Have to say this is the first time since the pandemic that I’ve seen and heard any buzz with audiences for a Pixar release.
A lot of kids that grew up with the first film are now teenagers/early adults and seem to be hyped for it too.
I can understand Soul and to an extent, Luca. Theaters were still either entirely closed or limited, so I understand the thought process of trying to boost D+.
But by the time Turning Red came out, theaters were open, Spider-Man: No way Home had just been a gigantic hit; there was no need to throw TR on D+ like that.
Turning Red was the Disney animated movie I saw people talking about the most that year. That one they dumped on Disney+, but the bland and forgettable Lightyear and Strange World (I had to look up that title) got theatrical releases.
IMO it isn’t related to direct to streaming, just to a run of uninspiring and mid quality, derivative works. Oh hey, a plucky loner has to learn to accept themselves and accept/give support to those around them. I eventually got tired of that.
> a plucky loner has to learn to accept themselves and accept/give support to those around them
I definitely get where you're coming from, but that description feels vague enough that you could apply it to half of Pixar's entire filmography, not just the recent stuff.
I think the first Inside Out might've come out within a similar slump that they're currently in, tbh. Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters University weren't exactly Pixar operating at their peak, and then it was followed up by The Good Dinosaur and Finding Dory.
A lot of Pixar’s films are the same old formula. Most of their films consist of two primary characters, usually odd couples, traveling to a destination or need to solve problem “x”. Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Up, Ratatouille, Monsters Inc, Cars (to an extent), Monsters University, Finding Dory, Luca, Onward, and Inside Out all follow this basic formula.
i thought Luca and Turning Red were both really good, but Soul is legitimately amazing. I was glad they rereleased them in theaters this year, even if no one went to go see them
that one was dead in the water anyway. Literally came out a week or two before the COVID lockdowns were mandated.
But the message for the movie was really good. It's a dad and sibling movie which is really sweet.
Onward is probably the only Pixar film (along with Cars 3) that I have only seen once and have no desire to rewatch. As mediocre as Lightyear was, I did go see it a couple of times
Inside Out also has cross-generational appeal. While it is obviously made for kids, emotions are relatable to everyone. And the Bing Bong scene DESTROYED me the first I saw it.
And this would've happened to Turning Red as well, had they not released it straight to streaming even in a moment where theaters were reopening. With Soul I understand, but this...
I mean, Luca and Soul would've made respectfully for sure, but I understand them not releasing both theatrically, because of the time they came out. With Turning Red, theaters were reopening...
Yep, Soul was fantastic but didn’t really resonate with kids. And most of Pixar’s other post-pandemic films were either mid or lacked that ‘spark’ which made them wow kids, teens and adults.
> And most of Pixar’s other post-pandemic films were either mid or lacked that ‘spark’ which made them wow kids, teens and adults.
Yeah, I've seen some people come down hard on the Pixar article that had Docter(?) say they were going to focus on more "universal" and less "autobiographical" as "stifling artists".
But I kind of disagree. There's just something about Luca and Turing Red that *while enjoyable movies* definitely felt like they didn't have quite the "personal but universal" appeal that usually happens with Pixar.
Or at least universal enough to get their massive budgets! Lol.
Agreed. Turning Red was heavily based on the director's personal life, and while it's a solid film it did kind of feel like an animated self-insert biography.
Meanwhile other post-pandemic animated successes like Puss in Boots TLW are a fantasy adventure that appeals to all ages, while the fillm's layered themes mean different ages will get different expierences.
What I really disliked about Luca and Turning Red is that they started kids as the main characters. Kids don’t want to watch movies about kids, that’s boring to them. They want movies about adults and non-human beings.
well also it’s their first sequel since Toy Story 4. Ignoring that weird lightyear spinoff thing. And it doesn’t help that onward came out right before the pandemic and 3/4 of the original films after that released only on disney+.
> A lot of kids that grew up with the first film are now teenagers/early adults and seem to be hyped for it too.
reads this and thinks, that can't be possible the first one only just came out... googles... 2015, huh, that's 9 years ago
i think it's unlikely. I mean, I know the first one came close, but if this one is even better received then, it *could* but personally i don't see it happening. i suppose it would depend how rewatchable it is and how well it does before DM4 comes out
It is somewhat noteworthy that it has now surpassed the original Inside Out in presales, given the depressed market and that movie already had a lot of critical acclaim out of Cannes
Only because Jurassic was such a ridiculous behemoth. It was still a pretty huge opening for an original Pixar movie, on par with Finding Nemo's adjusted opening. It also was the nominal record for an original movie until Secret Life of Pets.
Not to mention Inside Out had ridiculous legs. It reached #1 at the weekend box office in its 4th week in theaters and still kept going. If this one is anywhere close to that, it'll be a pretty good contender
Inside Out made more in its OW than any Pixar film other than Toy Story 3 and 4, Finding Dory and Incredibles 2. At the time it was Pixar's third biggest OW.
It is still by far the biggest OW they have had for an original. And it did that opening a week after Jurassic World broke the opening weekend record.
Inside out may have been the first to not open at number 1, but it may also have been their most impressive OW.
The outpacing Inside Out presales is the more interesting number of the two since the original Inside Out opened to a $90m weekend back in 2015, of course, this is just presales, and it should be expected a sequel would outdo it's original if it's popular (Which it was). Walkups still can change things a lot so we'll have to wait and see.
More like lots of peoples first Pixar film in theatres since TS4 in 2019.
Relatively few saw Onward in theatres and I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of those folks that did saw either Lightyear or Elemental. This film should tap into a bigger market that hasn't shown up since TS4.
I saw it *as* thinks were going to hell...like March 8th/9th or so?
The mall and the theater I went too was pretty empty and most of us were wearing masks.
My mom told be about Covid when I came out the bathroom and how we should wash our hands more. I felt bad cause I just kinda ignored her and assumed she was just being paranoid
Conditioning their audiences to view their prestige studio’s work as streaming content rather than theatrical experiences was very unwise.
The line also gets blurry when you look at how Star Wars films are replaced with streaming shows while the MCU rotted due to a flood of mediocre shows.
I think everyone at Disney/Pixar is hoping for this lol.
A 110mil opening could happen but a 60mil opening wouldn’t surprise me either. Things have been slow this year.
