2019 At The Box Office (2 Viewers)

[steve jaros]

It's amazing that, even with the the arrival of direct competition with 100% audience overlap in Lion King, Aladdin only dropped -38.4%. I don't like the movie at all, but even I have to admit that its box office run has been etraordinary.

Ditto, IMO the new Aladdin isn't nearly as good as the 1992 movie, but its box office has, from the very start, exceeded expectations, and I've come to enjoy the fact that it is going to cross the $1B WW mark.

 

[steve jaros]

Of course it is.
They inherited that (and Stuber) and had nothing to do with their production, so while they are taking the writedown because they own Fox now, I doubt it matters to their strategy quite as much as, for example, Solo did.

As the costs of producing Dark Phoenix were likely incurred by FOX before the buyout, Disney likely won't be taking a writedown for its poor performance. It basically just released the movie, albeit with some marketing expenses, though not much.

 

[steve jaros]

I have never understood why they don't go by number of tickets sold over how much money is made at the box office.

"Tickets sold" doesn't add to a company's bottom line, only money does. If a theater sells three tickets for $1 each to movie A while it sells one ticket to movie B for $5, movie B has done better despite two fewer bodies in the house.

That's why, IMO, the inflation-adjusted list, despite being imperfect, is best.

 

[steve jaros]

Inflation evens out the playing field by making all the ticket prices equal.

However, inflation can't account for the changes in the culture that happen across time. Who's to say that Gone with the Wind would actually have made $1.82 billion domestically today in the age of shrinking theater-to-video windows and all the streaming entertainment options that we have?

In that way, the unadjusted number is also completely valid because it levels the playing field by looking at raw dollar amounts.

No method is perfect, but IMO adjust for inflation is much less imperfect than raw dollars. A simple comparison makes that clear to me: In 1977, on its original box office run, Star Wars made $260 million DOM. In 2013, Monster's University made $268m.

So which movie was "more popular" in the USA? Anyone who remembers 1977 knows that Star Wars was an all-encompassing cultural colossus. It defined that year, and still does, moreso than any other cultural entity - Saturday Night Fever at the end of the year being the only thing in its ballpark. In contrast, Monster's University barely dominated its opening weekend, beating out World War Z by about $15m. Within two weeks, it had fallen to the #4 position, and that was basically it for it.

IMO, there's simply no comparing the two films in terms of popularity in any cultural context - Star Wars is 10x more massive. And the adjusted dollars reflect that, while nominal dollars say MU was the bigger film.

I can think of a lot of other examples of this kind. I can think of no examples where the nominal dollars correct for a mistaken impression created by using adjusted dollars.

 

[Tino]

Boxoffice guru analysis.

THIS WEEKEND Dominating the marketplace with the ninth largest opening of all-time was Disney's latest remake The Lion King which towered over the competition bowing to an eye-popping $185M accounting for 75% of all spending on the top ten movies this weekend. Simba and friends averaged a sturdy $39,153 from a record 4,725 locations including premium formats like IMAX and 4DX. Disney now owns 12 of the 13 biggest opening weekends ever.

A beloved film from 25 years ago, the Lion King brand has remained wildly popular over the years with stage productions, re-releases, TV cartoons and more. After The Jungle Book, Jon Favreau was given the director's chair for this PG-rated project and assembled an impressive cast that included Beyonce, Donald Glover, James Earl Jones, Seth Rogen and more who also carry immense marketing strength on social media.

Reviews were mixed, but like Aladdin earlier this summer, this was not a film made for movie critics. It was made primarily for today's generation of young people who can enjoy their own updated version of a popular classic. And the target audience is liking the film with the CinemaScore coming in with an A grade. After only three days, it's already the sixth highest grossing movie of the 2019.

Among the other box office records, Lion King generated the best debut ever for the month of July and for all PG-rated films. It was also bigger than any opening from Pixar's library of kidpic hits. Other studios avoided releasing anything big this weekend and even the next two frames only have one wide opening each. With limited competition over the next few weeks, reaching the $500M domestic barrier is certainly possible.

