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.
 
No kid wants an action figure of Melissa McCarthy in a cheap cosplay outfit or John Boyega dressed in a drab outfit (and it's clearly not a race issue, despite his whining. Finn is no Lando).
To be fair, he did get fucked by the movie heads. The character could have been very interesting in terms of his origins and possible character development, but he got fucked so they could make the Last Jedi. The movies really should never have had Po Dameron and instead spent time developing Finn. He got totally gypped into being another wise crackin' black guy in a forced interracial relationship with a spergy Asian when he was probably sold on portraying a much different, far more interesting character.

Elemental was the final proof I needed that Pixar is totally out of ideas, and there's no point in paying attention to what they're doing anymore.
People rightfully hate on anime, but you can't say the genre lacks in creative direction. You can open up any anime streaming site and look at the descriptions of the shows, and 9 times out of 10 they'll be more original and interesting as concepts—putting aside the pedobait, repetitive slop, and whatnot—than what Hollywood conjures up.
 
People blame private equity, but it was stuff like Star Wars: The Force Awakens and Ghostbusters 2016 was what completely shattered Toys R Us for good. No kid wants an action figure of Melissa McCarthy in a cheap cosplay outfit or John Boyega dressed in a drab outfit (and it's clearly not a race issue, despite his whining. Finn is no Lando).
The various Finns and that mystery meat broad are usually the action figured I see 30 of sitting on the peg or shelf.
:really:Thanks for reminding me the 2016 Ghostbusters existed. I'd managed to forget it was a thing. I think it might be more than that. Even now, even small kids hardly play with toys, most parents just end up shoving an ipad in the hands of their 18 month old and they never have interest in anything but mobile slopgames and social media.
 
And why are all the movies about children?
This is a very uncomfortable question to ask given that cartoon reviewers and animators tend to accept Rule 34 as inevitable and is something they'll consoom in their free time. If you're making stuff for children that only has child characters in it, it makes the porn that gets produced (usually from day one) all the more disturbing, and as far as I can tell, none of the creators have ever spoken out about it, whether against or *shudders* for it.

Yeah, they can't control what people do, but a creator still has an opinion on Rule 34 of their characters. Their silence on the ubiquitous and golden rule of the Internet isn't comforting.

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).
Also these were fathers wanting to tell stories to their children, to teach them important life lessons for when they grow up. A growing percentage of these animators and writers are childless, mainly by choice, but for some ungodly reason still cling/fetishize their own childhoods, or what they felt was lacking (e.g. being "queer"), and so that's the product they make. It's not for real children, it's for their own hubris and perversions.
 
Also these were fathers wanting to tell stories to their children, to teach them important life lessons for when they grow up. A growing percentage of these animators and writers are childless, mainly by choice, but for some ungodly reason still cling/fetishize their own childhoods, or what they felt was lacking (e.g. being "queer"), and so that's the product they make. It's not for real children, it's for their own hubris and perversions.
God, it really is a perversion, this idea that they haven't grown up yet while at the same time butting their nose in on other peoples' kids.

You're right, though, I feel like there's a lot of popular entertainment that is wish fulfillment for the kids they wish they were or claim they were.
 
Normal people have beaner fatigue. The whole premise of a Hispanic kid meeting aliens, HAHA SPACE ALIENS, is just tiresome at this point. Pixar started this movie years ago, nobody working there was savvy enough to see how things would be by 2025. We have daily spic riots in the news now, why would anybody pay money to see some more feel good lies about them on a movie screen?
Wait, was Elio Hispanic? I thought he was half (lightskinned) black? I swore there was a scene that showed a photo of his dead parents, and his dad was black? He lived with his paternal Aunt, so I guess the Aunt character was also black?

Let me reiterate: I saw this movie in theatres. & I've already forgotten most of the plot details; it was so generic and blah. Heck, half the alien designs reminded me of that Dreamworks movie "Home", like Pixar animators copied their homework or something.
 
Wait, was Elio Hispanic? I thought he was half (lightskinned) black? I swore there was a scene that showed a photo of his dead parents, and his dad was black? He lived with his paternal Aunt, so I guess the Aunt character was also black?

