2023 At The Box Office (1 Viewer)

[Colin Jacobson]

I'd remove the word "animated" from your statement only because this is also affecting most of Disney's live-action titles this year.

I specified "animated" because I've not seen the same run of mediocrity from Disney-released live action movies.

I've loved Disney animation for decades, but man, they're awfully inconsistent.

 

[Chip_HT]

While the cultural issues are unique to Disney, the superhero market is something different. Both Captain Marvel and Aquaman made over a billion in 2018/2019 - right in between Infinity War and Endgame. Marvels won’t make 25% of that, and I’m willing to bet Aquaman won’t either. The bloom is off the rose there. It doesn’t mean superhero movies can’t succeed.

Captain Marvel was hyped as an important piece before Endgame. Since the movies were scheduled only 3-4 weeks apart, the only way to see Captain Marvel before Endgame was in theaters. That had to inflate the box office. It certainly worked for me.

On the flip side, The Marvels pulls in elements from at least three different Disney+ series (Wandavision, Ms. Marvel, and Secret Invasion).

 

[Chip_HT]

I think there’s a larger existential issue at play as well - there is simply too much content being produced for too many platforms simultaneously. Some of that is due to the logjam of stuff that couldn’t be completed or released as originally scheduled due to the pandemic. But the thing is, you can make more movies, you can make more shows, but you can’t increase the number of hours in a day and you can’t give everyone in the audience a raise, and people still need to find the time and money to use towards viewing all this stuff.

And that's my issues with the Disney+ shows. It was still relatively easy to keep up with the MCU when it was 2-4 movies a year. But now they're bringing out multiple shows and going pretty far down the bench -- Echo being the prime example there.

 

[Jake Lipson]

Good hold for Hunger Games. It is insane to see Disney animated features released for Thanksgiving making less than $20 million.

I saw Wish on Tuesday night in my theater's premium auditorium and I was the only person there. It also has the largest standard screen there this week. Then I saw The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes today in a smaller standard auditorium and there was a small crowd there. It made me wonder if my theater regretted pulling Hunger Games from the premium-priced auditorium this weekend in favor of Wish. The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes played there from last Thursday to Monday only before being replaced, and yet it remains the biggest theatrical draw at the moment.

it's almost like the audience has learned that a Disney movie will be on Disney + in two months or something.

The last couple times I've been to the theater, I actually saw an ad for the upcoming Percy Jackson series on Disney+ during the preshow. Advertising Disney+ content directly to those who are still going to the theater doesn't seem to be the most well-thought-out strategy.

Over at Disney's Fox they were celebrating the "economical" $80 million movie The Creator, but that one lost money too.

Good point. But The Creator was financed by New Regency and released by Disney through a distribution agreement. I'm not sure whether Disney is actually hurting from this one, but I suspect not, or at least not as much as they are on their own wholly-owned films.

I think it's unfortunate that [...] and all of us commenting on HTF are men.

If more women and/or people with other gender identities want to sign up here, they would be welcome.

That might cause Disney to rethink Frozen IV.

Frozen is an established brand with characters that people already like. I don't think Wish is going to cause them to cancel that. Wish barely develops its characters beyond having them walk through a Disney Easter egg hunt.

 

[Tino]

but when all is said and done the math still makes it look like a loss of about $200 million for just this one movie.

With a $250 million production cost it would need $750 million or so to break even. Remember the 3X rule for a film of this magnitude.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

They did widen the window for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny and it didn't matter. It isn't arriving on Disney+ until December, which is a much longer turnaround time than their other titles this year. But the film still finished with only $381 million worldwide.

Thing is if the issue is based on expectations, then people were likely expecting Indy 5 to hit streaming, etc much sooner than it did. By the time most people realized it wasn't, it was almost certainly much too late to matter for the box office.

And really, people have probably formed a habit around that rather than mere (conscious) expectations anyway.

_Man_

 

[benbess]

"Disney CEO Bob Iger said at the New York Times’ DealBook Summit (via CNBC) following “The Marvels” flopping at the box office that there was a lack of supervision on the set of the film as a result of the COVID pandemic. The combination of pandemic set restrictions and Disney’s increased output due to the launch of streamer Disney+ made it increasingly difficult for studio executives to oversee the onslaught of new productions....

