Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Disney Irish]

A better metric may be number of tickets sold.

If the majority of theatres are selling less tickets now than pre-2020, with ticket prices up, but movies not making the same amounts or more, that would imply that audience behaviour has indeed changed.

Seeing as most the films coming out now, were planned long before Covid was an understood obstacle, based around the box office at that time, I do wonder how we see budgets adjust with the films being planned now.

And with any art, apart from money, there is also artistic success and failure. What resonates. What’s a good film? Plenty of incredible films exist that never made their money back.

Add to that that a large part of the tickets sold now are for premium screens which are over twice the price in a lot of cases.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Add to that that a large part of the tickets sold now are for premium screens which are over twice the price in a lot of cases.

Where Disney Parks can raise pricing, have less people attend in a day, but make even more profit then before, the movie theatre business does not seem to be able to replicate.

 

[Disney Irish]

Where Disney Parks can raise pricing, have less people attend in a day, but make even more profit then before, the movie theatre business does not seem to be able to replicate.

And this is where the discussion comes back to streaming, consumers have figured out that for a large majority of the movies out there they can wait and see it at home and have the same experience if not better.

The reverse isn't true with the Parks, other than Uni (which is also quickly raising prices) there isn't much alternatives.

 

[MisterPenguin]

And remember, there are no more rentals. Everything goes to Disney+ now. No extra money there.

No.

You're wrong.

After the theatrical run, there is DVD/BluRay window.

As mentioned above in the thread, D+ is a place where movies *earn more money* because D+ takes the billions of dollars in subscription fees and "pays" the Disney studios for their content. This is normal intra-division accounting, even when a movie is very successful in theaters, it can make more through D+.

D+ doesn't get the movies 'for free.' It pays the studios. Customers of D+ pay D+.

Incorrect, Disney is sending movies to PVOD services like iTunes first now instead of sending direct to D+.

So they are getting rentals and digital sales prior to sending to D+.

Indeed...

 

[MisterPenguin]

Disney is building another theme park in Orlando - they just don’t know it yet. Their Hulu payout functionally subsidizes Comcast for Epic Universe (and then some).

The Hulu payout will be about $9B.

That's a drop in the bucket for Comcast's debt load, which is way more than Disney's. It's at a level that makes Wall Street nervous. And Comcast pays a pretty penny to service that debt.

Comcast doesn't have a $6B debt which has gone to build EU, it has a $100B debt. The Hulu buyout will barely move the needle.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

A big part of the reason other studios’ animated features are cheaper than Disney and Pixar’s is because they offshore and outsource animation work. Disney following the lead of others to reduce their costs would mean a dramatic culling of Walt’s animation studio.

Yes, this is where the whole argument about the concern about the profitability of these movies at the box office as a concern for the Disney we once knew and loved falls down. It seems like the same people would have been jeering at Walt back in the day for producing a flop like Sleeping Beauty when another Make Mine Music would have actually turned a profit.

Admittedly, this is more applicable to the anticipation of Elemental losing money and the strange desire some seem to have to close Pixar entirely than TLM maybe falling somewhat short of making a profit at the box office. I thought, however, we all became Disney fans as they took more risks in order to produce quality entertainment and push animation and theme parks further rather than just looking for an easy profit. I thought what we didn't like was when they took the latter route.

 

[BrianLo]

The thing that bothers me is the double standard in the movie and the theme park business.

TLM will lose millions, Disney takes it AS A WIN and will do it over and over again with more live action remakes.

Then in the theme park business we have the Star Cruiser that did not MAKE ENOUGH MONEY and that will be bulldozed.

TLM did not lose money though and is a very low cost burden piece of content that will continue to generate revenue for years to come, the cost is sunk. It's also attached to the cash cow that is the Princess Merchandise brand. Star Cruiser requires intensive ongoing operational costs to make money and does not move the needle on the cash cow - the parks themselves.

For a real flop I'd point you to Artemis Fowl, that is essentially also being bulldozed. But yes, normally movies benefit from the upfront costs being sunk.

 

[BrianLo]

I wish someone could objectively define "flop".

A movie that fails to connect with critics, audiences and fans. Has no word of mouth (CinemaScore), Severely underperforms its budget requirements in most markets. Has limited appeal post theatrically. Fails to catch on long term. Creates no merchandise opportunities medium term. Is essentially forgotten about. All of those markers is definitely a flop. I'd also maybe create a special category for a film that truly runs a franchise into the ground by wildly underperforming.


Otherwise you have a graded scale of 'dissapointment' or grey. Disney, more than any Studio, has a strange track record of watering cult classics into being.

Not Flops: Sleeping Beauty, Princess and the Frog, Hocus Pocus, Nightmare Before Christmas, Goofy Movie, etc.
Assured Flops: Artemis Fowl, Strange World, a chunk of 2000's era WDAS.
Long term Flop Status Questionable: Lightyear, Solo, Eternals... Indy?
Movies that will be watered to bear fruit: Little Mermaid, Quantumania, Thor Dark World, probably Elementals etc.

 

[Disstevefan1]

TLM did not lose money though and is a very low cost burden piece of content

This is a confusing statement.

That said, I am open too seeing the proof.

 

[Casper Gutman]

This is a confusing statement.

That said, I am open too seeing the proof.

The proof has been repeatedly posted and carefully (and very eloquently) explained in this thread.

 

[Disney Irish]

This is a confusing statement.

That said, I am open too seeing the proof.

If the only revenue stream for any Disney movie was just the box office the company would have folded long ago. But Disney knows how to squeeze blood from a rock.

