A good showcase for how the media can manipulate the narrative. - The Little Mermaid (2023) Discussion

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

How much time do you require that a film earn back it's costs to be a success? If it takes several months to make a profit, is it still a bomb?

Is the film still a bomb if it under performs overseas no matter how well it does in the USA?

It seems that you are desperate to call it a bomb so early after release. Why?

Why do you care if some people are calling it a success when it might not be? Got money riding on their feelings?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

- A film barely earning back it's cost is a flop no matter what. Disney didn't pump some $300+ million into this only to break even. Breaking even is a flop. Losing hundreds of millions is a disaster. A bomb.

- You have to look at the worldwide picture. If a film does well enough in the USA that the worldwide gross becomes profitable then it's not a bomb, the same applies in the opposite direction, if a film does poorly in the USA but very well internationally then it's not a bomb. The USA isn't the center of the universe. We're talking worldwide here.

- I'm not desperate, I'm calling it a bomb because it is. You need to understand the trajectory, the norm of film performances during their theatrical runs. This film has opened so poorly worldwide that there is no way it'll be profitable theatrically, the entire project (all the mermaid toys for kids etc,etc) may turn a small profit eventually. But theatrically the film is toast. The figures are public knowledge. It's a bomb so early because there is zero percent chance this gets some major second wind and recovers. It's over.

- Because they're lying to themselves and others. It's not a success, not financially. Whats so hard about telling the truth? They need to be corrected.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

The wide release of this film started on May 24th. That was five days ago. https://www.imdb.com/title/tt5971474/releaseinfo/?ref_=ttfc_ql_2

Why is five days good enough to determine if a film is a bomb or not? Do you really think this film will stop earning money in a week? This film is sure to earn much more later on during its release.

Don't forget that there is also revenue pulled in from streaming, DVD sales and products (toys) related to the film. https://www.amazon.com/disney-movies-dvd-TV/s?k=disney+movies+on+dvd&rh=n%3A2625373011

The release just started, how can it be over? I think you don't know what you're talking about and you know it. What will you say if it grosses a billion? Call it fake news?

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

I'm sorry pal but you don't seem to understand how these things work. Do you follow the boxoffice?

Yes you can declare a film a bomb within five days when the performance is so poor. What do you think is going to happen? That this film will be the outlier for the ages, rise from the ashes and dominate the boxoffice all summer long?

It's over. It's now a matter of how much money they'll lose here. It could be as much as $200 million or as little as $50 million. That is what is undetermined, not whether it's a bomb as that's already settled.

As for streaming and toys, etc, etc. I'm aware of that. I've stated several times on here today that the entire 'project' could break even and turn a small profit eventually. However even that is looking in doubt as the trajectory is going downwards, final gross estimates are getting lower and lower. If this loses $200 million I don't see Disney making enough from streaming, home media and toys to salvage that. You need to remember toys have their own production costs too, with stores keeping a share too (as cinema chains do with the films they show). They don't get made out of thin air for nothing with Disney taking 100% of the revenue for them.

In truth I'm no expert on merchandising but I'd be very fucking impressed if 'The Little Mermaid (2023)' merchandise can earn >$200 million in profit!!

As for it grossing a billion. Dude I will literally record a video of me eating shit and upload it on here if it does that. It's not happening at all. 0% chance.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

Here are some figures of the first weekend earnings followed by the gross earnings for Disney films. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest-grossing_openings_for_animated_films

Frozen $110.6 million. Gross $1.2 billion.
Ralph Breaks the Internet $127 million. Gross $527 million
Monsters University $136 million. Gross $743 million.
Finding Dory $185 million. Gross $1 billion.
Toy Story 4 $244 million. Gross $1 billion.
The Lion King $246 million. Gross $1.6 billion.
Frozen II $359 million. Gross $1.4 billion.

Average first weekend earnings for these films were $201 million. The average gross was nearly $1.1 billion, or about 5.5 times the opening weekend.

