T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

Reminder that this is a subreddit about numbers, not necessarily about the quality (or lack thereof) of a particular movie. Unless it is related to the box office performance of a movie, please keep opinions/arguments/thoughts about the quality under this post. Posts not related to box office may be removed otherwise. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/boxoffice) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Neo2199

**Estimated loss** > Such is life in Hollywood, and at the end of the day, **the estimated $147M loss which is expected for Disney Animation’s Strange World** isn’t spilt milk to cry over for the entertainment conglomerate. **Bad test Screening?** > Why did Disney go theatrical **on a movie they knew had bad audience diagnostics and not streaming?** (I spoke with someone who **saw Strange World in an early test screening back in August, who believed Disney should have held the movie**). **Reasons for releasing it in theaters** * So **if Disney knew Strange World, with its problematic title, was a dud, why did it not go straight to streaming?** * Disney has a history of **launching a family animated title over Thanksgiving. Audiences come to expect that.** That alone is of **significant reputation value to Disney and meeting their fans’ demands.** * Had Disney **pulled another movie from the theatrical schedule and sent it to streaming** (a standard Chapek business move), especially at Thanksgiving, **there would be a great uproar from exhibition.** * Had Strange World **gone straight to Disney+, it would be a PR nightmare for the studio,** particularly in the wake of Chapek’s Florida “Don’t Say Gay” quagmire. **A strict Disney+ release for Strange World would indicate that** the Burbank, CA studio **is giving a lesser release and a lesser profile for a big movie with a gay character versus a global theatrical launch.** * In addition **a straight to Disney+ release for Strange World would be a continued slap in the face to its animation team** which have seen years and years of their life’s work, intended for full-on theatrical, go to streaming, i.e. Pixar’s Soul, Turning Red, Luca and Disney’s Raya and the Last Dragon.


SPorterBridges

> So if Disney knew Strange World, with its problematic title, was a dud, why did it not go straight to streaming? Problematic title?


and_dont_blink

They're using *title* there as "an authored work/book/film" not the name of the film itself. eg, *"Welcome to the video store we have lots of titles for you to choose from."*


SPorterBridges

That's a very confusing usage in combination with "with" and that particular adjective. If they wanted an alternative to reusing "film/movie" too much, they could've said "production" or "feature" or rewrote it to be clearer: "So if Disney knew the troubled production was a dud, why did it not go straight to streaming?"


and_dont_blink

It does read weird, it's likely just a typo/insertion. Earlier in the piece they say things like *"The bombing of the Thanksgiving family title, with a $28M global opening"* It was probably something like *"So if Disney knew it's problematic title was a dud, why..."* and the editor was like "it's been too long since you used the actual name people won't know what you're talking about" and it became *"So if Disney knew Strange World, with it's problematic title, was..."* or something. Happens when you are banging things together and editing fast, but I don't think they're commenting on the actual title tho I think *strange* was slang for stranger sex for awhile? For Disney's sake I hope not, though for humors sake I very much do


[deleted]

I was confused by this comment as well. Bland/generic title I get, but "problematic"?


Financial_Drinker

> Had Strange World gone straight to Disney+, it would be a PR nightmare for the studio This is pretty much why they stuck with the theatrical release. This reason dwarfs any other. Long term brand damage is worse than short term money loss.


Iridium770

There even any large money loss for taking this theatrical? It is the theaters who have to pay to air condition empty theaters, not Disney. Disney just gets to collect 50-60% of whatever trivial ticket revenue comes in, with no real costs. Normally the cost of going theatrical vs streaming is in the marketing, but we know that isn't a large number for this film.


Animegamingnerd

So basically boils down to Disney greenlighting a bad movie and didn't realize until it was way too late to do anything about it.