Let me reiterate: I saw this movie in theatres. & I've already forgotten most of the plot details; it was so generic and blah. Heck, half the alien designs reminded me of that Dreamworks movie "Home", like Pixar animators copied their homework or something.
His voice actor is a Filipino American if that helps.
 
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.
What made Lilo & Stitch stand out from most animated films with child protagonists was the unusual family dynamic of the Pelekais and how the introduction of aliens deeply impacted their lives, shaping the story of the film and the series as a whole. While the movie and franchise primarily focuses on the titular protagonists it also delves into Nani's struggles to take care of her six year old sister. Nani tries so hard to keep custody of Lilo as she make ends meet as a young 18 to 19 year old all the while the two orphaned sisters deal with the grief and loss of their parents. She selflessly sacrificed everything including her surfing career and college education to become Lilo's guardian due to the death of her parents. When Jumba and Pleakley became part of the extended ohana, they stepped into the roles of surrogate uncles to Lilo and Nani through their mission to capture Stitch. The television series builds on this dynamic, showcasing how Jumba’s many alien experiments frequently interact with the people of Hawaii, often leading to chaos but also growth and connection. Pleakley’s ongoing fascination with Earth culture and lack of social cues adds comic relief. Most family units are nothing like this in real life. Most of us are not orphaned, do not have extended alien families, nor do we live on a beautiful little paradise like Hawaii but the message in Lilo and Stitch that "ohana" means nobody gets left behind even when it's not convenient really hits deep with the average person's experience with their own family. The remake missed that point spectacularly as Nani gives up Lilo to foster care so she can go study in mainland US as a marine biologist. Jumba and Pleakley do not even redeem themselves either in the remake and remain as villains.


Directors and studio heads in the modern entertainment medium have failed to understand that nobody really wants to play a video game or watch a movie that's about unremarkably ordinary everyday life with unremarkably ordinary characters. One of the primary reasons people turn to entertainment such as video games and movies is to escape from life, not be reminded of their own existence reflected back at them. Who would want to see stuff that already mirrors their own relatively uninteresting lives?
 
Pixar used to put out a movie every two to three years, and every movie was an event. People got super excited for them. Then they started making one a year, and quality started to slide, but they still put out some bangers. Now, they occasionally do two a year (one twofer-year had Lightyear and Turning Red), and quality is total shit. Onward was so generic, I temporarily forgot it was Pixar and assumed it was either Dreamworks or non-Pixar Disney.

The funny thing was that around the time they started doing the once-a-year films Pixar was reaching its high-water mark. The Incredibles came out in late 2004 (over a year after 2003's Finding Nemo and while at the Cars (2006) was seen as the weakest entry in the canon, they had consistent bangers with Ratatouille (2007), WALL-E (2008), Up (2009), and Toy Story 3 (2010). But then came Cars 2 in 2011 and that was when the first big drop-off in quality. But then we got a breather year (no 2014 film) and Inside Out (2015) was hailed as a return to form...only to get The Good Dinosaur less than six months later and the result hailed an even worse era.

To be fair, he did get fucked by the movie heads. The character could have been very interesting in terms of his origins and possible character development, but he got fucked so they could make the Last Jedi. The movies really should never have had Po Dameron and instead spent time developing Finn. He got totally gypped into being another wise crackin' black guy in a forced interracial relationship with a spergy Asian when he was probably sold on portraying a much different, far more interesting character.

100% Boyega got fucked over as far as his character was written, but Boyega himself was a diversity hire who didn't understand or didn't want to understand why his character went over so poorly. Kelly Tran suffered similar issues—she was miscast and still looks like she stuffed her mouth full of walnuts, but the costuming department was terrible and that reflected in her toys, as well.

Wait, was Elio Hispanic? I thought he was half (lightskinned) black? I swore there was a scene that showed a photo of his dead parents, and his dad was black? He lived with his paternal Aunt, so I guess the Aunt character was also black?

Let me reiterate: I saw this movie in theatres. & I've already forgotten most of the plot details; it was so generic and blah. Heck, half the alien designs reminded me of that Dreamworks movie "Home", like Pixar animators copied their homework or something.

