2019 for Disney a historic dominance of box office

[Blackhawkswincup]

The Star Wars thread lead me to look at year more closely and wow at Disney

Domestic Box Office
1) Avengers: Endgame = $858.3M (Disney)
2) The Lion King = $543.6M (Disney)
3) Toy Story 4 = $434M (Disney)
4) Captain Marvel = $426.8M (Disney)
5) Frozen II = $421.3M (Disney)
6) Spiderman: Far from Home = $390.5M (Sony)
7) Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker = $361.7M (Disney)
8) Aladdin = $355.5M (Disney)
9) Joker = $333.4M (Warner Bros)
10) It Chapter Two = $211.5M (Warner Bros)

Worldwide Box Office
1) Avengers: Endgame = $2.797B (Disney)
2) The Lion King = $1.656B (Disney)
3) Frozen II = $1.217B (Disney)
4) Spiderman: Far from Home = $1.131B (Sony)
5) Captain Marvel = $1.128B (Disney)
6) Toy Story 4 = $1.073B (Disney)
7) Joker = $1.062B (Warner Bros)
8) Aladdin = $1.062B (Disney)
9) Star Wars: Episode IX - The Rise of Skywalker = $724.7M (Disney)
10) Fast & Furious: Hobbs and Shaw = $758.9M (Universal)

Bold = Still in theaters

Certainly can see why Disney is willing to go all in with mega budget blockbusters. Can anyone remember when a studio was this dominant?

Add in Disney+ launch which has seen smash hit Mandalorian and acquisition of Fox on top of that

Click to read more...

 

[discostu]

It's pretty unprecedented, but they lined things up towards this one year to make that big push behind Disney+.

Next year will likely be a more return to normal,but I'd expect them to still probably be the top studio again.

 

[beowulf]

That's what happens when one company is allowed to own so much intellectual property and buy out other studios. Between Disney movies, Pixaar, Lucas Films, Marvel, etc. most of which lead to big blockbusters, it is not surprising at all.

 

[Trap Jesus]

A lot of that money for Spider-Man was built on that character's involvement in the MCU, obviously a Disney property. Bad time to be a fan of movies right now.

 

[bleedblue1223]

That's what happens when one company is allowed to own so much intellectual property and buy out other studios. Between Disney movies, Pixaar, Lucas Films, Marvel, etc. most of which lead to big blockbusters, it is not surprising at all.

Yeah, this isn't something that we should celebrate.

 

[Jussi]

Yeah, this isn't something that we should celebrate.

Yes it is. Ar least for the Marvel part.

 

[OhCaptainMyCaptain]

A lot of that money for Spider-Man was built on that character's involvement in the MCU, obviously a Disney property. Bad time to be a fan of movies right now.

Uh.... did you not watch 2019 movies?? Aside from these blockbusters, there were fantastic films this year!

 

[Puckstop40]

That's what happens when one company is allowed to own so much intellectual property and buy out other studios. Between Disney movies, Pixaar, Lucas Films, Marvel, etc. most of which lead to big blockbusters, it is not surprising at all.

I was going to say, they bought all the extra pieces like Lucasfilms and Marvel to make it happen. Not surprised at all with numbers.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

Yes it is. Ar least for the Marvel part.

A single corporation taking a stranglehold on the industry is not something to be celebrated.

But yeah, you get to see more Marvel movies, so I guess that evens out.

 

[Jussi]

A single corporation taking a stranglehold on the industry is not something to be celebrated.

But yeah, you get to see more Marvel movies, so I guess that evens out.

It's not a stranglehold, other companies just need to make better movies. It's not Disney's fault that all their blockbusters have been good movies as well.

And yes, I'm selfish dick, they gimme what I want and I don't care about the others because I'm not in the movie making business.

f*** it, this is the way.

 

[Beau Knows]

Yes, if only other studios could buy everything in sight and then release masterpieces like The Rise of Skywalker with their new property. Truly incredible filmmakers.

 

[Jussi]

Yes, if only other studios could buy everything in sight and then release masterpieces like The Rise of Skywalker with their new property. Truly incredible filmmakers.

Yes, I was directly referring to RoS (which I liked).

 

[ArGarBarGar]

It's not a stranglehold, other companies just need to make better movies. It's not Disney's fault that all their blockbusters have been good movies as well.

And yes, I'm selfish dick, they gimme what I want and I don't care about the others because I'm not in the movie making business.

**** it, this is the way.

Box office numbers do not determine quality of a film. Dredd tanked at the box office (less than 50 mil globally) but I consider it a better film than almost all Marvel movies that have been put out in the MCU. And that is strictly speaking of comic book movies.

