Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Chi84]

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.

I think the people who react so strongly are ones who formed emotional ties to Disney the way it was years ago and now see it crumbling under poor management. They’re rooting for it to fail so it will go back to being closer to the old Disney.

 

[Casper Gutman]

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.

How do you think stock prices will react if Disney announces a policy of lowering prices in the parks and/ or increasing investment?

And what are some of the “1or 2 reasons” for audience reluctance you could remove?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

Movies Feed parks and products…that’s all part of a circle…but it’s true

The whole point of creative Bob jamming the same thing up our rears was to ensure the cycle

So don’t screw up the movies

Business 101.

Money spent Doesn’t sub for good stories and memorable characters

Never. Since day 1

If they released last crusade now it would be a smash hit. As it was in 1989. $250 mil in special effects doesn’t actually change the movie

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How do you think stock prices will react if Disney announces a policy of lowering prices in the parks and/ or increasing investment?

And what are some of the “1or 2 reasons” for audience reluctance you could remove?

That’s why you NEVER get to the point where you’re overpriced.

The cardinal sin of parks. All the management understood that…perhaps until now?

 

[Vegas Disney Fan]

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.

I’d settle for the small things that bring back value… bring back Magical Express, bring back FP, bring back streetmosphere, bring back nighttime parades…

They don’t necessarily need to decrease prices or add massive budget items like new rides, they just need to make it worth it again.

When you’re already spending thousands to go to Disney you shouldn’t feel like you’re being nickel and dimed to death while you’re there.

 

[TP2000]

There’s nothing about this thread that would encourage people to contribute or stick around (except for a few of us who are gluttons for punishment). To reuse a term from my earlier post, it’s totally joyless in here.

Having a mega-budget movie like Mermaid underperform and lose money like it has is not an inherently joyful topic to discuss, that is true.

But since we're all here because we have a higher than usual level of fandom for Disney, the glaring box office topic is being discussed.

As for people not wanting to talk about that box office, this thread has gained 95 pages of comments since May 30th, when people here started talking about the weak box office on its opening weekend.

So... there are folks who are interested in discussing it and watching it all play out through its theatrical run.

 

[Casper Gutman]

Having a mega-budget movie like Mermaid underperform and lose money like it has is not an inherently joyful topic to discuss, that is true.

But since we're all here because we have a higher than usual level of fandom for Disney, the glaring box office topic is being discussed.

As for people not wanting to talk about that box office, this thread has gained 95 pages of comments since May 30th, when people here started talking about the weak box office on its opening weekend.

So... there are folks who are interested in discussing it and watching it all play out through its theatrical run.

With a few exceptions, the mania over recent Disney box office results isn’t being driven by fandom. If it were, it would include genuine consideration of Disneys place in the entertainment industry as a whole or more honest appraisals of why these films underperformed. Several posters just want to see Disney hurt.

 

[TP2000]

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?

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.

The mega-budget of Mermaid is a problem because it drastically underperformed at the box office compared to earlier remakes.

Especially at the overseas box office, which was just brutal for Mermaid compared to the previous 3 remakes. Foreigners just weren't interested in this movie, and the overseas box office reflects that.

Here's how that looks for you, with Monday math after the chart;

Using the rule of marketing being 50% of a tentpole's production budget, and using the most optimistic scenario for Disney that they got 60% of all box office domestically and 40% of all box office overseas, we get the following adjusted for inflation, in Millions:

BatB: $282 Million Production/Marketing Costs, $710 Million Worldwide Box Office Take = $429 Million Profit for Disney
Aladdin: $310 Million Production/Marketing Costs, $559 Million Worldwide Box Office Take = $249 Million Profit for Disney
Lion King: $445 Million Production/Marketing Costs, $876 Million Worldwide Box Office Take = $431 Million Profit for Disney
Mermaid: $375 Million Production/Marketing Costs, $274 Million Worldwide Box Office Take = $101 Million Loss for Disney Thus Far

Thus far, Mermaid is the only one of those recent remakes to lose money. And now that its global box office has flatlined six weeks after it was released everywhere, it's got about $100 Million left to break even. That performance is not acceptable financially, especially when its parent company is losing a hundred Million or more on every other summer tentpole they've released.

Next up... The Haunted Mansion.

Movie Comparison: The Little Mermaid (2023) vs. Aladdin (2019) vs. The Lion King (2019) vs. Beauty and the Beast (2017)

Domestic box office comparison between The Little Mermaid (2023) and Aladdin (2019) and The Lion King (2019) and Beauty and the Beast (2017)

www.the-numbers.com

 

[TP2000]

Several posters just want to see Disney hurt.

You say "hurt", I say "improve".

Tomato, Tohmahto. But I don't want to call anything off. Yet.

 

[LittleBuford]

Having a mega-budget movie like Mermaid underperform and lose money like it has is not an inherently joyful topic to discuss, that is true.

