Jump to content

grim22

Aladdin live action movie | 24 MAY 2019 | Disney | 7th most profitable movie of 2019. Disney does it again!

Recommended Posts

People don't target the Memorial Day weekend just to boycott films that, if released on other dates would miraculously succeed. That's asinine. It's just by chance that some films fail on Memorial Day.

 

To me, Aladdin's eminent failure is quite possibly the most depressing box office event of the year.What it does is shown that if it isn't Marvel, or superheroes at all, then a movie is destined to fail this year. Or at least make well under expectations. In the case of Disney, ALL live actions that are not SW or Marvel have failed miserably since BatB. Looks like THAT is more of a curse than Memorial Day ever was. 

 

TLJ was a success but performed WELL under expectations and had a horrific multiplier for a holiday movie. That one should have easily passed $700 million. Look at how EG is following up the well liked IW and tell me that TLJ did not underperform.

 

Then we have Wrinkle in Time, Solo, Christopher Robbins, Nutcracker, Mary Poppins Returns, Dumbo, and now Aladdin. I guess we can throw Pete's Dragon in there. And Alice in Wonderland 2. Oh and let's not forget Pirates of the Crapibbean 5. That is TEN live action films, remakes or not, that have failed in the past 3 years. 

 

Lion King will probably break that curse, but then what? Artemis Fowl, Maleficent 2, rinse and repeat. Overall, non-Marvel and non-SW films have been mostly flops. Successes have been the exception. And we wonder why Iger is emphasizing Disney Plus. I don't blame them. It's a good way to keep making films but staying out of the public's eye and away from the scrutiny.

 

Btw, I'd say in 2018 there was more of a "movies with human beings" saturation. Is that why all of those failures took place? I mean-FOUR non-Marvel movies with human beings in ONE YEAR!!!

 

And you never hear anyone saying "there's a saturation of superhero movies", do you?

Edited by jedijake
Link to comment
Share on other sites



...where do I even start?

 

1 hour ago, jedijake said:

To me, Aladdin's eminent failure is quite possibly the most depressing box office event of the year.What it does is shown that if it isn't Marvel, or superheroes at all, then a movie is destined to fail this year. Or at least make well under expectations. 

Ah yes, because Escape Room, The Upside, How to Train Your Dragon and Us were all complete failures. And if I'm being honest, only Glass, Lego Movie 2 and maybe Us (although that's just more to weak legs, because...yeah, a 70M OW is nothing to sneeze at) performed under expectations. And while yes, you can be disappointing as well as profitable, when it comes to Glass and Us...yeah, Jason Blum ain't crying. Escape Room, Upside, Dragon, and even Alita also performed above tracking and BOT expectations. I'm sure I can find plenty more if I dig deeper. Sure, they're not making Endgame money, but is that really a fair bar for movies like these?

 

And if you want to bring up other movies that came out the past couple of months that tanked, the issue is less that people only like Marvel movies, but more that most of the movies that did mediocre the past couple of months were either super niche, or just flat out sucked. And honestly, why should audiences go and support bad movies anyway? It's not Marvel's fault people ditched Pet Sematary after its first weekend or they rejected Hellboy. And good on audiences for not supporting bad movies.

 

Hell, if we look at last year, which saw non-superhero movies like Fallen Kingdom, The Grinch, Fallout, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born, Ralph Breaks the Internet, A Quiet Place, Crazy Rich Asians, Hotel Transylvania 3, Halloween, The Meg, Ocean's 8, Ready Player One, Mamma Mia 2, Creed II, Peter Rabbit, Equalizer 2, The Mule, Fifty Shades Freed, Green Book, I Can Only Imagine, and so much more be successful, your whole "this year, people only want superhero movies" theory doesn't hold water. You seriously think that once the new year came around, the GA said, "welp, guess I'm only going to watch superhero movies from now on. Screw all the other movies"?

Quote

In the case of Disney, ALL live actions that are not SW or Marvel have failed miserably since BatB. Looks like THAT is more of a curse than Memorial Day ever was. 