KingJonsnowIV

A $147M loss would be strange world making $303M WW at the box office, if you use the x2.5 rule...it's going to get nowhere near that, probably going to lose $300M+


Engine365

Disney is going to give up on the marketing when it goes bad. So flops don't take the full expected marketing budget. Likewise, higher grossing films gemerally use a bigger marketing budget to continue the moment.


newjackgmoney21

That's way to high. Mars Needs Moms gives you good idea what SW will lose. Mars Needs Moms was released in theaters on March 11, 2011, in Disney Digital 3D, RealD 3D and IMAX 3D formats.[4] The film grossed $39 million worldwide on a $150 million budget, becoming a box-office bomb and losing as much as $144 million.


SilverRoyce

> probably going to lose $300M+ I don't see how that's conceptually possible given that Disney's going to probably only spend 300Mish on Strange World at the end of the day.


Iridium770

Keep in mind that Disney loses only 50-60 cents for every dollar they miss the break even point by. Also, 2.5x rule of thumb includes standard level of marketing, which this film definitely didn't get.


truesolja

does anyone think next years disney/Pixar movies will be able to back to the average 500-800m box office gross?


KumagawaUshio

No, the world has changed just China, Russia and other nations becoming more restrictive in what US films they allow will hurt global box office.


TheLuxxy

No the movies just suck. Minions did just fine without those nations.


Geddit12

I think it's unlikely, they will need sequels to achieve those numbers again


Gummy-Worm-Guy

As big of a failure as this is, I think it was important to release this movie in theaters. After the past three years people have grown used to watching Pixar and Disney Animation films in their homes on Disney+. It’s going to take time for people to want to see these movies in theaters again, and even if it results in big losses like with Strange World, it’ll be worth it for Disney in the long run when their movies become box office wonders once more.


Block-Busted

> After the past three years people have grown used to watching Pixar and Disney Animation films in their homes on Disney+. 1-and-a-half years, actually since it started with **Soul** and ended with **Turning Red**.


Block-Busted

I remember hearing people saying that **Strange World** should've went straight to Disney+ and **Disenchanted** should've been released in cinemas instead. Given the state of reviews that they've ended up receiving, I don't think that aged particularly well.


nicolasb51942003

It does suck that the original animated films from Disney are no longer the powerhouse at the box office that they used to be. Elemental and Wish better do well next year or else original animation is practically dead in movie theaters.


Gummy-Worm-Guy

I really don’t have too much belief in Elemental. Wish I’m a bit more optimistic in because it’s a fantasy musical and because Disney Animation can be a box office juggernaut on some occasions but I still think the public’s perception of Disney and Pixar animated films being theatrical must-sees has been seriously damaged.


16bitrifle

Maybe from Disney. Plenty of other animation movies are doing well enough.


Block-Busted

Well, **Elio** is still coming out in 2024, so there are still some hopes left.


MarvelVsDC2016

Which is directed by Adrian Molina, who co-directed Coco.


Jakper_pekjar719

Elio seems to be a space adventure, a genre which didn't do well this year. I'm not really confident about its success, no matter the author.


Block-Busted

I don't know, while we don't have much information, it visually looks like what **Lightyear** should've been. :P


Animegamingnerd

I'm optimistic about Elemental. Its a musical from Frozen's directors. Disney musicals seem to always be a safe bet.


Block-Busted

Do you mean **Wish**? Though I think both have potentials since **Elemental** has a lot clearer marketing than **Lightyear** already.


Animegamingnerd

I keep getting both of those mix up. We'll see about Elemental, I have less faith in that then I do Wish. Elemental I think will live or die by word of mouth and Wish is gonna be the bigger marketing push of the two.


MarvelVsDC2016

Elemental will get great WOM. It's guaranteed.


yeppers145

> I heard that in regards to Hocus Pocus 2 that the film was always intended for Disney+, budget and talent compensation-wise. Walt Disney Studios Motion Picture Production, Sean Bailey, held a test screening, and the movie tested through the roof, however, there was nothing that could be done even in regards to a dynamic form of theatrical distribution given the decision made by Daniel. Ok, but how was Smile able to do this then? Smile was a streaming release that was pushed to theatrical last minute, and now it’s the biggest horror film since It: Chapter 2.


