Screamface
Well-Known Member
When food and energy is becoming too expensive globally, seeing a remake of a movie becomes a lower priority.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid
- Thread starter NateD1226
- Start date
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Every single one of these films (the highest-grossing of the year) are sequels, remakes, or based on existing media. I don't really think the argument that "seeing a remake is a lower priority" is a sound argument.
tcool123
Well-Known Member
Saw it in 3D for the rewatch, I noticed no issues
In fact it was refreshing as my cousins were mesmerized by 3D - for reference they seldom go to the movies and immigrated to the states a few years ago from Cuba. Not sure what drove them to want to watch Little Mermaid, but not complaining!
TalkingHead
Well-Known Member
Genre matters
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
I wonder if one of the reasons for TLM's overseas underperformance is variable marketing strategies. IMO what really sold me on this film doing well in the states was how strong its marketing was. Do we know if the film was marketed as heavily overseas? If so, we can only assume that the film is less compelling to Asian audiences, probably for numerable reasons. If not, well then that might help explain the US vs overseas disparity.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
That's because the studios, especially Disney, can't manage a budget. If your plan is to start a new franchise, you can't balloon the budget to 200mil plus. If you keep the budget to 120/130mil, you only would need about 325mil to break even. That's plenty reasonable to hit in my opinion.
It's this pad our profits now mentality that's the problem. The people in charge now, don't care if in 5, 7, 10yrs down the road they're all tapped out. It's the same mentality in the parks as well. Screw the long term, that will be someone else's problem.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
That's a tough one. Look at a movie like Avatar, arguably the last truly successful new property. In order to get butts in seats, you need to entice them with something new. In this day and age (and for a very long time actually), that means using visuals. Those are expensive. Sure, there may be a way to manage a budget while also putting money into the proper visuals, but I would guess that's pretty difficult for the big screen. Maybe not the small screen, but definitely the big screen. Then, who knows what is going to become of the writer's strike deals.
Speaking of Avatar, maybe the answer to successful "new" properties is to hide the fact that it isn't really a new concept but rather a visually appealing version of a story that people are familiar with. Aka, just copy something already done but change the look of the characters and setting. You know, like Tangled in the rainforest with elves and goblins and a dinosaur instead of Max.
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
This is actually pretty insightful and something I have been saying for a while. We're in a unique place right now with the entertainment industry where media companies have acquired tons and tons of intellectual property to the point where they essentially don't even have to create new IPs to make money. They can just leverage the IPs they've acquired. Creating new things is a larger risk and can potentially require more investment. Risk-averse executives currently see no incentive to invest large sums of money and resources in creating new IP. But all the existing IPs have limited consumer interest and value. It's like fossil fuels. Eventually if we keep mining the earth for its resources, we will run out. We need to find a way to create new energy in a way that is sustainable. If companies keep relying solely on their limited number of existing IPs, they'll run their course and consumers will lose interest. Eventually, entertainment companies will have to invest in new IPs. Whether that is before the established IPs are drained of all their value... or afterwards.
Screamface
Well-Known Member
TLM is the only film there that is a remake. Every other film offers the value proposition of seeing something new.
People can just load up the original on Disney+ and from the track record of live-action remakes know they'll see a better film. Yes, this is all detached speculation but let's face it. Does anyone consider any of the live-action remakes to be better than the originals?
Franchise fatigue which is shown in some of those sequels will exist for remakes.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Yes and that used to not be a problem because there was always something new on the horizon. People were actually reading books in the "old" days (80's, 90's, early 2000's lol) so book adaptations were a thing.
Problem is, to make a new IP worth watching in the theater, it has to be visually appealing. To make something visually appealing on the big screen takes money. To have money, studio execs have to invest. Rinse and repeat, back to square one, round and round, and all that jazz.
erasure fan1
Well-Known Member
And that's just it. Like I said earlier, whoever the current person that's in charge, has no real reason to worry about it. Not their problem. That's for someone else to deal with.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
I hate to keep arguing with you about this, but entertainment companies are investing in new "IPs", Disney, and Universal, etc, they've all produced new/original films, while also producing sequels, and using existing IP.
doctornick
Well-Known Member
The Jungle Book was better than the original IMHO.
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
Have they? Please give examples. I want to see some of these (or are we just talking about animated films?)
I wouldn't say it was better. But it was as good as the original.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Are we just talking Films? Just theatrical? This is complicated... but here's some examples...
"Original" Films released/upcoming by Disney:
- Crater (Disney+)
- Chang Can Dunk (Disney+)
- Strange World (Theatrical, Animated)
- Rise (Disney+)
- Hollywood Stargirl (Disney+)
- Better Nate than Ever (Disney+)
- Turning Red (Disney+, Animated)
- Elemental (Theatrical, Animated)
- Wish (Theatrical, Animated)
- The Creator (Theatrical, 20th Century)
- Encanto (Theatrical, Animated)
- Luca (Disney+, Animated)
They've also produced tons of original TV shows/docuseries, etc for Hulu and Disney+. Have all of them been successful, no. But they are "investing".
What you all are really arguing is that there haven’t been many successful “original” films/TV shows, which more proves the opposite of what you are arguing. But this is the wrong thread to really delve into all of this.
Last edited:
Jedijax719
Well-Known Member
live action theatrical (not 20th century, but Disney proper)
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
“Disney” proper is mostly an animation studio, so I really don’t see how we can keep this argument going on just that premise. Yes they’ve produced live action films since they began but for example, Mary Poppins was not an “original” idea, neither was Sleeping Beauty, Cinderella, Little Mermaid, Treasure Island, 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, The Sword in the Stone, Alice in Wonderland, Bedknobs and Broomsticks, Winnie the Pooh, must I go on?
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Correct. Coporate executives are inherently risk averse. Creating new IP includes more subtantial risks than simply using the IP you already have. But existing IPs have limited consumer interest, so you can't just pump out sequels and spin offs forever. At some point their value is drained and corporations will be forced to move on to new things. What that looks like I don't know.
Yep, it's not a Bob Iger problem for instance, it'll be a problem for whoever helms the company next. Bob Iger is the one who bought the land and pumped out all the oil; the next person will have to find new ways to create energy.
Last edited:
BlakeW39
Well-Known Member
Hahah, it's fine— it depends on the medium though. Animation studios still invent new IP all the time, but live action film, theme parks (heheh) etc do so more rarely. Some though, occasionally, like 65 which bombed (i.e. the risk of inventing new IP, although to be fair as a dinosaur fan I wasn't even interested because I thought the dinosaurs just looked like monsters......so overall some questionable decisions there).
Yeah this is true, but Disney is a huge entertainment conglomerate now and they're gonna have to find ways to invent new IP from here on out. Once their franchises run out of steam. Also, I'm talking beyond Disney, about the industry at large— most high budget blockbusters are franchise movies now