 

Then we have Wrinkle in Time, Solo, Christopher Robbins, Nutcracker, Mary Poppins Returns, Dumbo, and now Aladdin. I guess we can throw Pete's Dragon in there. And Alice in Wonderland 2. Oh and let's not forget Pirates of the Crapibbean 5. That is TEN live action films, remakes or not, that have failed in the past 3 years. 

First of all, Aladdin is not out yet. For all we know, it could open to 100M+ in a couple weeks. Don't start your eulogy right now. Second, yes. Some of these movies flopped. You can argue they all underperformed. But you're seriously going to put stuff like Pirates 5 or Pete's Dragon in the same basket as Solo or Nutcracker?

 

This can vary from person to person, but generally speaking, my rule of thumb for whether a movie breaks even is if its box office is at least 2.5x its production budget. Granted it's not a perfect measurement, but somewhere above that ballpark is usually a sign the studio is at least satisfied with a performance. And looking at the stuff you listed, Christopher Robin and Mary Poppins Returns passed that benchmark, and if we're using Pirates 5's high end of $320M, it's only just barely below that 2.5x benchmark. Go down the lower end, and it's 3.45x its production budget. Most studios would kill for a ratio like that. And even then, Pete's Dragon isn't that far behind with 2.21x its production budget, and Dumbo's probably going to at least double its production budget. It's still not great, but with ancillaries, these movies probably will break even soon or have already broken even. A recent Deadline article even had Dumbo's production budget seemingly revised to $130M. Don't know if that's accurate or not, but using that budget, Dumbo's already past my "break even" threshold. Sure, none of these results are great, but if you're seriously acting like these movies are massive failures, especially under the same statement as something like Solo, you are a sad, strange little man.

 

Hell, if we're talking the last three years, Warner Bros. has had way more "failures" within this timeframe. (Fist Fight, CHiPs, Unforgettable, King Arthur, The House, Lego Ninjago, Blade Runner 2049, Geostorm, Justice League, Father Figures, 12 Strong, The 15:17 to Paris, Life of the Party, Lego Movie 2, Isn't it Romantic). Now granted, WB does release more movies, and only a couple of these fall into the Solo/Wrinkle in Time bombs, but seeing as how you have a pretty low threshold for what could be considered a failure, why aren't you giving WB their eulogy or complaining about how these movies represent the death of cinema or some bullshit?

Quote

Lion King will probably break that curse, but then what? Artemis Fowl, Maleficent 2, rinse and repeat. Overall, non-Marvel and non-SW films have been mostly flops. Successes have been the exception. And we wonder why Iger is emphasizing Disney Plus. I don't blame them. It's a good way to keep making films but staying out of the public's eye and away from the scrutiny.

Now I'm not gonna come up here and act like I think these movies will be monster hits. But again, you don't know what they're going to do. And really? Disney+ was made because some of Disney's movies bombed? That's the sole reason? Disregarding the fact Disney's had several hit films, albeit from their animated divisions and Marvel/Lucasfilm, when it comes to media conglomerates like Disney, the film division is not the main crux to the machine. For Disney's sake, I'd argue their films are around third or fourth within the Disney division heirarchy, behind theme parks, merchandising and television. If I'm being honest, Bob Iger isn't gonna lose sleep because A Wrinkle in Time bombed.

 

You wanna know the real reason Iger's pushing Disney+? Because streaming is a popular and lucrative medium, and Disney wants to cash in on it and rival companies like Netflix and Amazon. That's it. The whole reason Disney even bought Fox in the first place was to get a majority stake in Hulu and to bolster the streaming content. You seriously think because Dumbo bombed, Iger said to himself, "y'know what? I have to focus all my time on Disney+. My film division is in complete and utter shambles, so this is the only thing I have left."

Quote

Btw, I'd say in 2018 there was more of a "movies with human beings" saturation. Is that why all of those failures took place? I mean-FOUR non-Marvel movies with human beings in ONE YEAR!!!

...what are you even talking about?

Quote

And you never hear anyone saying "there's a saturation of superhero movies", do you?