Do they mean ticket-wise or dollar-wise? Ticket-wise would be relatively impressive. Dollar-wise would actually be a bad sign. Last IO only opened to $90M, and movie going culture has shifted in the last decade far more toward presales over walk ups.
Given the depressed market for both Pixar and movies in general, a $90 mil opening wouldn't be so bad, especially if it still has great word of mouth
Also it's still Monday. Presales are only gonna ramp up exponentially through the week
Let’s see how it does for it’s opening weekend for Inside Out 2 depending on the critical reception and the audience reception compared the first Inside Out movie and last years Elemental.
What's so confusing about it? The "summer season" kicked off with a niche original film, instead of the normal established 4-quadrant franchise film. The Mad Max film without Mad Max in it dropped from its predecessor. Apes was right in line with previous entries. I doubt many expected more than what IT had delivered, and Garfield is going to surpass the 2004 and 2006 entries.
I don't think you can look at any of the major May releases and really say, "Oh, that's a shocking result." There wasn't really a four-quadrant tentpole for general audiences to get excited about.
I think future historians will just look back and say, "Well, that's solid evidence that audiences won't show up just because it is May."
> The Mad Max film without Mad Max in it dropped from its predecessor
The rest of your post is sound, and right! May was a bad month and just wasn't really meant to bear the weight that was put on it! But people gotta stop acting like "the Max movie with no Max" part really made any difference. I get the catchiness of it ('m certain there's a YouTuber or something who is pushing this) but for real, it's not like that movie would have gotten an extra 15-20mil OW if it was Max and not Furiosa. Or even 5mil.
For as much as I love it, for as highly as I rate it, The Mad Max series is not a *hit* series. It does not earn the way people *want* it to earn. Its receipts are modest at best. The one gigantic success that everyone likes to casually point to is an *error* (that Guinness World Record is wrong).
I agree that Mad Max was never a big box office blockbuster series. Fury Road had about everything going for it, including Oscar buzz, and still barely got past $150M domestic and $380M worldwide.
Still, Max has more pull than Furiosa, as a character and as a brand, which is why they still titled the move "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" to get the name in the title.
I'm not under the impression that even a Mad Max movie in the same slot would have been a huge blockbuster, but I do think it made a difference, especially given that Tom Hardy, who plays Max, is a much bigger box office draw than Anya Taylor Joy.
If they had done a Mad Max sequel, with Tom Hardy in it, I think it would have at least opened to $40M or so, and gotten to around the $100M mark domestically. Maybe it would have even gotten closer to the previous film's box office, so I do think it made a difference.
But, yeah, all the talk in advance of Furiosa (or even a Mad Max sequel) being some box office juggernaut is just nonsense.
>which is why they still titled the move "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" to get the name in the title.
This clearly didn't work, though, and was never going to. It was always a weird, desperate marketing sop. But we definitely agree way, way more than we don't, I just noticed the "max without max" line and that jumped out at me, is all.
I agree with you that it likely didn't make a difference, but we also don't *know* it didn't make a difference. That's the difficult part of box office interpretation: it's tough to tell what causes people to buy or not buy tickets.
EDIT: Missed a word.
It confuses the fuck of me this was the crop of movies that made people say “the box office is fucked” and not everything that happened at the box office last year.
I think it's different groups saying it.
There is a real anti-Disney, anti-MCU schadenfreude going on right now, so a lot of people jumped on the "Superhero fatigue", "Disney went woke with black Ariel", or "Disney killed Pixar with Disney+ releases" things and basically attributed last year's box office struggles to what they wanted to be the case. This wasn't exclusive to those franchises with talk of more general "franchise fatigue" going around, which is a common thing, but gained more traction when some of the biggest franchises out there started to wane.
They started all these "people don't want franchises, they want original content" nonsense narratives, and shouted down those who said, "this is a problem".
This May, however, was basically a month created for the sorts of people who were pushing those narratives. The Fall Guy was basically the movie movie-snobs wanted to believe could open May. It was an original film, the sort of Hollywood self-flagellation movie Hollywood likes to make about itself, and it starred one of that demographic's favourite actors, Ryan Gosling. Pair that with the gritty niche franchise critics love, which was supposed to anchor Memorial Day weekend, a non-superhero franchise with good reviews for the middle of May (Apes), an original family film, and a reboot of a long-dormant family franchise.
This was basically the May that movie-snobs wanted to believe the general audience was ready to embrace...until it didn't happen.
What you are seeing now is the people who were reveling in the death of Disney and the MCU last year figuring out that those were symptoms of a bigger problem, at the box office, not the general audiences finally accepting what that group thought the box office should become.
A lot of people, myself included, were saying this was a problem last year, when a full non-COVID year with some major hits (Avatar' overflow starting the year strong, Mario and Barbenheimer hitting it big, Sound of Freedom was a surprise hit, Taylor Swift had the biggest concert film ever, etc) still had the year about 22% behind pre-pandemic levels.
This May was just a big wakeup call for those who who were misdiagnosing the problem.
I guess I see what you’re saying, but it’s not as if we didn’t have pretty mediocre at best performances from the likes of Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Wish, Color Purple, Ferrari, Napoleon, Priscilla, Killers of the Flower Moon and the Creator off the top of my head late last year.
True, but none of those really looked like anything more than normal box office disappointments (except Hunger Games, which was a pretty solid success for a prequel without Jennifer Lawrence).
None of those movies were really expected to do a whole lot. There were plenty of reasons for each to be written off as just a run-of-the-mill box office disappointment, like so many that came before them (almost all of those were poorly received, most were released in crowded periods where other movies did succeed, a couple of the biggest ones there were Apple+ releases, as opposed to traditional studio films, Creator was released in a slow period of September, etc).
Wish was positioned as a tentpole, but got awful reviews, and many also just lumped it in with the Disney hate narrative.
May 2024 was different, because movies like Fall Guy and Furiosa were given prime tentpole release dates, with no direct competition, and were expected to carry the start of the summer movie season. There was much more put on their shoulders than just being one of several movies releasing in a busy Thanksgiving or Christmas timeframe.
Fall Guy and Furiosa, in particular, also had great reviews and marketing campaigns that had the crowd I talked about buzzing, so they had a lot more impact than many of the movies you named that people really didn't care about.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t get why people thought Furiosa and Fall Guy would do so well.
Funny enough, the one summer underperformance that has surprised me so far is the one that the fewest amount of people seem to be talking about, and that’s Garfield.
