Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[TP2000]

So if we're being honest then, and not making jokes about looking for loose change, its not as grim and dour as the Youtuber states it.

Including Doctor Strange and Way of Water, it's around a $100 Million loss for Disney over the past year+ after 10 Tentpole films.

Thank God we don't have to scrounge for loose change ourselves, but Disney needs to do something about budgets and management.

 

[LittleBuford]

And yet it's easy for us to include it. So we did. By all accounts, Way of Water's distribution agreement with James Cameron's film studio added $500 to $600 Million to Disney's bottom line in '22.

I used the $600 Million figure for the math here. That gets us to about a $100 Million loss for the calendar year from 10 Tentpoles.

Which is rather different from $890 million.

Again, there's a reason he left Avatar out of his calculation: its success doesn't serve his narrative.

 

[Disney Irish]

Including Doctor Strange and Way of Water, it's around a $100 Million loss for Disney over the past year on 10 Tentpole films.

Thank God we don't have to scrounge for loose change ourselves, but Disney needs to do something about budgets and management.

And by all accounts they are doing something about it. But the point is that its not the sky is falling Disney is dead scenario that some including that Youtuber are trying to push.

 

[LittleBuford]

Just posting this again, as it seems to have fallen between the cracks:

Disney was the top-earning studio of 2022, a distinction it's held since 2016.

 

[TP2000]

Since adjustments for inflation are being considered and this is the Little Mermaid thread, though this has likely been posted, it's worth posting again, the 1989 film earned over $211 million globally ($517 million if we adjust for inflation).

That's an interesting point. The production budget for The Little Mermaid in 1989 was $40 Million. Adjusted for inflation that's $96 Million today, but we can round up to an even $100 because they didn't have to offer vegan and gluten-free items at the catering tables in '89.

Assuming an inflation adjusted marketing budget of $50 Million for the $100, and 50% of the take from the box office from a Disney that was nowhere near the powerhouse it is today, the profits adjusted for inflation as of yesterday's box office would be $141 Million for Mermaid '89, and still about $70 Million in the red for Mermaid '23.

That $250 Million production budget for Mermaid '23 seems to have created a fiscal cliff that a mermaid can't climb.

 

[Tha Realest]

Guys, might as well wait a week or two until you can factor in Indy’s $300m(!!) budget and marketing ($100m? 150m?).

Saw a thing that said adjusted for inflation Raiders’ budget was around $70m.

Budgets don’t matter. Neither do international numbers, nor how it performed relative to earlier films in the series or comparable film adaptations. What matters are whether the films gross a lot and how many people watch six months later on D+.

 

[MisterPenguin]

Budgets don’t matter. Neither do international numbers, nor how it performed relative to earlier films in the series or comparable film adaptations. What matters are whether the films gross a lot and how many people watch six months later on D+.

True dat.

Also, with the subscription money Disney+ gets, it 'pays' its own Disney studios for their movies to appear on D+.

So... the movies continue to make money even when they go to D+.

 

[ABQ]

True dat.

Also, with the subscription money Disney+ gets, it 'pays' its own Disney studios for their movies to appear on D+.

So... the movies continue to make money even when they go to D+.

None of that matters if D+ doesn't get subscriptions. Back when Disney would license its films to other outlets like Netflix, Amazon or was it Encore or Starz back in the day, does that cable channel still exist, they would get money from them, regardless if anyone subbed.

 

[Tha Realest]

True dat.

Also, with the subscription money Disney+ gets, it 'pays' its own Disney studios for their movies to appear on D+.

So... the movies continue to make money even when they go to D+.

So instead of positive cash flow in the tens of millions, they use internal accounting tricks to pay itself so make it seem like a certain film turned a profit?

Yay?

 

[Jedijax719]

I don't understand the streaming losses. If 150 million subscribe and pay an average of $7/month, that's over $12 billion a year. What is the overhead operating cost of maintaining the streaming service, especially considering they own all the rights to what they put on D+ ?

 

[Phroobar]

What is a $100 million to Disney anyway? That is just development and construction of a C-ticket attraction.

 

[doctornick]

I don't understand the streaming losses. If 150 million subscribe and pay an average of $7/month, that's over $12 billion a year. What is the overhead operating cost of maintaining the streaming service, especially considering they own all the rights to what they put on D+ ?