Yes actually. It's not super common here, but once in a while the issue of "superhero fatigue" arrives (albeit it's often jokey). And anecdotal, but my Mom's exhausted and annoyed at all these Marvel and DC movies coming out. There's definitely people tired of these movies.

 

 

Lastly....I think you need to take a break from this forum? Looking at some of your recent posts, you seem really tense and nervous and stressed out over movies potentially bombing, and randos not liking stuff. Remember, box office is far from the most important thing in the world to think about. And you proclaiming death to cinema because BOP is lowballing Aladdin says to me you need to relax.

  • Like 8
  • Astonished 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



7 hours ago, CoolEric258 said:

...where do I even start?

 

Ah yes, because Escape Room, The Upside, How to Train Your Dragon and Us were all complete failures. And if I'm being honest, only Glass, Lego Movie 2 and maybe Us (although that's just more to weak legs, because...yeah, a 70M OW is nothing to sneeze at) performed under expectations. And while yes, you can be disappointing as well as profitable, when it comes to Glass and Us...yeah, Jason Blum ain't crying. Escape Room, Upside, Dragon, and even Alita also performed above tracking and BOT expectations. I'm sure I can find plenty more if I dig deeper. Sure, they're not making Endgame money, but is that really a fair bar for movies like these?

 

And if you want to bring up other movies that came out the past couple of months that tanked, the issue is less that people only like Marvel movies, but more that most of the movies that did mediocre the past couple of months were either super niche, or just flat out sucked. And honestly, why should audiences go and support bad movies anyway? It's not Marvel's fault people ditched Pet Sematary after its first weekend or they rejected Hellboy. And good on audiences for not supporting bad movies.

 

Hell, if we look at last year, which saw non-superhero movies like Fallen Kingdom, The Grinch, Fallout, Bohemian Rhapsody, A Star is Born, Ralph Breaks the Internet, A Quiet Place, Crazy Rich Asians, Hotel Transylvania 3, Halloween, The Meg, Ocean's 8, Ready Player One, Mamma Mia 2, Creed II, Peter Rabbit, Equalizer 2, The Mule, Fifty Shades Freed, Green Book, I Can Only Imagine, and so much more be successful, your whole "this year, people only want superhero movies" theory doesn't hold water. You seriously think that once the new year came around, the GA said, "welp, guess I'm only going to watch superhero movies from now on. Screw all the other movies"?

First of all, Aladdin is not out yet. For all we know, it could open to 100M+ in a couple weeks. Don't start your eulogy right now. Second, yes. Some of these movies flopped. You can argue they all underperformed. But you're seriously going to put stuff like Pirates 5 or Pete's Dragon in the same basket as Solo or Nutcracker?

 

This can vary from person to person, but generally speaking, my rule of thumb for whether a movie breaks even is if its box office is at least 2.5x its production budget. Granted it's not a perfect measurement, but somewhere above that ballpark is usually a sign the studio is at least satisfied with a performance. And looking at the stuff you listed, Christopher Robin and Mary Poppins Returns passed that benchmark, and if we're using Pirates 5's high end of $320M, it's only just barely below that 2.5x benchmark. Go down the lower end, and it's 3.45x its production budget. Most studios would kill for a ratio like that. And even then, Pete's Dragon isn't that far behind with 2.21x its production budget, and Dumbo's probably going to at least double its production budget. It's still not great, but with ancillaries, these movies probably will break even soon or have already broken even. A recent Deadline article even had Dumbo's production budget seemingly revised to $130M. Don't know if that's accurate or not, but using that budget, Dumbo's already past my "break even" threshold. Sure, none of these results are great, but if you're seriously acting like these movies are massive failures, especially under the same statement as something like Solo, you are a sad, strange little man.

 

Hell, if we're talking the last three years, Warner Bros. has had way more "failures" within this timeframe. (Fist Fight, CHiPs, Unforgettable, King Arthur, The House, Lego Ninjago, Blade Runner 2049, Geostorm, Justice League, Father Figures, 12 Strong, The 15:17 to Paris, Life of the Party, Lego Movie 2, Isn't it Romantic). Now granted, WB does release more movies, and only a couple of these fall into the Solo/Wrinkle in Time bombs, but seeing as how you have a pretty low threshold for what could be considered a failure, why aren't you giving WB their eulogy or complaining about how these movies represent the death of cinema or some bullshit?

