Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[wtyy21]

Looking at that chart, Barbie should eclipse The Little Mermaid in a little over a week of it's release.

Also Oppenheimer in over a month or so. It had slightly smaller (but still massive) opening weekend numbers over Barbie. But, in a month after it's release, the film would eclipse Mermaid.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I know you’re being sarcastic, but I think both films will have a lasting cultural impact.

…nothing influences culture like profits.

 

[Disney Irish]

Disney+ has now lost Billions of dollars for the company in the past 4 years. This most recent earnings report was supposedly good news because Disney+ only lost $659 Million in 90 days time. Can you imagine the budgetary carnage at the Parks division if they were losing a couple Billion dollars per year?

If actors start getting higher residuals and income from streaming movies in perpetuity (and I'm not saying they don't deserve to, I heard that some streaming shows only pay actors 50 bucks or less in residuals per episode), that would seem to make the streaming business model like Disney+ even more costly than it already is.

Higher labor and production costs for Disney+ won't suddenly increase their profits. Only higher subscription revenue and lowered labor and production costs will finally create a profit from Disney+.

And this is why things are changing in terms of how content is put on D+. For example the lead time between when a movie is released to theaters and when it ends up on D+ has been lengthened, content that isn't watched is removed, etc.

Also as has been pointed out many times before, D+ was setup to always take 5 years before turning a profit. This was said before launch, after launch, and in every earnings call since, including the most recent one. This is all stuff we've gone over before.

But that is still not to take away from the fact that streaming is seen as a profit center by Hollywood, not just some sinkhole cost center that you portray it to be.

The world is changing my friend, the old days of how a movies success is only determined by their box office is ending.

 

[Disstevefan1]

This shill of a pixie duster says that TLM will most definitely *not* make a profit in the theatrical window based on the usual 'rule of thumb.' And that is a disappointment as well as a bit of a shock.

For those who focus only on the theatrical widow, it'll become a whipping horse to show how Disney is failing.

However, the post-theatrical windows of continued revenue should be sufficient such that TML will pretty much break even for the company as a whole in the end and not hurt the company's bottom line. Don't look for Disney to say so, since they've never really discussed how their movies do once out of the theaters... at least not financially.

And if Deadline is saying TLM is 'breaking even,' well, they said that about Black Adam. They abandoned their own rule of thumb they generally used and blithely accepted the studios' post theatrical guesswork and declared them break-even. All the while confusing the theatrical run v. the post-theatrical markets.

To clarify, we all know TLM will not make a profit in the theatrical window, but someday, after the physical media, streaming rentals, (merch??) are counted, it will probably make a little money. Thats what I mean.

They are spending too much money on these remakes, but if they can make money in the long run, it's better than losing money.

 

[Disney Irish]

To get this back on topic a bit.

TLM has now hit $560M, $560,558,617 to be exact.

 

[MrPromey]

You guys have to get this idea out of your heads that streaming is somehow "less than", and that box office is the only determining factor for movie success or failure.

This Hollywood strike has streaming profit sharing at its center (along with other things), that right there should tell you that all of Hollywood sees streaming as a profit center not just a cost center.

"You guys"?

I'm not going to say you're making a strawman but you are lumping me into an argument I'm not making.

I'm simply saying there is a difference between a streaming service completely funding a $100 million movie for the exclusive rights to it and a streaming service paying $100 million to pick up limited secondary streaming rights to a movie that's been in theaters as a wide release for a quarter of a year and for which they have no ownership, merchandising, sequel rights, etc.

... Which is what D+ is doing, right?

D+ does not have merchandising rights to TLM, right? They aren't directly getting a cut of that theatrical window, right? It doesn't have exclusive sequel rights to TLM, since D+ doesn't actually "own" it, right?

Disney likely could have gotten that $100 million or something close to it from someone else who would have had the exact same limited rights. I'm not in any way arguing that they couldn't have but they didn't so now it's up to D+ (not Netflix or whoever else) to justify that cost as a profit generator for the Disney Co. under their usage of it going forward, which just like everything else they've licensed or had exclusively produced, they can't really start to do until they're in the black and even then, them being in the black isn't saying they've made up for all the losses - just that they've started making more than they're costing.