A large number of subscribers do not pay near that amount per month. The south Asian subs are something around $1 a month revenue and ever the N American/Europe subs are a mix of full price but also annual subscriptions (less per month) or promotions (like people who get the service via Verizon which pays a discounted bulk rate to Disney) vs bundles (where each streaming service gets a share of the month sub paid). Someone can correct me but the actual revenue per sub something in the $4-5/mo for Disney+.

 

[ABQ]

I don't understand the streaming losses. If 150 million subscribe and pay an average of $7/month, that's over $12 billion a year. What is the overhead operating cost of maintaining the streaming service, especially considering they own all the rights to what they put on D+ ?

The overhead is pretty extreme, especially if you are looking to provide very high bitrate streaming services (though my horrible experience on ESPN+ for NHL games would say that they are NOT using the best data hosts there are)
But there are other factors, this is 2022 info, for example clipped from a DFB article : In 2022, Disney increased its Disney Media and Entertainment Distribution (DMED) programming by $33 billion. That’s an increase of about $8 billion compared to what DMED spent in 2021 — $25 billion. Disney noted that this “increase in programming and production costs was primarily due to more content provided on the service.” But, it isn’t just a commitment to content causing Disney+ to lose money. Higher marketing costs for Disney+ (in order to gain those subscribers it holds so dear) have also played a role. During fiscal year 2022, Disney’s Direct to Consumer division reported $839 million in “other operating expenses,” and $1.29 billion in “sales, general, and administration” expenses.

 

[Casper Gutman]

OK… we’re using this agenda-driven garbage again here… funny how much traction this kind of stuff gets, almost like there’s an efficient and lucrative network that cycles stories through a series of commentary and “news” sources to feed a culture-war hungry audience…

You guys have heard of Hollywood Math, right? Budgets are insanely vague and misleading - they can pretty much say whatever a studio wants them to say. Peter Jackson had to take the studio to court to admit Lord of the Rings made money. That cute little budget/ box office equation is an amusing conversation piece, but is almost totally useless in determining how content actually performs. Studios are set up so that it is INCREDIBLY rare for a film to lose money in the final reckoning - one piece of content feeds multiple pipelines of a vertically and horizontally integrated entertainment machine. Only mega-bombs like Flash or Strange World lose in the final equation.

I’ve asked this question before but I want to ask it again, because I don’t recall getting an answer - if Disney is uniquely doomed, what other studio would you rather head right now? (And no, you don’t get non-studio related assets like a massive internet network).

 

[TalkingHead]

OK… we’re using this agenda-driven garbage again here… funny how much traction this kind of stuff gets, almost like there’s an efficient and lucrative network that cycles stories through a series of commentary and “news” sources to feed a culture-war hungry audience…

You guys have heard of Hollywood Math, right? Budgets are insanely vague and misleading - they can pretty much say whatever a studio wants them to say. Peter Jackson had to take the studio to court to admit Lord of the Rings made money. That cute little budget/ box office equation is an amusing conversation piece, but is almost totally useless in determining how content actually performs. Studios are set up so that it is INCREDIBLY rare for a film to lose money in the final reckoning - one piece of content feeds multiple pipelines of a vertically and horizontally integrated entertainment machine. Only mega-bombs like Flash or Strange World lose in the final equation.

I’ve asked this question before but I want to ask it again, because I don’t recall getting an answer - if Disney is uniquely doomed, what other studio would you rather head right now? (And no, you don’t get non-studio related assets like a massive internet network).

Your question is a little misleading because Disney isn’t like other studios. Sure, they’re still giving Searchlight and Fox a little attention but the majority of TWDC releases are 1) family-friendly, 2) animated, and/or 3) costly visual-effects-heavy franchise installments.

They’ve chosen not to make thoughtful (R-rated) adult-fare at a big scale. They’ve opted not to aim for smaller effects pictures or animation features that focus on stories while not requiring expensive new software.

Disney is playing their own game, different from other studios. It’s been to their benefit over the past decade but times change.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Your question is a little misleading because Disney isn’t like other studios. Sure, they’re still giving Searchlight and Fox a little attention but the majority of TWDC releases are 1) family-friendly, 2) animated, and/or 3) costly visual-effects-heavy franchise installments.

They’ve chosen not to make thoughtful (R-rated) adult-fare at a big scale. They’ve opted not to aim for smaller effects pictures or animation features that focus on stories while not requiring expensive new software.

Disney is playing their own game, different from other studios. It’s been to their benefit over the past decade but times change.

