Disaster With ‘Elio,’ Pixar Has Its Worst Box Office Opening Ever - Look upon my works, ye mighty, and despair.

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/22/business/elio-pixar-box-office.html
https://archive.is/b4xRs
IMG_3609.webp
The original space adventure sold about $21 million in tickets at domestic theaters from Thursday night through Sunday, putting new pressure on the once-unstoppable studio.

Pixar knew that “Elio,” an original space adventure, would most likely struggle in its first weekend at the box office.

Animated movies based on original stories have become harder sells in theaters, even for the once-unstoppable Pixar. At a time when streaming services have proliferated and the broader economy is unsettled, families want assurance that spending the money for tickets will be worth it.
But the turnout for “Elio” was worse — much worse — than even Pixar had expected. The film, which cost at least $250 million to make and market, collected an estimated $21 million from Thursday evening through Sunday at theaters in the United States and Canada, according to Comscore, which compiles box office data.

It was Pixar’s worst opening-weekend result ever. The previous bottom was “Elemental,” which arrived to $30 million in 2023.

A month ago, when the “Elio” marketing campaign began to hit high gear, Pixar and its corporate owner, Disney, had hoped that “Elio” would, in the worst-case scenario, match the “Elemental” number. Instead, it fell 30 percent short.

In wide release overseas, “Elio” collected an additional $14 million, on a par with the initial international results for “Elemental.”
Quality did not appear to be a factor: Reviews for “Elio” were mostly positive, and ticket buyers gave the movie an A grade in CinemaScore exit polls. The Rotten Tomatoes audience score stood at 91 percent positive on Sunday.

Pixar has also recovered from a period during the coronavirus pandemic when Disney weakened the animation studio’s brand by using its films to build the Disney+ streaming service, bypassing theaters altogether. Last year, Pixar’s “Inside Out 2” was the No. 1 movie at the global box office. It sold $1.7 billion in tickets.

But original animated ideas have fallen out of favor at the box office, analysts said. Pixar is not alone. DreamWorks Animation’s “Ruby Gillman: Teenage Kraken” flatlined in 2023 with $5.5 million in opening-weekend sales. Illumination Animation’s “Migration” arrived to $12 million that year.

The problem for Pixar is that its originals remain wildly expensive. “Ruby Gillman” and “Migration” each cost 50 percent less than “Elio” did. (Pixar movies are still produced entirely in the United States, increasing labor costs. Some other studios have started to rely on overseas production.)
On Sunday, Disney said it hoped a broader audience would find “Elio” over the coming weeks. The company pointed to “Elemental,” which overcame weak initial sales to ultimately collect nearly $500 million worldwide.

Families have had a lot of theatrical options of late. Universal’s live-action “How to Train Your Dragon” remake, for instance, repeated as the No. 1 movie in North America over the weekend, with $37 million in ticket sales.

Second place went to the auteur horror sequel “28 Years Later” (Sony Pictures), which debuted to about $30 million. David A. Gross, a film consultant who publishes a newsletter on box office numbers, called that total “excellent.” Directed by Danny Boyle, “28 Years Later” cost about $60 million, not including marketing.

“Elio” was third.

Brooks Barnes covers all things Hollywood. He joined The Times in 2007 and previously worked at The Wall Street Journal.
 
Look. We're tired of Beanmouth. We're tired of that fucking Beanmouth. Give us characters who look like individuals, not like automatons that CalArts created in order to streamline the animation process and make it cheaper.
It's crazy that animators in the 80s and 90s had to basically draw everything by hand but the characters still looked more realistic, detailed and attractive than characters from animators today who have all kinds of assistance.
 
Look. We're tired of Beanmouth. We're tired of that fucking Beanmouth. Give us characters who look like individuals, not like automatons that CalArts created in order to streamline the animation process and make it cheaper.
Yeah I saw the trailer for this and immediately lost all interest based on how it looks. Good God is that main character design ugly. How the hell did Pixar of all companies became the one where all characters are quirk chungus? Disney did a better job with Wish and Encanto - I hated those movies but the character designs weren't the problem, some of them were even good.

Bonus Funko abomination. Oh boy, who wouldn't want that thing on their bookshelf?
elio-pop-buddy-animation-vinyl-figure-elio-w-buddy-9-cm.webp
 
Maybe if this didn't have the ugly ass 3D CalArts style, it would sell better.
Seriously, every time one of these characters smiles, it's genuinely off putting:
Pixar-Elio.webp

Maybe this is just my peeve but I hate this artstyle and I can't wait until it permanently goes away.
 
Look. We're tired of Beanmouth. We're tired of that fucking Beanmouth. Give us characters who look like individuals, not like automatons that CalArts created in order to streamline the animation process and make it cheaper.
I always associate "CalArts style" with 2d animation but
1000048673.webp
I was taken aback at how much Elio looks exactly like the fake CGI cartoon characters that AI produces. I mean obviously, AI is trained on recognising patterns, but it's still incredibly noticeable. Stylisation is all well and good if it serves a purpose but this really is a one size fits all approach. It's like what they're doing to Shrek
1000048675.webp
There was no reason to radically modify the character design this much beyond thinking there's some orthodoxy of character design that must be followed. Animation styles do follow clear trends but there's clearly some overriding factor at play here. I assume similar to studios not wanting to take risks on original IPs and instead churning out continual remakes/sequels/extended universe pieces because they see it as a safer investment.
 
It's crazy that animators in the 80s and 90s had to basically draw everything by hand but the characters still looked more realistic, detailed and attractive than characters from animators today who have all kinds of assistance.
They looked better in the 30s-50s than 60-late 80s imo, then were great for awhile until the dark times started in the early 2010s.
 
There wasn't any advertising, at least not that reached me. Saw 2 commercials about it, the super-short YouTube-invading kind, and even then it's not clear at all what the story is about, you kinda had to do homework to figure out this was a sci-fi kid-goes-on-adventure film.

Pixar can't sell on it's name and look anymore, it has to DO something with a hook in it, and this one doesn't have much of that. Stylistic choices aside.

Also too many don't trust these kids films to not turn woke on them the instant they start.... just because they don't openly advertise the woke parts in trailers anymore doesn't mean they aren't there waiting to pop up once you've invested in the tickets and snacks and then have to sit through the struggle session for the sake of sunk costs.
 
Last edited:
Back