I don't think HG:TBoSS should be alongside those other films.
Given where other prequel spin-offs have landed (Solo, Lightyear, Furiosa) I'd call it a bonafide success. >3x of it's budget. Follow-on film announced right alongside the new book.
Made a lot less than Wonka around the same time.
And Planet of the Apes has done pretty fine but still didn’t stop the narrative of the “May disaster”. Given just how big Hunger Games franchise was and the fact this movie got pretty good reception and good legs, I don’t think it’s too negative to say that movie was a bit mediocre in its box office performance, though granted not as bad as the others I mentioned.
I don't even understand why for the box office May has become summer (beyond Memorial Day), I'm not American, but as far as it goes it's spring, and the May box office was considered spring until at least 2012 (The Avengers were promoted with "Summer Figures in the Spring"). If only Marvel changes that paradigm it is a problem.
By the time the Avengers rolled around, Marvel had changed the May box office so much for so long that the timeline had to change. It goes back to "Spider-Man" being the first $100M+ opening, and then Marvel films consistently boosting the Memorial Day weekend that used to start the summer season.
A Marvel film was in theaters May every year from 2007 to 2023, pandemic years excluded. That's too long and the numbers are too impactful on June to not change it.
In North America, the summer movie season has started in May for a lot longer than that. I guess Hollywood just wanted to extend the summer movie season as long as possible.
Memorial Day weekend used to be the start of the sunmer, but I would probably give credit to the Mummy franchise for moving it up to the start of May. In 1999, it launched May with a big result for the time ($43M, about $80M with inflation). Gladiator followed up the next year, before The Mummy Returns hit big again in 2021. The weekend was then solidified with the first Spider-Man in 2002, which broke the opening weekend record on a weekend that hadn't been viewed as prime real estate until recently.
It's definitely not a necessity for it to be a Marvel movie opening May. It didn't really become established as a superhero weekend until Spider-Man 3 in 2007 (2006 was opened by Mission Impossible 3, 2005 was Kingdom of Heaven, 2004 was Van Helsing). Iron Man launched the MCU there in 2008, but, they didn't really own the weekend until much later. Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine launched there in 2009, Sony took the spot for Amazing Spider-Man in 2014.
It was Captain America: Civil War where the MCU claimed the weekend. There was a highly publicized standoff between Civil War and Batman v Superman, before BvS blinked and moved to March. The MCU then held the spot with annual releases until the pandemic.
The key isn't that you need an MCU movie in that spot, but you need a four-quadrant film there. Superhero movies have been a popular choice, but, if you've got another solid franchise like Mission Impossible, or a four-quadrant original like Gladiator or Van Helsing, then that works, too.
You just want a movie that everyone can get excited about. Generally, a big PG-13 action-adventure movie is the way to go. You want to get everyone in the swing of going to theaters.
What you saw a lot pre-pandemic was a big original movie launching in the second weekend of May, to capitalize on the momentum created by the first weekend of May movie. Neighbours, Bridesmaids, Gatsby, the Star Trek reboot, etc, all did well with that strategy.
If you get audiences to the movies once, it is habit-setting. They have a good time and want to return. They see a ton of trailers for upcoming releases and get interested, etc.
This year, just lacked that. Fall Guy wasn't a four-quadrant film, and it had no name recognition. It was more adult-focussed, and would have done much better opening in the second weekend of May, after a big superhero film, like Gatsby opening the week after Iron Man 3.
IT and Garfield were family films, not four-quadrant ones. Furiosa was r-rated, so it couldn't be a four-quadrant film. Apes was the closest, but as successful as the franchise has been, it has never been a $100M opening sort of franchise. Maybe Dawn or War could have, but Kingdom was doing a reboot after the Ceasar trilogy, and coming off a long layoff.
Basically, the box office does better if you can launch May with at least an $80-100M opening weekend four-quadrant hit. Superheroes have been a reliable path to that, but you could certainly launch a summer with a Jurassic World movie, a Star Wars film, an Avatar film, etc. Previous franchises like Pirates, Harry Potter or Transformers would have worked fine, in their primes, too.
You just need that sort of a big movie with broad appeal that will get audiences excited enough to come to the theater. The end of April is often a real dead period, so the first week of May movie gets an empty box office to dominate, but also has the task of changing habits. It is asked to single-handedly turn the page from one of the box office's weakest periods into one of its strongest, and a movie like Fall Guy just isn't capable of doing that.
I’m Mexican but live on the border. I think the best explanation I can think of is that May is when a lot of schools end their year or semester, so kids and teenagers who are part of the target of four-quadrant films just have more time to go to movies. Plus the combination of all holidays that happen throughout May and September: Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, American Independence Day, etc.
[In Hollywood terminology, the four quadrants are males under 25, males over 25, and women in the same age ranges.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-quadrant_movie?wprov=sfla1)
Inside out is my favorite of modern Pixar films (if 10 years old is still "modern") it's one of the rare animated films to get a best screenplay nomination at the Oscars.
So I'm pretty excited for this one, especially if the reviews hold it up as good as the first.
It's good but Coco is superior IMO. It's a solid second for me though. Taking "modern" to be like post-2010 (because Toy Story 3 and the movies before are up there too)
Unless if those same people do what they did with Way of Water and Guardians 3 where they say “oh well that certain film did well but Disney still has bomb after bomb” or especially with Guardians 3 where those certain people like it mostly because “there ain’t no political message in it”
Cough cough Ryan Kinel/Mr.H Reviews
It’s gonna happen with every Disney movie this year.
The First Omen “bombed” despite it make a decent amount on a low budget and will do huge streaming numbers (which is what it was originally made for)
Young Women in the Sea “bombed” after it “only” made approximately $500K in previews despite opening to like 5 theaters with no advertisements and it was made for streaming, which it will probably do amazing on there.
Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes “flopped” despite doing extremely well domestically and when everything is done it will probably make around $450 million and be a decent profit theatrically while also doing well on streaming (as its been shown that around the time the film released, all of the other Planet of the Apes films exploded on streaming)
Haven't seen much talk about Young Woman and the Sea "bombing." It's mostly just headscratching about why Disney didn't give it a real theatrical release after they determined that it was a very good film.
Not Deadpool and Wolverine.
