Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Jedijax719]

LOL-if @Sirwalterraleigh 's answer to Disney's "issues" is to cast Taylor Swift in the role of Ariel, I think we have all the information we need.LOL-unbelievable.

 

[spacemt354]

I honestly don’t understand how anyone could look at this table and not consider the film’s domestic performance significantly better than “OK”:

View attachment 726347

Domestic Box Office For 2023

www.boxofficemojo.com

Because the film's budget is being factored in. I know it's been discussed over and over but that it what those who have a more pessimistic view of the box office are clinging to. And they do have a point, as due to the inflated budget and the underperforming international numbers, it can't prop up very decent domestic numbers in order to break even or make a profit.

Even if the film simply breaks even, which I still think there is a possibility of achieving, the film either needed to do better internationally or far exceed expectations domestically in order for the box office cumulative to not have the chance of being labeled "ok"

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Who are the age Ariel is supposed to be? Taylor Swift isn’t pulling off Ariel’s age at this point.

Again - while adults may not know her for her name to pull them to theatres - kids did know her.

Well…it was a good idea…”in theory”

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I was going to make a similar comment, it’s done OK domestically but I wouldn’t call it a success.

currently TLM is at $264m domestically
Aladdin did $355m domestically
Beauty and the Beast did $504m domestically
Lion King did $543m domestically

It’s still about 25% lower than Aladdin and less than half what the Lion King pulled in. It’ll probably reach the low end of the domestic forecasts, so it’s not a failure, but it’s probably going to end up $200m below the high end of the domestic forecasts so I wouldn’t call it a success either.

You can’t say it’s not a “success”…because for some reason there is insistence on here for a “victory”…

…for hallee…of course

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I think we should question the very idea that the person cast needed to be famous anyway. There are plenty of successful films with breakout actors, just as there plenty of flops with megastars.

Indeed. One of the things that I most disliked about the Beauty & the Beast remake versus the original was how they remade a musical featuring both incredible songs and singers and then recast it with actors who weren't singers such as Emma Watson. Not criticising her as an actress, but she's not a singer and I don't see why anyone would hold that up as a better choice over Halle Bailey who can actually sing.

Also not sure how you can argue against the remakes for lacking creativity while also arguing that they need to be safer in their casting choices.

 

[Chi84]

Indeed. One of the things that I most disliked about the Beauty & the Beast remake versus the original was how they remade a musical featuring both incredible songs and singers and then recast it with actors who weren't singers such as Emma Watson. Not criticising her as an actress, but she's not a singer and I don't see why anyone would hold that up as a better choice over Halle Bailey who can actually sing.

Also not sure how you can argue against the remakes for lacking creativity while also arguing that they need to be safer in their casting choices.

Not only safer but considerably more expensive. Top name actors demand top pay.

 

[LittleBuford]

Because the film's budget is being factored in. I know it's been discussed over and over but that it what those who have a more pessimistic view of the box office are clinging to. And they do have a point, as due to the inflated budget and the underperforming international numbers, it can't prop up very decent domestic numbers in order to break even or make a profit.

Even if the film simply breaks even, which I still think there is a possibility of achieving, the film either needed to do better internationally or far exceed expectations domestically in order for the box office cumulative to not have the chance of being labeled "ok"

But people are conflating profitability with other measures of success. It’s been repeatedly claimed that domestic audiences aren’t interested in the film, that only a handful of people have seen it, etc. Factoring in the budget has no bearing on the number of tickets sold, which is far better than just “OK”. A good twenty million Americans have seen the film. That’s nothing to sniff at.

 

[spacemt354]

But people are conflating profitability with other measures of success. It’s been repeatedly claimed that domestic audiences aren’t interested in the film, that only a handful of people have seen it, etc. Factoring in the budget has no bearing on the number of tickets sold, which is far better than just “OK”. A good twenty million Americans have seen the film. That’s nothing to sniff at.

I'm not disputing, rather agreeing with, the measures of success that can be attained from the domestic numbers. While the budget does not have a bearing on the tickets sold, it does have a bearing on how many people need to see the film for it to be a financial success.

Some people view profitability as the main measure of success, which is fair. It's not accurate to say that domestic audiences are not interested in the film, as they clearly are, but not to the level of other live-action remakes such as Aladdin or Lion King. Both statements are true at the same time.

 

[LittleBuford]

I'm not disputing, rather agreeing with, the measures of success that can be attained from the domestic numbers. While the budget does not have a bearing on the tickets sold, it does have a bearing on how many people need to see the film for it to be a financial success.