Lion King did spectacular business around the globe with a huge $269.4M this weekend from 52 markets for a massive $454.4M weekend. Add in the early grosses from China which opened a week ago and the overseas cume is now $346M putting the global gross at $531M. Despite a sharp slowdown in China (which stands at $97.5M in 10 days), the behemoth is well on its way to smashing the billion dollar mark in no time. The Mouse House will soon have five megahits this year in ten-digit territory with Frozen and Star Wars sequels still to come in the fourth quarter. A $10 billion year could be in the cards.

Getting bumped to the runner-up spot after two weeks on top, Spider-Man: Far From Homecollected an estimated $21M in its third weekend falling 54%. The domestic cume rose to $319.7M and in one more week it will surpass the $334.2M final of Spider-Man: Homecomingfrom two summers ago. A final of around $390M may result.

Sliding only 30% despite a fellow Disney juggernaut kidpic entering the jungle was Pixar's Toy Story 4 with an estimated $14.6M. The toon fourquel has now climbed to impressive heights including $375.5M in North America, $483.9M overseas, and $859.4M worldwide. Hitting one billion is likely.

Alligator flick Crawl dropped 50% to an estimated $6M putting Paramount at $23.8M to date. Universal's Yesterday followed with an estimated $5.1M, down just 24%, for a solid $57.6M overall. A final near the $75M mark seems likely making it among the top-grossing original movies of the entire year.

The buddy comedy Stuber fell 51% in its second weekend to an estimated $4M giving Fox just $16.1M overall. Still playing well with kids was Aladdin which collected an estimated $3.8M in its ninth weekend. Off 38%, Disney has banked $340M from North America, $648.8M internationally, and a stellar $988.8M worldwide as it prepares to become the studio's latest billion-dollar smash.

Horror hit Annabelle Comes Home took in an estimated $2.7M, down 53%, for a total of $66.6M. With $196.2M worldwide, the Annabelle trilogy has now grossed a sensational $757M global averaging more than a quarter-billion each. Fellow fright flick Midsommar dropped 56% to an estimated $1.6M putting A24 at $22.5M.

Rounding out the top ten was The Secret Life of Pets 2 with an estimated $1.5M, off 52%, with Universal now up to $151.6M domestic and $318.6M worldwide with a handful of key international markets still to open.

Below the top ten, Avengers: Endgame made box office history by surpassing Avatar to break the record for highest grossing global blockbuster of all-time. The record has stood for nearly a decade with no other film coming remotely close to it. The MCU juggernaut now sits at $2,790,200,000 worldwide (including $854.2M domestic) edging ahead of Avatar's $2,789,700,000 which includes all reissues. In the category of tickets sold, the James Cameron film still leads by a healthy margin as ticket prices were much lower in 2009-2010.

 

[Colin Jacobson]

No method is perfect, but IMO adjust for inflation is much less imperfect than raw dollars. A simple comparison makes that clear to me: In 1977, on its original box office run, Star Wars made $260 million DOM. In 2013, Monster's University made $268m.

So which movie was "more popular" in the USA? Anyone who remembers 1977 knows that Star Wars was an all-encompassing cultural colossus. It defined that year, and still does, moreso than any other cultural entity - Saturday Night Fever at the end of the year being the only thing in its ballpark.

And "SNF" was waaay more a musical cultural phenomenon than a cinematic one.

Oh, the movie did well - especially given its genre and "R" rating - but the Bee Gees' domination of the charts was the real story.

IMO, "Gone With the Wind" is the legitimate most popular movie ever in the US, and "Star Wars" is #2. "ET" is probably #3.

Not sure about 4 or 5, though "Jaws" would probably be in the mix. These are all movies that dominated pop culture in a massive way - a way almost impossible to reproduce today.

Sure, "Endgame" was huge, but not in the same way something like "Star Wars" or "Jaws" was omnipresent in society for months.

The splintering of entertainment options just makes it way tougher for that to happen.

"Titanic" may well be the last movie ever to become that form of cultural phenomenon - one that pervades society for months and months and months...

 

[Jake Lipson]

Sure, "Endgame" was huge, but not in the same way something like "Star Wars" or "Jaws" was omnipresent in society for months.

You're absolutely correct. But I will say two things for Endgame:

1) Even if you adjust for inflation, it's still #16 on that list. Avatar is #15 by a gap of $22 million, which is too wide of a gap for Endgame to close at this point in its run. However, it's #16 on that list. Out of all movies ever released for which we have box office data, only fifteen films have ever done better. That's still an incredible achievement any way you slice it without any qualifications.

