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.
 
View attachment 7569388

That's what the animators of Pixar should have watched, am I right? 😀
I looked this up thinking "A drawing tutorial series by modern Disney? Beanmouth Bonanza!" but it's actually just knockoff Animator vs Animation.
Was this thing beamed in from 2012? Feels very "Let's capitalize on what those internet kids are doing".
 
Even Don Bluth's less than good films still had great animation. It's sad how far it's fallen.
I've never personally been a fan of Bluth's art/animation style, it just doesn't do it for me. I will say this for him though- his style is distinctive as fuck. If you're watching something and you think to yourself "this looks like a Don Bluth production", odds are pretty good it actually is. That's not to say all his stuff looks the same (it really doesn't), but there is an entirely unique 'Bluth-ness' to any project he had a hand in and the quality of the animation is always superb (even if I can't claim to be a fan of the style itself).

Pixar likewise stood out when they had a monopoly on 3D animation, but nowadays there's no telling their shit apart from any Dreamworks, Disney or even fucking Illumination production. They've coasted on nostalgia and their name for many years, but it now seems that check is starting to bounce.
 
Last edited:
I've personally never been a fan of Bluth's art/animation style, it just doesn't do it for me. I will say this for him though- his style is distinctive as fuck. If you're watching something and you think to yourself "this looks like a Don Bluth production", odds are pretty good it actually is. That's not to say all his stuff looks the same (it really doesn't), but there is an entirely unique 'Bluth-ness' to any project he had a hand in and the quality of the animation is always superb (even if I can't claim to be a fan of the style itself).

Pixar likewise stood out when they had a monopoly on 3D animation, but nowadays there's no telling their shit apart from any Dreamworks, non-Pixar Disney or even fucking Illumination production. They've coasted on nostalgia and their name for many years, but it now seems that check is starting to bounce.

It's sad how Pixar has declined in quality. Their work used to stand out and recognizable. Like Monsters Inc or even Brave.
 
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.
There is nothing that feels original or interesting about that image. It feels like the same cheesy kids story that's been done to death.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Miriam Margoyles
It's sad how Pixar has declined in quality. Their work used to stand out and recognizable. Like Monsters Inc or even Brave.
The proliferation of cheap TV animation which comes from canned animation computer programs that are deliberately aping the Pixar style probably robbed it of a lot of it's style..... but that wasn't their fault.

There's a reason why AI programs can easily create convincing lookin fake Pixar characters......
 
I m not the biggest fan of video essays and this faggot pads it but makes an interesting point

TLDR sony animation has the ability to eat disneys lunch
I don't think that's such a hot take. For years Pixar completely mogged anything DreamWorks did (basically 2000-2010). Even DreamWorks' best stuff during that era (Shrek 2, for instance) just didn't stack up. Nowadays that just isn't true anymore, and it's not because DreamWorks got much better (they did, at least marginally) but Pixar got that much worse.
 
A friend of mine tried to drag me to this dreck and I that I had no interest in seeing it after watching the original teaser trailer (where Elio was more of scared little mama’s boy if his dialogue there is any indication) and the current trailers that paint him as some super-special autismo who can do no wrong.

Funnily enough the Glorp cup is a souvenir cup you can buy at AMC theaters.
View attachment 7559416 View attachment 7559420
The first pic is from the AMC app, the second is one I yoinked from Twitter.
And yes, I’m a sucker when it comes to these kinds of tie-ins so I’m tempted to get this at some point in time if I ever got to the theaters this week.
25 bucks for THIS? The anal prolapse dune bucket at least had some artististry put into it. This is just a squigly straw in a plastic jar for 25 fucking bucks.
Thumbelina (1994
What's wrong with Thumbelina?
I used to joke with people about Richard Williams and The Thief and the Cobbler. If you've ever wondered how someone could work on something for a quarter of their life and not finish it, consider the fact the madman animated every single individual card in a deck for a sequence that lasts roughly 10 seconds.

He achieved his fluidity by animating by 1s, meaning having a drawing for every frame of animation, resulting in 24 drawings per second of animation. In other words, he drew 240 individual shots to animate 10 seconds.

View attachment 7544219
Tbh, there's good animation and then there's self indulgent animation. Him doing the hand gesture where the rings glow is entirely superfluous, doesn't really add much to the scene and seems more like the director flexing over what he can do at the expense of probably 500 manhours worth of work.

