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.
 
Dan Schneider may have molested his tween actresses, but he knew how to make a hit show.
I think he was just an asshole towards the cast and crew, not a molester. Although we might never know what really happened to Britney's sister.

it's not worth it
i don't even remember the shit he produced
He produced very memorable media: iCarly, Victorious, Zoey 101. Aside from younger Spears, the actresses from those shows seemed to have turned out ok-ish, as possible for anyone that young working for Hollywood.
 
I'd say it's just the natural result of the tumblr to animation studio talent pipeline.
Tumblr and its consequences...

Can't remember what show was, but the main character had the typical Tumblr red nose shadow.
 
He produced very memorable media: iCarly, Victorious, Zoey 101. Aside from younger Spears, the actresses from those shows seemed to have turned out ok-ish, as possible for anyone that young working for Hollywood.
Amanda Bynes Show, All That, I think he was even doing shows like Hey Dude and Salute Your Shorts.

1990s Nick shows are tattooed on my brain and he was part of a lot of them.
 
I think he was just an asshole towards the cast and crew, not a molester. Although we might never know what really happened to Britney's sister.
I thought for years that Jennette McCurdy had been abused in some way, and she then published a book talking about her mother having abused her. But until then, I thought she may have been a Schneider victim.
 
I'd say it's just the natural result of the tumblr to animation studio talent pipeline.
Indeed, people who draw any other way were deemed "problematic" and weeded out by the Red Purplehair Guards, leaving only beanmouthers to pick from.

Pixar got the best, but, they were still beanmounthers.
 
The way they are trying to frame this fucking coporate slop that hits all the same beats as every other kids movie as "original" to try and cope about how we need more sequels is fucking disgusting. This movie is not original, it's a rehash of the exact same story Pixar has been telling for over a decade now but done with worse animation.
 
I don't know if John Lasseter had anything to do with it, but some of the magic that was lost wasn't just the art style or shoehorning in representation.

I think a LOT of what made early Pixar magical was ingenuity. There was a feeling that the creatives were sitting around refining the story, refining character models, refining presentations, even thinking seriously about how something that wasn't human would engineer a solution to a particular problem (Gil's escape plan in Finding Nemo including the big hole in it without hand-waving it away, for instance).

Pixar was back then a studio that knew how to, but even more, WANTED to think, have ideas, pressure-test those ideas. Now it's like everything else in entertainment: rehashed, warmed-over homogeneous shit. It feels like the ideas people put on screen are too precious for peer review or critique.

So yeah, Elio failed. What other fate did it have, really?
 
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:
View attachment 7541984
Maybe this is just my peeve but I hate this artstyle and I can't wait until it permanently goes away.
Why does he look like rick moranis when he was being possessed by vinz clortho?
 
I thought for years that Jennette McCurdy had been abused in some way, and she then published a book talking about her mother having abused her. But until then, I thought she may have been a Schneider victim.
I don't want to defend Schneider, nor go too much oot, but many things that happened to the female cast can be explained by so many other things and we just filled the blanks with the assumption that Schneider did it. We all thought he abused McCurdy, but it was her mother who was abusive. There is a theory that he got Jamie Lynn Spears pregnant, but we know Britney grew up in an abusive environment since she was young and her parents didn't mind her sleeping around when she was younger than 16. Amanda Bynes was schizophrenic all along.

Perhaps working under Dan's pressure was what pushed to the edge, but they were already bringing their own issues to work. He wasn't the cause of their problems.

Also not helping was the prevalence of foot shit in his shows. Like Quentin Tarantino level and we know why QT does it.
Or maybe he thought feet are funny. We might never know.
 
Make movies for chuds or go out of business. It's not fucking complicated. Get that brown kid out of there. Make "Snow White" or something. This whole industry is getting laid off and they still can't figure it out.
They'd rather crater their industry and put their families on the street than admit they were wrong.
 
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.
You'll notice that most children's shows, now, are kid sitcoms, too. Like, kids want to see lion commandos beat up robots or something, not go to school.
 
Fuck you Coco is a great family movie. If you cant appreciate a story with the lesson of follow your dreams but dont forget your family you stink. In an age where most kids movies are pozzed shit i found it quite wholesome.

Coco is one of my favorite movies of all time. It is beautiful, the songs are bangers, the message/values are great, and it’s set in another culture in a way that doesn’t feel like you’re being waterboarded with “diversity”/noble savage propaganda (they don’t shy away from things like Abuela threatening to hit kids with her shoes).

Compare that with “Elemental”. BARF!!!! Pixar is totally washed up these days and subsumed by Globohomo. Coco could not have been made post 2020, it is not woke enough.
 
