Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[LSLS]

Tick tock tick tock....still no marketing numbers for BatB, TLK, or Aladdin?

Why are marketing costs only brought up for TLM while being apparently ignored for other movies?

I mean, because they weren't widely reported? Best I have, BatB had a total of $300 million for production and marketing. I can't find anything on the other two, but the marketing is not usually reported, which is why the 2.5 times the production cost is used to encompass both.

 

[Trauma]

Tick tock tick tock....still no marketing numbers for BatB, TLK, or Aladdin?

Why are marketing costs only brought up for TLM while being apparently ignored for other movies?

It’s a rule of thumb that tent poles are usually at least 50% or more of production costs.

 

[Jedijax719]

I mean, because they weren't widely reported? Best I have, BatB had a total of $300 million for production and marketing. I can't find anything on the other two, but the marketing is not usually reported, which is why the 2.5 times the production cost is used to encompass both.

Which means the total cost to make those 3 movies were not far off of TLM's cost. Maybe due to circumstances, TLM's costs were a little higher. But NOT NEARLY the difference in world wide box office between it and the other movies.

Thus, budget being the issue is null and void. If the total cost was less than $100 more than, say, Aladdin and the total WW box office was $600-$700 million, then budget is not the problem-at least to account for any loss.

 

[LSLS]

Which means the total cost to make those 3 movies were not far off of TLM's cost. Maybe due to circumstances, TLM's costs were a little higher. But NOT NEARLY the difference in world wide box office between it and the other movies.

Thus, budget being the issue is null and void. If the total cost was less than $100 more than, say, Aladdin and the total WW box office was $600-$700 million, then budget is not the problem-at least to account for any loss.

I'm not sure I'm following. A $100 million difference in budget means it needed an extra $200 million (give or take), which is a pretty large difference when you are trying to break even vs not. Sure, if it made as much as the other live actions it's not an issue, but it didn't, which is why budget becomes a talking point. Losing money was honestly something that never even really crossed my mind for this thing.

 

[Jedijax719]

I'm not sure I'm following. A $100 million difference in budget means it needed an extra $200 million (give or take), which is a pretty large difference when you are trying to break even vs not. Sure, if it made as much as the other live actions it's not an issue, but it didn't, which is why budget becomes a talking point. Losing money was honestly something that never even really crossed my mind for this thing.

Because the budget thing is only an issue after the fact. There was no way to predict, on any account, that it would do SO poorly overseas in certain markets. And if they somehow did see it would fall short of the others, they figured the difference was worth it for what they were trying to achieve and the product they wanted to make. What probably happened is that they foresaw $800-$900 million overseas which would have been great. I can't imagine anyone ever predicting a little over $500 million. That equates to not understanding the public and societal sentiment around the world. Likewise, it also doesn't mean they "woulda shoulda coulda" made a difference with adjustments here and there.

Is it a learning lesson? Maybe. The jury will be out for a while on that one. I will say that Disney has already and quickly backed off of certain things they were deep into just a year ago. I will give a prime example. A year ago, on Disney channel during June, pride month was very very heavily pushed and featured with interviews, featurettes, etc. Never bothered me, but I did notice that this year during the same month, there was hardly a mention of it at all. I mean-AT ALL. And they've opened up to celebrating groups they never celebrated before such as Jewish and disabled.

 

[Sir_Cliff]

That’s only because you aren’t filled with glee anytime Disney underperforms.

That did make me chuckle, but I have to admit that this is what makes a lot of these discussions online increasingly unbearable.

I have been around for a long time, from the days of Promote Paul Pressler, the discussions about the original proposals for DCA, and the scrapping of hand drawn animation for the likes of Chicken Little when there was a lot of discussion about the problems with Disney management. Maybe I am idealising this era somewhat, but I remember people actually engaging with the company's products and having at least somewhat thoughtful conversations about why they thought Disney was loosing sight of what made them successful in the first place. When DCA failed, we actually had reports from people who visited and photo comparisons with Tokyo DisneySea which opened around the same time.

The difference I see now is this kind of trollish barracking for the company to fail and a "burn it all down" mentality. People frame it as "concern" for the financial health of the company, but that doesn't actually track with most of the conversation and what people are highlighting as the reasons for the films losing money. Moreover, it's an unusual concern for fans to have about a company which is still bringing in billions of dollars in profits. It's also worth thinking about what solutions they would propose based on the comments on here. I'm sure I sound like an old man shouting at a cloud, but it seems like a certain toxicity that has pervaded most corners of the internet in recent years creeping into these boards.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Because the budget thing is only an issue after the fact. There was no way to predict, on any account, that it would do SO poorly overseas in certain markets. And if they somehow did see it would fall short of the others, they figured the difference was worth it for what they were trying to achieve and the product they wanted to make. What probably happened is that they foresaw $800-$900 million overseas which would have been great. I can't imagine anyone ever predicting a little over $500 million. That equates to not understanding the public and societal sentiment around the world. Likewise, it also doesn't mean they "woulda shoulda coulda" made a difference with adjustments here and there.