Part of the craft is knowing what to cut and what to keep and what to not even start working on in the first place.

Its the same thing as bethesda putting 70.000 polygons for the sandwich model. Like ok, who are you flexing on? Would the final experience have been significantly improved if it was 140.000 polygons? Does the experience exponentially improve the more polygons/frames you put into the model/animation?

Like don't get me wrong obviously its pretty looking, but is it 30+ years worth of pretty looking? Ehhh...
 
Last edited:
How hard is to understand for these entertainment orgs that the rise of adblockers, the lack of television channel viewership (less ads), and many different options for entertainment that aren't movies, all culminate in an ever-decreasing market share?

Is it just me? How is it this much of a shock to these studios that they get less viewership every year? I'd never heard of this movie, or 'Elemental'. Fuck I didn't know they made a Shrek 3 let alone a Shrek 5.
 
The proliferation of cheap TV animation which comes from canned animation computer programs that are deliberately aping the Pixar style probably robbed it of a lot of it's style..... but that wasn't their fault.

There's a reason why AI programs can easily create convincing lookin fake Pixar characters......

There used to be a consistent Pixar animation style, humans were more "realistic" looking with every film until they started to hit the start of the uncanny valley, then in The Incredibles started working with more exaggerated character types. But even that style got lost over time and as a result Elio doesn't look like much of anything.

As DreamWorks and Disney began to make their own fully CGI-animated films, it was the unique concepts and great writing of Pixar films that really were the flagship of the company, and the concepts were far deeper--for example, The Incredibles wasn't JUST about a "family of superheroes", it was about a family with real problems and a man deeply dissatisfied with his life. The ironic thing is that despite its use in a meme and upbeat theme, "Life's Incredible Again", Bob is effectively living a lie and everyone else's problems remain unresolved.

WALL-E didn't need to tell you that polluting the Earth was bad because it was basically a wasteland with towers of garbage, and in the end, it didn't even matter what Buy n Large and its CEO Shelby Forthright did, or didn't do. You could argue that they were the ones that destroyed the Earth and then more-or-less secretly cancelled Operation Clean-Up, all while being the usual totalitarian megacorp that pervades more cynical works, yet in the end, humanity does return to Earth--Buy n Large and everything it did is simply in the past.

In Up Carl clearly had his own problems (the part where his neighborhood has fully been gentrified by bughives is played for laughs but would 100% suck in reality--both seeing where you grew up systemically dismantled and populated by vermin), but there was more that was implied as well, with Russell living in particular. He lived with his aunt (or something I can't remember--"you call your mom by her first name?" / "She's not my mom") and it wouldn't be a stretch to assume he was bullied in school.

What Pixar did well before starting to fall off (which could be argued actually started with Up and Toy Story 3 as opposed to afterward) was writing to surprise audiences with themes and outcomes. Disney took the wrong lesson (and later spread that to Pixar) and became "what if we pulled the rug out from the audience in the third act and showed who the REAL villain was". And that was their modus operandi for years. Wreck-It Ralph did this with King Candy turning out to be Turbo. It was interesting when Who Framed Roger Rabbit did it with Judge Doom. It was plausible that Judge Doom was just a murderous human supremacist living in Toontown, but his mannerisms and the fact that he is a native of Toontown hides the fact that he was a toon himself, but it wasn't with Wreck-It Ralph, King Candy could've been a corruption himself without actually being Turbo (the fact that I read Kid Radd shortly before watching the movie didn't help my opinions of it being too derivative). It happened in Frozen, even if it was predictable that the dashing prince (and not the scheming minister) would turn out to be the real villain. Then again in Big Hero 6 where one character outright blames the CEO character as the bad guy and not the kindly academic advisor thought to be dead (though if they REALLY wanted to fuck with the audience, it would've been his brother Tadashi, also believed to have been dead).

I'm going to leave this infographic here that I got from /tv/ some time ago, and checking off how many rules are broken is a good way to tell how deep the decline is in Pixar canon.

1695356997462371.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:
View attachment 7541984
Maybe this is just my peeve but I hate this artstyle and I can't wait until it permanently goes away.
I've seen it described as the "Grubhub ad" style
GrubHub.webp
 
I'm going to leave this infographic here that I got from /tv/ some time ago, and checking off how many rules are broken is a good way to tell how deep the decline is in Pixar canon.
I object to rule 21.