Now I'm not gonna come up here and act like I think these movies will be monster hits. But again, you don't know what they're going to do. And really? Disney+ was made because some of Disney's movies bombed? That's the sole reason? Disregarding the fact Disney's had several hit films, albeit from their animated divisions and Marvel/Lucasfilm, when it comes to media conglomerates like Disney, the film division is not the main crux to the machine. For Disney's sake, I'd argue their films are around third or fourth within the Disney division heirarchy, behind theme parks, merchandising and television. If I'm being honest, Bob Iger isn't gonna lose sleep because A Wrinkle in Time bombed.

 

You wanna know the real reason Iger's pushing Disney+? Because streaming is a popular and lucrative medium, and Disney wants to cash in on it and rival companies like Netflix and Amazon. That's it. The whole reason Disney even bought Fox in the first place was to get a majority stake in Hulu and to bolster the streaming content. You seriously think because Dumbo bombed, Iger said to himself, "y'know what? I have to focus all my time on Disney+. My film division is in complete and utter shambles, so this is the only thing I have left."

...what are you even talking about?

Yes actually. It's not super common here, but once in a while the issue of "superhero fatigue" arrives (albeit it's often jokey). And anecdotal, but my Mom's exhausted and annoyed at all these Marvel and DC movies coming out. There's definitely people tired of these movies.

 

 

Lastly....I think you need to take a break from this forum? Looking at some of your recent posts, you seem really tense and nervous and stressed out over movies potentially bombing, and randos not liking stuff. Remember, box office is far from the most important thing in the world to think about. And you proclaiming death to cinema because BOP is lowballing Aladdin says to me you need to relax.

Who do you think you are to tell people whether they should post or not? 

Edited by jedijake
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, jedijake said:

People don't target the Memorial Day weekend just to boycott films that, if released on other dates would miraculously succeed. That's asinine. It's just by chance that some films fail on Memorial Day.

 

To me, Aladdin's eminent failure is quite possibly the most depressing box office event of the year.What it does is shown that if it isn't Marvel, or superheroes at all, then a movie is destined to fail this year. Or at least make well under expectations. In the case of Disney, ALL live actions that are not SW or Marvel have failed miserably since BatB. Looks like THAT is more of a curse than Memorial Day ever was. 

 

TLJ was a success but performed WELL under expectations and had a horrific multiplier for a holiday movie. That one should have easily passed $700 million. Look at how EG is following up the well liked IW and tell me that TLJ did not underperform.

 

Then we have Wrinkle in Time, Solo, Christopher Robbins, Nutcracker, Mary Poppins Returns, Dumbo, and now Aladdin. I guess we can throw Pete's Dragon in there. And Alice in Wonderland 2. Oh and let's not forget Pirates of the Crapibbean 5. That is TEN live action films, remakes or not, that have failed in the past 3 years. 

 

Lion King will probably break that curse, but then what? Artemis Fowl, Maleficent 2, rinse and repeat. Overall, non-Marvel and non-SW films have been mostly flops. Successes have been the exception. And we wonder why Iger is emphasizing Disney Plus. I don't blame them. It's a good way to keep making films but staying out of the public's eye and away from the scrutiny.

 

Btw, I'd say in 2018 there was more of a "movies with human beings" saturation. Is that why all of those failures took place? I mean-FOUR non-Marvel movies with human beings in ONE YEAR!!!

 

And you never hear anyone saying "there's a saturation of superhero movies", do you?

Calm down my guy.