TLM will continue to bring in revenue whether directly or indirectly through the many Disney ancillary pillars, hence its not really going to end up losing money. This is why there are only ever truly a few flops in Disney's long history.

 

[Disstevefan1]

If the only revenue stream for any Disney movie was just the box office the company would have folded long ago. But Disney knows how to squeeze blood from a rock.

TLM will continue to bring in revenue whether directly or indirectly through the many Disney ancillary pillars, hence its not really going to end up losing money. This is why there are only ever truly a few flops in Disney's long history.

Well, over time, they will probably recoup the money they spent to make and market the film, I hope.

As for the second part of the statement, I think we all agree, the budgets are way too high for these films.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

This is a confusing statement.

That said, I am open too seeing the proof.

It’s funny how profitability used to mean box office but has suddenly been expanded to include streaming, rentals, merchandise, etc… the sad thing is even with all that ancillary income it’s still questionable whether it’ll break even. All we can do is speculate because Disneys never going to release all those internal sales numbers.

With this new standard of including every possible avenue of income I doubt many movies have ever lost money.

 

[Disney Irish]

It’s funny how profitability used to mean box office but has suddenly been expanded to include streaming, rentals, merchandise, etc… the sad thing is even with all that ancillary income it’s still questionable whether it’ll break even. All we can do is speculate because Disneys never going to release all those internal sales numbers.

With this new standard of including every possible avenue of income I doubt many movies have ever lost money.

It’s not a new standard, it’s always been that way especially for Disney to include all revenue streams toward a movies profitability. As mentioned if they relied on just the box office the company would have folded long ago.

What most don’t remember is that until recent times Disney barely made their money back at the box office. Classics like Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, Fantasia, etc all lost money at the box office. It was only through other revenue sources that these movies made their money back.

 

[Disney Irish]

Well, over time, they will probably recoup the money they spent to make and market the film, I hope.

As for the second part of the statement, I think we all agree, the budgets are way too high for these films.

The average Hollywood estimates are $560M to break even for TLM, it’s going to come close to that if not surpass it.

So with that said it’s very likely they have already recouped all costs when adding in all other revenue sources tied to the movie.

 

[Casper Gutman]

It’s funny how profitability used to mean box office but has suddenly been expanded to include streaming, rentals, merchandise, etc… the sad thing is even with all that ancillary income it’s still questionable whether it’ll break even. All we can do is speculate because Disneys never going to release all those internal sales numbers.

With this new standard of including every possible avenue of income I doubt many movies have ever lost money.

In no way is this sudden. Since the proliferation of ancillary media outlets in the 80s (cable, video, music videos, video games, etc) the studios have been organized from the ground up to exploit every possible revenue source, and every project has been conceived with these pipelines in mind - it directly effects every studio film you see. The modern, post-2005 era has just seen the studios develop more efficient ways of maximizing returns from each product (until they all lost their minds around 2018 or so). No film is just a film, it’s adaptable content.

And no, studios almost NEVER lose money on a film. They are organized not to. This was true of classic Hollywood as well, though the organization of the studios looked different then since revenue opportunities were arranged differently.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

What most don’t remember is that until recent times Disney barely made their money back at the box office. Classics like Sleeping Beauty, Pinocchio, Fantasia, etc all lost money at the box office. It was only through other revenue sources that these movies made their money back.

Didn't Tangled also struggle to make a profit on box office receipts alone due to a very large budget?

Again, though, I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as a flop based on that measure.

 

[LSLS]

Didn't Tangled also struggle to make a profit on box office receipts alone due to a very large budget?

Again, though, I don't think I've ever heard it referred to as a flop based on that measure.

It did, and it resulted in only a themed bathroom as a result. And still made $60 million more than TLM. But, I also am not sure it had the expectations of this. Even people like me who had no desire to see this and are sick of the remakes figured this would pull in a billion. There's a real shock factor with this (honestly I didn't follow boards back then so I can't say for sure if Tangled was the same).

TOTALLY anecdotal, but at DHS a few days ago, live action little mermaid meet and greet was the shortest wait we saw for characters. Including meeting toy story characters outside in the heat. Olaf was a little over 10 minutes, Mickey was like 40 minutes (didn't stop there), star wars character were all 10ish minutes. Little Mermaid we had 2 people in front of us. Now, we didn't really even know she was there til walking by and seeing the sign so im sure that is a factor, but I thought it's worth mentioning to go with the cultural impact discussion.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

It did, and it resulted in only a themed bathroom as a result. And still made $60 million more than TLM. But, I also am not sure it had the expectations of this. Even people like me who had no desire to see this and are sick of the remakes figured this would pull in a billion. There's a real shock factor with this (honestly I didn't follow boards back then so I can't say for sure if Tangled was the same).

I was mentioning that case more in the context of the discussion of when revenues beyond box office and profitability began to be considered when talking about a film's success. In the case of Tangled, they probably lost money at the box office but it probably ended up a nicer earner for them I'm sure the studio does not regret making. I'm sure there are, indeed, plenty of cases of 'hit' films that officially lost money based on box office receipts.

I don't think anyone would argue with the box office likely being disappointing for Disney and far below what they expected when they announced the film. In the past, though, I think it would have been almost taken for granted that a film making the kind of money this has would end up turning a profit after VHS/DVD/Blu-Ray sales and merchandising even if it lost money at the box office. All of that is a little more complicated now in the world of streaming as Disney has their own formula for deciding what they pay themselves for a film like this out of Disney+ revenue.

 

[Farerb]

They lost money on Tangled but Tangled's gross was on an upward trajectory when it came to Disney Animation while The Little Mermaid's gross is on a downward trajectory when it comes to Disney remakes.