Entertainment
Pixar had its worst opening weekend ever with 'Elio.' What happened?
Aliens may have embraced Elio, but earthbound audiences did not, marking the lowest opening weekend ever for a Pixar film and highlighting the challenges for original animated movies.
“Elio” hauled in $21 million at the box office in the U.S. and Canada through Sunday, according to studio estimates, falling short of Walt Disney Co.-owned Pixar’s previous lowest domestic opening, 2023’s “Elemental,” which made $29.6 million in its debut. (1995’s “Toy Story” had a domestic opening weekend total of $29.1 million, not adjusted for inflation, though it was released ahead of Thanksgiving weekend and reached $39 million over that five-day period.)
The family-friendly film, which centers on an alien-loving boy who longs for a community that understands him, came in third at the box office behind Universal Pictures’ live-action remake “How to Train Your Dragon,” which maintained its grip on theaters, and Sony Pictures’ Danny Boyle-directed horror franchise revival “28 Years Later.”
“Elio” had strong reviews (84% “fresh” on Rotten Tomatoes), but its soft opening underscores the postpandemic difficulty that original animated films have faced in attracting audiences, analysts said. The movie’s performance could also have been hurt by its timing — the film was up against “How to Train Your Dragon” and the long tail of Disney live-action remake “Lilo & Stitch.”
“It feels to me that it’s a good movie that got lost in the shuffle,” said Eric Handler, media and entertainment analyst at Roth Capital. For families, he said, “there’s only so many summer weekends a year, and you have to pick and choose which movies you do. ‘Elio’ just got squeezed out.”
Marketing may also have played a factor, with analysts noting that audiences may have been unfamiliar with the title, a critical issue especially for an original film with new characters. People grew up with Sonic the Hedgehog long before he got his own movie. A fresh story is a tougher sell with so many entertainment options out there.
Disney said in a statement that it was encouraged by the movie’s audience and critics’ review scores and hopeful “Elio” would be discovered by families and moviegoers throughout the summer, similar to what happened with “Elemental.” Despite a disappointing opening-weekend haul, “Elemental” went on to gross $496 million worldwide, propelled by word-of-mouth reviews.
The company also said it would continue to take swings on original animated intellectual property so it wasn’t reliant only on sequels and existing franchises. Pixar plans to release another original animated film next year called “Hoppers,” about technology that helps humans and animals communicate, followed by a 2027 original film called “Gatto.” It also plans to release “Toy Story 5” next year.
While originals have had a harder time at the box office, animated sequels or films based on existing intellectual property have proved consistent hits. Films like Pixar’s “Inside Out 2,” Disney’s “Moana 2” and Universal’s “Super Mario Bros. Movie” each grossed more than a billion dollars in worldwide box office revenue, with Universal and Illumination Entertainment’s “Despicable Me 4” hauling in $969 million.
By contrast, Universal’s 2023 original animated film “Migration” brought in $300 million worldwide. Even the critically acclaimed DreamWorks Animation title “The Wild Robot,” which is based on a 2016 children’s book, grossed $333 million.
But industry insiders and analysts have said that focusing solely on sequels and reboots risks making the animation business stale and that fresh stories are necessary for the health of the industry.
“We should celebrate when studios and production companies like Pixar and Disney take their best shot, create a really great movie — an original film — and with everyone decrying the lack of originality out there, at least they went for it,” said Paul Dergarabedian, senior media analyst at Comscore. “It will certainly be a big winner on Disney+. But there’s no sugarcoating the fact that this was an incredibly low opening weekend for a Pixar movie.”
Pixar’s track record with original animated films was nearly flawless for decades, with the occasional miss such as 2015’s “The Good Dinosaur.”
But the box office reception for its latest original films have been muted, largely because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Pixar sent three of its original films — 2020’s “Soul,” 2021’s “Luca” and 2022”s “Turning Red” — straight to Disney+ to give families something to watch during the stay-at-home orders. But as the pandemic waned, families were some of the last to return to theaters as they got used to the ease of watching animated movies at home and were concerned about the health implications of enclosed spaces.
The reported budget for “Elio” was between $150 million and $200 million, which compounds the opening-weekend problems for Pixar. That number doesn’t include the tens of millions of dollars that go into a global marketing campaign. Studios split box office revenue with theaters.
Disney has said animation budgets are higher for Pixar and Walt Disney Animation Studios films because the work is done in the U.S., as opposed to outsourcing overseas where the work is cheaper.