Lets say The Little Mermaid grossed $118 million its first weekend. If it makes 5.5 times its opening weekend, this means it might gross $649 million worldwide. This is 2.5 times its $250 million budget. Not a bomb; not a huge money maker either.

I think you're full of crap calling it a bomb after five days when it has earned as much as $118 million by May 28th.

It is not over as the film will remain in general release for several more weeks, then be streamed online to make more money.

I think you're more likely to delete your posts or make up some excuse if this film does make a profit, than you would actually admit you are wrong.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7261) 2 years ago

I can't speak for the other poster, but I get the feeling that he, and others, are less concerned with the profit and more with the narrative around the film. While sure, it could someday become a very profitable film, it has had a disappointing, almost the the point of embarrassing, launch. Yet, every headline touts it as having had a massively successful opening. It has "made a big splash," "raked it in," and "risen to the top." The real story is that Disney's decision to put woke messaging and propaganda before quality came back to bite them in the ass, but the media won't tell that story, which is what is disappointing for many people who prefer fact over fiction, even when the facts aren't what some wish them to be.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

What woke messaging? How do you define woke?

Seeing as how hardly anyone can define what woke means, why would you expect any kind of rational story about the alleged wokeness of this film?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7261) 2 years ago

Who asked for a story about the film's (obvious) wokeness? I think I was clear in what I wrote. The story is that the film is not doing very well, but the media is exclaiming that it is doing great.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

What do you mean by the word woke? Where is the woke messaging in the film? Are you claming that Disney is aware of the message they are sending, whatever that is?

Since you did not define what you mean by woke, and myself and other people have not watched the film, what is the "obvious wokeness" you speak of?

I've read that it made $100 million, more or less on the opening weekend. It seems that this is good according to some, and not good according to others.

I think is it rather premature to claim that it is a bomb or a hit this early.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7261) 2 years ago

It sounds like you want to argue, which is not what I'm here for. I'm sure you know full well what woke means, and if not, you can easily look it up. In any event, I have no desire to argue or debate anyone about wokeness.

I made the point that the film is performing poorly, yet the media is raving about how successful it is, which suggests to me that the media reports what the wish were true as if it were news, while ignoring the facts. I'm bothered by that. Perhaps you aren't.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

I know how a few people define woke. But others overuse the word woke to bitch about anything they don't like. Just like some people scream CRT when high school history classes teach kids about the civil war.

Webster defines woke as "aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues". But you define it differently. That is why I ask.

People raving or crying about a film opening does not bother me. It does not affect my life at all and I simply do not understand why anyone would care unless they had a personal stake in the film.

Why do you care if various media people have differing opinions on whether or not a film is profitable?

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7261) 2 years ago

What bothers me, and I believe should bother any person who wants to live in a free, safe, and healthy society, is that the media has ceased being journalism, and is now activism. The reporting on this film is but one of countless examples where news agencies spin and twist stories, and present fiction disguised as fact. I want to live in a country where the news reports truth, even if it's truth we don't want to hear.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

So do you have concrete figures that specify exactly where the line is drawn on profitability? I've yet to see much in the way of exact figures from website to website that agree with each other.

When various sites vary way in which they obtain their data, as well as the date and time those figures were generated, chances are different conclusions will be reached.

Then you have differing opinions how much much was actually spent to make and market a film. Unless a producer is contracted to release those figures to the public, you might not even know exactly how much they spent.

I think you're trying to manufacture a problem where it might not exist. Instead of being Chicken Little and telling us the sky is falling, you could wait a month and do your postmortem on the film then.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7261) 2 years ago

With every reply you seem to make up some new point that I haven't made, then proceed to argue against it. Why are you so dead-set on arguing with people online?

I'll try one more time...

I don't care if the film is profitable. Who knows if it will or won't be? Only the head of accounting at Disney, if anyone.

The woke remake of The Little Mermaid is underperforming at the box office.

It made only $198 million globally in its first 4 days, with the added boost of the Memorial Day Weekend box office. For a film with as many built-in audiences as it has (children, Gen-X nostalgia, Millennial nostalgia, Disney fans, among others) it was poised to break records. Instead it floundered.

