that Hollywood movie studios are private businesses that must turn a profit regularly, or else they stop being in business.

I'm curious how they turn a profit mid-term to long-term if they just send a bunch of their movies to their studio streaming service? That doesn't seem like a good way to make much money, or any money at all.

The streaming services were supposed to be a way to monetize a studio's archives. Not to undercut actual box office ticket sales and sell a family of four an $8 per month streaming service instead of selling that same family four $15 movie tickets to see that movie.

If you are now selling your product to four American consumers (family of four) for $8, instead of selling that same product to those same four consumers for $60 (family of four buys four $15 movie tickets), that means you just lost out on $52 of revenue from the same four consumers.

How does that work long term? It seems to be a losing proposition for a private business that must turn a profit.

 

[No Name]

Huh?

Steering this back OT, when Toy Story was released in 1995, no one had heard of Woody and Buzz Lightyear. (At least Mr. Potato Head had some name recognition). And no one had heard of Pixar. But it did gangbusters business and created not just a franchise, but put Pixar on the American pop culture map for decades to come.

Anna and Elsa were new characters. Mary Poppins was a new character. The Incredibles were new characters. Han Solo and Princess Leia were new characters. And many more over many decades.

They all did gangbuster box office numbers, because their movies were great. And Americans rushed to buy movie tickets to see them. Disney wouldn't have dared sending them straight to the video store rental shelves, which is apparently the 2020's version of sending a film straight to Disney+.

I was very clear in what I said, does “huh?” mean you’re confused or just reluctant to accept that you’re wrong? I get that when you’re older it’s harder to distinguish what movies target what audiences, that’s fine, but if it still doesn’t make sense to you well then you’re too out of touch for me to continue going back and forth.

Onto your new point, Disney+ and video rentals are totally different, the former is building up a subscriber base that are not only providing recurring payments but that are a recurring audience for the company to promote new things and maybe eventually suck you into the meta verse. Comparing the theater business to 1995 or even 2017 seems a bit silly when there’s obviously so much change in how people watch movies, which is really a result of how easily movies are available to watch.

 

[Parteecia]

My completely unscientific crackpot theory is that the movies that have made big money have target audiences that are less leery of covid.

 

[mickEblu]

Why is that?


Every Pixar movie since the pandemic has went straight to Disney+, this is nothing new.

Seems very geared towards pre teen girls. I don’t think I’ve ever felt that way even when watching any of the princess movies as their are usually other plot points going on as well as characters and songs that appeal to a broader audience.

 

[Sharon&Susan]

Instead of comparing animated family movies to action movies, a better comparison is how the medium was doing pre vs. post pandemic

Top 5 Domestically Grossing Animated Movies of 2019
1. The Lion King - $543 million
2. Frozen 2 - $477 million
3. Toy Story 4 - $434 million
4. HHTTYD: The Hidden World - $160 million
5. Secret Lives of Pets 2 - $158 million (underperformed compared to $300 million first movie)

Top 5 Domestically Grossing Animated Movies of 2021
1. Sing 2 - $156 million (worst preforming Illumination movie made since Hop in 2011)
2. Encanto - $95 million*
3. Boss Baby - $57 million (2nd worst preforming** Dreamworks movie made since Wallace & Gromit in 2005)
4. Addams Family 2 - $56 million (original grossed $100 million)
5. Raya - $54 million*
*Both worst preforming WDAS movies made since Brother Bear in 2003
**Spirit Untamed from Dreamworks also released during post COVID and did even worse

As can be seen the animated family market hasn't recovered yet in the United States yet, though Minions Rise of Gru, the Mario movie, Spiderverse, Lightyear and DC Superpets I think all have a chance at restarting the animated film market box office. But I can see why Disney didn't want to risk any of the new Pixar movies in theaters where they would've all been huge disappointments.

 

[No Name]

Seems very geared towards pre teen girls. I don’t think I’ve ever felt that way even when watching any of the princess movies as their are usually other plot points going on characters and songs that appeal to a broader audience.

Oh okay interesting, yeah I haven’t watched it yet or even watched the trailer or anything. So I take it you didn’t love the movie?

 

[mickEblu]

Oh okay interesting, yeah I haven’t watched it yet or even watched the trailer or anything. So I take it you didn’t love the movie?