 

 

Again if Aladdin underperforms cause again I’m still predicting MU Numbers DOM/$800M WW, it’s not because of superhero movies, it’s live action remake fatigue and the competition. Not all of these remakes have to do BaTB/TJB Numbers even the most loved ones. Dude, there’s still a good three weeks left, and could go up a lot now is not the time to panic and I say that as someone who hates the majority of these remakes with a burning passion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Just now, YourMother the Edgelord said:

MU Numbers DOM/$800M WW

I don't see how that's under-performing at all :L

That would be an incredible result for a Guy Ritchie film which was ridiculed mercilessly until last month. Would be Big Willie's biggest film ever too, and considering live action Disney adaptations seem to be on a downward slope (Dumbo), it would be doubly impressive.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites



1 minute ago, TMP said:

I don't see how that's under-performing at all :L

That would be an incredible result for a Guy Ritchie film which was ridiculed mercilessly until last month. Would be Big Willie's biggest film ever too, and considering live action Disney adaptations seem to be on a downward slope (Dumbo), it would be doubly impressive.

Exactly especially considering that this is a very competitive summer for families, hell ask parents like @TwoMisfits and @narniadis. Sure Pikachu is looking much weaker at $450M-$550M WW now but Pets 2 and Toy Story 4 are gigantic and that’s ignoring the Lion King. Besides Aladdin and Dumbo are in two different leagues in terms of relevancy with today’s kids, and the fact that Aladdin will likely have two harsh drops will be due to post MDay and Pets 2. And even then I’m not doubting $300M DOM is sadly likely

 

 

Had Aladdin had a better release date, I’d have no reason on why it wouldn’t do $1B WW but not all of them have to be Beast/TJB monsters even if they’re loved to be hits.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites









10 hours ago, jedijake said:

Then we have Wrinkle in Time, Solo, Christopher Robbins, Nutcracker, Mary Poppins Returns, Dumbo, and now Aladdin. I guess we can throw Pete's Dragon in there. And Alice in Wonderland 2. Oh and let's not forget Pirates of the Crapibbean 5. That is TEN live action films, remakes or not, that have failed in the past 3 years. 

Does this mean there's any chance Disney could close and go away? Please? Please?

 

10 hours ago, jedijake said:

Btw, I'd say in 2018 there was more of a "movies with human beings" saturation. Is that why all of those failures took place? I mean-FOUR non-Marvel movies with human beings in ONE YEAR!!!

In the climate we're in movies with recognizable human beings in them usually don't make the yearly top 100 anymore.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites







16 hours ago, jedijake said:

To the questions about "pessimism", it's quite simple. It's superhero or die right now.

 

So, sub-$600 million for both LK and TROS at the moment. I can accept that that.

can't wait for both of these movies to make half a billion each in the US and spawn a bunch of "sigh i guess that proves it people only want superheroes". posts.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites





12 minutes ago, YourMother the Edgelord said:

Exactly especially considering that this is a very competitive summer for families, hell ask parents like @TwoMisfits and @narniadis. Sure Pikachu is looking much weaker at $450M-$550M WW now but Pets 2 and Toy Story 4 are gigantic and that’s ignoring the Lion King. Besides Aladdin and Dumbo are in two different leagues in terms of relevancy with today’s kids, and the fact that Aladdin will likely have two harsh drops will be due to post MDay and Pets 2. And even then I’m not doubting $300M DOM is sadly likely

 

 

Had Aladdin had a better release date, I’d have no reason on why it wouldn’t do $1B WW but not all of them have to be Beast/TJB monsters even if they’re loved to be hits.

My main point was that I don't think a Guy Ritchie Aladdin film ever had the potential for $1 Billion. Beauty & The Beast had a certain novelty factor to it, and starred an actor audiences grew up with playing a character audiences grew up with. It was also catering to an incredibly under-served female demo at the time, who won't show as readily to Aladdin. Even if it wasn't out 2 weeks before kids film giant SLOP 2, and a week before Godzilla 2 took a bulk of its young male audience, I just don't know how high this specific film had the potential to go. It's a musical, but it's also a Guy Ritchie action-adventure film based on the trailers, and I feel like that diversification of tone will end up just confusing who the target audience is meant to be as opposed to feel more 4-quadrant.

Or I could be wrong and this opens to $130m. We'll see in 3 weeks!

Link to comment
Share on other sites



Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.



  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Guidelines. Feel free to read our Privacy Policy as well.