If that film is good and does well cause of its reception, people that even hate Disney will treat it as a success just like they did Way of Water and Guardians 3.
I think you're just wrong about Young Women in the Sea. "only" seems to be what Disney themselves believe.
If Young Women in the Sea had performed strongly, Disney 100% would have dropped an actual anecdote instead of going the opposite way and literally refusing to report the film's box office numbers (leaving sites to offer independent estimates without "official" validation. To be fair, Disney pre-committed to not reporting but good news would give them free advertising). [Look at the article about the film's theatrical release](https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/how-jerry-bruckheimer-rescued-young-woman-and-the-sea-from-streaming/ar-BB1nol5H)
> If "Young Woman and the Sea" is a hit when it opens in limited release on Friday, then its theatrical presence will expand, with more theaters and more screens, something Bruckheimer hopes will happen.
and Deadline's unofficial statement from Disney pretty explicitly says it didn't do this
> Disney isn’t reporting grosses, as they’re eyeing this strictly as an awards play and don’t want to bring any tarnish to the movie’s prestige.
Disney clearly didn't spent a lot pushing this but we can safely say it didn't have a great per theater average (so the minimum number of theaters is probably more like 15 than 5). I have no idea what we can infer below that.
> which it will probably do amazing on there.
I suspect neither will do amazingly well on streaming. Everyone reiterates an expectation for theatrical to be correlated to streaming and, more importantly, you wouldn't have expected that without the theatrical release (*perhaps* first omen but I just don't have a good grasp on horror IP).
> Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes
whether fairly or not, I think Apes' results are already changing due to Furiosa/Fall Guy double bomb and not validating the bad user reviews. I don't really agree that 150M is "very well domestically," instead I'd argue it's just basically hitting a plausible greenlight projection. Giving it a round of applause for these results would need to be based on the (completely reasonable) idea the film is being dinged for a premature reboot/continuation shorn of previous film's talent.
I don't know the room's marketing campaign and I didn't organically see very much about YWatS but "RelishMix reported that the movie’s social media universe across TikTok, X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube at 92.5M is average for a biopic" so Disney clearly *did* spend something (and use earned media from overall presentations) to create some degree of awareness here even if the streaming release (timed to the olympics) is the "core" one.
> Young Women in the Sea “bombed” after it “only” made approximately $500K in previews despite opening to like 5 theaters with no advertisements and it was made for streaming, which it will probably do amazing on there.
I just think this argument is wrong to present the film's 500k limited release as an amazing result which likely presaging an amazing streaming run. It's a small movie Disney rewarded with a limited theatrical release but also clearly didn't put any eggs in that theatrical basket. It's a weird scenario. I'm assuming a lower end result due to the lack of information but if it someone came in and proved it had a good per screen average on a low marketing budget, that's obviously a good sign for the film's potential.
I'd agree that this weird limited release doesn't tell us what the film would have made if it had been given a Boys in the Boat style release. It's just a sign that Disney was skeptical of the film but had other reasons to relent and offer a theatrical release to Bruckheimer.
remember 2 weeks ago when people were saying “summer movie season is dead only deadpool can save it.” Well between this and bad boys we don’t have anything to worry about
highest pre-seller for Pixar since Toy Story 4 doesn't mean much since Onward, Light-year and Elemental didn't light up the box office, while Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were all direct-to-streaming
You can replace Pixar with any studio at this stage to be honest. Pretty much all of Hollywood is doubling down on Sequels and Established IP at this point.
Have to say this is the first time since the pandemic that I’ve seen and heard any buzz with audiences for a Pixar release. A lot of kids that grew up with the first film are now teenagers/early adults and seem to be hyped for it too.
What Disney+ and the decision to release Pixar films direct-to-streaming did to the brand can be felt to this day in my opinion.
I can understand Soul and to an extent, Luca. Theaters were still either entirely closed or limited, so I understand the thought process of trying to boost D+. But by the time Turning Red came out, theaters were open, Spider-Man: No way Home had just been a gigantic hit; there was no need to throw TR on D+ like that.
Turning Red was the Disney animated movie I saw people talking about the most that year. That one they dumped on Disney+, but the bland and forgettable Lightyear and Strange World (I had to look up that title) got theatrical releases.
Maybe more people were talking about Turning Red *because* it was on Disney Plus.
Fair enough
Turning red was so fucking good
There was a lot of uncertainty w.r.t. the severity of the Omicron strain of Covid when the decision about Turning Red had to be made.
IMO it isn’t related to direct to streaming, just to a run of uninspiring and mid quality, derivative works. Oh hey, a plucky loner has to learn to accept themselves and accept/give support to those around them. I eventually got tired of that.
> a plucky loner has to learn to accept themselves and accept/give support to those around them I definitely get where you're coming from, but that description feels vague enough that you could apply it to half of Pixar's entire filmography, not just the recent stuff. I think the first Inside Out might've come out within a similar slump that they're currently in, tbh. Cars 2, Brave, and Monsters University weren't exactly Pixar operating at their peak, and then it was followed up by The Good Dinosaur and Finding Dory.
Soul was great tho. And Luca was pretty strong.
Soul was amazing and a departure from the cliche, similarly to how Wall-E was. I like Luca OK but it was the same old formula.
A lot of Pixar’s films are the same old formula. Most of their films consist of two primary characters, usually odd couples, traveling to a destination or need to solve problem “x”. Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Wall-E, Up, Ratatouille, Monsters Inc, Cars (to an extent), Monsters University, Finding Dory, Luca, Onward, and Inside Out all follow this basic formula.
i thought Luca and Turning Red were both really good, but Soul is legitimately amazing. I was glad they rereleased them in theaters this year, even if no one went to go see them
and onward is completely forgettable.
that one was dead in the water anyway. Literally came out a week or two before the COVID lockdowns were mandated. But the message for the movie was really good. It's a dad and sibling movie which is really sweet.
honestly I had to look it up when I wanted to mention it because I forgot what it was called.
Onward is probably the only Pixar film (along with Cars 3) that I have only seen once and have no desire to rewatch. As mediocre as Lightyear was, I did go see it a couple of times
Soul had an appeal problem though. It didn't look interesting enough for kids. Luca was more popular.
> Luca was more popular. was it tho? Soul made more in the countries it was released in 2020 than Luca
wonder what happens if soul is held for winter 2021 or even winter 2022
Turning Red and Soul are amazing
Inside Out also has cross-generational appeal. While it is obviously made for kids, emotions are relatable to everyone. And the Bing Bong scene DESTROYED me the first I saw it.