Once they start to make a profit, everybody suddenly stops talking about the billions they've lost in previous years.*

The Disney parent company, of course does have all those rights I mentioned, but if we're going to argue that one division of the Disney Co. "paying" another division is making money** we have to also acknowledge where that kind of seperation between divisions also impacts those divisions, right?

And Netflix, since that was your example, exploits all of this stuff, just like Disney does with their own properties.

They've had multiple animated series that have had merchandising, basically following the Hasbro model - I have a closet full of soon to be donated toys junk to prove it. Heck, The Last Kids on Earth even spawned a video game* - my son owns a physical copy of it for the Switch.

The series was based off a series of books but the merchandise and game in question is based of the likenesses in the show - not the books.

I mean, POTC made money in theaters AND in secondary streams and became a short-term cultural phenomenon until they milked it to death... Now, apparently, they're ready to try beating milking that dead horse.

I want to see Disney movies start doing that kind of thing again where whether they were pointless or not isn't a debate, where if they managed to break even or not isn't a debate - where they're something to be excited about again.

Don't you?

That's my argument.

** And this truly baffles me about how big corporations get away with this in general - I'm not picking on Disney here but if I lost several billions of dollars for half a decade and then on my sixth year, managed to make a few hundred million, nobody would call me a success, right?

 

[Disstevefan1]

To get this back on topic a bit.

TLM has now hit $560M, $560,558,617 to be exact.

TLM is swimming upstream on its way to breakeven cove.

 

[MrPromey]

I don’t watch the Oscars, but it still catches my attention if a film is Oscar-winning or nominated, especially if I’m browsing options on a streaming service. I doubt I’m the only person for whom this is the case.

Agreed.

I think the technical awards are less valuable, though.

... and for Wild Uncharted Waters, okay but if Scuttlebutt wins an award, locusts and the death of first borns can't be far behind.

 

[Disstevefan1]

Agreed. I think the technical awards are less valuable, though.

... and for Wild Uncharted Waters, okay but if Scuttlebutt wins an award, locusts and the death of first borns can't be far behind.

Guaranteed win for Scuttlebutt!

 

[LittleBuford]

Agreed. I think the technical awards are less valuable, though.

... and for Wild Uncharted Waters, okay but if Scuttlebutt wins an award, locusts and the death of first borns can't be far behind.

I didn’t mind “Scuttlebutt”, but I too would be concerned if it won an Oscar!

 

[MrPromey]

I didn’t mind “Scuttlebutt”, but I too would be concerned if it won a Oscar!

You know, you and I only agree sometimes but if Suttlebutt managed to bring us together, how bad can it really be?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I just got home from watching it. It is much more political than I thought it would be, with a level of “woke” messaging that far exceeds that of any of the recent Disney “flops” that have been savaged in these threads. I’m therefore not surprised that some commentators have deemed it controversial, nor that such criticisms are far more muted than they would be for a Disney film.

For what it’s worth, I enjoyed it, but not as much as the hype led me to think I would.

I have no issue with cultural hot button topics being discussed or referenced in movies

We are humans…our Brains are supposed to learn/grow…so use them that way. Forward…ward cleaver and the Gipper aren’t coming through that door…

But what they need to not do in Hollywood is make dumb decisions and sucky content.

And that’s what “unfairly treated” Disney is leading the charge in now.

The “altered remake” is what’s ridiculous

Worked for malificent…beyond that…know your role.

 

[Disney Irish]

"You guys"?

I'm not going to say you're making a strawman but you are lumping me into an argument I'm not making.

I'm simply saying there is a difference between a streaming service completely funding a $100 million movie for the exclusive rights to it and a streaming service paying $100 million to pick up limited secondary streaming rights to a movie that's been in theaters as a wide release for a quarter of a year and for which they have no ownership, merchandising, sequel rights, etc.

... Which is what D+ is doing, right?

D+ does not have merchandising rights to TLM, right? They aren't directly getting a cut of that theatrical window, right? It doesn't have exclusive sequel rights to TLM, since D+ doesn't actually "own" it, right?

