So I saw this bit on a site for a (not really) local drive-in theater, talking about what movies they’d be showing in 2024 after the theater reopened for the summer. Here’s the list.
“DEADPOOL 3”
“CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD”
“GARFIELD”
“INSIDE OUT 2”
“DESPICABLE ME 4”
Disney’s “MUFASU: THE LION KING”
“TWISTERS”
“BAD BOYS 4”
“BEETLEJUICE 2”
Boy, why is Hollywood in bad shape these days, eh?
For the purpose of this list, we’ll mostly put aside all the issues of the moronic political content Hollywood keeps shoving down our throats. And really, for this list that sort of garbage will probably only apply to CA: BNW. First, of course, we have the fact that Steve Rogers (Boo! White guy! Boo!) has been replaced with (the much cheaper) Anthony Mackie’s Sam Wilson as Captain America. Boy, if only Sam Wilson could have his own superhero identity.
Of course, it’s been said that black guys are the white men of black people, so I notice that currently the second cast member featured on the film’s IMDB page is Rosa Salazar (Alita: Battle Angel), no role cited. I can only assume that Disney sent in the cast in the order they wanted it to appear, although I have to expect that the guy ACTUALLY PLAYING CAPTAIN AMERICA (sort of) will eventually rise to the top of the cast list.
(I do note that Ryan Reynolds is top of the cast list for Deadpool 3, followed by Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. A bit of solace is provided by the fact that three of the next four listed cast members are *whew* womyn, no doubt of the highly kick-assy variety. Indeed, Jennifer Garner (listed sixth currently) is returning to her previous role as Elektra. Well, the Deadpool movies are basically comedies, so fine. Also, Jackman is wearing Wolverine’s original yellow and blue uniform, which is often cited as the sort of thing that would look ridiculous in real life. Maybe, but in the stills I’ve seen it looks fine.)
Indeed, Mackie—again, the guy playing CAPTAIN AMERICA (sort of) is currently listed FIFTH on the cast list, following Harrison Ford as Thunderbolt Ross, Salazar (female AND Hispanic!), Sebastian Stan and Liv Tyler (a white woman, and thus clearly in second place to Salazar) returning as Betty Ross from the Ed Norton Hulk movie all those years ago. And then, finally, Mackie, THE GUY PLAYING CAPTAIN AMERICA (sort of) is listed. Although maybe not event that prominent in the ad materials for China.
Ah, I’m back in old form. The section I’m “putting aside” took up three long paragraphs. Anyway.
So even putting aside political squawking of the sort that’s been utterly sinking Disney for the last three years, there are several other obvious issues raised. First, of the nine films listed (an issue right there; Hollywood is largely broke, even aside from the—purposely–ongoing strike, and so is making fewer films), EIGHT of them are sequels. Because, yep, “Twisters” is a sequel/reboot of Twister.
And the one that’s left is a reboot of an old property that’s been featured already in several films.
I’m not one, actually, to worship at the alter of originality. It’s a nice bonus, but execution is always king. Of course, modern day Hollywood doesn’t exactly nail execution of movies anymore—well, “execution” maybe in a certain context—so that’s probably a moot issue.
Even so, not to have ONE remotely fresh movie in there? And EIGHT sequels out of nine films? Wow, that is just creative bankruptcy. And while I get that they are hoping for some of that Top Gun: Maverick magic with the old movie sequels, it’s weird that three of these are sequels to movies 25 years old or more.
Here’s my rough guess as to the financial fates of these films:
Despicable Me 4 is a lock to make a lot of money. Kids movies still do well, and this is an extremely popular franchise. Can’t see this not making a ton at the box office.
Next..Garfield, I guess? Bill Murray (who at least was closer to the guy that I cast in my head way back with the comic strip was good, which was Walter Mattheu) will be replaced by, inevitably, Chris Pratt—get ready for the screeching on “X”–as everyone’s favorite lasagna-loving cat. Riding on the coattails of Pratt’s ridiculously successful Mario Brothers, this might well come in a strong second to Despicable Me 4.
Disney Pixar (the touch of death equivalent to Disney Star Wars or Disney Marvel) has been on a real bad streak lately, losing hundreds of millions of dollars with films like…well, since Toy Story 4 came out in 2019, probably. Let’s see.
[I should note I am being very generous here. I’m completely ignoring marketing costs, which at times probably equaled the films’ budgets. Also, I’m accepting the reported budgets, which are probably low so as to try to mitigate the public’s—and more importantly, the shareholders’–view of how horrible the following disasters were.]
Onward (2020) had a budget of around $200 million. Not even counting marketing costs, that means it at a minimum needed to make $400 million at the box office to remotely break even. It made $141 million worldwide, returning at best about $70 movie to Disney Pixar’s coffers.
Soul (2020) with a $150 million budget (again, NOT counting any marketing costs), break even point $300, WWBO of $121 million. Ouch! Partly because that’s all international money, presumably because Disney premiered it on their streaming service. As it’s all international box office, chances are Disney Pixar didn’t actually reap $60 million back, but we’ll call it that.
Luca (2021) again premiered on Disney Plus, and the paltry international box office was $50 million. I can’t find the budget, which I’m sure Disney hid, but we’ll be extremely generous and say was $100 million. Break even point $200 million, return to studio generously (you don’t always get half of the international box office, and any box office from China you barely get anything) $25 million.
Turning Red (2022) AGAIN premiered on Disney Plus. Reported budget $175 million. Break even point $350 million. Actual all international box office $20 million. (!!!!!!!!!!) Return to Disney Pixar, maybe $10 million. And yes, that’s the one about the girl who gets her period.
