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.
 
Disney, and Western animation in general, used to be great. They usually didn't target an older demographic as much as anime did, but when they did release a banger, it was one for the ages.

I don't think there's a single person working at Disney today that could write something as layered, complex and engaging as the first two seasons of Gargoyles.

Even the derivative slop based on their big-budget animated movies were also a fun watch, and all kept the distinctive artstyle of the original movie.
 
Man I'm just grateful I got to grow up when Pixar/Disney was at it's peak. I fucking feel bad for little kids nowadays, they don't have jack shit besides slop on YouTube or really shitty nuDisney garbage.
They don't have to grow up on this slop, it's just that their parents are too fucking lazy to get the physical media of their favorite movies/shows to introduce to their children. They just expect the phone and TV to do it for them.
 
They don't have to grow up on this slop, it's just that their parents are too fucking lazy to get the physical media of their favorite movies/shows to introduce to their children.
It takes five minutes to torrent every single Pixar film ever made. The fetishization of "physical media" will never make sense to me.

Bits are the same regardless of the medium you store them on.
 
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.
Mario was successful because he had a moustache and looked like your dad.
 
The plot of this movie sounds like something my kids would love, so I'll probably go take them and bite my tongue about the art style. Will report back.

The woke-or-not movie ratings guide says it's unwoke. But I don't know, the eye patch and stuff makes me feel a little like that might not be true.
The way to do it would be to literally not explain or care about the eyepatch at all. That’s what all these DEI efforts in movie fail at. They make it a point to tell you about how this character is super gay/disabled/black whatever when that is completely unnecessary. I cast Samuel as Mace Windu and nobody went ‘OMG a black Jedi?!’ Nobody fucking cared. But if I had written dialogue of Yoda libsplaining about how incredibly woke and diverse the Jedi Council is, I would have received more hate for my prequels.

We already figured it out for people with glasses years ago. You just have characters with glasses that are completely normal and transparent and don’t have stereotypes when it comes to people with glasses. Honestly there are enough kids with lazy eye that you can have a kid in a movie with an eyepatch, not saying anything about it all, and I wouldn’t care.
 
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.
Sorry for the late reply but this blew my mind when I heard it. Hawaii should try Disney at the Hague for this, it’s like demoralization propaganda for the Hawaiian people.

The first movie is quite explicitly a Hawaiian identity kind of film. Lilo treats the tourists like a tourist attraction, the evil foster system is trying to break up the strong Hawaiian family, Lilo and Nani look fully Hawaiian and have probably been sitting on a Hawaiian Homes waiting list for a decade, they survive by catering to tourism, the white girl is the bully, etc. Crucially all of that is secondary to having an actual plot and the movie is still fucking good, it’s just that it takes a native Hawaiian tack to telling a story. The song everyone associates with the movie is explicitly Hawaiian nationalist.

Now take the remake. Everyone’s light skinned, probably mixed, couldn’t qualify for Hawaiian Homes if they tried, being Hawaiian is not so much the point as is living in Hawaii, and to really send it home, Nani gives up her sister to the American government and leaves Hawaii, probably to Las Vegas to be a fucking Doordasher. It is an end zone dance for the tourism industry and absolutely spits in the face of the people it’s based on. It’s not even making Snow White black, it’s remaking Frozen where Anna falls in love with a Syrian refugee and the real evil is the racist blonde guy.

If I was Hawaiian I would be tinfoiling that that movie was made to demoralize Hawaiians into leaving so Disney can buy more land. Not that it needs to be- the situation for Nani and Lilo would play out exactly like it did in the remake, with a one bedroom in the Central Valley or Vegas, CPS knocking at the door, and Nani working gig jobs in a state she’s never been to before, delivering groceries to people with a timeshare on her parents land. It’s an unintentional indictment of the fate of Hawaii and as I write this I can feel myself becoming a Hawaiian sovereignty activist. Maybe in the remake there’s a pan out shot where we slowly realize Nani and Lilo are living next to Red Hill and Lilo starts to get dizzy from all the heavy metals. At least that would have had a message.
 
it’s just that it takes a native Hawaiian tack to telling a story
Chris Sanders and Dean DeBlois aren't Hawaiian, they just respected the culture that much to take great care in making sure it was Hawaiian in appearance and mannerisms. Respect is something modern writers don't even have anymore.
 
So there was a movie for kids of average quality made in 1985 with a similar plot in that a young boy becomes obsessed with going to space and meeting aliens.


Summary:
"Ben Crandall is a young visionary who dreams of space travel while watching late-night B monster movies, pouring over comic books, and playing Galaga in the confines of his bedroom. But one night he has a vivid dream of flying over a space-like circuit board and shares his visions with his best friend Wolfgang Muller, a young scientific genius who is able to translate his dreams into a complex computer program that actually works. With the help of their new friend Darren Woods, they create a homemade spacecraft and embark on a secret adventure to another galaxy where they find that things are not always as different as they seem."

