Current Events > Little Mermaid isn't a box office bomb anymore

(+) Yeah! (+)

Quezovercoatl posted...

"a movie needs to double it's budget"
"It did"
"Well it still needs to make more than that"
"How much"
"An amount more...some amount more...that's more than it made"

Double is generally considered to be the break even point. Studios want to make money, not break even.

FortuneCookie posted...

But... Disney went out of its way to equate species with race. Being a lion means being Black. If the audience can no longer relate to a woman who's half-fish because she's Black, how can they still identify with lions?

My brain hurts.

You do know Lion King takes place in Africa right?

Quezovercoatl posted...

That's nice but the budget wasn't 390 million. It's 250 million.

It had an additional $140 million for its marketing, in addition to god knows what they probably actually spent. Therefore the actual money tied up is not $250 million.

FortuneCookie posted...

If the audience can no longer relate to a woman who's half-fish because she's Black, how can they still identify with lions?

When characters are changed from their original works and people are upset, its hardly ever because they cant identify with them but because we as humans have attachments to characters. Time and time again we have seen people get upset about roles casting when race is removed from the equation and they just think they dont look like the canon (ex: Nathan Drake, Ellie Williams, Ashley Graham).

ViewtifulGrave posted...

What was woke about The Little Mermaid?

Nothing about the Little Mermaids story is inherently woke but race swapping Ariel is progressively motivated. In their mind they are helping diversify stories and acting roles. Though is this truly doing black people justice? I have heard it described as "getting sloppy seconds" because its seen as a lazy out. A lot of black voices say black people deserve original characters like Static Shock, Black Panther, Miles Morales, etc.

BurmesePenguin posted...

...what.

Look at the cast list. Everyone who voices a lion is Black. Meanwhile, the bird is voiced by Mr. Bean. That's an intentional equation. Being a lion means being Black.

boxoto posted...

iirc, it was more because it took place in Africa

The bird is also African.

I didn't realize we were talking about the nonsensical remake.

deoxxys posted...

When characters are changed from their original works and people are upset, its hardly ever because they cant identify with them but because we as humans have attachments to characters. Time and time again we have seen people get upset about roles casting when race is removed from the equation and they just think they dont look like the canon (ex: Nathan Drake, Ellie Williams, Ashley Graham).

A race change usually only matters if it alters a character's backstory or iconic appearance. Ariel still has red hair.

It's a musical made for little girls. Making Ariel this hot chick in a skimpy shell bikini was never in the cards. Halle Bailey is as pretty as this character was ever going to be in live action. It's not for us guys who developed a preference for redheads because they watched the original in class when they were six. And it's certainly not for the dudes who begrudge the absence of a scene where Ariel wiggles her toes like they're the greatest thing ever.

FortuneCookie posted...

The bird is also African.

true, but all of the lions were also related.

but to be real, I think if they felt like it shouldn't be just a "black" thing and cast only black actors. same with Black Panther.

Tropicalwood posted...

It had an additional $140 million for its marketing, in addition to god knows what they probably actually spent. Therefore the actual money tied up is not $250 million.

Can I get a source on that?

I also don't recall marketing budget being a part of the usual double the budget calculation?

deoxxys posted...

Nothing about the Little Mermaids story is inherently woke but race swapping Ariel is progressively motivated. In their mind they are helping diversify stories and acting roles.

Or perhaps she was just the best person there. Previously she had only been a cartoon.

Quezovercoatl posted...

Can I get a source on that?

I also don't recall marketing budget being a part of the usual double the budget calculation?

Just look at your own thread, it's the fourth post, then if you don't believe him use a search engine and pick your own source. Then you can also look up how much a theater will take (which I'll give you a hint, it's easier to say 50%)

The whole thing is simple math, if you're spending $390 million on a film all in, and you're collecting your box office at a rate of maybe 50% on average due to it being an international release. This means you'd need to make somewhere to the tune of $800 million.
If it was only $240 million it would be $500 million-ish to breakeven.

Okay, let's say it reached 800m, what will be the next arbitrary requirements to reach "successful" condition?
We haven't reached 625m but yhe goalpost already moved.

FortuneCookie posted...

Bambi is a strange movie. There's a tonal shift from cutesy and whimsical to serious as Bambi grows from child to adult. The second half is far better than the first half, but most people only remember the first half. It's not the kind of film that people are likely to revisit as adults and kids mentally and emotionally check out when....

Is it even a spoiler to say where the movie stops cold for most kids?

Yeah Bambi is an odd choice. It could be a good movie, but the beginning in "live action" is well questionable. I don't expect good reactions from kids, and I don't know how many parents would take young kids if the parents are aware of what is in that movie.

Ricemills posted...

Okay, let's say it reached 800m, what will be the next arbitrary requirements to reach "successful" condition?
We haven't reached 625m but yhe goalpost already moved.

That's up to Disney to design ultimately. We'll probably never know what they think behind closed doors. It's not like they've been doing live action sequels to their classics so we can't really gauge it on that. Best can be done is make inferences on how heavily they merchandise it. They've been fairly quick to bring stuff to D+ so I'm not sure that would be a good metric. We could infer the opposite if it was doing bangbusters but I don't know if they've kept any movies in theaters for long runs since D+ came out.

Unsuprised_Pika posted...

Oppurtunity cost is some shitty ass business bullshit.

No it's a pretty fucking basic and well understood economic theory.

Ricemills posted...

Okay, let's say it reached 800m, what will be the next arbitrary requirements to reach "successful" condition?
We haven't reached 625m but yhe goalpost already moved.

