Disney's Live Action The Little Mermaid

[Tha Realest]

Disney is a for-profit company. If you want to see more of “X”, you should hope that “X” is profitable.

I loved Tron: Legacy. Loved it. Sadly not enough people went to see it and, well, we’ve never gotten a true sequel.

I loved John Carter. Sadly, not enough people went to see it and we’ll never see a proper sequel.

The new theatrical -> DTC stuff has really disrupted things. Whereas companies could get new revenue from TV viewings , rentals, or home video, that’s been cannibalized.

 

[CaptainMickey]

And who exactly would you like in his place?

Tom Staggs. One of the guys Iger ran off.

 

[LittleBuford]

Definitely didn't want to upset anyone, so sorry about that. My sarcastic humor may not translate well on forums. Sorry if it came across as mean. I think if we were all at Magic Kingdom in person it would hit much different and we would all get along great as Disney Fans.

I have loved Disney for decades. I have had a WDW annual pass over 20 years and been on 20 DCL cruises so don't think of myself as a Hater.
Now I am very frustrated with the current management and the direction of the company. I feel they are greatly weakening the future of the company, destroying their most popular brands, not doing great things with the parks (Especially DVC and hotel theming) and continuing to make boneheaded decisions again and again that will have long-term effects on the company. Disney's creativity definitely ebbs and flows and it seems to be very down right now. My snarkyness is aim at venting at current Disney management and their sub par output. Posters defending them may catch some collateral damage.

I understand what you’re saying, but when you view things in this totalising framework, the topic at hand—in this case the remake of The Little Mermaid—gets Iost in a sea (!) of discontent. I’m very open to hearing negative assessments, but I wish they were firsthand criticisms of the film itself rather than a litany of more general grievances.

 

[Disstevefan1]

I mean, I’m not flowing in a river of money and I still like it when there is a new high profile movie release every weekend. It’s been a minute since anything interested us until Mermaid. Next weekend we have The Boogeyman, which is supposed to be pretty good, and then we get into a summer release schedule where things come out one after another and I for one couldn’t be happier about it.

It gets expensive for a family of 4 is all I am saying.
Maybe they don't have the money to go to all the new moves if they are releasing too close together and must choose.

 

[spacemt354]

How touching.

Dis down .53% today.

Maybe you should let Goldman Sachs know?

I hope it does make a Billion and makes me look like an idiot.

So which is it?

Do you want this movie to fail so that Iger is removed as you have hoped, or do you actually hope the film makes a billion therefore justifying the current direction for future films?

 

[BlakeW39]

As to whether this film is a success. I think the answer to that question is, "a success to whom?" Movies are made by many different individuals working together, performing different jobs, with different goals, etc. The primary goal of the film as a product of the Walt Disney Company is to generate profit. Whether or not it does that remains to be seen. The goal of the film as a work of art can vary depending on who you ask. The film isn't a critical success, so you could argue the film isn't successful at being art. However the film is well liked by those who have seen it, so you could call it a success in that regard.

I do think, objectively though, that the most idiomatic definition of the word 'success' as it applies to a movie would
be financial success, or mayybbbeee critical success. Currently the film is doing pretty well domestically, but since the film was a global release I'm not sure how much that really matters. In the nicest way possible.....the world does not revolve around America. The Walt Disney Company is based in America but it is a global entertainment company, and for it's products to succeed they must do well where they are sold, which is across many different countries. Now, whether the film turns a profit remains to be seen. Will the film taper off or go on strong, I really don't know. It's not possible to say whether it is a success yet in the present tense. Whether the film is a critical success....well, the film currently holds a 59 on metacritic, which is not very good. On a college/high school test, that would technically be a failing grade. On RT, 68% of critics rated the film fresh, which isn't terrible but for a film that doesn't take many risks, it's also kind of disappointing. For reference, the Jungle Book remake made it to a 94%, which is a closer to what "good" blockbusters usually get because again, blockbusters typically don't take many risks and are designed specifically to appeal to broad audiences. So they usually appeal to most critics. So 68% in my opinion is not very good, I'd call it pretty middling. And 59 on metacritic is also not good. "Meh," really.

So is the film a success. That depends on what you mean by that question. It's doing "fine" right now in my opinion. It could end up being a financial failure but it's impossible to know for sure as of right now. Critically the film is not what I would call successful, but I guess "success" is relative.

 

[Trauma]

So which is it?

Do you want this movie to fail so that Iger is removed as you have hoped, or do you actually hope the film makes a billion therefore justifying the current direction for future films?

I wish I had an answer. I really liked Halle’s performance in this. I didn’t think the movie overall was very good but she was.

I understand these are real people making these movies and they want to do well. I also disagree with the leadership of the company that will stick around forever if everything is a success.

In the end if it requires everything falling apart at once to get Iger ousted then that’s the hope. Just sucks a bunch of people will pay the price before he does.

 

[networkpro]

Critical Acclaim vs Financial Success also applies to films. You can have either, both or none. One matters primarily to the people in the industry, the other primarily to those with a vested interest in the return on investment it represents. Films can be biased in either direction so make your own call as to either the value proposition or technical/artistic merits.

 

[Disney Irish]

So which is it?

Do you want this movie to fail so that Iger is removed as you have hoped, or do you actually hope the film makes a billion therefore justifying the current direction for future films?

In reality its a silly barometer either way, as Iger is only back for a short 2 years and DIS already has more remakes in the pipeline so they aren't changing direction.

 

[Disney Irish]

I wish I had an answer. I really liked Halle’s performance in this. I didn’t think the movie overall was very good but she was.

I understand these are real people making these movies and they want to do well. I also disagree with the leadership of the company that will stick around forever if everything is a success.