2) Endgame, specifically, has not gripped the cultural consciousness as long as Jaws, Star Wars or Titanic did in their original runs. But Endgame isn't just one movie. It is the culmination event of the MCU, and the MCU franchise has absolutely gripped the cultural consciousness for a long time. Endgame was able to become this successful because it richly rewards what is now eleven years of interconnected cinematic storytelling. Every single one of those movies has opened at #1 at the box office. The vast majority have been financial successes that resonated with audiences, and most of them have also been well-received critically. Based on the excitement surrounding yesterday's reveal of the next slate at Comic-Con, it appears that the MCU is going to continue drawing audiences for years to come, even without the continued presence of some of its signature original stars. What Marvel has done in building, maintaining and continuing to grow this franchise is utterly remarkable. So Endgame is absolutely a member of an elite club of films that have permeated the culture in a major way. It just did so as part of a wider series of connected films (which of course is something that Titanic, as good as it is, is not able to claim.)

 

[Wayne_j]

I am mixed on End Game taking over the number 1 spot. I think it is a better movie than Avatar but I liked that an original film was #1.

 

[Jake Lipson]

I am mixed on End Game taking over the number 1 spot. I think it is a better movie than Avatar but I liked that an original film was #1.

I get what you are saying in that it's not officially based on a pre-existing IP...but...

Pocahontas
FerrnGully: The Last Rainforest
Dances with Wolves (certain elements anyway)

It's really hard for me to call Avatar an "original" film. I get that it is...but...yeah. Also, all those movies it ripped off of are far superior to it. I've never really been a big fan of it, so I am delighted to have a movie that I like and consider good on top again.

I saw Endgame again today for what I expect will be the final time in theaters and am happy to be able to say I saw it on the day its take was pushed over the line.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

Still, this method best compares "apples to apples" when examining the history of box office earnings.*

It's not really apples to apples, though, because the world isn't apples to apples. Netflix didn't exist for most of cinematic history. Television didn't exist for a good chunk of cinematic history.

 

[Jake Lipson]

It's not really apples to apples, though, because the world isn't apples to apples.

Agreed.

There is no way to do a complete apples to apples comparison. I said it yesterday and I'll say it again because we've circled back to it.

Inflation lets you do apples-to-apples by making the prices equal, but can't account for cultural change like Netflix and television. Tickets sold runs into the same issue.

Raw dollar amounts lets you account for cultural change because the dollars you are looking at ignore it, but this method can't account for inflation.

There is no single number that will account for all of these things at once. It's not possible.

So, to be through, you have to look at both the adjusted number and the raw number and keep in mind the advantages and disadvantages of each one.

 

[Joe Wong]

"Titanic" may well be the last movie ever to become that form of cultural phenomenon - one that pervades society for months and months and months...

I would agree...I was in Australia at the time and eagerly awaited each weekend's box office numbers for Titanic. I think the fact that there were stories of production troubles and delays, and that it was the most expensive film ever made at the time, made its potential success or failure all the more intriguing.

Nothing against Endgame - I loved it myself - but I think it was 99% guaranteed of a huge box office. Titanic was not a sure bet.

The first inklings that Titanic was doing better than expected was during its opening weekend, when its final actual number was some $2-3 million higher than projected. And the rest was...history.

Another reason films from 50-80 years ago stayed in cinemas for months and even years was the lack of screens. Multiplexes didn't get going until the 80s and 90s, so the ability to flood screens on opening weekends with a new movie wasn't there. Once multiplexes could have multiple showings, then this tied in with the media's interest in opening weekend records. And that led to a non-ending spiral for bigger and bigger box office stories...

 

[Jake Lipson]

Amidst all the talk about whether or not Endgame would break the record, this hasn't really gotten much attention yet.

I just noticed that Disney closed out Captain Marvel's box office run back on July 4. This means it's completely done and has worked its way out of even the dollar theaters, or at least, they're not counting any more monies for it.

Its final domestic gross is $426,829,839, which (for right now) places it at #21 all-time domestically, right under E.T. It's also #6 among MCU movies, above many other titles featuring more well-known characters than Captain Marvel was before her movie came out.