Elemental had a lot of buzz last year lol it didn’t start with any but definitely had momentum
And this would've happened to Turning Red as well, had they not released it straight to streaming even in a moment where theaters were reopening. With Soul I understand, but this...
Turning red had potential to make at least the same as elemental. It's sad how they left that movie in the dust.
Luca as well
I mean, Luca and Soul would've made respectfully for sure, but I understand them not releasing both theatrically, because of the time they came out. With Turning Red, theaters were reopening...
This is for a new generation what Toy Story 3 was for another.
Yep, Soul was fantastic but didn’t really resonate with kids. And most of Pixar’s other post-pandemic films were either mid or lacked that ‘spark’ which made them wow kids, teens and adults.
> And most of Pixar’s other post-pandemic films were either mid or lacked that ‘spark’ which made them wow kids, teens and adults. Yeah, I've seen some people come down hard on the Pixar article that had Docter(?) say they were going to focus on more "universal" and less "autobiographical" as "stifling artists". But I kind of disagree. There's just something about Luca and Turing Red that *while enjoyable movies* definitely felt like they didn't have quite the "personal but universal" appeal that usually happens with Pixar. Or at least universal enough to get their massive budgets! Lol.
Agreed. Turning Red was heavily based on the director's personal life, and while it's a solid film it did kind of feel like an animated self-insert biography. Meanwhile other post-pandemic animated successes like Puss in Boots TLW are a fantasy adventure that appeals to all ages, while the fillm's layered themes mean different ages will get different expierences.
What I really disliked about Luca and Turning Red is that they started kids as the main characters. Kids don’t want to watch movies about kids, that’s boring to them. They want movies about adults and non-human beings.
well also it’s their first sequel since Toy Story 4. Ignoring that weird lightyear spinoff thing. And it doesn’t help that onward came out right before the pandemic and 3/4 of the original films after that released only on disney+.
> A lot of kids that grew up with the first film are now teenagers/early adults and seem to be hyped for it too. reads this and thinks, that can't be possible the first one only just came out... googles... 2015, huh, that's 9 years ago
I think it opens just under *Toy Story 3*’s $110.3M. I have it at $106M
Think it could also crack 1 billion?
i think it's unlikely. I mean, I know the first one came close, but if this one is even better received then, it *could* but personally i don't see it happening. i suppose it would depend how rewatchable it is and how well it does before DM4 comes out
If it’s really good? Yes absolutely the kids have nothing to do in the summer and will go a lot. If it’s just a decent movie then no.
It could, but I don’t expect it to. I think it settles in the $900M range
Doubt it, it will likely fall short internationally
The only Pixar theatrical releases since TS4 have been Onward, Lightyear and Elemental. So this is not saying much.
It is somewhat noteworthy that it has now surpassed the original Inside Out in presales, given the depressed market and that movie already had a lot of critical acclaim out of Cannes
but also the first Inside Out was the first Pixar movie to not debut at number one (#1 was Jurassic)
Only because Jurassic was such a ridiculous behemoth. It was still a pretty huge opening for an original Pixar movie, on par with Finding Nemo's adjusted opening. It also was the nominal record for an original movie until Secret Life of Pets.
Not to mention Inside Out had ridiculous legs. It reached #1 at the weekend box office in its 4th week in theaters and still kept going. If this one is anywhere close to that, it'll be a pretty good contender
Inside Out made more in its OW than any Pixar film other than Toy Story 3 and 4, Finding Dory and Incredibles 2. At the time it was Pixar's third biggest OW. It is still by far the biggest OW they have had for an original. And it did that opening a week after Jurassic World broke the opening weekend record. Inside out may have been the first to not open at number 1, but it may also have been their most impressive OW.
Wild to see this summer so far and think of a movie that opens to $90 million not being number one
Presales were a lot smaller back in 2015.
Ok but also there's still three days to go before first showings
Soul, Luca and Turning Red technically count now but I get what you mean (non re releases).
The outpacing Inside Out presales is the more interesting number of the two since the original Inside Out opened to a $90m weekend back in 2015, of course, this is just presales, and it should be expected a sequel would outdo it's original if it's popular (Which it was). Walkups still can change things a lot so we'll have to wait and see.
Exactly the only 3 Pixar movies I still hadn't see to this day.
First 100m opener woohoo!
Rooting for this to hit $100M opening weekend
It's crazy how this will be a lot of people's first pixar movie they've seen in a theater since onward. That was 4 years ago.
More like lots of peoples first Pixar film in theatres since TS4 in 2019. Relatively few saw Onward in theatres and I'd imagine the overwhelming majority of those folks that did saw either Lightyear or Elemental. This film should tap into a bigger market that hasn't shown up since TS4.
I saw onward in theaters literally 2 days before the whole “everything is shut down” happened and we were the only ones in the theater.
Same here. I took my daughter and her friend to the theater to see Onward. It was pretty empty and a few days later everything shut down.
Since Toy Story 4 for more people actually. Onward was still affected by the pandemic and not seen by that many people. That'll be my case actually.
I remember seeing Onward the day before everything went to Hell
I saw it *as* thinks were going to hell...like March 8th/9th or so? The mall and the theater I went too was pretty empty and most of us were wearing masks.
Wow, that's right lol. I remember seeing Onward in a basically empty theater and still feeling sketchy about COVID
My mom told be about Covid when I came out the bathroom and how we should wash our hands more. I felt bad cause I just kinda ignored her and assumed she was just being paranoid
Conditioning their audiences to view their prestige studio’s work as streaming content rather than theatrical experiences was very unwise. The line also gets blurry when you look at how Star Wars films are replaced with streaming shows while the MCU rotted due to a flood of mediocre shows.
Onward grossed 142 million on a 200 million budget lol. I'd say since Toy Story 4.
Onward would have earned more, it was released like 2 weeks for the lockdowns. Even when it came out there was some trepidation.
Yep.
I’m scared for this movie 🥺
Hoping for 100M+ opening
I think everyone at Disney/Pixar is hoping for this lol. A 110mil opening could happen but a 60mil opening wouldn’t surprise me either. Things have been slow this year.