Compare it to the previous big film this year, Guardians of the Galaxy 3, which brought in $282 million globally in its first 3 days. Even with the extra day, and the holiday weekend, the mermaid was only able to generate 70% of what a sci-fi film with are far smaller potential audience did.

How did the media react? The Little Mermaid is a smash hit, shattering the box office, soaring to the top.

That's the ONLY complaint I'm making-- that the media is lying, and I don't like living in a country where there is no trustworthy source for news.

You can argue all you want about woke this or profit that, but I don't care about any of that. I'm dismayed that my country's media prints lies as truth. If you're okay with that, or if you believe the lies to the point that you want to argue that they are in fact truth, well, live your life your way. I don't want to argue or debate, I only posted to point out that I personally dislike dishonest media.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

I'm not arguing about wokeness except to ask you why you think it is woke. Which scenes are woke, and why, in your opinion?

Your claim that "every headline touts it as having had a massively successful opening" is obviously not true.
https://variety.com/2023/film/news/china-box-office-fast-x-the-little-mermaid-1235627599/
https://www.westernjournal.com/disneys-little-mermaid-reboot-set-record-flop-hollywood-report/
https://www.npr.org/2023/05/26/1177917346/the-little-mermaid-review-remake-disney-halle-bailey

reply

[–] liscarkat (18536) 2 years ago

"Webster defines woke as 'aware of and actively attentive to important societal facts and issues'."

You couldn't ask for a more woke definition of woke than that.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

So, do you have a non-woke definition of woke?

reply

[–] 123Guy (7376) 2 years ago

I'll help you out here:

"WOKE": 'waking up' to the inequalities of life on Earth, and trying to do things to make it all fair, balancing equality, inclusion, and diversity for all.
This will never occur, BTW, so it just wastes everyone's time and pisses everyone off in the process. A weak lion will NEVER get equal amount of meat from the kill. Fact.

WOKE is easily defined and recognized by nearly everyone else on this planet, and has become a joke pretending to offer EQUAL OUTCOMES - which is insanely impossible.

Woke: race trading the lead in a film previously done many times as white person, with a black person - where NOT ONE black person I have ever talked to brought up any need for this.
Can/should we trade black leads out for white? Fuck no. Thus the obvious problem.
Oh, but we must virtue signal how GREAT we are by woke race swapping.

How about that to define it? easily.

How's your Social Justice Warriorring coming along? Getting anything accomplished other than pissing off the vast majority of normal people who are not in the least racist and don't give a shit? Didn't think so.
Good luck with your 'banging your head against the wall' SJW hobby.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

You are one of the few I've seen who was willing to define woke.

A lawyer for DeSantis defined woke as "The belief there are systemic injustices in American society and the need to address them".

Why do you care if the two black people you have talked to wanted, or did not want, a black mermaid? Maybe you need to expand your circle of black people you're willing to talk to? It is obvious to the most casual observer that some people wanted a black Ariel, they actually made this film.

Why shouldn't film producers trade white leads out for black? This is not a documentary we're talking about. The changes from the 1837 story to the 1989 cartoon were far greater than we are seeing with the changes made from the 1989 cartoon to the 2023 film. Unless you think skin color trumps all other considerations.

You go ahead and feel great about the changes to the mermaid, I will not.

So you're defining SJW as not being triggered by a change in skin color of a fictional character? That is very weak.

You may have noticed that my posts are devoid of emotion while others are apologizing and getting angry in this thread.

I'm not the one banging my head, that would be you. You seem to be the SJW who is looking out for his fellow white people who are too fragile to even consider living in a world where there is a black Ariel.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

"Maybe you need to expand your circle of black people you're willing to talk to?"

So you're saying the black people he knows are the wrong type of black people?

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

Not at all. How many black people did he talk to? Were they representative of black people in the country? I'm suggesting that he did not talk to a single black person and just imagines that other people just think the same way he does.

He also seem to be completely unaware of the long history of using white actors to portray characters who were intended to be non-white.

reply

[–] ranmast (626) 2 years ago

Sorry to burst your bubble, but you have everything wrong there.
First of all those opening weekend grosses you posted are for the worldwide market not domestic, thus every analysis you made with the 118 grossed by The Little Mermaid, which is domestic, are invalid.
Second, the opening weekend of TLM is 95.5 millions not 118M. 118M is the four days gross (because of the holiday), so you can't compare the opening weekends of other movies that have 3 days with the Little Mermaid 4 days total, bogus.
The International opening weekend of TLM is 68 millions. However, any comparison or analysis you intend to do with the opening weekend grosses from international numbers you got from wikipedia, will not be relevant unless you include how many markets the each movie opened. I'll explain: It's not the same Monster U making 136 million dollars in 40 international markets than TLM making 68M in 51 international markets. There is no way you can extrapolate the behavior unless they opened in the same markets, which never happens.

reply

[–] Ranb (9774) 2 years ago

Yes I made a mistake, my bubble is not busted as I have nothing riding on whether or not the film is a success.

So you're expecting TLM to do even better? Got a link to support your claims?

reply

[–] ranmast (626) 2 years ago

Cool. We will see next week how this movie holds against strong competition. One might be optimist and think that TLM will have some legs. However, internationally, that's almost impossible. Domestically, it depends on the Spiderman, Transformers, Flash and other strong movies that are in the horizon.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76210) 2 years ago

I HAVE STATED SEVERAL TIMES ON HERE...BLAH BLAH BLAH...THAT'S ALL YOU DO...BLATHER ON ENDLESSLY ABOUT BULLSHIT AND NON-ISSUES LIKE THE LORD OF AUTHORITY...YOU ARE NOT THAT CLEVER AND YOU ARE NOT VERY WELL LIKED...HONESTLY...WHO FUCKING CARES THIS MUCH ABOUT THE MONEY A FISH LADY MOVIE MAKES?...LOG OFF,BRO...TALK TO SOME REAL PEOPLE...YOU ARE LOSING IT.

reply

[–] [deleted] 2 years ago

Several users on here complain about users on the site not discussing movies, then when someone comes around and discusses the financial side of movies you ask who cares? This is a movie discussion site. The boxoffice performance is a hot topic.

If you don't care stop reading the posts.

reply

[–] Kowalski (76210) 2 years ago

YOU AREN'T DISCUSSING MOVIES...YOU ARE POSTING DIVISIVE WEIRDNESS ENDLESSLY...IT'S PERFORMANCE IS ONLY A HOT TOPIC HERE BASED ON YOU MAKING IT SO.

I DON'T CARE...CORRECT...BUT IF YOU WERE AS SMART AS YOU KEEP SAYING...YOU WOULD KNOW I AM INCAPABLE OF SUCH A REQUEST.😘

reply

[–] asom (6864) 2 years ago

wait for the next weekend when I predict a drop of at least 50% ...

reply

[–] AmeriGirl26 (14475) 2 years ago

The narrative isn't fully controlled because not everyone is falling for the crap being pushed on social media or tv by Disney.

I predict it'll get a brief flash of money earned on opening weekend, and then its earnings will drop off a cliff. It'll bomb, regardless of how "successful" it is according to what Master Disney claims.

reply

[–] QueenFanUSA (3379) 2 years ago

HelloSidney I think you are a great contributor to this forum. Bravo!

reply

[–] imatosser182 (340) 2 years ago

💯

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

Okay...So what have you concluded from this data?

reply

[–] TheArgentinian (7106) 2 years ago

"Movies should be all-white."

reply

[–] asom (6864) 2 years ago

NO idiot, remakes of old movies should be faithful to the original.

No one has problems with movies that are all black, but make them NEW movies/NEW stories, you MORON. Stop replacing white characters and create new ones.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

How do you figure this? Coz The Little Mermaid (1989) wasn't entirely faithful to the 1975 anime version of The Little Mermaid and, from what I recall, the 1975 version was way more faithful to the Hans Christian Andersen tale.

Also not sure how you see it as a racial replacement, since both previous films were animated. he fact both were visibly white didn't matter anymore than one being blonde and one being red headed mattered, aka not at all. Plus, the first voice actress was Japanese I believe, the second and third were white and Filipino, which pretty much means there have been more Asian little mermaid voice actors than white. And she talks to a tropical ghost crab with a Jamaican accent despite such crabs normally originating from Australia and a flounder with a North American accent despite flounders originating from South America, so it's already a pretty diverse world.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 2 years ago

"the fact both were visibly white didn't matter anymore than one being blonde and one being red headed mattered"

Actually they do matter. 100%.

Who voiced the characters I don't really care. If you had a white Ariel on screen voiced by a different race actress ... I wouldn't care (as long as it's not someone like Awkquafina - or what the fuck it's her name - which is super annoying and fakes her ghetto accent to get points, or someone that has a weird accent).

Also ... crabs are crabs, maybe he migrated from Jamaica :P

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

How does it matter? A mermaid is a fictional being that has origins in almost every culture.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 2 years ago

It does since the story is based on that culture.

Do you see me (or anyone else for that matter) complaining about the mermaids in POTC? And they are 100% diverse - and beautiful, lol.

Like how god of Egypt got that backlash for having white Egyptian gods. What? Are those not fictional beings? Every culture has gods, right?

Or Prince of Persia. Or GITS (although Major in the original looks quite white/European to me)

Or The last Samurai - complaining about Cruise's character without even understanding that he is NOT the last samurai in that movie. Or The Great Wall, why was Matt Damon casted in a movie set in China? (Although he was an European trader so it would had been weird to be ... Chinese). Or an actual Egyptian playing an Egyptian pharaoh (and you fuckers deemed him too "white")

You people fucking complain about all these fictional characters!!! Even when it's not warranted ...

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

So you're mad she's not visibly Danish? Does anyone in Denmark even care about this? And I've heard no complaints about any of the other visibly non-Danish people in the film, strange isn't it? Also, nothing about the film has ever necessitated that the nationalities of any of the characters is important to the story. A story about Egyptian gods is a bit different - but even then, you'll never hear me complain about the casting of The Mummy (!999), which centred white main characters and showcased zero Egyptian actors, for example, because you can see that the cast was right for the job. Halle Bailey might not be the right actress, but it won't be because of her skin tone.

reply

[–] asom (6864) 2 years ago

See how well is the movie doing internationally. It is rejected by the global market for a reason.

Maybe they finally start to say "stop" to the AfroAmerican black supremacist cultural colonialism ... just like they did with Netflix Cleopatra.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

A movie flopping that happens to star a POC lead doesn't make the lead's nationality at fault, that's a weird conclusion to draw.

reply

[–] Lord Rake (4469) 2 years ago

Pornos should be.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

Pornos should be what? All-white? Don't let the Asian Babes Vol. II fans hear you say that.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38406) 2 years ago

I’m devastated.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

Don't get sad, get even. Petition your local porn entertainment company today against this.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38406) 2 years ago

In the interests of science, I will undertake a thorough, probing investigation into the Asian Babes series - I may be gone for sometime.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

Will you also be looking into comparative literature, aka all-white porn, to confirm or refute the validity of Lord Rake's proposal that pornos should be all-white? If so, you could go blind depending on how thorough and "probing" your investigation is. God speed, King, and good luck.

reply

[–] AndyKing1967 (38406) 2 years ago

In the fairness of balance, I will consider all variables.

reply

[–] Wint3rFir3 (7188) 2 years ago

That does sound fair and balanced.

reply

[–] Narwhale37 (1237) 2 years ago

Name one case of them "hiding" numbers? Most of them do show the international numbers in the article.

reply

[–] Bossdog677 (1567) 2 years ago

Liberals now are at the point where everybody in the world is racist except them because they won't watch the film yet the film is a massive hit.

reply