Disney had a rough weekend at the box office. Their latest animated film Wish dropped to third place behind Napoleon and the Hunger Games prequel. Wish was only predicted to do modestly well over the holiday weekend but was still expected to come in first.

“Wish,” the studio’s newest animated adventure, was projected to land on top of box office charts over the Thanksgiving holiday. Instead, ticket sales fell short of expectations with a weak $19.5 million over the traditional weekend and $31.7 million over the five days, and the film tumbled to third place behind Lionsgate’s “The Hunger Games” prequel “The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes” and Ridley Scott’s historical epic “Napoleon.”

Heading into the weekend, the musical fable “Wish” was projected to earn $35 million over the traditional weekend and $45 million to $50 million in its first five days of release…

“Wish” also added $17.3 million at the international box office, opening in just 27 markets (about 40% of its eventual overseas footprint), bringing its global tally to $49 million. The film’s anemic initial turnout further illuminates that magic has been in short supply at Disney, a once untouchable force at the box office. Most of the studio’s 2023 slate, excluding “Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3,” has dramatically underperformed in their theatrical runs.

This was a $200 million animated film and worldwide it has only made about $50 million on a five day opening weekend. That’s bad news because a) Disney only gets a portion of the $50 million, the rest of which goes to theaters and b) the $200 million production budget does not include the cost of advertising and promotion which was probably another $50 million. In short, the only chance this movie has of breaking even is that it has a long run which picks up business over Christmas.

But it probably doesn’t help that reviewers were not very kind to Wish. Rotten Tomatoes has it at 50% among critics, though it does do better (80%) among audiences. Still, one of the things many of the top critics touch upon is how cynical and manufactured the film feels.

it’s all so heavily processed, almost like an A.I. version of a Disney animated movie designed to make not more wishes but more sellable items and experiences. Yes, the machine that is Disney has felt increasingly manufactured in the 2020s—and the truth is that when they go off-book with projects like “Strange World,” the families don’t show up—but this one has an almost cynical cash grab air to it. Magnifico’s evil color palette is green, as if the creators are portraying not just politicians but money-focused leaders as the enemy, which is rich coming from a company that is more of an industry than an artistic venture lately.

And that’s what’s disheartening about “Wish.” I’m old enough to have seen several cycles of Disney success and failure—old enough to remember when “The Little Mermaid” was a comeback for the company—and so I’ve seen how the animated canon for this industry giant has shifted and changed. The good stuff comes from within artistic ventures, not from focus-grouped nostalgia. I also love the joy in my kids when they see a Disney movie that really moves them—for the record, my youngest (10) dug this one, my middle (12) was mixed, and my eldest (14) said he almost forgot it before he got home—but the best animated films will always come from a less hollow place than “Wish.” This wish feels like it didn’t fall from the sky but was crafted by a producers’ room with an eye for the highest profit margin. It leaves one wishing for something that feels human and true.

There’s also another angle here that some of the reviewers picked up on. Is the villain in this film supposed to be God?

Disney’s latest animated effort goes full Carl “We Are Star Stuff” Sagan and takes aim at the Judeo-Christian God. Except here, he’s the allegedly benevolent king Magnifico…

Good thing there’s a plucky (and adorably awkward) young gal named Asha who has the moxie to reject the whole “Surrender your will to Providence” thing, turn to the Disney theme song, and wish upon a star. Or rather, wish upon ye olde Power of the Human Spirit — because as the singing animals tell us, the reason we keep looking to the stars is because that’s what we are.

The NY Times review caught this angle as well.

Oddly — and rather fascinatingly — this is a film about a spiritual revolution. Can Asha, a humanist, convince the islanders to reject the man in the embroidered robe who preaches that he alone is a conduit for miracles?

That does seem like it’s built into the plot here. Maybe that’s one reason the film didn’t appeal to parents? Coming on the heels of another disappointment with The Marvels, Disney might want to go back to the drawing board. The Marvels looks like it may not make $100 million domestically before it leaves theaters.

On a global scale, The Marvels has accumulated an estimated $187.1 million by the conclusion of its third weekend, with $76.9 million from the domestic box office and $110.2 million from international markets. Internationally, the film experienced a -60% hold in its third weekend, securing $7.9 million in revenue…

The production cost of The Marvels reportedly exceeded $250 million. To cover its expenses, the film needs to make $700 million worldwide, a goal which simply is not going to be met based on the combination of its underwhelming performance and mixed reviews. Directed by Nia DaCosta, the movie currently holds a marginal “fresh” rating of 62% on the review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

Maybe Disney should have wished upon a star for better stories to tell.

Update: Jonathan Turley notices something in Disney’s annual SEC report.

In recent filings, Disney appears concerned that the “invisible hand” of Adam Smith is effectively giving the “House of Mouse” the middle finger. In a new corporate disclosure, Disney acknowledges that its controversial political and social agenda is costing the company and shareholders.

In its annual SEC report, Disney acknowledges that “we face risks relating to misalignment with public and consumer tastes and preferences for entertainment, travel and consumer products.” In an implied nod to Smith, the company observes that “the success of our businesses depends on our ability to consistently create compelling content,” and that “Generally, our revenues and profitability are adversely impacted when our entertainment offerings and products, as well as our methods to make our offerings and products available to consumers, do not achieve sufficient consumer acceptance. Further, consumers’ perceptions of our position on matters of public interest, including our efforts to achieve certain of our environmental and social goals, often differ widely and present risks to our reputation and brands.”

In other words, maybe picking political (or religious) fights with potential customers isn’t helping the brand.