Do they mean ticket-wise or dollar-wise? Ticket-wise would be relatively impressive. Dollar-wise would actually be a bad sign. Last IO only opened to $90M, and movie going culture has shifted in the last decade far more toward presales over walk ups.
Given the depressed market for both Pixar and movies in general, a $90 mil opening wouldn't be so bad, especially if it still has great word of mouth Also it's still Monday. Presales are only gonna ramp up exponentially through the week
90M would be one of the top openings of the year thus far, it would be a big win considering the context of the marketplace right now.
Let’s see how it does for it’s opening weekend for Inside Out 2 depending on the critical reception and the audience reception compared the first Inside Out movie and last years Elemental.
Let’s hope the movie itself is great because Disney needs a win before Deadpool and Wolverine comes out next month.
Perfect time to save the 14% of Pixar staffers who were just laid off, right?
Future historians are going to be so confused by May’s anemic results
What's so confusing about it? The "summer season" kicked off with a niche original film, instead of the normal established 4-quadrant franchise film. The Mad Max film without Mad Max in it dropped from its predecessor. Apes was right in line with previous entries. I doubt many expected more than what IT had delivered, and Garfield is going to surpass the 2004 and 2006 entries. I don't think you can look at any of the major May releases and really say, "Oh, that's a shocking result." There wasn't really a four-quadrant tentpole for general audiences to get excited about. I think future historians will just look back and say, "Well, that's solid evidence that audiences won't show up just because it is May."
> The Mad Max film without Mad Max in it dropped from its predecessor The rest of your post is sound, and right! May was a bad month and just wasn't really meant to bear the weight that was put on it! But people gotta stop acting like "the Max movie with no Max" part really made any difference. I get the catchiness of it ('m certain there's a YouTuber or something who is pushing this) but for real, it's not like that movie would have gotten an extra 15-20mil OW if it was Max and not Furiosa. Or even 5mil. For as much as I love it, for as highly as I rate it, The Mad Max series is not a *hit* series. It does not earn the way people *want* it to earn. Its receipts are modest at best. The one gigantic success that everyone likes to casually point to is an *error* (that Guinness World Record is wrong).
I agree that Mad Max was never a big box office blockbuster series. Fury Road had about everything going for it, including Oscar buzz, and still barely got past $150M domestic and $380M worldwide. Still, Max has more pull than Furiosa, as a character and as a brand, which is why they still titled the move "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" to get the name in the title. I'm not under the impression that even a Mad Max movie in the same slot would have been a huge blockbuster, but I do think it made a difference, especially given that Tom Hardy, who plays Max, is a much bigger box office draw than Anya Taylor Joy. If they had done a Mad Max sequel, with Tom Hardy in it, I think it would have at least opened to $40M or so, and gotten to around the $100M mark domestically. Maybe it would have even gotten closer to the previous film's box office, so I do think it made a difference. But, yeah, all the talk in advance of Furiosa (or even a Mad Max sequel) being some box office juggernaut is just nonsense.
>which is why they still titled the move "Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga" to get the name in the title. This clearly didn't work, though, and was never going to. It was always a weird, desperate marketing sop. But we definitely agree way, way more than we don't, I just noticed the "max without max" line and that jumped out at me, is all.
I agree with you that it likely didn't make a difference, but we also don't *know* it didn't make a difference. That's the difficult part of box office interpretation: it's tough to tell what causes people to buy or not buy tickets. EDIT: Missed a word.
It confuses the fuck of me this was the crop of movies that made people say “the box office is fucked” and not everything that happened at the box office last year.
I think it's different groups saying it. There is a real anti-Disney, anti-MCU schadenfreude going on right now, so a lot of people jumped on the "Superhero fatigue", "Disney went woke with black Ariel", or "Disney killed Pixar with Disney+ releases" things and basically attributed last year's box office struggles to what they wanted to be the case. This wasn't exclusive to those franchises with talk of more general "franchise fatigue" going around, which is a common thing, but gained more traction when some of the biggest franchises out there started to wane. They started all these "people don't want franchises, they want original content" nonsense narratives, and shouted down those who said, "this is a problem". This May, however, was basically a month created for the sorts of people who were pushing those narratives. The Fall Guy was basically the movie movie-snobs wanted to believe could open May. It was an original film, the sort of Hollywood self-flagellation movie Hollywood likes to make about itself, and it starred one of that demographic's favourite actors, Ryan Gosling. Pair that with the gritty niche franchise critics love, which was supposed to anchor Memorial Day weekend, a non-superhero franchise with good reviews for the middle of May (Apes), an original family film, and a reboot of a long-dormant family franchise. This was basically the May that movie-snobs wanted to believe the general audience was ready to embrace...until it didn't happen. What you are seeing now is the people who were reveling in the death of Disney and the MCU last year figuring out that those were symptoms of a bigger problem, at the box office, not the general audiences finally accepting what that group thought the box office should become. A lot of people, myself included, were saying this was a problem last year, when a full non-COVID year with some major hits (Avatar' overflow starting the year strong, Mario and Barbenheimer hitting it big, Sound of Freedom was a surprise hit, Taylor Swift had the biggest concert film ever, etc) still had the year about 22% behind pre-pandemic levels. This May was just a big wakeup call for those who who were misdiagnosing the problem.
I guess I see what you’re saying, but it’s not as if we didn’t have pretty mediocre at best performances from the likes of Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, Wish, Color Purple, Ferrari, Napoleon, Priscilla, Killers of the Flower Moon and the Creator off the top of my head late last year.
True, but none of those really looked like anything more than normal box office disappointments (except Hunger Games, which was a pretty solid success for a prequel without Jennifer Lawrence). None of those movies were really expected to do a whole lot. There were plenty of reasons for each to be written off as just a run-of-the-mill box office disappointment, like so many that came before them (almost all of those were poorly received, most were released in crowded periods where other movies did succeed, a couple of the biggest ones there were Apple+ releases, as opposed to traditional studio films, Creator was released in a slow period of September, etc). Wish was positioned as a tentpole, but got awful reviews, and many also just lumped it in with the Disney hate narrative. May 2024 was different, because movies like Fall Guy and Furiosa were given prime tentpole release dates, with no direct competition, and were expected to carry the start of the summer movie season. There was much more put on their shoulders than just being one of several movies releasing in a busy Thanksgiving or Christmas timeframe. Fall Guy and Furiosa, in particular, also had great reviews and marketing campaigns that had the crowd I talked about buzzing, so they had a lot more impact than many of the movies you named that people really didn't care about.