Is it a learning lesson? Maybe. The jury will be out for a while on that one. I will say that Disney has already and quickly backed off of certain things they were deep into just a year ago. I will give a prime example. A year ago, on Disney channel during June, pride month was very very heavily pushed and featured with interviews, featurettes, etc. Never bothered me, but I did notice that this year during the same month, there was hardly a mention of it at all. I mean-AT ALL. And they've opened up to celebrating groups they never celebrated before such as Jewish and disabled.

A big problem right now is that you have disingenuous persons trying to launder their horrid positions through established criticism. There have been people questioning the sustainability of the tent-pole strategy for some time now. A big motivator behind the strategy was that people were not seeing as many movies in theaters, so in a world where “singles and doubles” were getting less attention Iger’s strategy was to focus more on the home runs, blockbusters and the franchises that had already won people over. Disney successfully captured more of the market but they didn’t stop or reverse the larger trends in the theatrical market which seemed to have accelerated with the pandemic. So while Disney may not have expected the issue to rear its head as suddenly as it did they also were a bit cocky in thinking that it wouldn’t come (at least while they were around).

 

[Trauma]

That did make me chuckle, but I have to admit that this is what makes a lot of these discussions online increasingly unbearable.

I have been around for a long time, from the days of Promote Paul Pressler, the discussions about the original proposals for DCA, and the scrapping of hand drawn animation for the likes of Chicken Little when there was a lot of discussion about the problems with Disney management. Maybe I am idealising this era somewhat, but I remember people actually engaging with the company's products and having at least somewhat thoughtful conversations about why they thought Disney was loosing sight of what made them successful in the first place. When DCA failed, we actually had reports from people who visited and photo comparisons with Tokyo DisneySea which opened around the same time.

The difference I see now is this kind of trollish barracking for the company to fail and a "burn it all down" mentality. People frame it as "concern" for the financial health of the company, but that doesn't actually track with most of the conversation and what people are highlighting as the reasons for the films losing money. Moreover, it's an unusual concern for fans to have about a company which is still bringing in billions of dollars in profits. It's also worth thinking about what solutions they would propose based on the comments on here. I'm sure I sound like an old man shouting at a cloud, but it seems like a certain toxicity that has pervaded most corners of the internet in recent years creeping into these boards.

So the rapid deterioration of a brand that you love is an unusual concern?

How much is your stock worth lately ?

How much are your DVC points worth lately ?

Are you enjoying all the perks being removed while prices are increased at the parks ?

Wonder how many more people will get fired this month.

Yes we can have very nuanced discussion about why this is happening but the time for that is not now.

When your house is on fire it doesn’t matter if it was the oven or a candle. You get the heck out.

 

[Trauma]

That did make me chuckle, but I have to admit that this is what makes a lot of these discussions online increasingly unbearable.

I have been around for a long time, from the days of Promote Paul Pressler, the discussions about the original proposals for DCA, and the scrapping of hand drawn animation for the likes of Chicken Little when there was a lot of discussion about the problems with Disney management. Maybe I am idealising this era somewhat, but I remember people actually engaging with the company's products and having at least somewhat thoughtful conversations about why they thought Disney was loosing sight of what made them successful in the first place. When DCA failed, we actually had reports from people who visited and photo comparisons with Tokyo DisneySea which opened around the same time.

The difference I see now is this kind of trollish barracking for the company to fail and a "burn it all down" mentality. People frame it as "concern" for the financial health of the company, but that doesn't actually track with most of the conversation and what people are highlighting as the reasons for the films losing money. Moreover, it's an unusual concern for fans to have about a company which is still bringing in billions of dollars in profits. It's also worth thinking about what solutions they would propose based on the comments on here. I'm sure I sound like an old man shouting at a cloud, but it seems like a certain toxicity that has pervaded most corners of the internet in recent years creeping into these boards.

A company that is still bringing in Billions?

What in the world.

If we are just going to use a standard P/E ratio for $Dis, the stock still has a way to fall, putting the company in hostile takeover territory.

The street is buying the future and lately they are not buying what Bob is selling.

 

[Casper Gutman]

So the rapid deterioration of a brand that you love is an unusual concern?

How much is your stock worth lately ?

How much are your DVC points worth lately ?

Are you enjoying all the perks being removed while prices are increased at the parks ?

Wonder how many more people will get fired this month.

Yes we can have very nuanced discussion about why this is happening but the time for that is not now.

When your house is on fire it doesn’t matter if it was the oven or a candle. You get the heck out.

Disney World's quality has been declining and prices skyrocketing for over 20 years. That isn’t new. If anything, we’ve recently seen very marginal positive changes, as a few minor but still terrible policies get rolled back. As for the studios, they are underperforming, but need to be understood in terms of a deeply troubled entertainment industry, in which they are weathering an unfamiliar storm better then most.

It’s not the realities of the studio or WDW that is occasioning the current disingenuous discourse and mad schadenfreude at the company’s ills.