“I’m not sure another studio will ever achieve some of the numbers that we achieved,” Iger said at the press conference. “I mean, we got to the point where if a film didn’t do a billion dollars in global box office, we were disappointed. That’s an unbelievably high standard and I think we have to get more realistic....”

“Iger said that there has to be a reason ‘beyond commerce’ to make a follow-up film to a hit, noting that over the last past few years Disney has ‘made too many.'”

‘The Marvels’ Suffered From a Lack of ‘Supervision on the Set,’ Says Bob Iger; Disney CEO Admits Studio Has ‘Made Too Many’ Sequels Recently

Bob Iger says "The Marvels" suffered from a lack of supervision on the set.

variety.com

Jodie Foster Calls Superhero Movies a ‘Phase That’s Lasted a Little Too Long’ and ‘Hopefully People Will Be Sick of It Soon’: They ‘Don’t Change My Life’

Jodie Foster says superhero movies are a phase that has gone on a little too long for her own liking.

variety.com

 

[Tino]

Index

		Movie Title	Distributor	Gross	%LW	Theaters	Theaters Change	Per Theater	Total Gross	Weekends In Release
1	N	RENAISSANCE: A FILM BY BEYONCÉ	AMC Theatres…	$21,000,000		2,539		$8,271	$21,000,000	1
2	(1)	The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes	Lionsgate	$14,500,000	-50%	3,776	n/c	$3,840	$121,243,408	3
3	N	Godzilla Minus One	Toho Interna…	$11,031,954		2,308		$4,780	$11,031,954	1
4	(4)	Trolls Band Together	Universal	$7,600,000	-57%	3,613	-280	$2,104	$74,833,000	3
5	(3)	Wish	Walt Disney	$7,412,000	-62%	3,900	n/c	$1,901	$41,955,942	2
6	(2)	Napoleon	Sony Pictures	$7,125,000	-65%	3,500	n/c	$2,036	$45,740,000	2
7	N	Animal	Moksha Movies	$6,140,000		700		$8,771	$6,140,000	1
8	N	The Shift	Angel Studios	$4,358,377		2,450		$1,779	$4,358,377	1
9	N	Silent Night	Lionsgate	$3,000,000		1,870		$1,604	$3,000,000	1
10	(5)	Thanksgiving	Sony Pictures	$2,630,000	-63%	3,204	n/c	$821	$28,377,633	3
-	(6)	The Marvels	Walt Disney	$2,509,000	-60%	3,070	n/c	$817	$80,735,186	4
-	(-)	Dream Scenario	A24	$1,689,446	+164%	124	n/c	$13,625	$3,470,330	4
-	(9)	Saltburn	Amazon Studios	$1,568,244	-16%	1,566	n/c	$1,001	$6,235,130	3
-	(7)	The Holdovers	Focus Features	$1,150,000	-59%	1,311	-290	$877	$15,074,000	6
-	(8)	TAYLOR SWIFT | THE ERAS TOUR	AMC Theatres…	$550,000	-76%	646	-300	$851	$178,831,257	8
-	(-)	Killers of the Flower Moon	Paramount Pi…	$460,000	-58%	420	-347	$1,095	$66,513,005	7
-	(10)	Five Nights at Freddy’s	Universal	$400,000	-77%	717	-1,037	$558	$136,917,570	6
-	(12)	Priscilla	A24	$322,751	-74%	1,063	n/c	$304	$20,372,329	6
-	(-)	Radical	Pantelion Films	$271,500	-64%	255	-70	$1,065	$8,248,859	5
-	(11)	Next Goal Wins	Searchlight …	$231,000	-86%	2,240	n/c	$103	$6,397,715	3
-	(-)	Journey to Bethlehem	Sony Pictures	$190,000	-71%	1,384	n/c	$137	$6,150,057	4
-	N	Eileen	Neon	$90,521		6		$15,087	$90,521	1
-	(-)	Anatomy of a Fall	Neon	$67,000	-27%	72	-5	$931	$3,492,148	8
-	(-)	Monster	Well Go USA	$26,545	+4%	5	+3	$5,309	$63,314	2
-	(-)	Oppenheimer	Universal	$20,000	-29%	101	-1	$198	$325,391,000	20
-	N	La Syndicaliste	Kino Lorber	$10,075		1		$10,075	$100,751	1
-	(-)	Common Ground	Area 23a	$9,250	+411%	2	n/c	$4,625	$230,200	10
-	(37)	Farewell My Concubine	Miramax	$6,009	+187%	2	n/c	$3,005	$5,538,649	1,573
-	(-)	The Disappearance of Shere Hite	IFC Films	$5,900	+154%	19	+17	$311	$27,607	3
-	N	Pianoforte	Greenwich	$5,500		1		$5,500	$5,500	1
		30		$94,380,072

 

[benbess]

‘The Marvels’ Ends Box Office Run as Lowest-Grossing MCU Movie in History

'The Marvels' will end its run as the lowest-grossing MCU movie of all time.

variety.com

 

[Jake Lipson]

Given how things have been going for it since it opened, I doubt anyone is surprised that Marvels is going to stay the lowest-grossing MCU film.

However, it is surprising to me that they've just decided to stop reporting grosses for it anymore. Generally, that doesn't happen until the movie has left theaters.

From that article Ben posted above:

After four weeks on the big screen, the comic book tentpole is running out of steam with $80 million in North America and $197 million globally. There would typically be optimism that attendance could rebound over the busy holiday season, but Disney apparently doesn’t expect that to be the case. The studio wrote on Sunday in a note to press, “With ‘The Marvels’ box office now winding down, we will stop weekend reporting of international/global grosses on this title.”

The film isn’t leaving theaters just yet, and the $220 million-plus budgeted tentpole is expected to play through New Year’s. However, this memo signals that it’s not expected to generate notable coinage during the rest of December. Over the weekend, “The Marvels” tumbled to 11th place on box office charts with just $2.4 million in its fourth outing.

Also, that -62% drop is horrible for Wish. Any hope for an Elemental-like leggy run has just gone out the window. Even Strange World dropped less (-58%) on its second weekend last year. This is really the cherry on top of Disney's miserable year.

 

[Tino]

Index

		Movie Title	Distributor	Gross	%LW	Theaters	Theaters Change	Per Theater	Total Gross	Weekends In Release
1	N	The Boy and the Heron	GKIDS	$12,836,313		2,205		$5,821	$12,836,313	1
2	(2)	The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds & Snakes	Lionsgate	$9,400,000	-34%	3,665	-26	$2,565	$135,655,926	4
3	(3)	Godzilla Minus One	Toho Interna…	$8,342,710	-27%	2,540	+232	$3,285	$25,344,044	2
4	(4)	Trolls Band Together	Universal	$6,200,000	-21%	3,451	-165	$1,797	$83,081,775	4
5	(5)	Wish	Walt Disney	$5,300,000	-31%	3,410	-490	$1,554	$49,412,846	3
6	(1)	RENAISSANCE: A FILM BY BEYONCÉ	AMC Theatres…	$5,000,000	-77%	2,539	n/c	$1,969	$28,051,164	2
7	(6)	Napoleon	Sony Pictures	$4,200,000	-42%	3,350	-150	$1,254	$53,094,572	3
8	N	Waitress: The Musical	Bleecker Street	$3,237,875		1,214		$2,667	$3,909,980	1
9	(7)	Animal	Moksha Movies	$2,275,000	-65%	622	-78	$3,658	$11,552,377	2
10	(8)	The Shift	Angel Studios	$2,159,077	-50%	2,450	n/c	$881	$8,501,877	2
11	(9)	Silent Night	Lionsgate	$1,720,000	-43%	1,870	n/c	$920	$5,844,374	2
12	(11)	The Marvels	Walt Disney	$1,330,000	-47%	1,700	-500	$782	$82,940,438	5
13	(10)	Thanksgiving	Sony Pictures	$1,200,000	-54%	2,025	-481	$593	$30,471,669	4
-	(-)	Die Hard	20th Century…	$923,000		1,355		$681	$84,767,093	1,848
-	(14)	The Holdovers	Focus Features	$650,000	-46%	923	-389	$704	$16,395,675	7
-	N	Poor Things	Searchlight …	$644,000		9		$71,556	$644,000	1
-	(-)	Eileen	Neon	$615,000	+559%	5	-1	$123,000	$746,260	2
-	(12)	Dream Scenario	A24	$612,143	-64%	1,250	-328	$490	$4,894,432	5
-	(-)	Oppenheimer	Universal	$350,000	+1,947%	1,316	+1,215	$266	$325,745,060	21
-	(-)	Love Actually	Universal	$280,000		927		$302	$59,976,144	1,049
-	(-)	Killers of the Flower Moon	Paramount Pi…	$194,000	-58%	247	-173	$785	$66,921,684	8
-	(-)	Journey to Bethlehem	Sony Pictures	$150,000	-25%	455	-11	$330	$6,444,702	5
-	(-)	Radical	Pantelion Films	$118,531	-53%	150	-105	$790	$8,438,887	6
-	(-)	Priscilla	A24	$117,356	-65%	230	-205	$510	$20,694,076	7
-	N	Origin	Neon	$117,063		2		$58,532	$117,063	1
-	(-)	Five Nights at Freddy’s	Universal	$100,000	-76%	265	-467	$377	$137,163,570	7
-	(-)	Next Goal Wins	Searchlight …	$95,000	-62%	190	-310	$500	$6,637,872	4
-	(-)	The Sweet East	Utopia	$9,500	-69%	2	+1	$4,750	$54,311	2
-	(-)	Common Ground	Area 23a	$1,300	-84%	2	n/c	$650	$237,339	11
		29		$68,177,868

 

[TravisR]

Beyonce ain't no Taylor Swift.

 

[Tino]

Beyonce ain't no Taylor Swift.

Somewhere right now Kanye West is flipping out and hunting for Taylor.

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Die Hard's on over 1.3K screens (2 weeks before Christmas no less)???

I don't recall seeing it listed on Fandango in NYC area this past week (and looking forward some), but then again, I wasn't looking out for it... though I woulda thunk I might notice w/ that many screens showing it...

Wonder what's the record for such theatrical rereleases...

_Man_

 

[Keith Cobby]

These re-releases are good news, went to see Jingle All the Way last night. The showing was well supported and nobody needed a comfort break as the film is only 89mins.

 

[Tino]

Great hold for G-1.

 

[Malcolm R]

Theaters may start pushing back on intermission if films continue to push 3 hours or more:

Give Me a Break: Why Cinemas Want to Bring Back Intermissions

Increasingly bloated runtimes mean fewer showings — and ticket sales — for cinemas that are competing with viewers’ cozy couches thanks to streaming. Could adding breaks spur audiences to return?

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Late last year, some theaters had reached out about including an intermission with 20th Century’s Avatar: The Way of Water (three hours and 12 minutes) and said they were told no per the wishes of James Cameron, according to exhibition sources. “Imagine being immersed in the world of Avatar and having a sudden break. It would be hard to get back into the movie,” says one Hollywood studio executive not affiliated with the film.

That argument really holds no water (excuse the pun) as without a break people will just have to get up and use the restroom while the movie is running, also disrupting people sitting around them. So you are still having "the sudden break" from being immersed in the world of the film, but now you're missing a chunk of the film, too. And it's to the benefit of the theaters' bottom line if they can sell an extra $100 or more of food since they're potentially missing out on extra ticket sales with fewer showtimes. Hollywood loves making movies, but they seem to do everything they can to cripple the theaters that show them.

This is just director's egos. Most viewers would likely welcome a break. Home viewers probably pause a long film a few times to use the facilities, refill food and drinks, etc. They don't seem to have any issues to "get back into the movie".

 

[ManW_TheUncool]

Theaters may start pushing back on intermission if films continue to push 3 hours or more:

Give Me a Break: Why Cinemas Want to Bring Back Intermissions

Increasingly bloated runtimes mean fewer showings — and ticket sales — for cinemas that are competing with viewers’ cozy couches thanks to streaming. Could adding breaks spur audiences to return?

www.hollywoodreporter.com

That argument really holds no water (excuse the pun) as without a break people will just have to get up and use the restroom while the movie is running, also disrupting people sitting around them. So you are still having "the sudden break" from being immersed in the world of the film, but now you're missing a chunk of the film, too. And it's to the benefit of the theaters' bottom line if they can sell an extra $100 or more of food since they're potentially missing out on extra ticket sales with fewer showtimes. Hollywood loves making movies, but they seem to do everything they can to cripple the theaters that show them.

This is just director's egos. Most viewers would likely welcome a break. Home viewers probably pause a long film a few times to use the facilities, refill food and drinks, etc. They don't seem to have any issues to "get back into the movie".

Yeah, I usually have no real problem "holding it" for a long film (though I make sure I'm prepared, especially nowadays as I'm not young anymore, LOL)... but it can still be distracting to feel that way despite being able to "hold it" for the whole time (though sometimes just barely, LOL)...

IF I have to sit waaay off to the extreme side to make bathroom exits, then I'm not gonna bother going to see it in a theater at all -- my home setup will just have to do and be far preferable in that case...

_Man_

 

[Keith Cobby]

Theaters may start pushing back on intermission if films continue to push 3 hours or more:

Give Me a Break: Why Cinemas Want to Bring Back Intermissions

Increasingly bloated runtimes mean fewer showings — and ticket sales — for cinemas that are competing with viewers’ cozy couches thanks to streaming. Could adding breaks spur audiences to return?

www.hollywoodreporter.com

That argument really holds no water (excuse the pun) as without a break people will just have to get up and use the restroom while the movie is running, also disrupting people sitting around them. So you are still having "the sudden break" from being immersed in the world of the film, but now you're missing a chunk of the film, too. And it's to the benefit of the theaters' bottom line if they can sell an extra $100 or more of food since they're potentially missing out on extra ticket sales with fewer showtimes. Hollywood loves making movies, but they seem to do everything they can to cripple the theaters that show them.

This is just director's egos. Most viewers would likely welcome a break. Home viewers probably pause a long film a few times to use the facilities, refill food and drinks, etc. They don't seem to have any issues to "get back into the movie".

Well said. I don't usually drink much before a long film (I'm 63) but a running time of 3hrs puts me off going (I make an exception for films like Oppenheimer). When I was 8 and watched Chitty, the intermission was as the car fell over the cliff, great fun (the ice cream was good too!).

 

[Jake Lipson]

If a film is long enough to benefit from an intermission, the director can help the audience "get back into the movie" by choosing a spot in the narrative where a break makes sense. If it is well placed, the exciting end to the first half should make the audience excited to get back from the break to find out what happens next. If the second half has an exciting resolution to whatever problem is posed before the intermission, the audience will be on board again. This happens all the time in live theatre where intermissions are standard for full-length shows.

I recently attended a screening of Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse in which the prerecorded musical score was removed. Instead, it was performed live in concert by a full orchestra on stage below the movie screen. Into the Spider-Verse is not long enough to need an intermission if you were just watching a normal screening. However, the concert added one in order to give the awesome hardworking musicians a needed break. Sony was on board with the show and I assume they were okay with this.

Spoiler

They chose to cut off the movie right after Miles finds out that his Uncle Aaron is the Prowler. The show resumed after the intermission with Miles' return to Aunt May's house.

This was the perfect spot to do this because it sent the audience into the intermission on a great twist. Even though most people who paid to see the concert probably watched the movie before, I could still feel people buzzing throughout the intermission, anticipating seeing the rest of it. The action scene that followed the break launched us nicely into the second part without any problem "getting back into the movie."

That being said, I think Cameron and Disney's argument against thie intermission argument would be The Way of Water's mammoth total gross. It is the #3 film of all time worldwide, which makes it difficult to say that they lost out on much money because of the lack of an intermission. The moviegoing public at large clearly felt that this was an event and they were willing to show up for it in massive regardless of its length. Oppenheimer is also a recent example of a very long film that performed even better than its most optimistic projections anyway.

I personally know at least one close friend who refused to see Killers of the Flower Moon in theaters specifically because of its length, but it is difficult to quantify how many people felt that way and how much money was lost. I think the lack of an intermission probably cost them something, but there are other reasons people might wait to stream. So how much money was lost because of the lack of an intermission and how much was just not there because of the quick turnaround time now expecteq for streaming? Apple financed the movie in order to put it on their streaming service, and that isn't a secret. People who care likely know the wait will likely not be too long.

Of course, the movie theaters themselves could assist with the length problem by shortening the number of trailers and pre-show ads that they put in front of movies. That would cut down on the total amount of seat time for the audience. I don't expect the major multiplex chains to do this, but it would help. I saw Killers of the Flower Moon at my local arthouse, where they ran maybe eight to ten minutes of trailers. If I had seen the movie at the multiplex instead, the length of those would have been 25 to 30 minutes. I appreciate the difference, especially if the movie is long. This is part of why I always choose the arthouse over the multiplex if they are both showing the same thing.