 

[Jussi]

Box office numbers do not determine quality of a film. Dredd tanked at the box office (less than 50 mil globally) but I consider it a better film than almost all Marvel movies that have been put out in the MCU. And that is strictly speaking of comic book movies.

When a movie makes over a billion, has very positive critical and general audience reception (pretty much all the Marvel films have B+ - A+ Cinemascore), trying to inject your personal opinion of a movie as fact, doesn't really work. No matter how much you don't like them, doesn't mean that everybody else didn't either.

 

[ArGarBarGar]

When a movie makes over a billion, has very positive critical and general audience reception (pretty much all the Marvel films have B+ - A+ Cinemascore), trying to inject your personal opinion of a movie as fact, doesn't really work. No matter how much you don't like them, doesn't mean that everybody else didn't either.

It is a fact that box office numbers do not by themselves determine the quality of a film. Are you saying that Dredd was a bad movie because it did poorly at the box office?

You were the one who stated that the reason Disney has a stranglehold is because other studios aren't making movies up to their quality. Please explain how box office numbers are the arbiter of a quality movie.

 

[bleedblue1223]

What we are witnessing is how essentially monopolies begin. It wouldn't be a huge issue if Hollywood right now wasn't so creatively bankrupt and the industry wasn't so focused on meaningless remakes and popcorn flicks.

 

[discostu]

There are more films released today than 30 years ago. People have more access to those films, both domestic and internationally thanks to digital streaming. Independent film is about as strong as its ever been.

There are types of films that are no longer financially viable (original, adult oriented mid budget films), but there's a plethora of options outside the big Disney IP stuff.

It doesn't look like a monopoly to me.

 

[bleedblue1223]

They have a monopoly on big blockbusters. Blockbusters/popcorn flicks are almost a completely different form of entertainment. Sure, your random local small bookstore can still exist and some Barnes & Nobles, but Amazon destroyed the brick and mortar bookstore industry. It's not impressive for Disney to dominate the blockbuster segment when they own pretty much all the blockbuster properties.

 

[beowulf]

It's not a stranglehold, other companies just need to make better movies. It's not Disney's fault that all their blockbusters have been good movies as well.

And yes, I'm selfish dick, they gimme what I want and I don't care about the others because I'm not in the movie making business.

**** it, this is the way.

So short sighted.

 

[Trap Jesus]

Uh.... did you not watch 2019 movies?? Aside from these blockbusters, there were fantastic films this year!

I meant the way things are going in terms of blockbuster releases. 2019 was great for movies overall.

 

[discostu]

They have a monopoly on big blockbusters. Blockbusters/popcorn flicks are almost a completely different form of entertainment. Sure, your random local small bookstore can still exist and some Barnes & Nobles, but Amazon destroyed the brick and mortar bookstore industry. It's not impressive for Disney to dominate the blockbuster segment when they own pretty much all the blockbuster properties.

Disney three all their IP in ones year and dominated as they expected to. Future years will likely be less, and as IP is not a static resource, if they are unable to develop their own, they'll struggle to maintain dominance.

Deeming "blockbuster flicks" as it's own industry doesn't work. It's part of the broader entertainment industry, which Disney is currently the lead player, but far from a monopoly.

No one would call Coca-Cola a monopoly in the "soda in red can" market.

 

[bleedblue1223]

Disney three all their IP in ones year and dominated as they expected to. Future years will likely be less, and as IP is not a static resource, if they are unable to develop their own, they'll struggle to maintain dominance.

Deeming "blockbuster flicks" as it's own industry doesn't work. It's part of the broader entertainment industry, which Disney is currently the lead player, but far from a monopoly.

No one would call Coca-Cola a monopoly in the "soda in red can" market.

Calling Coke the red can market isn't anywhere close to what I'm saying. It's more like the difference between electric cars and gasoline cars. While technically both cars, there is a clear difference between the electric car market and the gasoline car market or the car market vs the truck market. It's a sub-segment of the industry as a whole. Just as blockbuster/popcorn flicks are a segment of the film industry and are view differently from indie films and can't be compared in the same ways.

Right now Disney dominates the blockbuster/popcorn segment, and will continue to dominate it. Between the animated, live-action version of the animated, and their comic book, they will continue to produce the highest quantity in those segments compared to their competitors. They are darn near close to a monopoly in it.

It's funny that you even bring up Coca-Cola because in the soda industry, it's Coca-Cola and Pepsi enjoying their "relationship" to prevent other competitors from gaining any sort of market share. It's the best example of a duopoly where both pretty much want to maintain the status quo.