You’re trying to argue Disney is playing a different game from the other studios, and it simply isn’t. All of the majors (Uni, Paramount, Sony, and WB) rely on a slate of big-budget sfx IP films and, to a lesser extent, animated films and low-budget horror. Look at the release schedule for any of the studios for 2023. The two major exceptions are Oppenheimer and Flower Moon, and those are outliers, just like the rare R-rated comedy No Hard Feelings. Disney also has some outliers like Haunting in Venice and The Creator (again, I’m not including Indy divisions). The game may be changing, but all the studios have been playing the same game, just not as well as Disney - and no one knows what the new game is.

 

[Jedijax719]

OK… we’re using this agenda-driven garbage again here… funny how much traction this kind of stuff gets, almost like there’s an efficient and lucrative network that cycles stories through a series of commentary and “news” sources to feed a culture-war hungry audience…

You guys have heard of Hollywood Math, right? Budgets are insanely vague and misleading - they can pretty much say whatever a studio wants them to say. Peter Jackson had to take the studio to court to admit Lord of the Rings made money. That cute little budget/ box office equation is an amusing conversation piece, but is almost totally useless in determining how content actually performs. Studios are set up so that it is INCREDIBLY rare for a film to lose money in the final reckoning - one piece of content feeds multiple pipelines of a vertically and horizontally integrated entertainment machine. Only mega-bombs like Flash or Strange World lose in the final equation.

I’ve asked this question before but I want to ask it again, because I don’t recall getting an answer - if Disney is uniquely doomed, what other studio would you rather head right now? (And no, you don’t get non-studio related assets like a massive internet network).

Well said! Thank you!
@ABQ and @doctornick Thank you for the clarification. I guess the appropriate follow up question is how does Disney (or any other streaming service) make their service create profit?

 

[MisterPenguin]

A large number of subscribers do not pay near that amount per month. The south Asian subs are something around $1 a month revenue and ever the N American/Europe subs are a mix of full price but also annual subscriptions (less per month) or promotions (like people who get the service via Verizon which pays a discounted bulk rate to Disney) vs bundles (where each streaming service gets a share of the month sub paid). Someone can correct me but the actual revenue per sub something in the $4-5/mo for Disney+.

In the last quarterly report on ARPU (Average Revenue Per User):

Domestic D+ had 46.3M subs at ARPU of $7.14 = $331M per month
International D+ had 58.5M subs at ARPU of $5.93 = $347M per month
Hotstar India had 157.8M subs at ARPU of $0.59 = $93M per month

Total per month: $771M
Per year if nothing changed: $9.3B


Hulu had 43.7M subs at ARPU of $11.7 = $511M per month

Hulu+Live had 4.4M subs at ARPU of $92.32 = $406 per month

ESPN+ had 25.3M subs at ARPU of $5.64 = $143M per month

 

[MisterPenguin]

So instead of positive cash flow in the tens of millions, they use internal accounting tricks to pay itself so make it seem like a certain film turned a profit?

Yay?

If D+ did not have it's own studio films, it would have to fill its library by buying or renting films from other studios. Income from D+ subs would have to be used in order to pay those other studios.

If Disney studios did not have their own streaming service, then they would be able to rent or sell their movies to other companies' streamers and get paid.

So...

The rental/sale of the films of Disney studios with the Disney streamer needs to be accounted for. If not, the people who worked on the film wouldn't see residuals due to them. They'd tell Disney "Don't put my film on your streamer for free! Send it to the streamers of other companies so that the film can get more money and we'd get paid more."

It is not unusual at all -- and let me emphasize this to dispel conspiracy theories that feed into people's personal agendas -- It is not unusual at all for a conglomerate to treat their divisions as separate companies and make those divisions have real cash transactions for the services they provide to other divisions so that the accounting shows what divisions are profitable or unprofitable.

There is no trickery here. And for the people who work on the films, it's a matter of compensation and justice.

 

[Phroobar]

Your question is a little misleading because Disney isn’t like other studios. Sure, they’re still giving Searchlight and Fox a little attention but the majority of TWDC releases are 1) family-friendly, 2) animated, and/or 3) costly visual-effects-heavy franchise installments.

They’ve chosen not to make thoughtful (R-rated) adult-fare at a big scale. They’ve opted not to aim for smaller effects pictures or animation features that focus on stories while not requiring expensive new software.

Disney is playing their own game, different from other studios. It’s been to their benefit over the past decade but times change.

Just like in the 70's & 80's, only little children see a Disney movie.