Disney likely could have gotten that $100 million or something close to it from someone else who would have had the exact same limited rights. I'm not in any way arguing that they couldn't have but they didn't so now it's up to D+ (not Netflix or whoever else) to justify that cost as a profit generator for the Disney Co. under their usage of it going forward, which just like everything else they've licensed or had exclusively produced, they can't really start to do until they're in the black and even then, them being in the black isn't saying they've made up for all the losses - just that they've started making more than they're costing.

Once they start to make a profit, everybody suddenly stops talking about the billions they've lost in previous years.*

The Disney parent company, of course does have all those rights I mentioned, but if we're going to argue that one division of the Disney Co. "paying" another division is making money** we have to also acknowledge where that kind of seperation between divisions also impacts those divisions, right?

And Netflix, since that was your example, exploits all of this stuff, just like Disney does with their own properties.

They've had multiple animated series that have had merchandising, basically following the Hasbro model - I have a closet full of soon to be donated toys junk to prove it. Heck, The Last Kids on Earth even spawned a video game* - my son owns a physical copy of it for the Switch.

The series was based off a series of books but the merchandise and game in question is based of the likenesses in the show - not the books.

I mean, POTC made money in theaters AND in secondary streams and became a short-term cultural phenomenon until they milked it to death... Now, apparently, they're ready to try beating milking that dead horse.

I want to see Disney movies start doing that kind of thing again where whether they were pointless or not isn't a debate, where if they managed to break even or not isn't a debate - where they're something to be excited about again.

Don't you?

That's my argument.

** And this truly baffles me about how big corporations get away with this in general - I'm not picking on Disney here but if I lost several billions of dollars for half a decade and then on my sixth year, managed to make a few hundred million, nobody would call me a success, right?

I'm sorry if you thought I was lumping you into the general malaise that some have around streaming. Its was just a general statement and I happen to quote your post.

However I think we need to be clear here. Netflix, just like Disney, is made up of divisions also. They have a film and tv studio divisions that are in-charge of producing content, again just like Disney. They decide to pushing their content onto their own streaming platform instead of the wide release in theaters, which may change in the future. But it is still the same concept as Disney with D+, the Netflix streaming division is paying the Netflix studio division so the content can be put on the streamer. Money is still changing hands between divisions here.

In fact Apple does the same with Apple TV+, the only difference is they look to be moving to push their movies into wide release theatrical.

So whether its $100M from outside the company or $100M from another division within the company, the studio is still getting a $100M for said content. How that works out on the overall corporate P&L is really irrelevant for these conversations of whether a movie made money or not.

 

[MrPromey]

I'm sorry if you thought I was lumping you into the general malaise that some have around streaming. Its was just a general statement and I happen to quote your post.

However I think we need to be clear here. Netflix, just like Disney, is made up of divisions also. They have a film and tv studio divisions that are in-charge of producing content, again just like Disney. They decide to pushing their content onto their own streaming platform instead of the wide release in theaters, which may change in the future. But it is still the same concept as Disney with D+, the Netflix streaming division is paying the Netflix studio division so the content can be put on the streamer. Money is still changing hands between divisions here.

In fact Apple does the same with Apple TV+, the only difference is they look to be moving to push their movies into wide release theatrical.

So whether its $100M from outside the company or $100M from another division within the company, the studio is still getting a $100M for said content. How that works out on the overall corporate P&L is really irrelevant for these conversations of whether a movie made money or not.

To me that comes down to a single basic argument: Did the Netflix investment make or will it make more money for Netflix Inc. than it cost Netflix Inc.?

Does the Disney investment make more money for the Disney Co. than it cost them?

For Netflix, I have no idea.

For Disney, I assume sooner or later, it will actually make more for the Disney Co. than it cost the Disney Co. though it's debatable how long and how much since there are far fewer new merchandising and licensing opportunities for a remake than for an original or to some degree, even a sequel... they'd have certainly gotten there faster if they'd licensed it to a third party streamer and gotten a check/money order/bank transfer/alpacas from an external third party but I completely understand the decision not to.

