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.
 
Underselling it. Atlantis was a visual masterpiece and probably where disney peaked. It is insane how we went from a film where every single shot is a mastercrafted painting to the disgusting as fuck disposable offensively ugly slop that is beanmouth
To add to this I feel the same way about music from the same era. It was the peak of analog production (hand-drawn) mixed with the beginning of digital tools that made it
easier and cleaner. It really was the peak because you had the benefit of computer tools without the loss of creativity from how easy they made things.
 
To add to this I feel the same way about music from the same era. It was the peak of analog production (hand-drawn) mixed with the beginning of digital tools that made it
easier and cleaner. It really was the peak because you had the benefit of computer tools without the loss of creativity from how easy they made things.
Treasure Planet was another good animation that did poorly at the box office. I decent mix of hand drawn 2D and CG.
 
IMHO the last great movie was UP. After that it was all about milking sequals and DEI wokeness
> old white guy wife dies without kids
> adopts a spic kid (who is going to take over his house)


Literally a white replacement propaganda movie. I bet you are watching cuckservative tubers such as Critical drinker and Ben Shapiro with such a retarded opinion.
 
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.

Here ya go. I am the prime person for this movie (not because I'm a movie fag, I have little kids) and I that's always on the forefront of my mind. It would also be cool if some of the characters looked like me and my kids from time to time... you know, WHITE.
 
And why are all the movies about children?

This is one of the most fascinating questions, and it's also IMO one of the reasons the box office numbers are falling.

20-30 years ago, most people marketing to kids knew that kids actually prefer to think about being a grownup. A supermajority of American 2D animation had almost no children in it at all, and instead focused on young adults at the age when they're about to break free and become independent, chart their own course. That's a very American idea, that when you hit your late teens it's time to figure out who you are and find the person you want to spend your life with.

Even when early Disney films (30s-40s) had a child in them, the protag child was not human (Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi). The exceptions begin in the 1950s: Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, The Sword In the Stone, The Jungle Book. Even so, many of the Disney films from this era have no children to speak of in them (101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood), or have a child who is not the main character of the story (The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Rescuers).

Even 80s/90s Disney movies are mostly without children. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis. Lilo & Stitch in 2002 seems to be where the shift really takes place. 21st century Disney and Pixar is allllllll about children as characters, instead of aspirational teenagers as protags finding their way. Because of this, the "life lessons" they offer are cornier and positioned more for people who just want comfort and family, not for people who want independence, freedom, and autonomy.
 
Even 80s/90s Disney movies are mostly without children. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis. Lilo & Stitch in 2002 seems to be where the shift really takes place. 21st century Disney and Pixar is allllllll about children as characters, instead of aspirational teenagers as protags finding their way. Because of this, the "life lessons" they offer are cornier and positioned more for people who just want comfort and family, not for people who want independence, freedom, and autonomy.
This is what I was thinking about when I commented. Almost all the "great" Disney films deal with teens on the cusp of adulthood or young adults. Lilo and Stitch was the only one I could think of to break this mold. And even then, the main character is really the alien, not the little girl. There's something about the shift to focusing entirely on actual children as main protagonists that is part of Disney/Pixar's decline, and I feel like there's some sort of deeper pathology at play in the background.

There's a reason the coming-of-age story is so engrained in popular culture. Especially as it links up to the Hero's Journey, with a character facing permanent, destabilizing change and then coming to some sort of recognition or apotheosis that links them back to the beginning of the cycle matching so closely with a child's entry into and reckoning with adulthood. It's hard to believe that Hollywood is so retarded that they don't understand this all of the sudden.
 
It's literally CalArts: The Movie, apparently:
The film was conceived by Adrian Molina as a "personal coming-of-age story about youthful alienation." Molina was inspired by his childhood growing up at a military base and eventual enrollment at the California Institute of the Arts when developing the film's story. Director Madeline Sharafian described his feelings on the private art school by saying "he felt like he'd found his people there, he'd found his world".
Molina is gay. He has been married to Ryan Dooley since 2011.


Anon called it almost three years ago:
View attachment 7542081
Of all the words of tongue or pen the saddest are these: 4chan is right again.
 
This is one of the most fascinating questions, and it's also IMO one of the reasons the box office numbers are falling.