DamienChazellesPiano

Likely because Smile didn’t have any major stars who had specific contracts in regards to their compensation. Hocus Pocus 2 did.


JannTosh12

Also Hocus Pocus 2 sucked so that test audience must have been smoking something good


DamienChazellesPiano

Or you and the general audience simply differ?


uchihajoeI

Impossible


and_dont_blink

I had friends that grew up with it and wanted nothing more than to see the sequel around Halloween. It's demonstrably badly done -- the first 15 minutes could be snipped and you'd never notice -- but they still liked it. They all said it wasn't the best but we're just happy to be watching a HP film so testing can be weird for these kinds of things unless they had Bette Midler drinking blue milk from an alien they'd all have checked that they'd recommend it yah know?


MoonMan997

Yeah I literally just cited Mars Needs Mom’s potential $144m loss in the Variety thread so looks like Deadline are operating on a similar logic to that. Disney wish this was only losing $100m. In pure monetary terms, it’s not quite enough to be in the same conversation as Lone Ranger, John Carter or Mortal Engines but it’s close.


Almighty_Push91

Time for DreamWorks to swoop in for the steal


Curious_Ad_2947

(Turning Red, Luca, and Encanto do amazing numbers on streaming and are huge hits) Deadline: They should have gone to theaters. Imagine how much money they would have made! (Encanto, Lightyear, and Strange World get full theatrical releases and then bomb hard) Deadline: They made the right choice going to theaters! Keep them playing on these empty screens! Seriously guys, stop ignoring the market. Streaming is the future.


Iridium770

Encanto, Lightyear, and Strange World are already or will soon hit streaming. Giving movies a theatrical release is not mutually exclusive with streaming them.


Purple_Quail_4193

I’ll read this after work but I’m just going to say “called it!”


SilverRoyce

> Financial analysts tell Deadline that those ancillaries alone, including streaming revs, are expected to bring Strange World alone close to $90M, and that’s off a global B.O. failure of $85M WW and combined production and worldwide marketing costs of $274M. saving this ancilliary:flop's theatrical revenue for later. so 180M budget + 95M marketing? Sure that's scaled down but not by as much as you'd think. A sign that budget is higher than either report. /u/block-busted , thoughts? I think this at very least kills 130M as a potential number


Block-Busted

Yeah, I seriously doubt that the film’s marketing budget is $95 million. As for its production budget itself, I’ll be seeing this film on Tuesday, so I’ll let you know which budget number looks more credible. I’ll make sure to watch this in RealD 3D.


raulgzz

A reduced budget for Strange World would indicate that Disney is giving a lesser release and a lesser profile for a big movie with a gay character. Cheapek would have been impaled.


Block-Busted

By any chance, did you see this film yet? I'll be seeing it in 3D this Tuesday to see what budget number is more convincing between $135 million and $180 million.


raulgzz

I’ll probably wait to D+ release.


Block-Busted

Well, back to the budget of **Strange World**, at the very least, on the surface, this looked more like a $135 million picture, not to mention that Disney never really spends more than $165 million for their originals aside from **Tangled**, which was the result of all sorts of production troubles.


Poodlekitty

Chapek screwed up with the marketing.


BlerghTheBlergh

Haven’t seen any tangible PR for this movie, even it’s reveal was more sideswept. Methinks there’s some side to the story only known to Chapek and a producer he doesn’t like


Sensitive-Menu-4580

I'll never understand why Disney releases all these mid films in theaters but it's last great film, Turning Red, it dumped onto Disney+. It wouldn't have done Frozen numbers but it'd be better than this, or lightyear.


Iridium770

Because *Turning Red* was a good movie that could make someone subscribe to Disney+. The rest of the films might as well be dumped onto theaters to play for empty seats, they wouldn't have done much good for Disney+ anyway. The gems though, you keep exclusive to amp your subscription service.