I’ve watched it in spurts various times when my son has been watching but not one time all the way though. Yeah, I’m not crazy about it. The only thing I find kind of interesting is that it’s set in the early 2000s.

 

[TP2000]

But I can see why Disney didn't want to risk any of the new Pixar movies in theaters where they would've all been huge disappointments.

Yeah, that's the weird part. They apparently aren't confident enough in some of the recent Pixar movies to put them in theaters.

They put Encanto in theaters, and it made $250 Million worldwide. Since it cost Disney about $150 Million to produce, plus marketing costs on top of that, it was a mediocre performer for the studio at the box office. It got better word of mouth on Disney+ as that Bruno song became a top song they hadn't planned on (it's not even nominated for Best Song this year at the Oscars).

But for whatever reason, they kept Turning Red out of theaters and sent it to Disney+.

I just can't figure out in my head how that type of strategy is going to pencil out for any studio long term. Especially studios like Disney or Pixar that can easily spend $150 Million producing an animated movie. And then you don't sell tickets to it?

 

[TP2000]

Yeah, I’m not crazy about it. The only thing I find kind of interesting is that it’s set in the early 2000s.

Isn't that funny? That was 20 years ago. That's an eternity for teenagers and kids. And culturally and technologically, it's the stone age for them. Especially after the last couple years, it does seem like a very long time ago all of a sudden even for older folks.

American Graffiti came out in 1973, and it was set in 1962. But since America had gone through so much change in the 60's, the movie setting seemed like a much different era even though it was only 11 years in the past.

Happy Days debuted on TV in 1974, and it was set about 16 years in the past in the late 1950's. Laverne & Shirley debuted in 1976 and was set around 1960, only 16 years earlier.

 

[TP2000]

I was very clear in what I said, does “huh?” mean you’re confused or just reluctant to accept that you’re wrong?

I guess my "Huh" meant I was confused how upset you seem to be over this rather minor topic of discussion.

I get that when you’re older it’s harder to distinguish what movies target what audiences, that’s fine, but if it still doesn’t make sense to you well then you’re too out of touch for me to continue going back and forth.

The only thing I'm confused about is how a movie studio like Disney can alter their business model ASAP to avoid more Turning Red situations. Especially after West Side Story bombed hard for Disney just a couple months ago.

They didn't greenlight Turning Red in 2018 and spend $175 Million on it to not send it to theaters and not sell tickets for it. Apparently Disney is not confident it's going to be popular with audiences. To see that movie you have to subscribe to Disney+, and to do that you only have to spend 8 bucks per month and the family can watch Turning Red as many times as they want and invite over all the friends and neighbors to watch it with them for free.

For 8 bucks? That's not a business model that's going to be able to continue to fund $175 Million movies. For whatever reason, Turning Red was deemed too weak to release in theaters. It was a mistake to spend $175 Million producing it, apparently.

 

[mickEblu]

Isn't that funny? That was 20 years ago. That's an eternity for teenagers and kids. And culturally and technologically, it's the stone age for them. Especially after the last couple years, it does seem like a very long time ago all of a sudden even for older folks.

American Graffiti came out in 1973, and it was set in 1962. But since America had gone through so much change in the 60's, the movie setting seemed like a much different era even though it was only 11 years in the past.

Happy Days debuted on TV in 1974, and it was set about 16 years in the past in the late 1950's. Laverne & Shirley debuted in 1976 and was set around 1960, only 16 years earlier.

Lol it is. If you would have told me 20 years ago that one day I’d be nostalgic for the 2000s I wouldn’t have believed you. Those were probably some of the best days of my life but then again 18 through your late 20s is probably the best time of many peoples lives. To narrow it down 18-23, maybe 25 was great. After that life gets too serious.

 

[TP2000]

Lol it is. If you would have told me 20 years ago that one day I’d be nostalgic for the 2000s I wouldn’t have believed you. Those were probably some of the best days of my life but then again 18 through your late 20s is probably the best time of many peoples lives. To narrow it down 18-23, maybe 25 was great. After that life gets too serious.

I was an enlisted man in the service in my late teens, so most of the fun had to be delayed. But from 21 to 25? Insanity! (Actually, I can't remember most of it. That's how much fun I was having.)