Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[CaptainAmerica]

Noisy activists aren’t driving Disney’s casting decisions.

Imagine believing that.

Let's use a Parks example.

Anyone with sense, left, right, or center, agrees that the depiction of Native Americans in Peter Pan's Flight is problematic at best. Nobody thought Splash Mountain, the ride, was racist, though its source material was certainly controversial. Yet the "red man" scene is here to stay for the foreseeable future while Br'er Rabbit has been sent packing. Why? Because Splash Mountain had noisier activists.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I am not taking shots. I am responding to the words and sentiments you yourself are choosing to share. I made no insinuation that you had an ideological issue with her casting; it’s clear you’re referring to the business side of things. That doesn’t change anything for me, because I still disagree with you. To my mind, there’s nothing especially daring about Disney’s strategy, and even if they are losing a bit of money because of their perceived progressivism, they can afford to do so. I believe, moreover, that such an approach will prove wiser than the alternative in the long term, both as regards PR and financially.

Ok…that’s fair enough.

However losses won’t be tolerated forever and that may have unintended consequences?

You think anyone believes this guy and gives him this kinda latitude anymore?

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

How does this picture relate to the casting of Halle Bailey?

His point is trying to flip old IP for appearances for effect…

Not saying I agree with it in either case. But alot of the mass paying public would.

And Disney is mass market…not arthouse, luxury or boutique.

 

[Disney Irish]

Netflix licensing covered budgets. Selling a movie to yourself to put on YOUR OWN streaming service does not.

And PVOD is basically zero. It's been entirely cannibalized by D+.

So I guess the whole DTC model that Hollywood has been transitioning to for the better part of a decade is all for nothing.

Oh well, there goes $100s of Billions in investments. Someone call up Ted and Greg and tell them they can breathe a sigh of relief, that they can expect all of Hollywood to cancel all DTC as checks will be in the mail tomorrow.

 

[LittleBuford]

Imagine believing that.

I genuinely do believe that, perhaps because I mix in the kinds of circles that noisy activists are imagined to come from.

 

[Chi84]

Imagine believing that.

There are a lot of people who believe it. Even if what you’re saying is true, noisy activists aren’t necessarily wrong.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Noisy activists aren’t driving Disney’s casting decisions.

I think an obtuse faction of rising Hollywood creative talent did maybe drive the wrong way.

My old go to is the LFL sorry group…fired as quickly as you can say “Rian Johnson”…

But they were unqualified, hired, and allowed to fester and create billions of dollars of brand rot for 5 years.

Not good.

 

[LittleBuford]

His point is trying to flip old IP for appearances for effect…

Apparently his point is rather more than that, based on his own replies to me.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

I genuinely do believe that, perhaps because I mix in the kinds of circles that noisy activists are imagined to come from.

I edited my post to include what I consider to be a very clear and concrete example.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

So I guess the whole DTC model that Hollywood has been transitioning to for the better part of a decade is all for nothing.

AAA films are not for the sake of DTC.

AAA films are for box office and then they help sustain DTC. Series are the life blood of DTC.

But yes, actually, the model sucks.

 

[Chi84]

Imagine believing that.

Let's use a Parks example.

Anyone with sense, left, right, or center, agrees that the depiction of Native Americans in Peter Pan's Flight is problematic at best. Nobody thought Splash Mountain, the ride, was racist, though its source material was certainly controversial. Yet the "red man" scene is here to stay for the foreseeable future while Br'er Rabbit has been sent packing. Why? Because Splash Mountain had noisier activists.

That’s Disney’s call. They recognized problems with Splash’s source material many years ago by distancing themselves from it, didn’t they?

 

[LittleBuford]

I edited my post to include what I consider to be a very clear and concrete example.

It’s an example I’m familiar with. And no, I don’t believe Disney—to pretty much everyone’s surprise—announced an expensive retheme of a headliner attraction because of an online petition signed by a few thousand people. The decision was Disney’s own, regardless of what one thinks of its merits.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I never mentioned toy sales in this exchange, so doesn't appear to be me that has reading comprehension issues....

But I have brought up PVOD and D+, which does cover budgets as explained many many many times in these threads even if it gets ignored 1001 times.

That’s been presented as a “fallback excuse”

Reject it. They’re not making movies to siphon the budget back from D+

You guys really are in for a rude awakening on this stream stuff the emperor has “floated”. Which you notice is all hedged/non-committal? Funny how that plays…

All the stuff after theatrical was meant…and still is…to be easy, low cost revenue to cash in longterm off a Tentpole…not to scrounge for budget bucks.

Make sure you have oxygen to breath on whatever planet people live on where they believe that.

 

[Disney Irish]

AAA films are not for the sake of DTC.

AAA films are for box office and then they help sustain DTC. Series are the life blood of DTC.

But yes, actually, the model sucks.

In your opinion.

The current model isn't sustainable given the shift of the consumer, hence the investment in DTC.

Technological changes will always cause disruption, DTC is no different.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

Apparently his point is rather more than that, based on his own replies to me.

Yeah well I’m trying to consider the “art” while supporting the “artist”

Just this once

 

[MrPromey]

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.

There are three different problems here as I see it:

1) is the content sub-par?
2) is the content someone's idea of "woke"?
3) is the content made by Disney?

If either of the first two is true, they're going to get slapped 5x harder because of #3.