It actually is more or less enough for characters to just be "cool" nowadays. Autism and social media allow for it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GunCar Gary
"Awww daddy, that kid has an eye patch, that's so cool!"

"Yeah he does sport!"

"So cool! He must be a pirate! Or he lost it space adventuring! Or he was in a bar fight and someone pulled out a gun!"

"Actually Timmy, you'll find this brave young chap has a rare eye condition called Amblyopia..."
Actually not in the movie. He injures it and it becomes a plot point because an alien takes his form but doesn't replicate the hidden eye.

Source: I have kids and limited options for movies.
 
I object to rule 21.

It actually is more or less enough for characters to just be "cool" nowadays. Autism and social media allow for it.
These rules were probably written between 1998 and 2008. There's a fine line between writing a flawed but relatable character versus a Mary Sue versus a massive dork.

The thing about what Pixar movies can do that others generally didn't is that the characters didn't compromise on who they were. Cars had a major difference from its claimed clone Doc Hollywood is that at the end of the day Lightning McQueen lived in the big city and did races. Woody ultimately remained the leader of Andy's toys, who remained loyal to him (though they DID question him in Toy Story 3). The fact that Bob still tried to play hero in The Incredibles wasn't wrong in itself, but rather the fact that he was lying to his family and being a poor father, while playing off superhero tropes.

In other works it's the hero who is the malleable one (DreamWorks has lots of examples but one example of a non-Pixar film is Missing Link, where the hero has a predictable line about "it's what others can teach us" and rejects what he always wanted, to join the high society club he always wanted) while the villain is bad because he didn't change. The villains in Pixar's films are often who they are because they changed their mind about something--Hopper's decision to go back just to prove a point, Charles Muntz had long since lost his desire to go home and clear his name, and Syndrome's abandoning the idea of heroics for revenge and power.
 
Wreck-It Ralph did this with King Candy turning out to be Turbo. It was interesting when Who Framed Roger Rabbit did it with Judge Doom. It was plausible that Judge Doom was just a murderous human supremacist living in Toontown, but his mannerisms and the fact that he is a native of Toontown hides the fact that he was a toon himself, but it wasn't with Wreck-It Ralph, King Candy could've been a corruption himself without actually being Turbo
King Candy could've been corrupted, sure, however, I think what helps to sell Turbo's twist is that other characters reacted with the audience at the reveal. Everyone who knew about Turbo thought he was gone (Ralph and Felix in this case, but if other older characters were there too, they'd have the same reaction), and Vanellope didn't know who he was naturally because her game got plugged in long after his was unplugged, and Sour Bill was the only other character who knew it was actually possible to get into the system to just code yourself into another game. (What I am curious about is how did Turbo find this out? This was never explained as far as I can recall, and no one said they ever saw him homeless in Game Central Station.)

The Judge Doom comparison also works because of Eddie's reaction on top of the other subtle hints throughout the movie, though it's stronger because there was a personal connection between them. And then there's Mr. Waternoose where Mike and Sully are horrified the CEO of their company was a monster, Woody, Jessie and Bullseye astonished that the Prospector would play with their emotions, Mr. Incredible shocked that Syndrome was Buddy, Carl upset and hurt that his hero was bad all along... Actually, it's interesting just how personal many of these villains actually were to the protagonists, it made the effect it had on their struggles more worthwhile.

The other twist villains didn't really have that where other characters went "Yooooo wtf this changes/explains everything?", they just kinda brushed it off and dealt with it like they were always opposing them. Where are the in-universe reactions, man? Even Anna had a "Holy fuck!" moment, but she just kinda forgot about it afterwards.
 
I see they are still using the same excuses about it being everything else but them and what they are making.. While other movies blow past their numbers.

Yet the next movie will still be a woke cal-arts abomination again. They've shown a few times over now that it's not doubling down so much as just what they are going to do no matter what. It's not their money and the big investor cartels/markets won't force the issue because of fear of powerless woke tantrums. Always remember that they "can't possibly" stop the propaganda.


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.

You make it sound like it is 100% unintentional. I'd say 50/50 inability and intent.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pedophobe
Back