The low opening weekend may not be the end for “Elio,” even if “Elemental”-esque box office longevity is not in its future. The fact that “Elio” had a theatrical release bodes well for its eventual debut on the Disney+ streaming platform since it will benefit from the additional marketing, Dergarabedian said. And “Elio” could be incorporated into Disney merchandise and theme park events, which could boost its visibility.
“Disney’s big enough and broad enough,” he said. “‘Elio’ will be a well-received film that’s absorbed into the Disney ecosystem.”
Movie Reviews
Movie Review: ‘Agon’ is a Somber Meditation on the Athletic Grind
Entertainment
Bob Spitz proves the Rolling Stones are rock’s greatest band in magnificent new biography
By early 1963, the Station Hotel in London had become an epicenter of the burgeoning British blues scene. On a blustery, snowy night that February, the Rolling Stones’ classic early lineup took the stage for one of the first times, dazzling the audience with ferocious renditions of blues standards like Muddy Waters’ “I Want to Be Loved” and Jimmy Reed’s “Bright Lights, Big City.”
Multi-instrumentalist Brian Jones, the band’s founder and leader, synchronized guitars with Keith Richards, who favored a distinctive slashing and stinging style. Drummer Charlie Watts, the group’s newest member, a jazz aficionado and an accomplished percussionist, propelled the music forward with a rock-solid beat.
Anchoring the rhythm section with him was bassist Bill Wyman, who was recruited more for his spare VOX AC30 amp that the guitarists could plug into than for his musical skills. The stoic bassist proved a strong and innovative player. Together, he and Watts would go on to form one of rock’s most decorated rhythm sections.
Ian Stewart’s energetic boogie-woogie piano style rounded out the sound. Months later, manager Andrew Loog Oldham kicked him out of the band for being “ugly,” although Stewart continued to record, tour and serve as the band’s road manager until his death in 1985.
This April 8, 1964, file photo shows the Rolling Stones during a rehearsal. The members, from left, are Brian Jones, guitar; Bill Wyman, bass; Charlie Watts, drums; Mick Jagger, vocals; and Keith Richards, guitar.
(Associated Press)
Fronting the group was Mick Jagger. Channeling the music like a crazed shaman, Jagger shimmied and sashayed, owning the stage like few lead singers have before or since. By the end of the night, the Stones had the crowd in a frenzy. Although only 30 people had made it to the gig because of the treacherous weather conditions, the hotel’s booker had seen enough: He offered the Stones a regular gig.
“The Rolling Stones had caught fire. The music they were playing and the way they played it struck a chord with a young crowd starved for something different, something their own… It was soul-stirring, loud and uncompromising,” writes Bob Spitz in “The Rolling Stones: The Biography,” his magisterial work that charts the 60-year journey of “the greatest rock and roll band in the world.”
Spitz, the author of strong biographies on the Beatles and Led Zeppelin, as well as Ronald Reagan and Julia Child, captures the drama, trauma and betrayals that have kept the Stones in the public’s consciousness for more than six decades. It’s all here: The Stones’ evolution from a blues cover band to artistic rival of the Beatles; the musical peaks — “Aftermath,” “Let It Bleed” and “Exile on Main Street” as well as misfires like “Dirty Work”; Keith’s descent into a debilitating heroin addiction that nearly destroyed him and the band; the death of the ‘60s at the ill-fated Altamont free concert; Marianne Faithfull, Anita Pallenberg, Bianca Jagger, Jerry Hall and other lovers, partners and muses; the breakups, makeups and crackups; and perhaps most important, the unbreakable bond between Jagger and Richards at the center of it all.
Although Spitz unearths little new information, he excels at presenting the Stones in glorious Technicolor. Spitz homes in on the telling details and anecdotes that give the band’s story a deep richness and poignancy.
Take “Satisfaction,” the Stones’ 1965 classic and first U.S. chart topper. The oft-told story is that Richards woke up in the middle of the night, grabbed the guitar that was next to his bed, and recorded the iconic riff and the phrase “I can’t get no … satisfaction” on a cassette recorder in his Clearwater, Fla., hotel room before falling back asleep. But as Spitz notes, the song initially went nowhere in the studio. That is until Stewart purchased a fuzz box for Richards a few days later, which gave the tune a raunchier sound that perfectly matched Jagger’s lyrics of frustration and alienation. A classic was born.