The thing that really jumps out at me is how proactive all the characters are. When the main has a vision, he seeks out others to help literally build a space ship versus the Elio in the trailer laying in the dirt hoping to be abducted.

Kids love to build things and the ultimate fantasy is that race car, submarine, blimp, or spaceship really would work and take them on the adventure they control.
 
So there was a movie for kids of average quality made in 1985 with a similar plot in that a young boy becomes obsessed with going to space and meeting aliens.


Summary:
"Ben Crandall is a young visionary who dreams of space travel while watching late-night B monster movies, pouring over comic books, and playing Galaga in the confines of his bedroom. But one night he has a vivid dream of flying over a space-like circuit board and shares his visions with his best friend Wolfgang Muller, a young scientific genius who is able to translate his dreams into a complex computer program that actually works. With the help of their new friend Darren Woods, they create a homemade spacecraft and embark on a secret adventure to another galaxy where they find that things are not always as different as they seem."

The thing that really jumps out at me is how proactive all the characters are. When the main has a vision, he seeks out others to help literally build a space ship versus the Elio in the trailer laying in the dirt hoping to be abducted.

Kids love to build things and the ultimate fantasy is that race car, submarine, blimp, or spaceship really would work and take them on the adventure they control.
You dare mention Explorers without naming it? SHAME
IMG_3661.webp
Ethan Hawke, River Phoenix, Amanda Peterson, a cavalcade of young 80s stars really.
 
Not to rain on your parade, but Lilo & Stitch walked so that modern DEI wokeslop could run. Lilo & Stitch is good because it's drawing on the values and forms of pre-diversity movie making.

The reason the movie happened at all is there was a demand from higher up for more diversity and more representation. But at the time, that didn't mean you hired shitty artists just because they were niggers and bad writers just because they were women. You put talented people in charge, and if that meant white men, so be it. You can even show the Diversity People to be meaningfully different from white people in ways that aren't all celebratory. It's okay to draw the Hawaiians with Polynesian-looking faces. It's okay for them to be poor, have their own struggles, and not live in an intrinsically superior society. Writing a compelling story and animating it well were still holdover values from the Before Times. Those values are dead, now, because they ultimately conflict with the demands of diversity.
 
Last edited:
The plot of this movie sounds like something my kids would love, so I'll probably go take them and bite my tongue about the art style. Will report back.

The woke-or-not movie ratings guide says it's unwoke. But I don't know, the eye patch and stuff makes me feel a little like that might not be true.
I don't know what anyone should make of that site. Half the ratings are "members only" and they rate Inside Out 2 as "based."
 
It's a movie about a autistic kid palling around with a giant worm creature. Not exactly universal appeal.
You just described it like it was the coolest movie premise ever and then were like "not universal appeal"
Replace worm creature with poop creature and you got ET. Do you know how big ET got? yeah. Says a lot.

I saw a blog post somewhere which showed drawings belonging to some lesbian who was going to study at CalArts. The art was ugly, but it was unique, and was able to convey emotion, movement, and information. The blog then posted artwork that the lesbian had produced a few months after joining CalArts and it was all Beanmouth Slop. They'd steamrollered this artist's original style so that she'd become a cog in the Cheapo Animation Machine.
You see a similar phenomenon with asian stuff, but specifically remakes compared to the originals that had rough art. And it's somehow also more detail. Over in the US it's like the individuality gets hammered out IMMEDIATELY before they can launch rather than later by someone who bought the rights to the IP.

Not to rain on your parade, but Lilo & Stitch walked so that modern DEI wokeslop could run. Lilo & Stitch is good because it's drawing on the values and forms of pre-diversity movie making.

The reason the movie happened at all is there was a demand from higher up for more diversity and more representation. But at the time, that didn't mean you hired shitty artists just because they were niggers and bad writers just because they were women. You put talented people in charge, and if that meant white men, so be it. You can even show the Diversity People to be meaningfully different from white people in ways that aren't all celebratory. It's okay to draw the Hawaiians with Polynesian-looking faces. Writing a compelling story and animating it well were still holdover values from the Before Times. Those values are dead, now, because they ultimately conflict with the demands of diversity.
Seeing how disney absolutely butchered lilo and stitch just this year this post's opening sentence feels even more fake and gay YT video essayist "was never good" shit than ever. I rated dumb at first for the fact alone but then read the rest and now just feel sad.

Lilo and stitch (original) actually draws from the area and puts story first, rather than drawing from diversity tickboxes first and foremost. The stuff that's "politics" in it aren't shoved in nonsense. There's scenes that got cut from the final movie about the conflict between locals and tourists that WERE released as promo "prequel comics" for the movie that nobody ever brings up anymore in trivia shit but it would have been nice to see that in the movie since it was an extremely character driven one. They changed the ice cream gag guy from a tourist to a local in the remake which was likely tied to some weird bullshit behind the scenes on top of the retarded move of warping the movies message into california propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Back