But since we're all here because we have a higher than usual level of fandom for Disney, the glaring box office topic is being discussed.

As for people not wanting to talk about that box office, this thread has gained 95 pages of comments since May 30th, when people here started talking about the weak box office on its opening weekend.

So... there are folks who are interested in discussing it and watching it all play out through its theatrical run.

Yeah, I’m not buying it. If people didn’t have an ideological axe to grind, this thread would not have grown into the mess it’s become. Consider how weird it would be if the threads over in the main boards were dominated by people who had never set foot in any of the attractions, restaurants, or hotels under discussion and who had no intention of ever doing so. Whatever is driving such behaviour, it certainly isn’t benign, nor is it consistent with how this forum used to be even a few short years ago.

 

[TP2000]

Whatever is driving such behaviour, it certainly isn’t benign, nor is it consistent with how this forum used to be even a few short years ago.

This October I will celebrate my 20th anniversary on this message forum (Yes, I am planning a party). But I didn't even know this side of the forum existed until a year or so ago. Who knew?

But with the recent financial problems, the thousands of layoffs staffing reductions, and executive drama and trauma, that Disney has been going through in the past year, the financial impact from their bloated and underperforming movie business is of much more interest to me than it was back when Disney could just release anything stamped with a Castle or Pixar logo and instantly make a tidy profit from American families.

This topic will continue to interest me until Disney gets itself back in order and fixes the problems it has and starts making profitable movies again. Until then.... I can't wait to see what happens with The Haunted Mansion in a few weeks.

 

[LSLS]

How do you think stock prices will react if Disney announces a policy of lowering prices in the parks and/ or increasing investment?

And what are some of the “1or 2 reasons” for audience reluctance you could remove?

I mean, how did they react when tron was announced? Or star wars land? Heck, how did they react when they took away the parking fee? Or how did Comcast react when epic was announced? I assume there is an assumption of expenses to improve the parks. Lowering prices would be a much harder sell, and as Sir said, that's why you can't get to that point.

As for the reasons the audience may not have shown up, I laid them out a while ago and honestly don't want to rehash it all. But there are a lot of reasons that people potentially had very little desire to see this movie (some I'd agree with, some not at all). I equate it to the star cruiser, they made their pool too small.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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?

Beauty and the beast Total cost WITH marketing was $300 according to Alan Horn and Bob, Lord Sweater 3/14/2017

Lion king…$250 budget and $150 marketing
See attached

‘Lion King’ Remake Becomes Disney’s Latest Box-Office Smash (Published 2019)

Disney’s domestic market share for the year stands at about 40 percent. On Sunday, “Avengers: Endgame” passed “Avatar” to rank as the No. 1 ticket-seller on record.

www.nytimes.com

Haven’t found Aladdin…but about $150 mil was similar for the other 2…


So does that answer the question?
BATB - $160 production and $150 marketing
Aladdin - $183 production and $150 marketing
Lion king - $250 production and $150 marketing
For good measure: jungle book was $177 and $125 marketing
Mermaid: $250 (minimum) and $140 (minimum) - both of those are “light”


Now for homework: you get to do box office…

Go!

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Yeah, I’m not buying it. If people didn’t have an ideological axe to grind, this thread would not have grown into the mess it’s become. Consider how weird it would be if the threads over in the main boards were dominated by people who had never set foot in any of the attractions, restaurants, or hotels under discussion and who had no intention of ever doing so. Whatever is driving such behaviour, it certainly isn’t benign, nor is it consistent with how this forum used to be even a few short years ago.

For the 50th time…on this thread…the numbers are not affected by “personal opinions” of who saw it. Only the numbers

How much butter did you slather on your popcorn?…because that could vastly affect your rating system…cause the rules are up for opinion…

 

[Jedijax719]

Beauty and the beast Total cost WITH marketing was $300 according to Alan Horn and Bob, Lord Sweater 3/14/2017

Lion king…$250 budget and $150 marketing
See attached

‘Lion King’ Remake Becomes Disney’s Latest Box-Office Smash (Published 2019)

Disney’s domestic market share for the year stands at about 40 percent. On Sunday, “Avengers: Endgame” passed “Avatar” to rank as the No. 1 ticket-seller on record.

www.nytimes.com

Haven’t found Aladdin…but about $150 mil was similar for the other 2…


So does that answer the question?
BATB - $160 production and $150 marketing
Aladdin - $183 production and $150 marketing
Lion king - $250 production and $150 marketing
For good measure: jungle book was $177 and $125 marketing
Mermaid: $250 (minimum) and $140 (minimum) - both of those are “light”


Now for homework: you get to do box office…

Go!

Not a whole lot different from the rest. TLM was right on target with the others despite delays, COVID, and inflation. So, while we can go on and on about how much Disney spends to make films, TLM wasn't off base from their others. That all being said, the others made over a billion (and JB almost made a billion). So the attention turns to why/how Disney could ever have accounted for TLM making SO much less overseas than all the rest. And I would say that NO they could never have imagined it making less than $600 million worldwide. And even if they somehow did, does it really mean trimming the budget would have mattered?