That said, keeping it all in house, I'm not sure you can directly quantify how much revenue a streaming service gets from any one title just by looking at streaming numbers because you have to attribute a percentage of someone's subscription price to an individual title under the premise that they would have canceled or not signed up by some percentage, if not for that title and I don't know that any of the streaming services can know that about any other than the most popular of their titles.

Obviously people will sign up to Max for a House of Dragon season and cancel, immediately after and the results of that are going to be big enough to clearly see in a chart but how much did Gray Man contribute to new subscriptions or keeping people from canceling over at Netflix?

But this kind of stuff wasn't your original argument. You were comparing a Netflix $100 million investment in production costs and exclusive ownership of a movie to a D+ $100 million investment in ONLY secondary streaming rights and in that way, they're not even remotely the same.

That's the only thing I'm disagreeing with in this conversation with you right now - you made a lousy comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I'm not claiming to be perfect. I do it too but I try* to to keep my mind open enough to be willing to admit it when someone calls me out or points out something I'd never considered, previously.

*not always successfully, I'll admit

 

[LittleBuford]

I have no issue with cultural hot button topics being discussed or referenced in movies

We are humans…are Brains are supposed to learn/grow…so use them that way. Forward…ward cleaver and the Gipper aren’t coming through that door…

But what they need to not do it Hollywood is make dumb decisions and sucky content.

And that’s what “unfairly treated” Disney is leading the charge in now.

The “altered remake” is what’s ridiculous

Worked for malificent…beyond that…know your role.

I have no problem with people objecting to the remakes as a genre, even if I myself don't mind them.

That isn't the sort of criticism I was referring to, however. What I take issue with is the way that Disney's recent films—originals as well as remakes—are repeatedly denounced for their supposed "wokeness" when movies from other studios are held to a totally different standard. Thus we are supposed to believe that parents boycotted Strange World for its innocent depiction of a gay crush but were entirely accepting of the gay Viking (shown checking out another man's bum) in How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World; or that audiences are put off by the latest Indy film's feminist undertones but have embraced Barbie as a fun summer flick despite its overt and constant anti-patriarchal messaging.

People have either fooled themselves into not recognising the double standard or are being disingenuous. Either way, it needs to be called out.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I'm sorry if you thought I was lumping you into the general malaise that some have around streaming. Its was just a general statement and I happen to quote your post.

However I think we need to be clear here. Netflix, just like Disney, is made up of divisions also. They have a film and tv studio divisions that are in-charge of producing content, again just like Disney. They decide to pushing their content onto their own streaming platform instead of the wide release in theaters, which may change in the future. But it is still the same concept as Disney with D+, the Netflix streaming division is paying the Netflix studio division so the content can be put on the streamer. Money is still changing hands between divisions here.

In fact Apple does the same with Apple TV+, the only difference is they look to be moving to push their movies into wide release theatrical.

So whether its $100M from outside the company or $100M from another division within the company, the studio is still getting a $100M for said content. How that works out on the overall corporate P&L is really irrelevant for these conversations of whether a movie made money or not.

You gotta stop with this…actual revenue/profit comes from the customers…it’s not shifted around.

If they shift $500 mil for P&R to cover bad movies…the response isn’t: “look at the money it made…”

It’s “why the hell are we throwing our park money down that drain?”


Fantasyland is to visit…not live in.

You’re getting to Supe level on some of those false narratives.

Listen to Kenny Rogers:

 

[Disney Irish]

To me that comes down to a single basic argument: Did the Netflix investment make or will it make more money for Netflix Inc. than it cost Netflix Inc.?

Does the Disney investment make more money for the Disney Co. than it cost them?

For Netflix, I have no idea.

For Disney, I assume sooner or later, it will actually make more for the Disney Co. than it cost the Disney Co. though it's debatable how long and how much since there are far fewer new merchandising and licensing opportunities for a remake than for an original or to some degree, even a sequel... and I'm not sure you can directly quantify how much revenue a streaming service gets from any one title just by looking at streaming numbers because you have to attribute a percentage of someone's subscription price to an individual title under the premise that they would have canceled or not signed up by some percentage, if not for that title and I don't know that any of the streaming services can know that about any other than the most popular of their titles - obviously people will sign up to Max for a House of Dragon season and cancel, immediately after, for instance but how much did Gray Man contribute to new subscriptions or keeping people from canceling?