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

You can discuss it here if you want. The problem I'm trying to point out is no one else seems to want to. The spoiler thread was where those types of discussions were happening. Like I said, all the "trolls" from this thread weren't posting there. But that thread got abandoned.

Or we (those who want to talk of the budget) could take our budget discussion to the budget thread and let this thread die like the spoiler thread.

Then everyone’s happy.

 

[Casper Gutman]

A company that is still bringing in Billions?

What in the world.

If we are just going to use a standard P/E ratio for $Dis, the stock still has a way to fall, putting the company in hostile takeover territory.

The street is buying the future and lately they are not buying what Bob is selling.

“The street” has no idea what is going on in the entertainment industry. None. It’s unbridled mania for streaming followed by its panicked retreat from the entirely predictable consequences of its own actions are a big reason for the current tumult.

But hey, it’s bullish on Warner Bros Discovery. Buy!

 

[lazyboy97o]

A company that is still bringing in Billions?

And your evidence that Disney is lying about their profitability?

 

[Jedijax719]

A big problem right now is that you have disingenuous persons trying to launder their horrid positions through established criticism. There have been people questioning the sustainability of the tent-pole strategy for some time now. A big motivator behind the strategy was that people were not seeing as many movies in theaters, so in a world where “singles and doubles” were getting less attention Iger’s strategy was to focus more on the home runs, blockbusters and the franchises that had already won people over. Disney successfully captured more of the market but they didn’t stop or reverse the larger trends in the theatrical market which seemed to have accelerated with the pandemic. So while Disney may not have expected the issue to rear its head as suddenly as it did they also were a bit cocky in thinking that it wouldn’t come (at least while they were around).

I am not sure I understand. What it sounds like to me is that you are suggesting Disney abandons or steps away from tentpoles and blockbusters-of-the-past in favor or smaller budget movies that might make $10-$20 million at the box office but bring in a budget of a couple of million dollars? Is that even something Disney does?

 

[Trauma]

And your evidence that Disney is lying about their profitability?

They are not lying.

It’s irrelevant.

If we based the value of the company exclusively on current profits the company would be worth far less.

Is the company going to go bankrupt?

Absolutely not!!

However if we get down to $65 a share Tim Cook will be dipping into the war chest.

 

[Casper Gutman]

They are not lying.

It’s irrelevant.

If we based the value of the company exclusively on current profits the company would be worth far less.

Is the company going to go bankrupt?

Absolutely not!!

However if we get down to $65 a share Tim Cook will be dipping into the war chest.

What precise changes do you think would both be viewed favorably by Wall Street AND be a positive for fans upset at falling park investment and rising prices - or by fans who like Disney movies?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Redbox is still only $2.25 for the physical disc. The DVD/Blu-Ray will cost $19.99/$24.99.

Good point…also rentals/dvds/on demand is STILL not to cover budget…

Of course part of the goal is to get that ancillary gravy…no doubt.

But it’s not to cover hand sanitizer or Halle’s hair and makeup.

But I got an idea…Let’s do this:

 

[LSLS]

What precise changes do you think would both be viewed favorably by Wall Street AND be a positive for fans upset at falling park investment and rising prices - or by fans who like Disney movies?

I think that's the line disney needs to find ( it doesnt need to be mutally exclusive). You are quite possibly seeing they have crossed a line of price not being worth it without new things. If that is the case, you either need to lower prices, or you need to constantly add. To do that, you need to reign in your budgets, and speed up the process. A walk through water feature can't take 4 years. A roller coaster can't take 7 (and keep in mind this is just from announcement).

But, I'm not sure the movies play a part in wall street vs fans anyways. If people aren't lining up for this movie for a variety of reasons, you need to eliminate 1-2 of the reasons on future releases (doesn't need to be the same ones each time). Make your pool of potential people going larger. But you better get a real read on what those reasons are.

 

[Disstevefan1]

So the rapid deterioration of a brand that you love is an unusual concern?

How much is your stock worth lately ?

How much are your DVC points worth lately ?

Are you enjoying all the perks being removed while prices are increased at the parks ?

Wonder how many more people will get fired this month.

Yes we can have very nuanced discussion about why this is happening but the time for that is not now.

When your house is on fire it doesn’t matter if it was the oven or a candle. You get the heck out.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I am not sure I understand. What it sounds like to me is that you are suggesting Disney abandons or steps away from tentpoles and blockbusters-of-the-past in favor or smaller budget movies that might make $10-$20 million at the box office but bring in a budget of a couple of million dollars? Is that even something Disney does?

It is something they did. Disney live action films for much of the company’s history were rather modestly budgeted. Studios like Touchstone and Hollywood Pictures also tended to do smaller films, really being what cranked out Eisner’s “singles and doubles”. The animated films were the big tent pole, expensive films.

I’m not suggesting they need to be on an independent movie scale budget well south of $100 million, but also needing more and more movies to gross well more than half a billion dollars. As of right now, there just doesn’t seem to be the market that can provide that level of business.