Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Magenta Panther]

All the “this will lose money” and “what were they thinking” folks take note.

Likewise, take note:

‘Little Mermaid’ Swimming Against Strong Tides At Overseas Box Office, Leaving Break-Even In Question

In a rare situation for a Disney tentpole, particularly a live action title based on a treasured animated classic, 'The Little Mermaid' may lose money.

deadline.com

 

[LittleBuford]

Was going to mention the same thing. Super weird to me personally.

I sort of feel the same way I have to say.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

It's interesting that 2023 Ariel is combined with 1989 Flounder. I wonder what they'll do with the other characters.

…it’s almost like they are admitting they regret the “live action” fish in the live action remake?

The fish are creepy. Hadn’t thought about it…but a lot of the charm of the original was Sebastian, flounder, scuttle

 

[LittleBuford]

…it’s almost like they are admitting they regret the “live action” fish in the live action remake?

The fish are creepy. Hadn’t thought about it…but a lot of the charm of the original was Sebastian, flounder, scuttle

As I’ve mentioned before, I find the live-action Flounder really cute. I don’t necessarily feel the same about the other two, though.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

The rule of thumb is that marketing is half of budget, not twice as much.

And while the split between studio and theaters isn't 50% all the time, the 50% works as a rule of thumb. A studio may get 60% of the BO when the film opens, but over the weeks, that drops to below 50%. And studios get less than 50% internationally.

And that's why 50% is used *as a rule of thumb.*

We will never know the exact breakdown of marketing or theatrical split. So, what works *on average* is the rule of thumb to use. This means if a movie makes or loses about $10M, that's a break-even range.

It's what Deadline uses when they're not gullibly accepting a studios' specific spin (cf. Black Adam)

That means it has to gross $570 by that math…

It’s at $420 ish on day 18…
Never gonna make that.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

As I’ve mentioned before, I find the live-action Flounder really cute. I don’t necessarily feel the same about the other two, though.

The Sebastian looked creeps. The flounder was better.

We should poll the tiny fraction of people that saw it

 

[LSLS]

…it’s almost like they are admitting they regret the “live action” fish in the live action remake?

The fish are creepy. Hadn’t thought about it…but a lot of the charm of the original was Sebastian, flounder, scuttle

Could be part of it. I will say, go Google "Flounder Little Mermaid" and look at the image results. I never found an image that wasn't the animated version. Heck, I went and googled "flounder live action little mermaid" and STILL haven't found an image of what he looks like in the movie. All that to say I think there is just such a recognition of what the animated version looks like (and that could be in part cause the new versions are creepy). I'm just so lost on what the plans are here.

 

[Magenta Panther]

This show likely got greenlit before the movie premiered. That's how confident Iger was that the movie would make bank. It won't.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

The rule of thumb is that marketing is half of budget, not twice as much.

Nobody said that marketing was 2x the budget.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Nobody said that marketing was 2x the budget.

My apologies for misunderstanding.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

My apologies for misunderstanding.

The "double it" was.... in order to overcome the marketing cost, you need 2x the box office (because of the rough 50% theater split).

 

[Phroobar]

Could be part of it. I will say, go Google "Flounder Little Mermaid" and look at the image results. I never found an image that wasn't the animated version. Heck, I went and googled "flounder live action little mermaid" and STILL haven't found an image of what he looks like in the movie. All that to say I think there is just such a recognition of what the animated version looks like (and that could be in part cause the new versions are creepy). I'm just so lost on what the plans are here.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

That means it has to gross $570 by that math…

Where are you getting this from?

Production budget of $250 million.
Marketing budget of $150 million.
Total cost of $400 million.

Break-even is $800 million.

 

[LSLS]

Where are you getting this from?

Production budget of $250 million.
Marketing budget of $150 million.
Total cost of $400 million.

Break-even is $800 million.

Why would you double the marketing budget? I thought the rule was 2.5 times the production budget. Double the production budget to make up for making roughly half the take, and then the 0.5 is roughly how much marketing would cost. Since we have the marketing, it'd be just 2 times production plus the marketing, so $650 million.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This means if a movie makes or loses about $10M, that's a break-even range.

THIS IS THE PROBLEM - a loss of about 10 MILLION dollars is considered break-even - WOW!

Can I get a job in a company that stays in business who calls a 10 million dollar loss break-even please.

 

[erasure fan1]

THIS IS THE PROBLEM - a loss of about 10 MILLION dollars is considered break-even - WOW!

Can I get a job in a company that stays in business who calls a 10 million dollar loss break-even please.

I think he's talking more about our projections not what it actually is because it's too close to call. We don't have all the exact numbers. So if you're within a certain range, it's basically break even for our talking points.

With mermaid I've seen budgets from 80mil to well above 120mil. So unless Disney gives us exact numbers, and they never will, we have to give a best guess. So by my math the film cost $250mil and marketing about $100mil. That's $350mil total cost. They only average about 50% take home so that means it needs around $700 to break even.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

Why would you double the marketing budget? I thought the rule was 2.5 times the production budget.

We're not using any rules because we know the marketing number.

Double the production budget to make up for making roughly half the take, and then the 0.5 is roughly how much marketing would cost.

You're using the 0.5 incorrectly. 0.5 is because the exhibitors (i.e. the theaters) keep half of the box office money. It's not how much you need to cover marketing costs.

Since we have the marketing, it'd be just 2 times production plus the marketing, so $650 million.

Do your math in reverse and it's obvious why it doesn't work.

A box office of $650 million would return about $325 million to Disney. $325 million when you spent $400 million isn't breaking even.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

With mermaid I've seen budgets from 80mil to well above 120mil. So unless Disney gives us exact numbers, and they never will, we have to give a best guess. So by my math the film cost $250mil and marketing about $100mil. That's $350mil total cost. They only average about 50% take home so that means it needs around $700 to break even.

This is the correct logic and math, but Deadline put the marketing budget at $150.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I think he's talking more about our projections not what it actually is because it's too close to call. We don't have all the exact numbers. So if you're within a certain range, it's basically break even for our talking points.

Too bad talking points don't pay the rent.

 

[MisterPenguin]

THIS IS THE PROBLEM - a loss of about 10 MILLION dollars is considered break-even - WOW!

Can I get a job in a company that stays in business who calls a 10 million dollar loss break-even please.

You misread.

The math is not exact. The margin for error from the 'guesstimates' can swing by about $20M for big budget movies.

If the profit is $100 from the 'rule of thumb' it might be actually anywhere from $80 to $120M.

That is why a loss/profit is anywhere from -/+ $10M.

IOW when we say a movie profited $10M... that's not a hard number. It's the middle of a range. A range that is not revealed by the studios. So, we use a 'rule of thumb' for a 'good guess.'