Disney looking at a $200mill LOSS on Little Mermaid BOMB

[ObsessedBritFan1]

8 hours ago, fedored said:

Just her hair cost $150,000.

OMG what lol why don't they just use an ADOBE program 

[officialmaurice]

Idk why they released it around Spider Man’s release 🤦🏽‍♂️

[Crazy4BRITNEY3.2]

I read another article saying that while the movie is flopping mainly due to China and South Korea markets being racist about having a black Ariel (like, Asian markets racist?!), Disney will still make billions from merch and toys, which is where the real money are at the end of the day...

[Prince Ali]

23 hours ago, KrisJ said:

Group 4

TIMCAST.COM

Disney is on track to lose millions from The Little Mermaid, despite a strong turnout in the US for Memorial Day weekend.

Disney spent roughly $390 million on producing and promoting the film.

Theaters take approximately half the ticket sales, meaning the film must hit nearly $800 million to break even.

“If the film manages to gross only $600 million globally, it will result in a loss of $200 million, and even achieving this level of domestic earnings still needs to be determined,” the report explained. “Therefore, domestically, the likelihood that it could gross $300 to $350 million seems overly optimistic.”
 

Another failure for Disney. Next up “Elemental” and the horrible “Indiana Jones Movie”

that is seriously false! Stop spreading false information for click bait.  In what world it will need 800 mln?!. Sorry but those reports are not reliable.. As per deadline:

At that level, per finance sources, off a reported $250M production cost and $140M global marketing spend, The Little Mermaid could very well break-even. However, anything in the low $400M global threshold and this fish is apt to be sinking to a loss of around $20M.

And it is already at 340 after only 2 weeks

 

‘Little Mermaid’ Swimming Against Strong Tides At Overseas Box Office, Leaving Break-Even In Question

DEADLINE.COM

---

In a rare situation for a Disney tentpole, particularly a live action title based on a treasured animated classic, 'The Little Mermaid' may lose money.

The movie is still playing in theatres and has good holds week over week, so they will break even either way.. not strong, but it will make it.

 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Prince Ali

[Prince Ali]

17 hours ago, The Greatest Show said:

 

 

 

 

girl, go watch the movie and don't use screen shots from very first teaser trailer from year ago where CGI was not yet done so they obscured it by darker colours.. jeez, you people seriously have no clue how business work..

The movie itself is dark where it has to be but this particular scene looks way better in the finished film

[Prince Ali]

21 hours ago, RBFLOVESBRITNEY said:

I hope this serves as a call for them to create new stories and stop resting on their laurels.

Disney:

 

they literally released 7 brand new animated movies in past 3 years

Edited June 8, 2023 by Prince Ali

[rik]

11 hours ago, doomphantom1 said:

Aren't they doing these remakes because their copyrights are up in a few years?  Anyway, I wholeheartedly agree that the remakes have none of the original magic.  I also stopped watching Disney in 2003.  I felt they were falling off their magical bandwagon.

Since 2003? Girl that’s 20 years. Is it not possible we are just aging out of the demographic for these films because we aren’t children anymore lol

but yes, it has to do with the copyright laws. Something like every 10 years there has to be a remake/adaptation or a spin off series or film

[justin4britney]

Honestly between merchandising, streaming, blu-ray sales and what it’s currently doing at the box office…they’ll make a profit. It’s just not immediate but the film already has a cult following that is growing and it will have legs for decades. 

[pieceofphil]

18 hours ago, bitbitboi said:

It is not a good remake, it's a FANTASTIC remake! It's gorgeous, very well done, and with so much love. I'm a fan of the original, it's my favorite movie EVER (animated or not, period). I've seen the original a bazillion times. I could make essays on it, any topic on it. This IS an excellent remake, done carefully, with so much work, and respect. I'm tired of people talking so bad about it, they either absolutely hate or absolutely love it, so there's something particularly weird about all of this... It's been years since I've seen a popular product to cause so much controversy and division. I really do thing that the racial element is crucial, otherwise there wouldn't be so many problems and people so personally invested on it. But the film itself? It's amazing.

It's a rather good remake in terms of love put into it, but a bad movie in general.

- decisions about character design

- muted colors for the underwater world in contrast to the world on land as the inner workings of Arielle sounds a better idea than it looks

- the relationship between her family members takes less than 10 minutes of screentime

- missing music in many scenes make the movie dull and inner workings of characters open for speculation

- taking the only interaction between Arielle and the prince (speaking) should have been a better start point for a deeper connection than this movie showed

- the kiss being the big turnaround is very cliche, no matter it's the source material

- the pacing is off many times, less underwater scenes/scenes of Arielle looking out of the water for more scenes in the castle

- the whole underwater world looks uninhabitated, there are about ten merpeople shown in beginning and 15 in the end

- Ursula scenes in the end... Like WTF... Did even the cgi guys not care anymore about this mess?