Point is that yes TLM has been a global disappointment to put it lightly. Domestically-eh-not that bad (at least compared to Aladdin).

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

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.

I’m not so sure the techies are convinced Disney is a good buy?

Now a few years ago before the damn began to crack…that would be hard to spin.

But now?

We know the two “big A’s” have dabbled in streaming…mostly to Tinker and draw attention to their bread and butter products/platforms…

But do they want to run hotels and the college program? Sinking cable stations? Like a sports network that’s fired everyone but the wall paper at this point?

Of course not…

So it would he only about the content. And the content alone.

Well what if you start laying eggs with your previous “can’t miss” content?

…where’s the value for the headache?

 

[Casper Gutman]

I mean, how did they react when tron was announced? Or star wars land? Heck, how did they react when they took away the parking fee? Or how did Comcast react when epic was announced? I assume there is an assumption of expenses to improve the parks. Lowering prices would be a much harder sell, and as Sir said, that's why you can't get to that point.

As for the reasons the audience may not have shown up, I laid them out a while ago and honestly don't want to rehash it all. But there are a lot of reasons that people potentially had very little desire to see this movie (some I'd agree with, some not at all). I equate it to the star cruiser, they made their pool too small.

Wall Street hates capital expenditure without demonstrable ROI, and they loathe the theme park industry because it requires those expenditures constantly. That's why Iger spent billions on reservation systems that allowed big staffing cuts and paid line-skipping that might show clear income rather then actually invest in the parks. The entire ethos of the modern financial community, the philosophy in which Iger and his successors have been marinated, is that a dollar earned by cutting expenses is preferable to several dollars earned through capital outlay. If Disney pursued increased investment in the parks at a time when Wall Street is bearish on the stock and the entertainment industry is in chaos, it would be very negatively received. Its less of an issue for Comcast because parks aren't seen as part of their core business and their core business is perceived as strong and stable.

Disney's blockbusters have been very carefully engineered to be four quadrant films, to appeal to every possible audience. They've been very good at that. It is unclear what they can do to improve accessibility, especially with one audience segment clamoring for the exclusion of other audience segments.

 

[LSLS]

Wall Street hates capital expenditure without demonstrable ROI, and they loathe the theme park industry because it requires those expenditures constantly. That's why Iger spent billions on reservation systems that allowed big staffing cuts and paid line-skipping that might show clear income rather then actually invest in the parks. The entire ethos of the modern financial community, the philosophy in which Iger and his successors have been marinated, is that a dollar earned by cutting expenses is preferable to several dollars earned through capital outlay. If Disney pursued increased investment in the parks at a time when Wall Street is bearish on the stock and the entertainment industry is in chaos, it would be very negatively received. Its less of an issue for Comcast because parks aren't seen as part of their core business and their core business is perceived as strong and stable.

Disney's blockbusters have been very carefully engineered to be four quadrant films, to appeal to every possible audience. They've been very good at that. It is unclear what they can do to improve accessibility, especially with one audience segment clamoring for the exclusion of other audience segments.

I mean, to an extent im sure. But quick look, they announced toy story land and galaxy edge at the same event. The stock lost 31 cents. Cosmic rewind lost $1, and was above that the next day. The "controversial" splash retheme was like 20 cents, and up like $3 within a week. I'm just not sure it impacts that much as I think it's expected. But we are getting pretty off topic with this one.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I mean, to an extent im sure. But quick look, they announced toy story land and galaxy edge at the same event. The stock lost 31 cents. Cosmic rewind lost $1, and was above that the next day. The "controversial" splash retheme was like 20 cents, and up like $3 within a week. I'm just not sure it impacts that much as I think it's expected. But we are getting pretty off topic with this one.

The parks have always added incredible value to Disney in the market…

Not only because the merch component provides billions per year with near pathetically small overhead…but because it’s constant brand reinforcement across the Spectrum.

Providing quality in the parks has always added intrinsic value to all Disney products…which can’t be measured in how many upsell cupcakes you push on one given day.

Guess which moron decided that was no longer true?

 

[Casper Gutman]

I mean, to an extent im sure. But quick look, they announced toy story land and galaxy edge at the same event. The stock lost 31 cents. Cosmic rewind lost $1, and was above that the next day. The "controversial" splash retheme was like 20 cents, and up like $3 within a week. I'm just not sure it impacts that much as I think it's expected. But we are getting pretty off topic with this one.

That's because Wall Street understood, just as you and I understood, that none of this was a change in the overall philosophy of investing the minimal amount in the park possible while raising prices, cutting costs, and milking every penny possible from them. A change of overall philosophy would cause a very significant reaction. Why do you think Iger behaves as he does? Do you believe he just hates theme parks for no particular reason?