Nobody's moving goalposts. People just come in not understanding how much a movie needs to make to be considered profitable and successful. Barely breaking even isn't what businesses are going for, especially when they tie a lot of money into. For reference, Avengers Endgame made 7 times its budget. The first Avatar made 9 to 10 times its budget.

Serious_Cat posted...

Barely breaking even isn't what businesses are going for, especially when they tie a lot of money into. For reference, Avengers Endgame made 7 times its budget. The first Avatar made 9 to 10 times its budget.

Those are also literally the two most successful movies of all time and are not the standard expectation in any way.

Punished_Blinx posted...

Those are also literally the two most successful movies of all time and are not the standard expectation in any way.

They're also literally two of the most expensive movies ever made. Clerks made 162 times its budget back for example.

I feel like, yea, it's Disney, and they're known for big budget features, heavy marketing, and other expenses we're likely not aware of...but also due to reputation alone, they could get away with making low to mid budget movies, and still have more exposure than most studios

Serious_Cat posted...

Nobody's moving goalposts. People just come in not understanding how much a movie needs to make to be considered profitable and successful. Barely breaking even isn't what businesses are going for, especially when they tie a lot of money into. For reference, Avengers Endgame made 7 times its budget. The first Avatar made 9 to 10 times its budget.

I'd rather have a 250 million movie that makes 500 million 25 milion that makes 100 million.

Ricemills posted...

I'd rather have a 250 million movie that makes 500 million 25 milion that makes 100 million.

The $500 million movie would be considered breaking even at that point.

Serious_Cat posted...

The $500 million movie would be considered breaking even at that point.

For a serious cat, you seriously missed the point

Ricemills posted...

I'd rather have a 250 million movie that makes 500 million 25 milion that makes 100 million.

What?

Ricemills posted...

I'd rather have a 250 million movie that makes 500 million 25 milion that makes 100 million.

Then you don't want to make any profit, so you'd be fired by anyone who can do basic math.

spikethedevil posted...

What?

Forgot a single word
rather have a 250 million movie that makes 500 million THAN 25 milion that makes 100 million.

deoxxys posted...

Though is this truly doing black people justice?

Yes, representation matters and the only way to get representation normalized is to actually represent those communities.

To counter your own following anecdotes I've seen plenty of black children hyped for Bailey's Ariel because "she looks just like me".

If black adults are crying over "sloppy seconds" in regards to a children's Disney movie, then honestly that's just sad and they should reevaluate their life cause the movie isn't even made for them.

Just a reminder it was only a decade ago that Disney released The Lone Ranger in theatres. Similar budget to TLM and made half the money.

So it's really not all that bad.

Ricemills posted...

Okay, let's say it reached 800m, what will be the next arbitrary requirements to reach "successful" condition?
We haven't reached 625m but yhe goalpost already moved.

Well let's be honest, it's not doing that.

It's also very concerning to think it would need to.

Serious_Cat posted...

They're also literally two of the most expensive movies ever made. Clerks made 162 times its budget back for example.

That's also a movie filmed for the cost of like, a camcorder and a Starbucks coffee that ended up a wildly successful mainstream hit so it's hardly a normal comparison either.

Tropicalwood posted...

The whole thing is simple math, if you're spending $390 million on a film all in

Is that a real figure you sourced somewhere or one you made up?

CanardElastique posted...

Is that a real figure you sourced somewhere or one you made up?

$250 million production budget plus $140 million marketing seems to be consensus.

Serious_Cat posted...

$250 million production budget plus $140 million marketing seems to be consensus.

What is the source on the marketing budget?

https://collider.com/the-little-mermaid-budget-breakdown/

The 2023 remake is estimated to have cost around $250 million to make and $140 million in global marketing spend, although Disney hasn't officially released the exact budget/cost of production.

Sine you're too lazy to google... it was literally the first link.

Thank you.

RISEofCHRISTIAN posted...

Its still a moral flop.

@RISEofCHRISTIAN it's a moral flop to say this and not elaborate when challenged on your broad generalities.

Come back!

DnDer posted...

@RISEofCHRISTIAN it's a moral flop to say this and not elaborate when challenged on your broad generalities.

Come back!

nobody wants him here

garan posted...

https://collider.com/the-little-mermaid-budget-breakdown/

Sine you're too lazy to google... it was literally the first link.

Thankfully, the film did break even. The Little Mermaid needed at least $500 million to be considered a success, and as of now, the film currently sits at $523.8 at the box office. The only question is how far it will go. Given that this is Disney's only big-budget PG film with a summer release, there is an add-on pressure to swim against other highly-anticipated blockbuster releases, such as Greta Gerwig's Barbie and Christopher Nolan's Oppenheimer. The film will likely conclude its run with $580-$600 million worldwide.

Overall did enough to make money but nothing amazing then.

I wish I could consider a gain of $500 million to be a modest success.

<_<

Heineken14 posted...

I think a moral flop is when you make a bet to give people money when your cult leader wins a presidential election and then flaking out on said bet when he doesn't.

Quezovercoatl posted...

"a movie needs to double it's budget"
"It did"
"Well it still needs to make more than that"
"How much"
"An amount more...some amount more...that's more than it made"

But yes I agree that budgets are too high and it wasn't a huge success; it being not a huge failure but underperforming still was part of the premise of the topic. That and movies needing to make way too much money not to underpreform thanks to ballooning budgets.

Its rediculous at current ticket prices, but something needs to be done.