From what I got in this thread, the shade of brown is associated with Hispanics but also mystery meat genetics. 15% white, 20% black, 25% Hispanic, 5% Indian, 15% Asian, 20% pug, 100% soy.

Samurai Jack is voiced by a black man, voice acting doesn't usually use the race of the character, not until St Floyd died anyway and the left started crying
It's been going on before 2020, where they cried about non-white characters being played by white actors, but thought that Hamilton's original 2015 cast of diverse actors was brilliant.

This is a very uncomfortable question to ask given that cartoon reviewers and animators tend to accept Rule 34 as inevitable and is something they'll consoom in their free time. If you're making stuff for children that only has child characters in it, it makes the porn that gets produced (usually from day one) all the more disturbing, and as far as I can tell, none of the creators have ever spoken out about it, whether against or *shudders* for it.

Yeah, they can't control what people do, but a creator still has an opinion on Rule 34 of their characters. Their silence on the ubiquitous and golden rule of the Internet isn't comforting.

Nu-Disney is probably full of closeted pedophiles, especially anyone who openly declares themselves as "queer" and I wouldn't be surprised if there's some nude Elio models AT PIXAR (at this point at least--with Strange World that was a guarantee) but at the same time it's extremely uncharitable to assume that you have to speak out against it or you're for it by proxy. If a creator out of the blue announced, apropos of nothing, announced that they hated R34 when it came to their work, people would be suspicious, and it would be wildly inappropriate to bring up when interviewing them.


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.

Plus, Lilo as a character is super-stylized. I don't think in 2001 there was as much thirsting on the Internet for characters around Lilo's age, but Lilo looks like a Muppet, even compared to the other human characters like her sister. It may have been pedo retardant but the real purpose seems appears to have been more for merchandising.
 
Last edited:
Laughing my ass off at this cope about Elio 'failed by its marketing'
Literally the opening scene - nay, the opening shot of the film is Elio huddled under a cafeteria table with this weepy look on his face - and you know from a look at the trailer that that's the sort of flick to expect.
People knew it was coming out. Kids and parents knew it was out. It didn't catch their interest. When I was seven years old I wanted to see Captain Jack Sparrow, not some wet blanket fucking kid with no friends.
Next time instead of making a film about a friendless sperg and a gross slug monster maybe make one about a pretty girl and some elves flipping around doing archery or something
 
Laughing my ass off at this cope about Elio 'failed by its marketing'
Literally the opening scene - nay, the opening shot of the film is Elio huddled under a cafeteria table with this weepy look on his face - and you know from a look at the trailer that that's the sort of flick to expect.
People knew it was coming out. Kids and parents knew it was out. It didn't catch their interest. When I was seven years old I wanted to see Captain Jack Sparrow, not some wet blanket fucking kid with no friends.
Next time instead of making a film about a friendless sperg and a gross slug monster maybe make one about a pretty girl and some elves flipping around doing archery or something

Marketing failure is mostly a disconnect between what it is and what people expect it to be, either by explaining it wrong, creating a negative impression, or a disconnect between your target audience and who's selling it. TVTropes has a whole thing about misleading trailers but unless you're telling me that the friendship between the autistic mutt and the slug is actually just a fake-out for when the slug starts anally violating him and the military lady helps lead the Earth in some sort of Starship Troopers-meets-Independence Day counterstrike to defeat those extraterrestrial bastards and their need for rape, then it's not bad marketing, it's just marketing for a bad movie.

The other type of bad marketing is when you make a normal product look worse than it is. A disgusting-looking cartoon character talking about his vasectomy is no way to sell roast beef sandwiches, and a disgusting tranny is no way to sell beer associated with working class men.
 
You're telling me parents weren't rushing their kids to the theatre after seeing this?
Message to all immigrants.webp
In the good old days, fairytale princesses sit forlorn in her tower waiting for the day her prince will come.
In the better new days, little boy lies on the beach waiting to be anal-probed by aliens.
Plus ça change.
 
Last edited:
Back