But this kind of stuff wasn't your original argument. You were comparing a Netflix $100 million investment in production costs and exclusive ownership of a movie to a D+ $100 million investment in ONLY secondary streaming rights and in that way, they're not even remotely the same.

That's the only thing I'm disagreeing with in this conversation with you right now - you made a lousy comparison that doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

I'm not claiming to be perfect. I do it too but I try* to to keep my mind open enough to be willing to admit it when someone calls me out or points out something I'd never considered, previously.

*not always successfully, I'll admit

Sorry if you disagree with my example, but to me they are the same and a good comparison.

Studio A produced content. Streamer A (same company) pays for content. Money is still being exchanged within the same company for said content.

The fact that said content (in the case of Netflix) never went or had limited theatrical release is irrelevant for the conversation of streaming paying for said content. In fact one could say that Netflix is more at risk here since they don't have a wide theatrical release, but that is a different conversation.

As brought up before the streamers, whether Disney or Netflix, has to pay a "fair" price for content even created within the same company as there are still payouts for creators tied to that content.

The piece that none of us really know is what Netflix pays out for a first run movie. However with the 5 year deal between Netflix and Sony, rumored between $1B-3B, one has to assume given the number of movies that it ends up costing Netflix at least $100M for some of those movies, sometimes more sometimes less.

So that brings us back to TLM, is $100M D+ is paying a fair price, when looking at the Netflix/Sony deal one could say yes. Again doesn't matter whether that is being paid by internal streamer or external streamer, its still being paid.

 

[Disney Irish]

You gotta stop with this…actual revenue/profit comes from the customers…it’s not shifted around.

If they shift $500 mil for P&R to cover bad movies…the response isn’t: “look at the money it made…”

It’s “why the hell are we throwing our park money down that drain?”


Fantasyland is to visit…not live in.

You’re getting to Supe level on some of those false narratives.

Listen to Kenny Rogers:

Tell you what, go down to Sunset and ask the writers and actors who are on the picket line if it really matters where the money comes from.

I'll just go out on a limb here and say none will care.....

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I have no problem with people objecting to the remakes as a genre, even if I myself don't mind them.

That isn't the sort of criticism I was referring to, however. What I take issue with is the way that Disney's recent films—originals as well as remakes—are repeatedly denounced for their supposed "wokeness" when movies from other studios are held to a totally different standard. Thus we are supposed to believe that parents boycotted Strange World for its innocent depiction of a gay crush but were entirely accepting of the gay Viking (shown checking out another man's bum) in How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World; or that audiences are put off by the latest Indy film's feminist undertones but have embraced Barbie as a fun summer flick despite its overt and constant anti-patriarchal messaging.

People have either fooled themselves into not recognising the double standard or are being disingenuous. Either way, it needs to be called out.

I don’t have a problem with any well told story or characters…it just has to make sense…and growth does take time.

Ok…I’ll be the bad guy (my typecast):
The problem is proportionality.

As in TLM…for instance…what is the total AA female population in just the US? Maybe 6.5-7%?

Good side: a lot more that that saw it/were interested across that “line”. The down side: a lot of the “other” people reflexively veer away from it.

It’s not right…it will never be right…but it will take time.

Disney believed they can force it because of “brand loyalty”…bobs entire schtick.

It’s not working…

And yes…a lot of that is because a large, vocal…frankly stupid segment of the domestic and world population has mistaken tv style antics as social/government policy.

It amplifies the worst in us…and that’s bleeding into our entertainment too.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Tell you what, go down to Sunset and ask the writers and actors who are on the picket line if it really matters where the money comes from.

I'll just go out on a limb here and say none will care.....

That’s a “fallacy of straw” on the debate stage…

You’ll find no one more pro-labor around here than me…call me Engels….

But on the corporate side…they’re in no way happy about this kinda “creative accounting”. They’re loses.

Two kinds a people:
1. People that know this
2. People who know it but won’t admit it