BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
I see. My apologies. I don't plan on seeing the film so I'll keep myself out of the discussion.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
I see. My apologies. I don't plan on seeing the film so I'll keep myself out of the discussion.
What original film has made blockbuster money this year
Californian Elitist
Well-Known Member
And yet some are taking this beyond this specific box office. And other topics, such as race.
I sg
I agree the budgets are out of control, but some of Little Mermaid over budget was not entirely Disney’s fault… some of it was covid related
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
what is the highest grossing film of all time?
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
M3GAN
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
I see, that seemed strange. So basically more "stop being so negative!"
I did not mean ever… I am talking within the last few years…I wish it was not true…I go to the theater every weak seeing all types of films from small independent to tentpole blockbusters….I see original movies all the time that deserve more money, but the biggest movie of the year is one that was nothing but member berries… this was not always the case
Tha Realest
Well-Known Member
You really think Villenueve’s Dune is a “remake” of Lynch’s Dune in the same way the live-action version relates to the animated film?
Or that the MCU’s PG-13 Blade film is going to be a “remake” of the hard-R Wesley Snipes original?
I think you’re conflating “remake” with “reboot.” These Disney live action films essentially treat the animated films as storyboards.
Sir_Cliff
Well-Known Member
The $1 billion figure seems a bit arbitrary, but I don't think it was unreasonable to think it could make that given that these remakes have tended to rake in similar amounts regardless of reviews.
One thing that occurs to me with the domestic box office is that it at least proves an obviously Disney-branded film can still make a lot of money at the box office in the era of Disney+. That has really been an open question as they kept either dumping things directly onto Disney+ or, for example in the case of Encanto, moving so quickly from cinemas to streaming that it's hard to imagine why anyone with Disney+ wouldn't just wait. Lightyear and Strange World bombed, but they were by all accounts average films at best. This was an obvious blockbuster, and at least so far it's doing blockbuster numbers at the US box office which has to be a positive sign for Disney.
I kind of feel they need to re-train their audience to go back to the cinema and not just wait for everything to go to streaming, and hopefully this is a step in that direction.
One thing that occurs to me with the domestic box office is that it at least proves an obviously Disney-branded film can still make a lot of money at the box office in the era of Disney+. That has really been an open question as they kept either dumping things directly onto Disney+ or, for example in the case of Encanto, moving so quickly from cinemas to streaming that it's hard to imagine why anyone with Disney+ wouldn't just wait. Lightyear and Strange World bombed, but they were by all accounts average films at best. This was an obvious blockbuster, and at least so far it's doing blockbuster numbers at the US box office which has to be a positive sign for Disney.
I kind of feel they need to re-train their audience to go back to the cinema and not just wait for everything to go to streaming, and hopefully this is a step in that direction.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
Philosophical that is fine but the only reason this particular movie exists is to make the studio money. It wasn’t green lit because of some creative motivation to bring an idea into existence and please audiences.
A lot of Disney films don't have to make a profit in the theatrical window to be financially successful. There are other pay windows and merch. There is burnishing the brand with popularity among minority segments. There are synergy opportunities in the parks.
Just coming near break-even, even if it's on the loss side of the equation is enough to make the film financially successful sometimes.
Of course, it loses the prestige of being profitable at the Box Office. But there are plenty of Disney films that didn't profit in the theatrical window but made up for it in other pay windows and in the parks and in burnishing the brand.
And yes, there are films that just lost money and no second market appeal made up for it. But Disney is uniquely suited for squeezing post-theatrical assets out of their films.
Tangled had a $90M deficit at the Box Office.
When does advertising become 'propaganda'? What's the difference between the two?
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
The movie will be a win in the US. It may not make as much as Aladdin, but it will come relatively close. Sure, it missed the century mark for the 3-day opening and will miss $120m for the 4-day, but it should have decent holds and good mid-week numbers and end up in the $320-$330 million range. Not too shabby.
Unless people REALLY have a pulse over the mentality in Asian nations toward this movie, I don't think that anyone could have predicted what is happening to its box office there. But let's see what happens when it opens in Japan, the most accepting nation for American movies.