Some people view profitability as the main measure of success, which is fair. It's not accurate to say that domestic audiences are not interested in the film, as they clearly are, but not to the level of other live-action remakes such as Aladdin or Lion King. Both statements are true at the same time.

I agree with all of this.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

I'm not disputing, rather agreeing with, the measures of success that can be attained from the domestic numbers. While the budget does not have a bearing on the tickets sold, it does have a bearing on how many people need to see the film for it to be a financial success.

Some people view profitability as the main measure of success, which is fair. It's not accurate to say that domestic audiences are not interested in the film, as they clearly are, but not to the level of other live-action remakes such as Aladdin or Lion King. Both statements are true at the same time.

Yes, I think there is a distinction between whether the film flopped and whether it has turned a profit. Ticket sales taken by themselves in the current context are solid and I think it's hard to argue that the film hasn't found a big audience in the United States and some other markets. This isn't, for example, another Lightyear or Strange World. Due to the massive budget and disappointing international returns, though, it looks like it will struggle to make a profit off box office returns alone.

In other words, there's room for some nuance.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I think we should question the very idea that the person cast needed to be famous anyway. There are plenty of successful films with breakout actors, just as there plenty of flops with megastars.

Indeed. One of the things that I most disliked about the Beauty & the Beast remake versus the original was how they remade a musical featuring both incredible songs and singers and then recast it with actors who weren't singers such as Emma Watson. Not criticising her as an actress, but she's not a singer and I don't see why anyone would hold that up as a better choice over Halle Bailey who can actually sing.

Also not sure how you can argue against the remakes for lacking creativity while also arguing that they need to be safer in their casting choices.

Movies are to make money and sell merch…

As it’s not sinking in: if you want “art”, you do it on a budget appropriate. There’s ways to get stars to to that too within the guardrails

You spent hundreds of mil…you need profits. How do you get profits? You pay actors people know?
Why do they get paid so much? Because people don’t have to think to recognize them and they have a track record of pulling in profits.


This has gone all the way back to Hollywood 101.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Movies are to make money and sell merch…

As it’s not sinking in: if you want “art”, you do it on a budget appropriate. There’s ways to get stars to to that too within the guardrails

You spent hundreds of mil…you need profits. How do you get profits? You pay actors people know?
Why do they get paid so much? Because people don’t have to think to recognize them and they have a track record of pulling in profits.


This has gone all the way back to Hollywood 101.

If that's your view, don't complain when they keep remaking their old films.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yes, I think there is a distinction between whether the film flopped and whether it has turned a profit. Ticket sales taken by themselves in the current context are solid and I think it's hard to argue that the film hasn't found a big audience in the United States and some other markets. This isn't, for example, another Lightyear or Strange World. Due to the massive budget and disappointing international returns, though, it looks like it will struggle to make a profit off box office returns alone, however.

In other words, there's room for some nuance.

It’s not a flop

But it’s also not a success - basic numbers
It’s also not a “franchise launcher” as there is little doubt Disney intended it to be.

Any doubt they thought sequel? Not happening?
Pushing product? Not to the level they wanted…you can be assured.

It is what it is. Which is at the end of its box office run - like right now - and a write down.

Terrible for Disney cause - frankly - their management is in big trouble. Mostly failures…few successes…bad finances.

I don’t know why it’s so controversial?

 

[LittleBuford]

Movies are to make money and sell merch…

As it’s not sinking in: if you want “art”, you do it on a budget appropriate. There’s ways to get stars to to that too within the guardrails

You spent hundreds of mil…you need profits. How do you get profits? You pay actors people know?
Why do they get paid so much? Because people don’t have to think to recognize them and they have a track record of pulling in profits.


This has gone all the way back to Hollywood 101.

I repeat: There are plenty of successful films with breakout actors, just as there are plenty of flops with megastars.

 

[Chi84]

If that's your view, don't complain when they keep remaking their old films.

With 33-year-old Taylor Swift playing a teenage mermaid.

 

[LittleBuford]

With 33-year-old Taylor Swift playing a teenage mermaid.

Hey, it worked for Grease!

 

[Sir_Cliff]

Hey, it worked for Grease!

But Olivia is timeless!

 

[Chi84]

Hey, it worked for Grease!

But did it?

 

[LittleBuford]

But Olivia is timeless!

May she rest in peace.

 

[LittleBuford]

But did it?

I won't hear a bad word against that film! It's a masterpiece from start to finish.