You'll notice that most children's shows, now, are kid sitcoms, too. Like, kids want to see lion commandos beat up robots or something, not go to school.
A lot of the stuff people in the 80s and 90s grew up with, especially on TV were just glorified toy commercials. It seems like sometime in the early to middle 2000s, when kids stopped spending good chunks of time playing with toys or in front of the TV and switched to cellphones, tablets and computers is when the switch in how shows and movies are written happened. Not sure if it was something that was mandated when the government cracked down on advertising to kids, or if it was more of an effort from the studios, but either way, even when most things were 20 minute to hour and thirty minute toy commercials it felt like there was more effort put into things.

I think the animation industry is going to have to go tits up before any meaningful change will happen, and if that happens, will there be the will to bring it back?
 
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.
They didn't give in, IIRC, but? Due to the fact that everyone was wary of how every new kid's movie was going to try and subtly push "gay is okay!" messaging?

People believed the "It's totally gay!" gushing from the internet and added it to their blacklists with Lightyear and Strange Worlds

Even to this day, I see people say it was another wokefest... the fact that you can't distinguish between animated films these days due to them all being spit out of the same design aesthetic didn't help and in fact? Probably doomed this one.

A lot of the stuff people in the 80s and 90s grew up with, especially on TV were just glorified toy commercials. It seems like sometime in the early to middle 2000s, when kids stopped spending good chunks of time playing with toys or in front of the TV and switched to cellphones, tablets and computers is when the switch in how shows and movies are written happened. Not sure if it was something that was mandated when the government cracked down on advertising to kids, or if it was more of an effort from the studios, but either way, even when most things were 20 minute to hour and thirty minute toy commercials it felt like there was more effort put into things.

I think the animation industry is going to have to go tits up before any meaningful change will happen, and if that happens, will there be the will to bring it back?
In much the same way that loss of physical media meant DVD sales no longer contributed money to a film after release? The loss of the toy and collectable market has meant a lot of post-release money that kid's movies used to generate no longer shows up.

Ollie's are full of heavily discounted Star Wars and MCU toys that studio heads expected kids to gobble up when, as you pointed out? Kids today don't invest in playsets and the like so they never got touched. And most of these toys are standalone.... that doesn't entice kids either, there's only so much you can do with one figure that doesn't fit into anything else, that was the whole point of having a playset, a series, that was modular and interconnected, any two bits fit.

LEGO will always fit LEGO.

But these expensive (and to be fair, detailed) figures that have no other purpose? No similar stuff to plug into? It'll never work.

It's like how all the TV channels killed themselves by thinking they could abandon cable for solo streaming... only to find nobody likes you enough by yourself for you to survive.

When I was a kid? Having a unique Hot Wheels car you could only get in a Happy Meal as a movie tie-in? Was a coveted thing. There was no internet, there was no eBay, if you missed that offer? You MISSED it, FOREVER! You could barter for half another kid's collection of cars just to give that single one away.

It explains why nobody put the brakes on as "kids" movies increasingly became less for kids and more for the political signaling and stroking the fragile self-images of adults who "can't adult" this decade..... the kids aren't watching any more.
 
Last edited:
They didn't give in, IIRC, but? Due to the fact that everyone was wary of how every new kid's movie was going to try and subtly push "gay is okay!" messaging?

People believed the "It's totally gay!" gushing from the internet and added it to their blacklists with Lightyear and Strange Worlds

Even to this day, I see people say it was another wokefest... the fact that you can't distinguish between animated films these days due to them all being spit out of the same design aesthetic didn't help and in fact? Probably doomed this one.

I watched it and didn’t see any gay undertones. I think this attitude of “any friendship between men/boys is gay” is really toxic. Literally nothing gay or gay coded about that movie.

THAT SAID… it wasn’t very good.
 
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.
[...] It's hard to believe that Hollywood is so retarded that they don't understand this all of the sudden.
There is a deeper pathology, the majority of Disney employees are perpetual children. They are stuck mentally as forever resentful, perpetual victim preteens. They don't have the self insight to see or understand this, so yes, they are retarded.
 
Relevant article:

Disney's Disastrous Elio Marketing Is A Perfect Study In How To Fail A Good Movie​

Allow me to clue you in on an unspoken truth in this business — there's nothing more satisfying than to strap on our Monday morning quarterback outfits and retroactively diagnose what worked versus what didn't at the box office after any given weekend. As /Film readers well know, our own Ryan Scott is the finest example of an expert putting his money where his mouth is and taking a scalpel (as opposed to a sledgehammer) to industry trends that are oftentimes more complicated than they may seem. Too often, however, post-mortem discussions can quickly turn into posturing over audience tastes, studio politics, nebulously-reported budgets, and that irresistible urge to boil everything down to the most oversimplified solution possible: To steal a famous gag from "The Simpsons," am I so out of touch? No, it's the marketing that went wrong.

