Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

Trauma

Well-Known Member
While I was working this morning I had the news on in the background. The news story as far as Little Mermaid goes with the general, non-Disney freak public - a resounding success. They reported on it like it is a blockbuster!

So for most people who don't pay close attention, LM is HIT.
Huh?

Who cares what the media says.

It’s all about the $$$ and so far it ain’t there.
 

Fox&Hound

Well-Known Member
Absolutely loved it! Halle Bailey is fantastic in every way, and man can she sing. I had my doubts about Melissa McCarthy as Ursula but she crushes it. Loved the actor for Prince Eric too. I love how they fleshed out the characters and the romance between Ariel and Eric felt more plausible this time around. The only miss for me was Javier Bardem as Triton- he played it too flat and did not possess a lot of range.
 

CaptainAmerica

Premium Member
Absolutely loved it! Halle Bailey is fantastic in every way, and man can she sing. I had my doubts about Melissa McCarthy as Ursula but she crushes it. Loved the actor for Prince Eric too. I love how they fleshed out the characters and the romance between Ariel and Eric felt more plausible this time around. The only miss for me was Javier Bardem as Triton- he played it too flat and did not possess a lot of range.
How was the CGI?

To the average person, the media will convince them that this live action was a big hit.
The media isn't going to convince *Disney* that it was a big hit if it wasn't.
 

MoonRakerSCM

Well-Known Member
Saw some interesting thoughts about the film that are concerning relating to box office-

1) The film length. It's a kids film... that's over 2 hours long. Kids are going to get bored... and it's not a smart/tight film to take the kids to again and again for a couple of weeks to entertain them.
2) Compared to Aladdin, the asian markets carried that film internationally, this film, they are obviously not. Hardcore no bueno.
 

Jedijax719

Well-Known Member
Bottom line:
To the average movie goer, they don't care about box office. They just care if they like it. Most people who have seen it do.
To the average box office follower, "success" is relative to the threshold they set.
To studios and especially stakeholders, they want to see profit (after all, they have to fund their 7 billion dollar homes across the world and pay for the fuel for their personal jets).
To any average person not tied to studio finance, profit doesn't come into consideration.

So whether it is a success depends on the litmus paper used by each group mentioned.
 

DKampy

Well-Known Member
Nothing has 'changed' since 2009 that has made original films inherently unsuccessful. What has 'changed' is that large corporations have accurued obscene amounts of intellectual property..which has allowed them to become risk averse and create less new things because it's easier for them to just leverage what they already own...guaranteed profit. But also, no risk no reward. They're not pushing into new demographics or building new audiences making the same $#!% over and over again.

The reason less original films are successful is because less original films (blockbusters with large budgets, at least) are being made. NOT because original films are just inherently unpopular.......lol. All popular things were original at some point.
I disagree… as someone who has been watching movies since the 80’s… it is a very different atmosphere today… the only trailers people get excited for is known IP… that was not always the case in the past…there is a new trailer for an original Science fiction movie called The Creator that looks great and hardly anyone is talking about it… we have no idea how good it is yet… but even if it is great I can guarantee it will not make blockbuster money

My personal fav movie of 2018 was A Quiet Place… if felt like a blockbuster type…it was considered a huge success for it’s budget, but it made 340 million worldwide…the studios want bare minimum a tentpole film to make 500 million worldwide… probably much more

Alita: Battle Angel was budgeted around 200 million… it made just over 400 million worldwide… it was not an original IP, but it was to most of the general public…in another time it would of done better…there is no way a studio is going to take a chance on a original film at a tentpole blockbuster type of budget… this is why the studios are buying up all the properties… they need blockbusters to coexist with any original movies they may take s chance on
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
Yes, which is why the “Asian markets don’t react well to films with brown or darker skinned leads” excuse feels unavailing.

well now I will jump in here and say there's a big difference between a brown person and a black person. Asian markets react negatively to black characters moreso than just brown characters in general (sadly).
 

LittleBuford

Well-Known Member
1) The film length. It's a kids film... that's over 2 hours long. Kids are going to get bored... and it's not a smart/tight film to take the kids to again and again for a couple of weeks to entertain them.
I wouldn't call it a kids' film, but family entertainment. Those aren't the same thing.

Its runtime is in keeping with that of the other live-action remakes.
 

Tha Realest

Well-Known Member
well now I will jump in here and say there's a big difference between a brown person and a black person. Asian markets react negatively to black characters moreso than just brown characters in general (sadly).
Will Smith is African-American, and the film did exceptionally well worldwide and in Asian markets.
 

BlakeW39

Well-Known Member
I disagree… as someone who has been watching movies since the 80’s… it is a very different atmosphere today… the only trailers people get excited for is known IP… that was not always the case in the past…there is a new trailer for an original Science fiction movie called The Creator that looks great and hardly anyone is talking about it… we have no idea how good it is yet… but even if it is great I can guarantee it will not make blockbuster money

My personal fav movie of 2018 was A Quiet Place… if felt like a blockbuster type…it was considered a huge success for it’s budget, but it made 340 million worldwide…the studios want bare minimum a tentpole film to make 500 million worldwide… probably much more

Alita: Battle Angel was budgeted around 200 million… it made just over 400 million worldwide… it was not an original IP, but it was to most of the general public…in another time it would of done better…there is no way a studio is going to take a chance on a original film at a tentpole blockbuster type of budget… this is why the studios are buying up all the properties… they need blockbusters to coexist with any original movies they may take s chance on

I don't want to engage too much with this because it's pretty far off topic, but I disagree. The trailer for one sci-fi movie not doing well is nor evidence that original films aren't popular. That is highly anecdotal. Films based on IP just make up a much, much larger share of the overall marketplace than they did in the past.

Alita did poorly and was based on unknown IP... well Dune did well and was based on unknown IP. So what's your point..? And now are you saying that in order to be popular, films have to be tied not only to existing IP but also POPULAR existing IP? Wow, so essentially it is only possible for films to be popular if tie in to one of like, 10 or so extremely well known franchises. If that is the case then the entertainment industry is truly dead.
 

DKampy

Well-Known Member
I
I don't want to engage too much with this because it's pretty far off topic, but I disagree. The trailer for one sci-fi movie not doing well is nor evidence that original films aren't popular. That is highly anecdotal. Films based on IP just make up a much, much larger share of the overall marketplace than they did in the past.

Alita did poorly and was based on unknown IP... well Dune did well and was based on unknown IP. So what's your point..? And now are you saying that in order to be popular, films have to be tied not only to existing IP but also POPULAR existing IP? Wow, so essentially it is only possible for films to be popular if tie in to one of like, 10 or so extremely well known franchises. If that is the case then the entertainment industry is truly dead.
We are going to have to agree to disagree here… the only thing I agree with here is that known IP is taking up most of the market share… but yes I do think for the most part… you want to get close to a billion dollars you need known IP.

I think Dune is not a good comparison… that is more known than Alita…. Which the jury is still out on Dune… it made 400 worldwide… which by your standards is a flop… we don’t know how much of that was cut off by the day and date release on HBO… we will have to wait until part 2 is released
 

CaptainMickey

Well-Known Member
Well the one thing I have learned is a lot of people in this thread are going to be really disappointed when The Marvels does well. But I guess I shouldn’t be surprised since it’s probably the same folks who think people hated Captain Marvel when it built a $1.1B box office.
Captain Marvel had a very lucky release date between the 10 year build up climatic "Endgame" movies of Infinity wars ($2 Billion) and Endgame ($2.7 Billion).

The Marvels is going to have to stand on it's own. It won't do anywhere close to Captain Marvel numbers.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom