To combat the power of Netflix and Prime Video as streaming titans, as well as to tap into the popularity of streaming, Disney unleashed their own service, Disney+, to the world. Here would be stored some of the most profitable brands in cinema history: Marvel, Star Wars, Pixar, Disney's live-action remakes and Disney's animated classics. Through the acquisition of 20th Century Fox, the streaming service pumped up the more adult-orientated films and shows too. Disney+ came out at a great time too: just months before the Covid-19 lockdowns across the world. If families are stuck indoors, what else is there to do in the evening if not stick on an episode of The Mandalorian? The pandemic saw many challenges for studios, not least whether releasing films in cinemas at the same time as an at-home release is profitable. But since cinemas have reopened and 2022 has yielded some box office smash hits, it appears that the once titan of the 2010s is now working hard to catch-up with the other studios in 2022. Has Disney fatigue kicked in?
To look at Disney's successes and failures from 2019-2022, it is integral to provide context to the grosses for each film. In 2019, Disney had one of the most profitable years in film history due to the grand-slam achievment of Avengers: Endgame, which temporarily became the highest grossing film of all time due to the intense fan-service and ultimate pay-off for eleven years of films. Elsewhere that year, the live-action remakes of The Lion King and Aladdin grossed a billion plus each, even while Dumbo stumbled. To cap it off, Toy Story 4 and Frozen II hit a billion, Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker sneaked past that threshold and Captain Marvel made $1.1 billion. Regardless of the fact that a lot of those films are mediocre, audiences rushed to see them. In 2021, after a year hiatus, the Marvel franchise kicked things back into gear with Black Widow, which took under $400 million but its true profits are unknown as it also premiered on Disney+ for a fee (£16 in UK). Still, the film was never destined for record-breaking. To paraphrase Syndrome- "you're late, *five* years too late." Next came Shang-chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, introducing a new superhero character aimed at representing Chinese communities. Shang-chi's exclusive cinema release points towards Black Widow being unprofitable, with the $150-200 million budgeted martial arts flick accumulating $420 million worldwide. Now, the film may not have made Disney any raw profit due to marketing costs and splitting with the cinema. However, it was the biggest pandemic release until Spider-man: No Way Home, buoyed by very strong legs and word of mouth. Two months later came another 'new' Marvel property: Eternals. Again worth a $200 million price tag, this bloated film hit $400 million but was less likely to make a profit than Shang Chi and its smaller budget.
 |
| Marvel Studios |
Of these three Marvel films two more things have to be considered. First, is that all three of these films did not get a release in China, where the MCU is very popular. Given Shang-chi's Chinese connections, a release there most definitely would have leap-frogged the film north of $600 million and towards the gross of 2018's Ant-man and the Wasp (which played like a lesser Marvel film that could be caught up with with ease). Besides the lack of Chinese money, the other factor is that a great many countries were experiencing lockdowns at different times. However, this excuse falls on its own sword when we look at Marvel's No Way Home. Distributed by Sony, the film smashed into the history books with the second biggest weekend ever and a final $800 million domestic tally and $1.9 billion worldwide. The film played throughout January due to zero competition as only tent-poles were trusted to bring in crowds. But it also played as the Omicron variant surged. In the UK, Covid was inescapable in December, yet the film still wormed its way into the all-time highest grossing. Eternals and Shang-chi may well have been affected by lockdowns, but for No Way Home to play as it did (without a dime from China, too) proves that maybe, just maybe, the once bulletproof iron man armour around the franchise seems to have been penetrated.
Staying with Disney's lordship over the Marvel properties, Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness was marketed as an event level MCU addition. Benedict Cumberbatch told fans to expect more surprises than Infinity War, Endgame and No Way Home combined. Clearly this was a must-see event that had to be seen on opening weekend to avoid spoilers. When it was released in early May, reception was muted. The film felt underwhelming due to what it was positioned as. It made a colossal $187 million in its opening weekend but then suffered a big drop-off in weekend two, as if everyone flocked early to avoid spoilers. Why would Marvel advertise it like this? Why would they film re-shoots for the middle act (cameos everywhere)? The answer is undoubtedly to capitalise on No Way Home's extremely good run and for Disney to get in on that cash, not Sony. The advertising and reception to the film further nods towards Shang-chi and Eternals not turning a profit, with Disney seeking 'event MCU' cash and not 'Doctor Strange 2' cash. The film did still hit $400 million in the US alone, and $950 million worldwide. It not crossing a billion does not make it a flop; a release in China, Russia and the Middle-east most definitely would have secured over a billion. Even for a Doctor Strange sequel it had a huge increase on its predecessor, and that film did have the aforementioned markets. But was Doctor Strange 2 impacted by Disney+? The 2021 Marvel films wasted no time in getting onto the streaming platform, instantly devaluing the cinematic quality they had. Once word got out that DS 2 was not an event film that could be missed, did audiences decide to wait 45 days for the Disney+ release? My friends certainly did.
 |
| Pixar Animation Studios |
This is because Disney's output during pandemics conditioned their audiences into seeing Disney content as suitable for home viewing. Through the release of Pixar's Luca, Soul and Turning Red, Disney+ made films from that esteemed, event studio feel like B-movies. Films that debut straight to streaming have no shelf life; they fizzle out as quickly as recent British Prime Ministers. What trends in one week is forgotten the next, which is why films debuting over WiFi is not economical for studios in the long run, especially if those films cost $200 million. The case in point is Lightyear. I originally had this film pegged at being a monster at the box office due to its association with the Toy Story brand, Chris Evans' involvement and that it was Pixar's first theatrical release since Onward collapsed right before the pandemic. Alas, the success of other summer tentpoles meant that one film had to bomb and Lightyear it was. Its dismal earnings will cost Disney quite a lot, but I am sure in a few months the amount of people who have rated it on Letterboxd or IMDb will have blown up because most are waiting to see it on Disney+. The studio is simply struggling to have event-level cinema films. Lightyear offered IMAX yes, but against Top Gun: Maverick and even Jurassic World: Dominion it had no chance, with parents unlikely to pay extra for a difference their kids won't realise. And with Star Wars seemingly operating exclusively as TV shows now, there is little in the can for Disney to rely on the big bucks. Even their live-action remake slate is stale: The Little Mermaid and Hercules are liked to be sure, but it already feels that audience appetite has been quenched.
The one thing Disney do have is 20th Century Studios. With that acquisition came the mighty Avatar franchise and all the towers of money that that will provide. Avatar 2's December release should take full advantage of the cinematic spectacle and not put the film on streaming within 45 days. We have seen with Encanto that just letting a film play in cinemas, even in Covid times, can be worth it. Disney sabotaged themselves by sticking that popular animation onto streaming too early and not offering the sing-along showings sooner (if at all), and doing the same for Avatar will be as disastrous as their Star Wars sequels.
What we are left with is a titanic studio that is effectively locked out of China (whether that is down to perceived politics within the films or that Disney represents America's all consuming capitalism beats me) and with a progressively rotting body of films. With Marvel not unleashing event films for some time, Star Wars out of action, Pixar struggling to attract audiences, live-action remakes running out of popular material and the general public seeing their output as suitable for home-viewing before cinema viewing, it seems Disney is in a pickle. Sure, it will most likely end up having the biggest marketshare at the end of the year, but the fact that Paramount dominated the first six months is quite a feat, with Universal not far behind.
 |
| Disney Studios |
The answer may be to do what Disney tried in the 00s and early 10s: starting new franchises. Jungle Cruise in 2021 could have been a good start, but all it succeeded in doing was reminding people how fun The Mummy is. But it would be the smart move to try and make all those fresh films that people once flocked to, like The Curse of the Black Pearl. Sure, John Carter and The Lone Ranger were as successful as the Bay of Pigs invasion, but times are different now. Here's hoping that existing franchises are rubbed out by new ones.