Lately, a lot of what Disney's been doing hits the full trifecta.

If they can nail #1, I'm confident the rest will sort itself out over time but because they haven't been, it's given the people who take issue with #2 a bigger platform to argue that somehow, that's why Disney's stuff is under-preforming.

As if a 10 second scene in Lightyear is where all their creative focus went and is why the rest of the movie wasn't that good.

As for #3, Disney's been considered the top of family entertainment for generations. Heavier scrutiny is what you get for being in that position which may be unfair in certain lights (I think it is) but is also the price you pay for being known for being the king of catch-all-family content and the billions the company rakes in from their dominant position in a number of businesses makes true comparisons of fairness sort of hard to make.*


*The problem here is that people feel Disney is their Disney. They see Disney changing with the times and because they aren't also changing, they feel like they're being left behind and betrayed which makes them feel angry and hurt. This is something that we all experience in one form or another at some point in our lives but it's usually with another individual that we grow apart from. Disney's unique relationship with their customers/fans creates this weird situation where people feel they have an emotional investment in a multi-billion dollar multi-national company. I say "they" but I might as well say "we" because none of us would be here if we weren't ensnared in at least a little of that delusion, too.

 

[LittleBuford]

There are three different problems here as I see it:

1) is the content sub-par?
2) is the content someone's idea of "woke"?
3) is the content made by Disney?

If either of the first two is true, they're going to get slapped 5x harder because of #3.

Lately, a lot of what Disney's been doing hits this trifecta.

If they can nail #1, I'm confident the rest will sort itself out over time but because they haven't been, it's given the people who take issue with #2 a bigger platform to argue that somehow, that's why Disney's stuff is under-preforming.

As if a 10 second scene in Lightyear is where all their creative focus went and is why the rest of the movie wasn't that good.

As for #3, Disney's been considered the top of family entertainment for generations. Heavier scrutiny is what you get for being in that position which may be unfair in certain lights (I think it is) but is also the price you pay for being known for being the king of catch-all-family content and the billions the company rakes in from their dominant position in a number of businesses makes true comparisons of fairness sort of hard to make.*


*The problem here is that people feel Disney is their Disney. They see Disney changing with the times and because they aren't also changing, they feel like they're being left behind and betrayed which makes them feel angry and hurt. This is something that we all experience in one form or another at some point in our lives but it's usually with another individual that we grow apart from. Disney's unique relationship with their customers/fans creates this weird situation where people feel they have an emotional investment in a multi-billion dollar multi-national company and I say they but I might as well say we because none of us would be here if we weren't ensnared in a little of that delusion, too.

This is astute, and I agree with pretty much all of it.

 

[Disney Irish]

That’s been presented as a “fallback excuse”

Reject it. They’re not making movies to siphon the budget back from D+

You guys really are in for a rude awakening on this stream stuff the emperor has “floated”. Which you notice is all hedged/non-committal? Funny how that plays…

All the stuff after theatrical was meant…and still is…to be easy, low cost revenue to cash in longterm off a Tentpole…not to scrounge for budget bucks.

Make sure you have oxygen to breath on whatever planet people live on where they believe that.

The consumer has changed how they wants to consume their content, this isn't going to stop, pandemic accelerated it.

I'm not saying box office is gone tomorrow, but what 2023 has shown us is the box office is no longer the same as it was 5-10 years ago. It may never get back to that point. So studios have to find revenue post-theatrical, this means DTC in one form or another.

The old model of post-theatrical only being for pennies is gone. Its a whole new world of revenue being created with DTC.

 

[Chi84]

There are three different problems here as I see it:

1) is the content sub-par?
2) is the content someone's idea of "woke"?
3) is the content made by Disney?

If either of the first two is true, they're going to get slapped 5x harder because of #3.

Lately, a lot of what Disney's been doing hits this trifecta.

If they can nail #1, I'm confident the rest will sort itself out over time but because they haven't been, it's given the people who take issue with #2 a bigger platform to argue that somehow, that's why Disney's stuff is under-preforming.

As if a 10 second scene in Lightyear is where all their creative focus went and is why the rest of the movie wasn't that good.

As for #3, Disney's been considered the top of family entertainment for generations. Heavier scrutiny is what you get for being in that position which may be unfair in certain lights (I think it is) but is also the price you pay for being known for being the king of catch-all-family content and the billions the company rakes in from their dominant position in a number of businesses makes true comparisons of fairness sort of hard to make.*


*The problem here is that people feel Disney is their Disney. They see Disney changing with the times and because they aren't also changing, they feel like they're being left behind and betrayed which makes them feel angry and hurt. This is something that we all experience in one form or another at some point in our lives but it's usually with another individual that we grow apart from. Disney's unique relationship with their customers/fans creates this weird situation where people feel they have an emotional investment in a multi-billion dollar multi-national company and I say they but I might as well say we because none of us would be here if we weren't ensnared in a little of that delusion, too.

That’s an excellent observation and beautifully articulated.

 

[CaptainAmerica]

It’s an example I’m familiar with. And no, I don’t believe Disney—to pretty much everyone’s surprise—announced an expensive retheme of a headliner attraction because of an online petition signed by a few thousand people. The decision was Disney’s own, regardless of what one thinks of its merits.

I wish you could see what they have in store for Spaceship Earth.

I'm sure @marni1971 has seen the render. Tell me if I'm telling lies.