Except, every so often, the go-to excuse that a lackluster marketing campaign is to blame actually does reflect the reality of the situation ... and "Elio" has just become our newest case study. I've gone on the record in my review for /Film that the latest Pixar film has a lot going for it and that audiences will likely come away from it with tears still in their eyes. Unfortunately, based on the weekend reports, not nearly enough moviegoers actually bothered to turn out for it. By all accounts, the original movie is on track for the animation studio's worst opening ever — below that of recent misfires such as "Lightyear" and "Onward." Is that a quality control issue suggesting some sort of "Pixar fatigue" in the works? Was the film swallowed up by its competition? Or could it be much, much simpler than that?

Based on a multitude of factors, it seems clear that "Elio" was ultimately a victim of a parent company that decided to cut its losses and save money on an expensive marketing campaign. Even outside of our film-obsessed bubble, a narrative has taken shape that Disney has been "burying" this title. And for a movie that's all about finding one's place in a world that can be cruel and unforgiving to outsiders, well, that feels just a bit too on the nose. Here's why "Elio" deserved a far, far better fate.

Creative changes and production delays shouldn't have doomed Elio​

Modern-day filmmaking has a funny way of playing out in the public arena. Thanks to the internet and the YouTube Industrial Complex, the general moviegoing public often hears about production troubles and delays plaguing certain movies long before they ever actually come out. The vast majority of the time, those "reports" tend to be either completely exaggerated or straight-up fiction. But, every so often, smoke does indicate some fire ... and that turns out to have been the case with "Elio."

It almost goes without saying that the prospects for "Elio" didn't look great, between various delays (the original release date was for March of 2024), directorial shakeups ("Coco" co-director Adrian Molina was originally meant to head the production, until Domee Shi and Madeline Sharafian came in to replace him), and various moving parts in terms of the story. One look at the first teaser footage practically tells the story. Originally, Pixar dropped our first look at the movie way back on June 13, 2023, almost exactly two whole years ago. Viewers will find a completely different tone, entire scenes playing out with major changes (such as Brad Garrett's Lord Grigon, who appears to be an ambassador of the Communiverse rather than the outright villain he is in the final film), and a polar opposite personality for our own main character. Elio, so enthusiastic to be abducted by aliens, couldn't possibly be more opposed to the idea in the teaser.

Yet, here's the thing: All of that appears to have resulted in a movie that, according to a majority of critics on Rotten Tomatoes, is actually quite good. It's hard to blame Disney for possibly getting cold feet at the idea of another salvage operation for one of their blockbusters. After all, we're talking about a company that has endured similar efforts on both "Rogue One" and "Solo," the recent Disney+ series "Daredevil: Born Again," and "Captain America: Brave New World" — and that's only in recent years. The final results for those aforementioned titles could courteously be described as "mixed." But "Elio" shows that failure isn't always a fait accompli, and just a little more faith in Pixar's miracle-workers would've gone a long way

Disney took a too-little, too-late approach to marketing Elio​

As someone who pays far too much attention to this business, you know what's the most maddening thing to hear from friends and family members months or even years after a given movie or TV show releases? "Why didn't anyone tell me how good this was before?" In a busier and busier pop-culture environment where critics and writers are desperately trying to shine a light on stuff that's actually worth watching, nothing is more frustrating than watching multibillion-dollar corporations refuse to dedicate proper resources to ensure the success of one of their own productions. It's why you'll typically see many of us complaining about, say, Netflix throwing their own movies and shows under the bus. I won't go so far as to say that a Pixar blockbuster, rumored by Deadline to be budgeted at over $150 million, had an unprecedented amount of odds stacked against it. But it's equally as undeniable that Disney didn't bother to help change the narrative until it was too late.

Look no further than the sudden influx of TV spots and social media posts after the critical embargo lifted and ushered in almost universally glowing reactions, which certainly seems to have caught the company by surprise. On one hand, this is admittedly business as usual for any major production. Studios would be engaging in gross dereliction of duty if they didn't attempt to splash every positive pull-quote on TV ads and billboards to convince anyone left on the fence. But for the hardworking animators, creative team, and marketing folks over at Pixar? It's not hard to imagine many of them scratching their heads and wondering where this push was for the last several months.

Whether Disney consciously chose not to chase good money with bad and simply mitigate their (presumed) losses with "Elio," we'll never know for sure. What we do know, however, is that this ultimately became a self-fulfilling prophecy. The full story hasn't yet been written on how this particular movie performs in the long run, but the House of Mouse didn't do it any favors by taking such a heartwarming, crowd-pleasing, and utterly charming movie and hanging it out to dry.

"Elio" is currently playing in theaters.
 
Back