In the end if it requires everything falling apart at once to get Iger ousted then that’s the hope. Just sucks a bunch of people will pay the price before he does.

Maybe you didn't get the memo but Iger isn't being ousted, he was brought back for a 2 year period to right the ship and then he is gone.

So this "burn it down until Iger leaves" is silly and uninformed.

 

[Trauma]

In reality its a silly barometer either way, as Iger is only back for a short 2 years and DIS already has more remakes in the pipeline so they aren't changing direction.

Only 2 more years? So who is the successor ?

 

[LittleBuford]

On RT, 68% of critics rated the film fresh, which isn't terrible but for a film that doesn't take many risks, it's also kind of disappointing. For reference, the Jungle Book remake made it to a 94%, which is a closer to what "good" blockbusters usually get because again, blockbusters typically don't take many risks and are designed specifically to appeal to broad audiences. So they usually appeal to most critics. So 68% in my opinion is not very good, I'd call it pretty middling.

For further reference, the RT critics’ scores for the remakes of Aladdin, The Lion King, and Beauty and the Beast are 57%, 52%, and 71% respectively. Very few of us expected this remake to break the pattern; it’s done about as well with the critics as I thought it would.

 

[erasure fan1]

Apparently for reasons I don’t understand, I can’t respond to this with basic truths.

I will say no, you can’t call it a Disney failure if the audience failed.

You can call it a resounding success if it ends up losing money. And I'm sure you will if it does. I loved prince of Persia, it lost a ton of money, so in MY book, that equals failure. That's why I originally said failure depends on the individuals definition. If it ends up losing money, and you want to do the good old cross your arms and point in multiple directions and say it's all their fault, so be it.

On the other hand, you are posting this on a board where people go to Disney World so often and for so many days at a time - I would venture to guess that those particular families can afford to go see whatever movies they want, whenever they want.

Then you'd be completely wrong. I'd be willing to bet there are MANY people on this site who come here not because they go to Disney twice a year. But because they love Disney and can't afford to go but once every 5 or more years. Maybe less. This site can be a way to get a little piece of what they love because they can't go as often as they'd like. I know I can't just go to 3 or 4 movies in a months time with my family. And to assume everyone can is a bit ignorant.

 

[BlakeW39]

For further reference, the RT critics’ scores for the remakes of Aladdin, The Lion Ling, and Beauty and the Beast are 57%, 52%, and 71% respectively. Very few of us expected this remake to break the pattern; it’s done about as well with the critics as I thought it would.

Very true. Critically the film is middling, which befits its blah premise as a near 1:1 remake. Not saying that as a slight... just trying to be objective.

In terms of money, which I think we can all agree is the primary reason these remakes are being made, the film is doing "okay" as of right now. But it had a huge budget, and whether it makes a profit or not remains to be seen.

 

[Disney Irish]

Agreed this is not the thread for it, but Iger has a history of not leaving.

Even when he leaves he comes back.

I won’t believe anything until a successor is named and a date is set.

Obviously there is a reason why he continues to be around, despite what fans think of him. You keep talking about money, well he helps make the company lots of money, hence why he is a Wall St darling.

Iger has wanted to leave many times before. Its the Board of Directors of the The Walt Disney Company that keeps renewing his contract and asking him to stay. They are the ultimate deciders of everything. Just like this time they got rid of Chapek and asked Iger to come back.

 

[LittleBuford]

Very true. Critically the film is middling, which befits its blah premise as a near 1:1 remake. Not saying that as a slight... just trying to be objective.

Your previous post implied that it has done unusually badly with critics given that it’s a “safe” blockbuster, whereas its reception has been about what any of us would have expected. The Jungle Book is the outlier in this regard, not the norm. (And I disagree with you more general claim that critics tend to rate popular blockbusters well. The reverse is very often the case.)

 

[BuddyThomas]

You can call it a resounding success if it ends up losing money. And I'm sure you will if it does. I loved prince of Persia, it lost a ton of money, so in MY book, that equals failure. That's why I originally said failure depends on the individuals definition. If it ends up losing money, and you want to do the good old cross your arms and point in multiple directions and say it's all their fault, so be it.

Then you'd be completely wrong. I'd be willing to bet there are MANY people on this site who come here not because they go to Disney twice a year. But because they love Disney and can't afford to go but once every 5 or more years. Maybe less. This site can be a way to get a little piece of what they love because they can't go as often as they'd like. I know I can't just go to 3 or 4 movies in a months time with my family. And to assume everyone can is a bit ignorant.

I didn’t say everyone. Good lord. But many go for extended stays multiple times a year. Unless I am hallucinating while I am reading about it.

 

[BlakeW39]

Your previous post implied it has done unusually badly with critics given that it’s a “safe” blockbuster. The Jungle Book is the outlier in this regard, not the norm.

No, it didn't. I specifically stated that the "good" blockbusters, such as JB, usually fall around the 90% range because blockbusters are designed to appeal to large audiences, and RT measures how much of an audience a film appeals to. I never implied the film did unually poorly for a remake, but rather that a critically successful remake looks like JB, not like TLM.

 

[LittleBuford]

No, it didn't. I specifically stated that the "good" blockbusters, such as JB, usually fall around the 90% range because blockbusters are designed to appeal to large audiences, and RT measures how much of an audience a film a appeals to. I never implied the film did unually poorly for a remake, but rather that a critically successful remake looks like JB, not like TLM.

I apologise for misunderstanding you.

But again, none of us expected the film to be met with critical acclaim.

 

[BlakeW39]

I apologise for misunderstanding you.

But again, none of us expected the film to be met with critical acclaim.

no worries, and fair enough.