 

[discostu]

Calling Coke the red can market isn't anywhere close to what I'm saying. It's more like the difference between electric cars and gasoline cars. While technically both cars, there is a clear difference between the electric car market and the gasoline car market or the car market vs the truck market. It's a sub-segment of the industry as a whole. Just as blockbuster/popcorn flicks are a segment of the film industry and are view differently from indie films and can't be compared in the same ways.

Right now Disney dominates the blockbuster/popcorn segment, and will continue to dominate it. Between the animated, live-action version of the animated, and their comic book, they will continue to produce the highest quantity in those segments compared to their competitors. They are darn near close to a monopoly in it.

It's funny that you even bring up Coca-Cola because in the soda industry, it's Coca-Cola and Pepsi enjoying their "relationship" to prevent other competitors from gaining any sort of market share. It's the best example of a duopoly where both pretty much want to maintain the status quo.

I just don't see a lot of relevance of any category around popcorn flicks, as it's an arbitrary categorization. Plus, I don't think it's as dominant as it's made out to be.

The other studios have their share of IP or in house divisions that can rival Disney, whenever managed well.

Universal has an animation arm that is highly competitive with Disney and Pixar. Marvel is close to untouchable, but DC films has shown they can make billion dollar films like Aquaman. Blum house films doesn't make the same top end dollars, but there likely isn't a studio branch that is as profitable as they are with their horror hits.

Directors like Tarantino and Nolan are mini franchises on their own, and are able to deliver studios highly profitable hits.

I also think that box office is not the area of concern for monopolies in the industry, unless you start seeing Disney put further pressure on their distribution channels (which they have to a degree, but not crossing into area of alarm).

The bigger concern is streaming, where Netflix has dominated, and holds market share rates far more concerning. I try not to root for giant conglomerate billion dollar companies, but it's why I don't mind seeing Disney go up against them and seemingly have success. It's an area where a company csn leverage its market dominance to keep competitors out. Having at least 2 or 3 major players in this market will help the competitiveness of the market for both consumers and content creators.


Also, FWIW, I am enjoying this discussion, and as I know that tone does not come across well in messages boards, don't take any disagreement we may have in how we see the industry as an attack in any way. This is a complex issue, and there isn't a singular answer, so if you see it differently, I have no issues with that.

 

[bleedblue1223]

I just don't see a lot of relevance of any category around popcorn flicks, as it's an arbitrary categorization. Plus, I don't think it's as dominant as it's made out to be.

The other studios have their share of IP or in house divisions that can rival Disney, whenever managed well.

Universal has an animation arm that is highly competitive with Disney and Pixar. Marvel is close to untouchable, but DC films has shown they can make billion dollar films like Aquaman. Blum house films doesn't make the same top end dollars, but there likely isn't a studio branch that is as profitable as they are with their horror hits.

Directors like Tarantino and Nolan are mini franchises on their own, and are able to deliver studios highly profitable hits.

I also think that box office is not the area of concern for monopolies in the industry, unless you start seeing Disney put further pressure on their distribution channels (which they have to a degree, but not crossing into area of alarm).

The bigger concern is streaming, where Netflix has dominated, and holds market share rates far more concerning. I try not to root for giant conglomerate billion dollar companies, but it's why I don't mind seeing Disney go up against them and seemingly have success. It's an area where a company csn leverage its market dominance to keep competitors out. Having at least 2 or 3 major players in this market will help the competitiveness of the market for both consumers and content creators.


Also, FWIW, I am enjoying this discussion, and as I know that tone does not come across well in messages boards, don't take any disagreement we may have in how we see the industry as an attack in any way. This is a complex issue, and there isn't a singular answer, so if you see it differently, I have no issues with that.

Netflix was only ever going to dominate as long as they could hold on to properties that they didn't own. Without nostalgia shows, they are going to take a hit, and now the streaming market is over-saturated, so we'll so who survives after a couple years. Part of the reason Disney has been buying all these IP's was for the streaming potential.

I think my big point is, we shouldn't be surprised that Disney is dominating and it's not because their quality is overwhelmingly the best on the market. It's not a pure monopoly and it never will be, but the industry like others is definitely consolidating, and I'm not a fan of that, but we'll have to see how everything plays out.

 

[chicagoskycam]

Remember people thought they were nuts for spending 4 billion for Lucasfilm, have to get those $$ back and quite frankly that's what they're doing. Pumping out as much content as possible while missing the boat on quality at time.

I don't think the comp from Disney vs. Netflix is a good thing. Consumers have less content divided between two services at a higher cost. While Netflix dominated it also pays 3rd parties a good deal for their content allowing them to produce more.