And I guess the list goes on. It didn't help that we have seen how magical an underwater world can look in Avatar just months prior.

[do the thing]

20 hours ago, Rik vs Exhale said:

The thing I find to be weird is and so telling is, I don’t think there was any backlash when Emma Watson played Belle, a French woman in Beauty and the Beast. There’s somehow only an issue when it’s an POC taking on the role of this literal mystical figure. Look at all the weird closeted racists here talk about how going “woke” will make billion dollar companies go “broke”. 

Aladdin got some great backlash for casting an Indian-descent actress instead of an Arab one. 

Had they casted an Egyptian, Iraqi, Syrian or Lebanese actress people wouldn't have minded because they're quite similar-looking with a similar cultural background. That's the same with Emma Watson. Western European look quite the same (but very, very different from Eastern and Southern Europeans). 

Actually the little mermaid did pretty okay. I don't think they intended to portray Danish culture. Aladdin, on the other hand, was much much much worse. Much more insensitive than the original version. They mixed Indian and Arab cultures, which have literally nothing in common since India is as far from the Middle East than the US. Also, the movie had a 30% Black and 40% Indian composition. It was just not it. It's as ridiculous as having Mulan with Chinese being a minority in the movie. 

Still, I'm sorry, but to me, movies like the Little Mermaid or Queen Charlotte Netflix TV series are subconsciously racist. In over a century Disney has yet to make a movie about an African tale (sub-Saharan more specifically). Including Black people in European historical environments is not inclusion to me. Why aren't they putting Asian people too? You know why? Because they consider that Asian have an interesting history, and therefore they don't need to be casted in British aristocracy TV shows to be included. They consider that Blacks don't have an interesting enough history. Yup. Although Africa has 2,000+ ethnicities, and thousands of different interesting tales and historical events, Hollywood doesn't seem to have any kind of interest in these. 

Also, let's not jump into racism directly when people disagree with these kinda stuff. I'm 100% sure that had this been an original movie, or even an animated movie with a Black princess (like Tiana), it would've caused none outrage. 

Also, the "POC" term is quite weird to use, are East Asians POC? Despite them being less "colored" than Mediterraneans who are White? Plus the fact that are put in the same category many different people. I think "non-WASP Americans" would be more convenient. I'm just French and calling a non-White person "yeah you're colored, and I'm the base" would provoke an outrage lol.
 

Anyways, if Hollywood wants to be inclusive, they should listen to what American minorities want to see: original tales occurring in their native countries. It's quite sad that after slavery they've lost their culture. It's even sadder when they cannot even picture what their history looks like because they only see history from the people that enslaved them...

 

 

 

[do the thing]

1 hour ago, Rik vs Exhale said:

Since 2003? Girl that’s 20 years. Is it not possible we are just aging out of the demographic for these films because we aren’t children anymore lol

but yes, it has to do with the copyright laws. Something like every 10 years there has to be a remake/adaptation or a spin off series or film

Copyright doesn't work like that, it's something like 70 years after the death of the youngest person that is credited in a movie. Even Snow White still has many years to go before losing its copyright

 

[fedored]

15 hours ago, KrisJ said:

I mean…it definitely will not be making anywhere near what Disney want. I also don’t know what’s right or left wing, I just saw this article on box office Reddit forums and posts and it’s well known Mermaid is definitely flopping majorly overseas and Disney is losing out on this movie. Maybe then not $200 mill but they won’t be smashing on it 

Unfortunately, in America the right has become a symbol of extreme conservatism, racism, and xenophobia. Tim Pool and TimCast (the website you posted from) have a history of skirting the facts in order to support a right-wing bias. When posting on the film industry in the future, I recommend using a source like Deadline, Variety, or the Hollywood Reporter as they 1) are a more neutral source, and 2) aren't idiots. 

[The Greatest Show]

5 hours ago, Prince Ali said:

girl, go watch the movie and don't use screen shots from very first teaser trailer from year ago where CGI was not yet done so they obscured it by darker colours.. jeez, you people seriously have no clue how business work..

The movie itself is dark where it has to be but this particular scene looks way better in the finished film

Im not watching any more disney Remakes. 

[doomphantom1]

4 hours ago, Rik vs Exhale said:

Since 2003? Girl that’s 20 years. Is it not possible we are just aging out of the demographic for these films because we aren’t children anymore lol

but yes, it has to do with the copyright laws. Something like every 10 years there has to be a remake/adaptation or a spin off series or film

I am not aging out of anything.  I think the storylines and music to be cheap and messy.  For example: Phil Collins went to so hard on that Tarzan soundtrack.  I still tear up when I hear "You'll be in my heart."  C. Aguilera for the Mulan soundtrack.  Aladdin and the "diamond in the rough" storyline.  Hunchback of Notre Dame was weak though.  Overall, the quality has cheapened.  Across the board, everything has cheapened.  None of these idiot rap artists can touch NWA.  Even clothing fabric.  When I was growing up, it was silks and cotton.  Now it's polyester.  

Also, I was babysitting my cousins a few years back and I could swear I heard references to "the art of F E L L - A - T I O" in some Disney show.  Just gross.

Edited June 8, 2023 by doomphantom1

[bbbsss]

12 hours ago, ObsessedBritFan1 said:

OMG what lol why don't they just use an ADOBE program 

Their initial idea was to simply use a wig, however Halle wanted to keep her original locks, but it didn’t move nicely in the water and the wig looked weird or whatever, so they had to come up with this special technique of blending her own hair with extensions, which apparently cost that much money. I don’t really understand why though, considering that her hair was mostly CGI. 

 

[bbbsss]

I liked the movie, but the only problem I had was the lame *** ending and Ariel was ROBBED of the sea foam dress and an actual wedding gown! I couldn’t believe they’ve decided to skip that whole scene entirely. The original version remains superior. 

[Prince Ali]

7 minutes ago, bbbsss said:

I liked the movie, but the only problem I had was the lame *** ending and Ariel was ROBBED of the sea foam dress and an actual wedding gown! I couldn’t believe they’ve decided to skip that whole scene entirely. The original version remains superior. 

Well I think it had more meaning her showing up in the only dress she ever had from human world which has way more importance than ‘out of nowhere’ dress. And who needs a yet another cheesy wedding scene that brings nothin to the story where instead you can show lovely scene of how their future together is shaping to be  

 

and for me this movie is way better than the animated one where everything is just too quick and too simple… at least here we got some depth to their relationship 

Edited June 8, 2023 by Prince Ali

[bas che]

Serves them right. Race bending and black washing isn’t always the way to go. 

[ElToxico]

Some of these numbers don't make sense.....you're trying to tell me a movie needs to make 1 Billion dollars at the box office to be profitable? that is the most ludicrous thing I've ever heard

[bitbitboi]

8 hours ago, pieceofphil said:

It's a rather good remake in terms of love put into it, but a bad movie in general.

- decisions about character design

- muted colors for the underwater world in contrast to the world on land as the inner workings of Arielle sounds a better idea than it looks

- the relationship between her family members takes less than 10 minutes of screentime

- missing music in many scenes make the movie dull and inner workings of characters open for speculation

- taking the only interaction between Arielle and the prince (speaking) should have been a better start point for a deeper connection than this movie showed

- the kiss being the big turnaround is very cliche, no matter it's the source material

- the pacing is off many times, less underwater scenes/scenes of Arielle looking out of the water for more scenes in the castle

- the whole underwater world looks uninhabitated, there are about ten merpeople shown in beginning and 15 in the end

- Ursula scenes in the end... Like WTF... Did even the cgi guys not care anymore about this mess?

And I guess the list goes on. It didn't help that we have seen how magical an underwater world can look in Avatar just months prior.

We watched a different movie.

The underwater world looks both beautiful and real. The lighting (I'm a photographer) is subtle but powerful, exquisite really.

Design of characters? Done by literally a ream of professionals... The nerve... I understand not being someone's cup of tea, but it was very well done. Sebastian looks like a real crab, yet it's expressive! In the 3D he stood out so much more.

I counted the minutes when the scenes changed from water to land: almost exactly one hour before she gets her legs. Then one more hour until the end.

The relationship between Ariel and Eric? SUBLIME. So many things to point out (shared interests, both teaching each other, the little mermaid figure, the way she tells him her name, the interaction in the market, how they both love Max, how they help each other during Ursulas battle, etc)

Weaker points: the music was NOT cohesive for me, the orig. has impeccable music transitions, nonstop. This one misses the mark there a bit. The new songs are nice but they seem like they are from another movie. And I hated not seeing her mermaid to human transition by Triton or her in a wedding dress (though I understand this last one would have been unnecessary)