20-30 years ago, most people marketing to kids knew that kids actually prefer to think about being a grownup. A supermajority of American 2D animation had almost no children in it at all, and instead focused on young adults at the age when they're about to break free and become independent, chart their own course. That's a very American idea, that when you hit your late teens it's time to figure out who you are and find the person you want to spend your life with.

Even when early Disney films (30s-40s) had a child in them, the protag child was not human (Pinocchio, Dumbo, Bambi). The exceptions begin in the 1950s: Alice in Wonderland, Peter Pan, The Sword In the Stone, The Jungle Book. Even so, many of the Disney films from this era have no children to speak of in them (101 Dalmatians, The Aristocats, Sleeping Beauty, Robin Hood), or have a child who is not the main character of the story (The Many Adventures of Winnie the Pooh, The Rescuers).

Even 80s/90s Disney movies are mostly without children. Little Mermaid, Beauty and the Beast, Aladdin, Pocahontas, Hunchback, Hercules, Mulan, Emperor's New Groove, Atlantis. Lilo & Stitch in 2002 seems to be where the shift really takes place. 21st century Disney and Pixar is allllllll about children as characters, instead of aspirational teenagers as protags finding their way. Because of this, the "life lessons" they offer are cornier and positioned more for people who just want comfort and family, not for people who want independence, freedom, and autonomy.
Maybe it's a sign of the times changing but I actually preferred stories about children when I was a child.
Here's the kicker though... Children with the POWER of a grownup. The FREEDOM of a grownup.
Children going where they wanted and behaving irrisponsibly.
Isn't that a little ironic, considering today's society?
Keep in mind - This was an era where you weren't allowed to go to town on your own until you were a teenager.
 
Last edited:
The writers and directors associated with the film were just no good. The problems start with having three directors, three writers and all of them really being unaccomplished. The story also just sucks.

The film started out as the passion project of some gay mexican calarts graduate. The idea was the old "alienated youth" cliche about the lonely child who finds a friend. But the gay mexican couldn't make his own film work. So they brought in another team of calarts people to salvage what was already a bad idea and a failed project. And it never got any better. It was one of those films that should have been stopped. But it wasn't.

Pixar has been in a death spiral since the departure of John Lasseter. Lasseter staying might not have made things any better, but the people currently running Pixar are second rate and just honestly no good. Even the visual design of Elio was just terrible.
 
What I get from this thread is that sexual pests are the best selecting media quality.

🤔

And homosexual allegory.
Luca didn't have any of that. It was, as far as I remember, an honest story of friendship between two kids. The homosexual undertones were in the head of the faggots who watched this and started to touch themselves thinking on their own childhood.

I dunno if he eventually gave in, but the writer of the movie originally denied any gay allegory.

There's literally no difference between Elio, Coco, or Strange World. They look like the same movie.
Speaking of, at first I thought this movie was Luca. Another generic movie.

This is a surprisingly accurate comparison 'cause the whole plot of Elio is pretty much about an evil space dictator of a war planet ostracized by the space UN trying to negotiate for a small child (his son) back (Elio kidnapped his son as a bargaining chip).
🤔
 
I actually liked this style, back when it was bespoke to Aardman Animations. That's who designed Wallace and Gromit, Chicken Run, and others.
rexfeatures-wallace-gromit-jpg_091957.webp
It sounds like heresy to me. It's not the big goofy smile that is Calarts, it's how safe and soulless it is. There are no edges, no strong colors, no talent. Just a whole lot of CG particle effects.
 
Last edited:
Maybe don’t make every movie a minority disabled beanmouth calarts plastic horror show where the story is just a form of therapy for the director. And why are all the movies about children? You can make a movie about a straight white man/woman who isn’t gay, disabled, or otherwise defective.
From what I have heard, it is a corporate thing. A lot of studio heads believe kids can only relate to child characters, so they force them into productions. This isn't even a new occurrence as this can be traced back to even BTAS, where the crew was forced to have Robin in it for this very reason. It would also be the catalyst for why Batman Beyond came into being since Warner wanted Batman to be younger.

If we are talking more modern example, Nickelodeon has historically designed its entire brand identity around being the kids' network. All their protagonists had to be kids/teens or at least childlike non-humans.
 
What's this one about? I just remember that Turning Red movie was the director airing out their unresolved mommy issues about their period or something. Also 9/11.

I assume something similar happened here.

This trailer is so fucking cringe, how did someone work on this and not wanna do a flip?

I have never heard or seen this until yesterday and wow that trailer is terrible.
 
Back