• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

The Little Mermaid Live Action (no politics)

Unknown?

Member
What I think is hilarious is that they got rid of a minority for inclusiveness. Redheads are far fewer on this earth than Africans.

That said I don't mind the choice for Ariel, I just hate the new story for "modern" audiences. It isn't good. If they kept the story the same but had Halle, it would have been a good film.
 

Marvel14

Banned
Out of everyone in this thread, you seem the most triggered by other people's opinions. Learn to handle different opinions that don't coincide with yours and stop whining about people being "Triggered". Your projection is kind of sad at this point, Marvel.
Sorry if I came across as triggered, not really how I'm meaning to come across. Negative opinions are fine but I'm seeing visceral irrational hatred ...but i may be misreading....
 

Happosai

Hold onto your panties
Pretty much everything about this film is mediocre to bad.

But of your negative critiques, the birdsong is only partially wrong. Fish are noisy fuckers, we mere humans just can't hear them.


My, oh my. Not trying to derail but the first 16-seconds sounded like 'Big Earl Bump' from Toe Jammin' Earl lol.

 

Mistake

Gold Member
qKbfo8f.jpg
 
Decent movie, especially Halle Bailey did a fantastic job. But like all the other live action remakes, it's just way too long. 90 minutes would have been much better.
 

AJUMP23

Parody of actual AJUMP23
All of these live action remakes have no heart or soul. They are all just awful. They make a lot of money, but they will have no staying power.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
The break even multiplier is typically 2.5x a film's budget. There's a lot of variables involved depending on the region. For example the studio gets somewhere between 50-55% of the revenue from Domestic ticket sales, whereas they get 25% from a country like China. In other countries it differs, but they're typically not as much as domestic. It was assumed for a while that a film needs to make twice it's budget to cross that break even threshold and start to become profitable, but Box Office discussion forums and the subreddit eventually figured out it's more than that, especially if it's a big Hollywood film. The 2.5x multiplier is the new formula used to get a decent estimate on a film's break even point. But like I said at first, there a lot of variable at play. Marketing costs, how many domestic tickets sales vs international, etc. So if a film sold faaaar more domestic tickets than international, then something closer to a 2x multiplier as oppose to 2.5x is probably going to be more accurate.

With that in mind you can see the predicament The Little Mermaid is in right now. One of the more respectable and knowledgeable users on Box Office Theory (Charlie Jatinder) is thinking $250-275 million domestic total is the likely scenario right now. So if Disney gets 50-55% of revenue from those domestic ticket sales, then do the math on how much money they'd need to make internationally to get them to break even, remembering that overseas the studios get roughly 25-40% from international ticket revenues.
Ah thanks. Never knew this.
 

Happosai

Hold onto your panties
some of you need to realize you arent 12 year old girls. You arent the target
12-year old girls were not the target.

Based on Husky Husky 's chart...they're attempting to break even on the global box office and it doesn't appear they'll come close.

Target audience? Who would that be...no one asked for these movies? How many 12-year old girls in case study demanded live action remakes of 25+ year old Disney animated movies? Seems like they're just shooting from the hip.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
I saw something about Rotten Tomatoes doing a sleight of hand with both critic and user reviews. Do they do this stuff with every movie or only ones they feel they need to protect? It’s so weird.
 

Doom85

Gold Member
I saw something about Rotten Tomatoes doing a sleight of hand with both critic and user reviews. Do they do this stuff with every movie or only ones they feel they need to protect? It’s so weird.

Apparently you have to have actually seen the movie to give it a rating? Which seems totally reasonable, and yes should be standard for all films, but the criticism shouldn’t be “don’t do this for this film”, but rather “good, now do this for all movies from now on”. Anyone giving a rating to a film they haven’t seen is a clown in my book. I’m done with Avatar after the first movie was mid and the second film bored me to tears, but I’m not giving the third movie a rating when it comes out since I won’t bother seeing it, and attempting to downvote it without seeing it is pure pettiness.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
Apparently you have to have actually seen the movie to give it a rating? Which seems totally reasonable, and yes should be standard for all films, but the criticism shouldn’t be “don’t do this for this film”, but rather “good, now do this for all movies from now on”. Anyone giving a rating to a film they haven’t seen is a clown in my book. I’m done with Avatar after the first movie was mid and the second film bored me to tears, but I’m not giving the third movie a rating when it comes out since I won’t bother seeing it, and attempting to downvote it without seeing it is pure pettiness.
What is it about movies that they need to be shielded from criticism, whether it’s justified or not? I’m sure a ton of people will downvote the new Witcher season because it doesn’t star Henry Cavil. Who cares?
 
Apparently you have to have actually seen the movie to give it a rating? Which seems totally reasonable, and yes should be standard for all films, but the criticism shouldn’t be “don’t do this for this film”, but rather “good, now do this for all movies from now on”. Anyone giving a rating to a film they haven’t seen is a clown in my book. I’m done with Avatar after the first movie was mid and the second film bored me to tears, but I’m not giving the third movie a rating when it comes out since I won’t bother seeing it, and attempting to downvote it without seeing it is pure pettiness.
How would they know who’s seen it?

But I am pretty sure they do some tomfoolery to keep the percentage high. That happened after Captain Marvel if I recall correctly.
 
Internationally, yes, but funny enough, Mermaid’s domestic box office is already surpassing Fast X’s domestic box office despite the latter being in theaters for a week longer.
Fast & Furious has been going downhill since 7. Went down 35% and 24% respectively from 7 to 8 and 8 to 9 domestically. So not a big feat.
 

dorkimoe

Gold Member
12-year old girls were not the target.

Based on Husky Husky 's chart...they're attempting to break even on the global box office and it doesn't appear they'll come close.