Piercing the Stones mythology
Spitz’s deep reporting often pierces the mythology surrounding the band. Contrary to the popular belief of many fans, for instance, Jones bears much of the responsibility for the rift with his bandmates and his tragic demise.
The most musically adventurous member of the group — he plays sitar on “Paint It Black” and dulcimer on “Lady Jane” — Jones wasn’t a songwriter. That stoked his jealousies and insecurities, along with frontman Jagger stealing the spotlight from him. A monster of a man, Jones impregnated multiple teenage girls and physically and emotionally abused several women, including Pallenberg. Perhaps that’s why she left him for Richards. Over time, Jones made fewer contributions in the studio and onstage, becoming a catatonic drug casualty. The Stones fired Jones in June 1969 but would have been justified doing so a couple years earlier. He drowned in his pool less than a month later.
Author Bob Spitz
(Elena Seibert)
Similarly, Stones lore has long romanticized the making of “Exile on Main Street” in the stifling, dingy basement of Richards’ rented Villa Nellcôte in the South of France, where the Stones had decamped to avoid British taxes. In this telling, Richards, deep in the throes of heroin addiction, somehow managed to come up with one indelible riff after another built around his signature open G tuning — taught to him by Ry Cooder — leading the band to create one of the best albums in rock history. That’s not entirely accurate, according to Spitz.
Yes, Richards came up with the licks for “Rocks Off,” “Happy” and “Tumbling Dice.” But it’s equally true that a strung-out Richards missed myriad recording sessions, invited dealers, hangers-on and other distractions to Nellcôte, and repeatedly failed to turn up to write with Jagger. Far from completing the album in the druggy haze of a French basement, the band spent six months on overdubs at Sunset Sound in Los Angeles, where Jagger contributed many of his vocals.
Beatles vs. Stones
One of the more interesting themes Spitz develops is the symbiotic relationship between the Beatles and Stones, with the Fab Four mostly overshadowing them — until they didn’t.
John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote “I Wanna Be Your Man” and gave it to the Stones, whose 1963 rendition, with Jones on slide guitar, became the group’s first UK Top 20 hit. The Lennon-McCartney songwriting partnership inspired Jagger and Richards to begin penning their own songs. In early 1964, the Beatles came to the U.S. for the first time, making television history with their appearance on “The Ed Sullivan Show” and playing Carnegie Hall. A few months later, the Stones kicked off their inaugural American tour at the Swing Auditorium in San Bernardino. In 1967, the Beatles released “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band,” a psychedelic masterpiece. The Stones responded with “Their Satanic Majesties Request,” a psychedelic mess.
The Rolling Stones: The Biography cover
As the Beatles began to splinter, Spitz writes, the Stones sharpened their focus. The band released “Beggars Banquet” in late 1968 and “Let It Bleed” the following year, albums every bit as innovative and visionary as “The White Album” and “Abbey Road.” For the first time, the two groups stood as equals.
When the Beatles broke up in 1970, the Stones kept rolling. With Jones replaced by virtuoso guitarist Mick Taylor — whose fluid, melodic style served as a tasty foil to Richards — they produced what many consider their finest works, “Sticky Fingers” and “Exile on Main Street.” More impressively, the band, with Taylor’s successor, Ronnie Wood, has continued to dazzle audiences with incendiary live shows, touring as recently as 2024 behind the late-career triumph “Hackney Diamonds.” The Beatles, by contrast, retired from the road in 1966 and devoted their energies to the studio.
Hundreds of books have been written about the Rolling Stones, but few sparkle quite like Spitz’s. For anyone who loves or even likes the Stones, it’s indispensable.
Like most of the band’s biographers, Spitz gives short shrift to the post-“Exile” period after 1972. He curtly dismisses 2005’s strong “A Bigger Bang” and 2016’s “Blue & Lonesome,” a back-to-basics album of blues covers, as “adequate endeavors that signaled a band living on borrowed time.” That critique is both off target and under-developed. Spitz ignores the band’s legendary live album, “Brussels Affair,” recorded in 1973, or why the band waited decades before officially releasing it.
These are small quibbles. Spitz has written a book worthy of its 704-page length; another 50 or so pages covering the later years would have made it even stronger. To quote the Rolling Stones: “I know it’s only rock ‘n roll, but I like it, like it, yes, I do.”
Marc Ballon, a former Times, Forbes and Inc. Magazine reporter, teaches an advanced writing class at USC. He lives in Fullerton.