That is an incredible result, especially for a cold open for that character. Yes, Nick Fury was a co-lead and SHIELD was a factor in the movie, but we'd never seen that character before in anything else. I don't want to take away anything from Black Panther, because it did absolute gangbusters last year, but even that did have the advantage of the character being introduced in Civil War before he got his own film.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2018a.htm

(The July 4 close date also means that, for a couple days, there were three MCU movies in release simultaneously between Captain Marvel, Endgame and the July 2 arrival of Spider-Man.)

It seems like it's going to be a long wait until May for Black Widow as the next MCU film, since they don't have a November release this year or a February/March release next year.I know it's all relative and it won't actually be that long, but still.

 

[Joe Wong]

Its final domestic gross is $426,829,839, which (for right now) places it at #21 all-time domestically, right under E.T. It's also #6 among MCU movies, above many other titles featuring more well-known characters than Captain Marvel was before her movie came out.

That is an incredible result, especially for a cold open for that character. Yes, Nick Fury was a co-lead and SHIELD was a factor in the movie, but we'd never seen that character before in anything else. I don't want to take away anything from Black Panther, because it did absolute gangbusters last year, but even that did have the advantage of the character being introduced in Civil War before he got his own film.

https://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marvel2018a.htm

Shows how ingenious the marketing or positioning of Captain Marvel (the film and as a character) was with the post credits scene in Infinity War...

 

[Colin Jacobson]

You're absolutely correct. But I will say two things for Endgame:

1) Even if you adjust for inflation, it's still #16 on that list. Avatar is #15 by a gap of $22 million, which is too wide of a gap for Endgame to close at this point in its run. However, it's #16 on that list. Out of all movies ever released for which we have box office data, only fifteen films have ever done better. That's still an incredible achievement any way you slice it without any qualifications.

2) Endgame, specifically, has not gripped the cultural consciousness as long as Jaws, Star Wars or Titanic did in their original runs. But Endgame isn't just one movie. It is the culmination event of the MCU, and the MCU franchise has absolutely gripped the cultural consciousness for a long time. Endgame was able to become this successful because it richly rewards what is now eleven years of interconnected cinematic storytelling. Every single one of those movies has opened at #1 at the box office. The vast majority have been financial successes that resonated with audiences, and most of them have also been well-received critically. Based on the excitement surrounding yesterday's reveal of the next slate at Comic-Con, it appears that the MCU is going to continue drawing audiences for years to come, even without the continued presence of some of its signature original stars. What Marvel has done in building, maintaining and continuing to grow this franchise is utterly remarkable. So Endgame is absolutely a member of an elite club of films that have permeated the culture in a major way. It just did so as part of a wider series of connected films (which of course is something that Titanic, as good as it is, is not able to claim.)

Okay there Stan Lee - not crapping on "Endgame"!

 

[steve jaros]

"Titanic" may well be the last movie ever to become that form of cultural phenomenon - one that pervades society for months and months and months...

I agree - moreso than even say Avatar or Endgame or Star Wars TFA. And that's reflected in the adjusted numbers, which IIRC put it at like #5 or so all-time.

"Titanic" is the biggest movie of the last 35+ years, you have to go back to ET in 1982 to find a movie as big.

 

[steve jaros]

I would agree...I was in Australia at the time and eagerly awaited each weekend's box office numbers for Titanic. I think the fact that there were stories of production troubles and delays, and that it was the most expensive film ever made at the time, made its potential success or failure all the more intriguing.

Nothing against Endgame - I loved it myself - but I think it was 99% guaranteed of a huge box office. Titanic was not a sure bet.

Indeed. In fact, during the run-up to its release, the dominant narrative about Titanic was its massive costs. It was being discussed in the press as a potential "Heaven's Gate" or "Waterworld" type situation, a huge white elephant that had Massive Losses written all over it. That it would hit a box office iceberg and sink like the, well you know.

Nothing like Endgame, in that regard.

 

[Wayne_j]

Yup, all the press for Titanic was doom and gloom. Then suddenly it was all $$$$$.

 

[Jake Lipson]

James Cameron has commented on no longer being the king of the world:

https://deadline.com/2019/07/james-...d-highest-grossing-movie-all-time-1202650407/

 

[Tino]