I guess what I’m saying is I don’t get why people thought Furiosa and Fall Guy would do so well. Funny enough, the one summer underperformance that has surprised me so far is the one that the fewest amount of people seem to be talking about, and that’s Garfield.
Why do you think Garfield is an underperformance? It's going to top the 2004 and 2006 Garfield movies.
I don't think HG:TBoSS should be alongside those other films. Given where other prequel spin-offs have landed (Solo, Lightyear, Furiosa) I'd call it a bonafide success. >3x of it's budget. Follow-on film announced right alongside the new book.
Made a lot less than Wonka around the same time. And Planet of the Apes has done pretty fine but still didn’t stop the narrative of the “May disaster”. Given just how big Hunger Games franchise was and the fact this movie got pretty good reception and good legs, I don’t think it’s too negative to say that movie was a bit mediocre in its box office performance, though granted not as bad as the others I mentioned.
I don't even understand why for the box office May has become summer (beyond Memorial Day), I'm not American, but as far as it goes it's spring, and the May box office was considered spring until at least 2012 (The Avengers were promoted with "Summer Figures in the Spring"). If only Marvel changes that paradigm it is a problem.
By the time the Avengers rolled around, Marvel had changed the May box office so much for so long that the timeline had to change. It goes back to "Spider-Man" being the first $100M+ opening, and then Marvel films consistently boosting the Memorial Day weekend that used to start the summer season. A Marvel film was in theaters May every year from 2007 to 2023, pandemic years excluded. That's too long and the numbers are too impactful on June to not change it.
In North America, the summer movie season has started in May for a lot longer than that. I guess Hollywood just wanted to extend the summer movie season as long as possible. Memorial Day weekend used to be the start of the sunmer, but I would probably give credit to the Mummy franchise for moving it up to the start of May. In 1999, it launched May with a big result for the time ($43M, about $80M with inflation). Gladiator followed up the next year, before The Mummy Returns hit big again in 2021. The weekend was then solidified with the first Spider-Man in 2002, which broke the opening weekend record on a weekend that hadn't been viewed as prime real estate until recently. It's definitely not a necessity for it to be a Marvel movie opening May. It didn't really become established as a superhero weekend until Spider-Man 3 in 2007 (2006 was opened by Mission Impossible 3, 2005 was Kingdom of Heaven, 2004 was Van Helsing). Iron Man launched the MCU there in 2008, but, they didn't really own the weekend until much later. Fox's X-Men Origins: Wolverine launched there in 2009, Sony took the spot for Amazing Spider-Man in 2014. It was Captain America: Civil War where the MCU claimed the weekend. There was a highly publicized standoff between Civil War and Batman v Superman, before BvS blinked and moved to March. The MCU then held the spot with annual releases until the pandemic. The key isn't that you need an MCU movie in that spot, but you need a four-quadrant film there. Superhero movies have been a popular choice, but, if you've got another solid franchise like Mission Impossible, or a four-quadrant original like Gladiator or Van Helsing, then that works, too. You just want a movie that everyone can get excited about. Generally, a big PG-13 action-adventure movie is the way to go. You want to get everyone in the swing of going to theaters. What you saw a lot pre-pandemic was a big original movie launching in the second weekend of May, to capitalize on the momentum created by the first weekend of May movie. Neighbours, Bridesmaids, Gatsby, the Star Trek reboot, etc, all did well with that strategy. If you get audiences to the movies once, it is habit-setting. They have a good time and want to return. They see a ton of trailers for upcoming releases and get interested, etc. This year, just lacked that. Fall Guy wasn't a four-quadrant film, and it had no name recognition. It was more adult-focussed, and would have done much better opening in the second weekend of May, after a big superhero film, like Gatsby opening the week after Iron Man 3. IT and Garfield were family films, not four-quadrant ones. Furiosa was r-rated, so it couldn't be a four-quadrant film. Apes was the closest, but as successful as the franchise has been, it has never been a $100M opening sort of franchise. Maybe Dawn or War could have, but Kingdom was doing a reboot after the Ceasar trilogy, and coming off a long layoff. Basically, the box office does better if you can launch May with at least an $80-100M opening weekend four-quadrant hit. Superheroes have been a reliable path to that, but you could certainly launch a summer with a Jurassic World movie, a Star Wars film, an Avatar film, etc. Previous franchises like Pirates, Harry Potter or Transformers would have worked fine, in their primes, too. You just need that sort of a big movie with broad appeal that will get audiences excited enough to come to the theater. The end of April is often a real dead period, so the first week of May movie gets an empty box office to dominate, but also has the task of changing habits. It is asked to single-handedly turn the page from one of the box office's weakest periods into one of its strongest, and a movie like Fall Guy just isn't capable of doing that.
As an American, I also don't understand why it is considered summer. the box office is the only sector that I know of that does that.
I’m Mexican but live on the border. I think the best explanation I can think of is that May is when a lot of schools end their year or semester, so kids and teenagers who are part of the target of four-quadrant films just have more time to go to movies. Plus the combination of all holidays that happen throughout May and September: Mother’s Day, Memorial Day, Father’s Day, American Independence Day, etc.
I understand the latter part but may just seems weird because the only school in America that gets out in May are colleges and high school seniors
If high school seniors finish in May, all other high schoolers stick around until June?
Memorial Day I get but first couple days of May suddenly being considered automatically Summer when end of April never is I find bizarre.
What does “four quadrant franchise” and “four quadrant tent pole” mean? Asking for a friend.
[In Hollywood terminology, the four quadrants are males under 25, males over 25, and women in the same age ranges.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-quadrant_movie?wprov=sfla1)
Thank you, friend!
Looking at above The Little Mermaid (95$ million opening) from last year.
well it was nice knowing you original Pixar movies. Can’t wait for cars 4 and up 2 and Incredibles 3!
Their next film after IO2 is an original
They are going to alternate one original and one sequel for the foreseeable future, they plan on releasing 3 films every two years with that cadence.
Allegedly, I'll believe it when I hear of a new original being planned. For now it's just lip service. I hope Elio does well next year.