As for budget and profit-meh-that's a studio's concern. Most people just look at movies and their raw numbers. If a movie makes $40 million at the box office but has a good profit, people will still see just $40 million and judge that. If a movie makes $800 million and barely or doesn't make a profit, almost everyone will just look at that $800 million and say WOW.
Unless people REALLY have a pulse over the mentality in Asian nations toward this movie, I don't think that anyone could have predicted what is happening to its box office there. But let's see what happens when it opens in Japan, the most accepting nation for American movies.
As for budget and profit-meh-that's a studio's concern. Most people just look at movies and their raw numbers. If a movie makes $40 million at the box office but has a good profit, people will still see just $40 million and judge that. If a movie makes $800 million and barely or doesn't make a profit, almost everyone will just look at that $800 million and say WOW.
CaptainAmerica
Premium Member
Marketing: "This movie is good. You should come see this movie."
Propaganda: "This movie is *critically important* and will change the world. This movie will single-handedly save an entire generation of girls from a lifetime of self-hatred and depression. Anyone who doesn't like this movie is a review-bomber."
Tony the Tigger
Well-Known Member
It’s the number one movie by a lot. Can’t call it a flop.
“Woke Disney” aka mainstream USA: 1.
People who can’t handle black Ariel: 0.
“Woke Disney” aka mainstream USA: 1.
People who can’t handle black Ariel: 0.
I've not seen your second sentence in action anywhere. We must run in different circles.
Review bombing is indeed happening since several movie sites are saying its happening. But I've not seen anyone say that *anyone* who doesn't like this movie is a review bomber.
It's okay to not like it. It doesn't make you a review bomber. Unless, you know, you give it a bad review without having seen it. Which we have seen in this thread happen sadly too often.
Disney's thin margins on tentpole films are indeed exacerbated by ballooning budgets.
But, as I've mentioned above, Disney gets more out of their films post-theatrically than most other studios can.
Also, the $250M budget for this film isn't unprecedented:
Maleficent
Beauty and the Beast
Lion King
*Using the "rule of thumb"
But, as I've mentioned above, Disney gets more out of their films post-theatrically than most other studios can.
Also, the $250M budget for this film isn't unprecedented:
Maleficent
- Budget: $230M
- BO: $759M
- Profit*: $34
Beauty and the Beast
- Budget: $250M
- BO: $1,265M
- Profit*: $257M
Lion King
- Budget: $260M
- BO: $1,657M
- Profit*: $439M
*Using the "rule of thumb"
doctornick
Well-Known Member
I think the point that Disney needs to get budgets under control is straightforward and obvious. There’s no reason why a film like this couldn’t be made for (say) a $150 million. Other studios are able to make comparable films for far less and it’s something Disney should strive for and will help to ensure profitability in a time of more variable box office.
Also cheaper budgets will allow for more overall films to be developed which increases the chances for a breakout hit to occur and really make big bucks.
Edit: lower budgets need to be occurring across the spectrum with Disney, not just with these live action remakes. Also animated films, MCU films, etc.
Also cheaper budgets will allow for more overall films to be developed which increases the chances for a breakout hit to occur and really make big bucks.
Edit: lower budgets need to be occurring across the spectrum with Disney, not just with these live action remakes. Also animated films, MCU films, etc.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Haters are using "budget" to determine whether the movie is a success or not overall. That's a studio's concern. The rest are just numbers to the normal person.
The movie is a success in the US unless it completely bottoms out starting next weekend (or really during this week). Scott Mendelson is a @#$% who hates anything Disney touches.
And yes, the movie is a complete failure in Asian markets. But that has been beaten like a dead horse. No sense in discussing it unless people REALLY want to discuss it. But that opens a whole new can of worms best left for PM/IM's.
The movie is a success in the US unless it completely bottoms out starting next weekend (or really during this week). Scott Mendelson is a @#$% who hates anything Disney touches.
And yes, the movie is a complete failure in Asian markets. But that has been beaten like a dead horse. No sense in discussing it unless people REALLY want to discuss it. But that opens a whole new can of worms best left for PM/IM's.