Movie Reviews
FILM REVIEW: ROSE OF NEVADA – Joyzine
‘4’, the opening track on Richard D James’ (Aphex Twin) self titled 1996 album is a piece of music that beautifully balances the chaotic with the serene, the oppressive and the freeing. It’s a trick that James has pulled off multiple times throughout his career and it is a huge part of what makes him such an iconic and influential artist. Many people have laid the “next Aphex Twin” label on musicians who do things slightly different and when you actually hear their music you realise that, once again, the label is flawed and applied with a lazy attitude. Why mention this? Well, it turns out we’ve been looking for James’ heir apparent in the wrong artform. We’ve so zoned in on music that we’ve not noticed that another Celtic son of Cornwall is rewriting an art form with that highwire balancing act between chaos and beauty. That artist is writer, director and composer Mark Jenkin who over his last two feature films has announced himself as an idiosyncratic voice who is creating his very own language within the world of cinema. Jenkin’s films are often centred around coastal towns or islands and whilst they are experimental or even unsettling, there is always a big heart at the centre of the narrative. A heart that cares about family, tradition, culture, and the pull of ‘home’. Even during the horror of 2022’s brilliant Enys Men you were anchored by the vulnerability and determination of its main protagonist.
This month sees the release of Jenkin’s latest feature film, Rose of Nevada, which is set in a fractured and diminished Cornish coastal town. One day the fishing boat of the film’s title arrives back in harbour after being missing for thirty years. The boat is unoccupied. And frankly that is all the information you are going to get because to discuss any more plot would be unfair on you and disrespectful to Jenkin and the team behind the film. You the viewer should be the one who decides what it is about because thematically there are so many wonderful threads to pull on. This writer’s opinions on what it is about have ranged from a theme of sacrifice for the good of a community to the conflict within when part of you wants to run away from your roots whilst the other half longs to stay and be a lifelong part of its tapestry. Is it about Brexit? Could be. Is it about our own relationships with time and our curation of memory? Could be. Is it about both the positives and negatives of nostalgia? Could be. As a side note, anyone in their mid-40s, like me, who came of age in the 1990s will certainly find moments of warm recognition. Is the film about ghosts and how they haunt families? Could be…I think you get the point.
The elements that make the film so well balanced between chaos and calm are many. It is there in the differing performances between the brilliant two lead actors George MacKay and Callum Turner. It is there in the sound design which fluctuates from being unbearably harsh and metallic, to lulling and warm. It is there in the editing where short, sharp close ups on seemingly unimportant factors are counterbalanced with shots that are held for just that little bit too long. For a film set around the sea, it is apt that it can make you feel like you’re rolling on a stomach churning storm one minute, or a calming low tide the next. Dialogue can be front and centre or blurred and buried under static. One shot is bathed in harsh sunlight whilst the next can be drowned in interior shadows.
Rose of Nevada is Mark Jenkin’s most ambitious film to date yet he has not lost a single iota of innovation, singularity of vision or his gift for telling the most human of stories. It is a film that will tell you different things each time you see it and whilst there are moments that can confuse or beguile, there is so much empathy and love that it can leave you crying tears of emotional understanding. It is chaotic. It is beautiful. It is life……
Rose of Nevada is released on the 24th April.
Mark Jenkin Instagram | Threads
Released through the BFI – Instagram | Facebook
Review by Simon Tucker
Keep up to date with all new content on Joyzine via our
Facebook | Bluesky | Instagram | Threads | Mailing List
Related
-
Georgia11 minutes agoGeorgia Tech salvages finale vs. North Carolina ahead of UGA matchup
-
Hawaii17 minutes agoHawaii Snorkel Tour Hits Rough Waters After Tourtist Allegedly Stabs Boat Captain | Oxygen
-
Idaho23 minutes ago
The Camas Prairie is Biblical Idaho
-
Illinois29 minutes agoHas Trump’s approval dropped in Illinois amid Pope Leo feud? See polls
-
Indiana35 minutes agoOp-ed: Healthy rural communities strengthen all of Indiana
-
Iowa41 minutes agoSen. Chuck Grassley shares he’s recovering from gallstone surgery
-
Kentucky53 minutes agoKentucky will get a visit from a forward with three-point upside
-
Louisiana59 minutes agoOfficials probing how Louisiana gunman who killed 8 children got the weapon