Lightyear (2022) presumably tired of completely losing their shirt—oooops!–this was actually released to theaters in the US also. Budget $200 million, break even $400 million, WWBO $226 million. Returns to Disney Pixar around $115 million, generously. By the way, this film was heavily marketed, so in reality the break even point was probably more like $600 to $800 million, meaning film would have lost at least $500 million. But we’ll be generous again and stick with the $400 million break even point, meaning it ‘only’ lost about $300 million.
Elemental (2023) Budget $200 million, break even point $400 million. WWBO $477 million. Return to Disney Pixar under $250 million. Astoundingly that’s the best return percentage of the films we’ve looked at (again ignoring marketing costs), since Disney Pixar would have gotten to somewhere around 62.5% of what they needed to break even.
ALL THAT SAID…The first Inside Out (2015) was solidly profitable. Budgeted at $175 million, break even point $350 million, WWBO of $860 million. Return to Disney Pixar around $440 million. Luckily, almost none of that was phony box office from China, where you only get to keep 25% of the box office take, and have to spend that money only in China. (Hence Disney World China.) Even including, say, $100 million worldwide for marketing (which might be low, be we’ll go with it), that only raises the break even point to $550 million, and the film make $860 million. So all good.
So…will Inside Out 2 bring actual profits back to Disney Pixar? Even after six box office disasters in a row? Possibly? I would say it will be moderately profitable, which if true would make it an astounding success for Disney Pixar these days. On the other hand, if this fails it probably means Disney has successfully make the Pixar name completely radioactive. Add in that savvy parents, assuming they are part of the even shrinking number of people who subscribe to Disney Plus, know that Inside Out 2 would be available on the service for (functionally) free a couple of months after it hits theaters.
Which also holds true to our next subject. I think Mufasu: The Lion King will not come close to any of the above. Unless Inside Out 2 is an actual bomb, which would surprise me a little. But just on its own I expect this will fail, if not in spectacular Strange World fashion. And that’s true if it’s a traditionally animated film or one of Disney’s all CGI “live action” movies, like The Lion King remake.
The problem: Disney has REALLY ruined it’s reputation with parents. Also, I’m not sure Seth Rogan’s name is much of a draw these days. And he’s the guy who made Sausage Party, so again, might not be big with parents.
So, on past the animated films. Of the rest, I’d say the two I would think would have a real shot at (maybe) being successful, if not gigantic hits, would be Bad Boys 4 (unless Will Smith’s efforts to make himself a laughingstock have really succeeded) or, more likely, Deadpool 3.
This isn’t to say that DP3 won’t have its hurdles. People are suspicious and tired of (bad) superhero movies these days…again, because they have mostly been awful since Avengers: End Game. The biggest stumbling block is that, because of the writers strike, the film, which is currently shooting, cannot let the actors ad lib. (!!) That’s considered writing, and WGA is on strike.
Well, most of the best lines from the first two films were ad libbed by Ryan Reynolds, not to mention the rest of the cast. However, again, Reynolds (and everyone else, but most impactfully) will only be able to shoot the scenes as they are currently scripted. Because not only are ad libs verboten, but so are (obviously) rewrites or script doctoring. I’m sure they’ll cheat that was much as possible, but even so, it’s a huge constraint.
That said, the first two movies were pretty popular and I would think having Jackman appearing as Wolverine will be a huge boost. So I expect this one to do pretty well. Although that also included Disney being smart enough to let the film be R rated. That seems to be the case, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the House of Mouse got a bad case of late minute stupids and tried to force a PG-13 rating on it. Hopefully Reynolds has an airtight guarantee of an R rating in his contract, though.
As for the other film, they all strike me as crap shoots. More likely fail than succeed, much less be major hits. But one or two of them might, maybe?
Twisters: On the sequel or reboot question. Both, I guess? I think it’s in the continuity of the first film, but with a new younger cast. Which…well, Bill Paxton is dead now, rest in peace, sir. I suppose Helen Hunt might return for the cameo if she doesn’t mind a huge payday for a small amount of her time. She’s not listed on the film’s IMDB page yet, but there are only three actors currently listed, so….
Oh, and remember when I said we could probably mostly put the political preaching aside? Well….
“Twenty years ago, scientists achieved the impossible. They collected a full data set from the inside of a monster F5 tornado. Through the application of this data, they were able to create Antheia, an advanced early warning system. With this information, thousands of lives have been saved and populations have grown comfortably under the watchful eye of their protector. However, whilst science has become complacent, mother nature has continued to evolve…”
Mother nature. I guess we should be glad they don’t just go ahead about talk about Gaia. (Actually, would you like a sequel we could all get behind? Hire the Venture Bros. people to do a nice, cheap Captain Planet movie.)
Anyway, most of the recent disaster movies that didn’t feature the Rock haven’t done that well, so I don’t see this one doing gangbusters or anything.
I’d like to think that Beetlejuice 2 will succeed. But first Tim Burton and company will have to reclaim the magic of the first film. Luckily, it’s doesn’t look like they ever planned to bring Geena Davis or MUCH more to the point, Alec Baldwin back. Maybe they planned cameos, but I doubt they will let Baldwin anywhere near it now. Winona Rider will be back in some capacity, but her role as young star will be Jenna Ortega, which is great for the film because her show Wednesday was enormously successful for Netflix. And, of course, Michael Keaton will be back.
That said, Burton as director hasn’t had a real hit since, what? Alice in Wonderland in 2010? Good lord, Charlie and the Chocolate Factory was made in 2005! I am really old.
So I would love (primarily) for this to actually be good, and (secondarily) to make money, if the first part holds true. Aside from the poor chance of pulling something like this off, though, let’s add in the fact that the first film cost $15 million, while you’d have to think this will cost at least ten times that much. Fingers crossed, though.
Anyway, 2024 is looking great!