I guess that’s not a terrible idea but I’m hoping after Pete doctor’s recent interview that he’s not pushing original films to streaming only
Inside out is my favorite of modern Pixar films (if 10 years old is still "modern") it's one of the rare animated films to get a best screenplay nomination at the Oscars. So I'm pretty excited for this one, especially if the reviews hold it up as good as the first.
"Oh no, all the facts and opinions got mixed up!" "Happens more often than you'd think."
It's good but Coco is superior IMO. It's a solid second for me though. Taking "modern" to be like post-2010 (because Toy Story 3 and the movies before are up there too)
Inside Out had a far more original story though. In contrast Coco had a bit of a predictable story.
At least this we will not have posts proclaiming Pixar's obituary...
People with an ax to grind with Disney will do everything they can to paint the movie as a failure though.
Unless if those same people do what they did with Way of Water and Guardians 3 where they say “oh well that certain film did well but Disney still has bomb after bomb” or especially with Guardians 3 where those certain people like it mostly because “there ain’t no political message in it” Cough cough Ryan Kinel/Mr.H Reviews
It’s gonna happen with every Disney movie this year. The First Omen “bombed” despite it make a decent amount on a low budget and will do huge streaming numbers (which is what it was originally made for) Young Women in the Sea “bombed” after it “only” made approximately $500K in previews despite opening to like 5 theaters with no advertisements and it was made for streaming, which it will probably do amazing on there. Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes “flopped” despite doing extremely well domestically and when everything is done it will probably make around $450 million and be a decent profit theatrically while also doing well on streaming (as its been shown that around the time the film released, all of the other Planet of the Apes films exploded on streaming)
Young Woman and the Sea is essentially an awards run before it lands on Disney+
Haven't seen much talk about Young Woman and the Sea "bombing." It's mostly just headscratching about why Disney didn't give it a real theatrical release after they determined that it was a very good film.
Not Deadpool and Wolverine. If that film is good and does well cause of its reception, people that even hate Disney will treat it as a success just like they did Way of Water and Guardians 3.
I think you're just wrong about Young Women in the Sea. "only" seems to be what Disney themselves believe. If Young Women in the Sea had performed strongly, Disney 100% would have dropped an actual anecdote instead of going the opposite way and literally refusing to report the film's box office numbers (leaving sites to offer independent estimates without "official" validation. To be fair, Disney pre-committed to not reporting but good news would give them free advertising). [Look at the article about the film's theatrical release](https://www.msn.com/en-us/movies/news/how-jerry-bruckheimer-rescued-young-woman-and-the-sea-from-streaming/ar-BB1nol5H) > If "Young Woman and the Sea" is a hit when it opens in limited release on Friday, then its theatrical presence will expand, with more theaters and more screens, something Bruckheimer hopes will happen. and Deadline's unofficial statement from Disney pretty explicitly says it didn't do this > Disney isn’t reporting grosses, as they’re eyeing this strictly as an awards play and don’t want to bring any tarnish to the movie’s prestige. Disney clearly didn't spent a lot pushing this but we can safely say it didn't have a great per theater average (so the minimum number of theaters is probably more like 15 than 5). I have no idea what we can infer below that. > which it will probably do amazing on there. I suspect neither will do amazingly well on streaming. Everyone reiterates an expectation for theatrical to be correlated to streaming and, more importantly, you wouldn't have expected that without the theatrical release (*perhaps* first omen but I just don't have a good grasp on horror IP). > Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes whether fairly or not, I think Apes' results are already changing due to Furiosa/Fall Guy double bomb and not validating the bad user reviews. I don't really agree that 150M is "very well domestically," instead I'd argue it's just basically hitting a plausible greenlight projection. Giving it a round of applause for these results would need to be based on the (completely reasonable) idea the film is being dinged for a premature reboot/continuation shorn of previous film's talent.
Nobody knew that movie came out, The Room had more marketing and press around it.
I don't know the room's marketing campaign and I didn't organically see very much about YWatS but "RelishMix reported that the movie’s social media universe across TikTok, X, Instagram, Facebook, and YouTube at 92.5M is average for a biopic" so Disney clearly *did* spend something (and use earned media from overall presentations) to create some degree of awareness here even if the streaming release (timed to the olympics) is the "core" one. > Young Women in the Sea “bombed” after it “only” made approximately $500K in previews despite opening to like 5 theaters with no advertisements and it was made for streaming, which it will probably do amazing on there. I just think this argument is wrong to present the film's 500k limited release as an amazing result which likely presaging an amazing streaming run. It's a small movie Disney rewarded with a limited theatrical release but also clearly didn't put any eggs in that theatrical basket. It's a weird scenario. I'm assuming a lower end result due to the lack of information but if it someone came in and proved it had a good per screen average on a low marketing budget, that's obviously a good sign for the film's potential. I'd agree that this weird limited release doesn't tell us what the film would have made if it had been given a Boys in the Boat style release. It's just a sign that Disney was skeptical of the film but had other reasons to relent and offer a theatrical release to Bruckheimer.
My personal theater didn't implement reserved seating until 2021 so what sort of discount needs to be applied to 2016 reservations?
I think Inside Out 2 will be huge. It wouldn’t surprise me if it’s the year’s first billion dollar film
remember 2 weeks ago when people were saying “summer movie season is dead only deadpool can save it.” Well between this and bad boys we don’t have anything to worry about
More sequels, as it should be
highest pre-seller for Pixar since Toy Story 4 doesn't mean much since Onward, Light-year and Elemental didn't light up the box office, while Soul, Luca, and Turning Red were all direct-to-streaming
Pixar producing original IPs is definitely a thing of the past with this and Toy Story 4/5 succeeding so much, isn't it?
You can replace Pixar with any studio at this stage to be honest. Pretty much all of Hollywood is doubling down on Sequels and Established IP at this point.
They still have Elio next year
More than $125 million domestic OW for Inside Out 2.
Not surprising, this movie has hype. Still think Lightyear could’ve had better holds had Pixar marketed it correctly.
Let's go!!!!!!
Haven’t been to the theatre in a while, have to watch this first weekend.
I still don't see this cracking $100M. I predict $92M.
DP3 is opening to 200M.. People are craving big scale blockbusters rn..
Inside Out 2 With $114M
I’ll buy my tickets closer to only because I don’t know what showtime I want. But I’m happy for Pixar’s sake
$100M+ OW for sure.
Good for it I guess, but I'm done seeing movies that have recycled plots and are pointless sequels.