Target audience? Who would that be...no one asked for these movies? How many 12-year old girls in case study demanded live action remakes of 25+ year old Disney animated movies? Seems like they're just shooting from the hip.
How many 12 year old girls demanded the first one? thats a ridiculous argument, they make these movies for kids. Who else do you think its for?
 

Doom85

Gold Member
What is it about movies that they need to be shielded from criticism, whether it’s justified or not? I’m sure a ton of people will downvote the new Witcher season because it doesn’t star Henry Cavil. Who cares?

Then downvote the trailer. But the rating for a movie or show should reflect people who actually saw it. Or are you actually encouraging me to give Avatar 3 a low rating even if I don’t go see it?
 

Happosai

Hold onto your panties
How many 12 year old girls demanded the first one? thats a ridiculous argument, they make these movies for kids. Who else do you think its for?
First movie hit many demographics and blasted MGMs competing movie for 1989. If children were the only demographic in '89, I doubt they would have financially done in Bluth. I'm not even a big Disney film fan and would prefer something Bluth produced. But that's history.

That said, who was this film targeted for exactly and who asked for it to be remade? 12-year olds did? They've gotten powerful.
I cannot believe someone just argued that this movie wasnt made for kids...
Yeah, nice indirect but that'd be me. Believe it.
 
Last edited:

Kacho

Gold Member
Or are you actually encouraging me to give Avatar 3 a low rating even if I don’t go see it?
I don’t care what you or any person does. If you’re not a fan of something and feel compelled to leave a negative rating then knock yourself out. I don’t need people on a website curating what reviews I see.
 

eddie4

Genuinely Generous
Disney doesn't care about who watches it or how much money it makes, as the main reason they do this is to keep the IP and not have it turn into public domain. So they will just keep remaking them to keep the rights. You can watch it if it interests you, and if not, you don't have to watch it.

Disney hasn't put anything out recently that I was truly optimistic about. I might give it a watch once it's streaming somewhere.
 
Last edited:

Neolombax

Member
Watched it with my 5 yo daughter, she watched it till the end and quite liked the movie. The actress threw me off initially but watching the whole thing, its fine. She's clearly talented in that she can sing. Ursula was also done fine, didnt have any issues with her. Dont really like Awkwafina as the seagull though, and her song was out of place and bad to be honest. I think generally I didnt really like the new songs. Its an okay movie, I'd rate it slightly higher than the remakes for Mulan and Beauty and the Beast.
 

Doom85

Gold Member
I don’t care what you or any person does. If you’re not a fan of something and feel compelled to leave a negative rating then knock yourself out. I don’t need people on a website curating what reviews I see.

I mean, it’s THEIR site. They can do how they see fit, and if they make it so people are actually required to see a movie before they give it a rating, that’s hardly unreasonable.

I, I am genuinely baffled this has to be clarified.

Person 1: ”Man, fuck Souls fans thinking their franchise is awesome! Rest assured, I gave that Elden Ring a 1!”
Person 2: ”Which aspects of Elden Ring did you not like as you played it?”
Person 1: ”Played it? Man, why would I play it?”
Person 2:

Confused James Franco GIF
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Disney films are for the family. they are not just for 12 year old girls. Disney’s target was always everyone. You need to shush and realize that you don’t know what you are talking about all in an effort to defend a bad film. It is sad and pathetic.
So true.

A lot of Disney stuff is geared to adults with money to burn. Every person I know whose gone on a Disney cruise doesn't go because their 10 year old is begging to be on a giant ship meeting Mickey Mouse at the pool. It's the parents! And some friends and coworkers who have gone do it WITHOUT their kids! I guess those fuckers drop off Peter and Paula at their mother in laws place for a couple weeks during the summer. lol

That Star Wars hotel is also not geared to kids either at $5000/night. That's for SW geeks 40 years ago who grew up watching Empire Strikes Back 18 times.
 
Last edited:

Haint

Member
Local news stations are running stories about black people buying out entire theaters for their daughters and nieces, so I expect this will do a billion dollars.
 

Batiman

Banned
What is it about movies that they need to be shielded from criticism, whether it’s justified or not? I’m sure a ton of people will downvote the new Witcher season because it doesn’t star Henry Cavil. Who cares?
I care a bit? Not they I care too much about reviews but I’d like them to be a little more genuine when it comes to praise or criticism. Wouldn’t you?

I Don’t want to look at scores and it’s rated 5% because the main star is a trumper. I also don’t want the some shit score because there’s a gay character in it or something stupid. If I do check out reviews I think I’d rather hear what viewers would have to say over some angry internet nerds
 
Last edited:

WoJ

Member
Movie looks bad. CGI looks awful and I saw the run time is 135 minutes? If my daughter wants to watch it on Disney + I'll check it out then.
 

Kacho

Gold Member
I care a bit? Not they I care too much about reviews but I’d like them to be a little more genuine when it comes to praise or criticism. Wouldn’t you?

I Don’t want to look at scores and it’s rated 5% because the main star is a trumper. I also don’t want the some shit score because there’s a gay character in it or something stupid. If I do check out reviews I think I’d rather hear what viewers would have to say over some angry internet nerds
I’m more than capable of sifting through reviews to find ones I think are interesting and useful. If a group of people want to leave and bunch of 1 star reviews because they didn’t like Chris Pratt as Mario then fine. They have every right to do that.

What I don’t like is review sites picking and choosing what is ‘worthy’ of being counted. If you hide the true ratings for critics and users to push more favorable ratings then your site is not trustworthy. Plain and simple.
 

BadBurger

Many “Whelps”! Handle It!
Read these and felt encouraged to shed light on the box office performance of TLM.

TLM is NOT doing well. Quite the opposite. $185 million world wide (looking closer to $165 million) during Memorial Day Weekend, with a budget that sets a break even point of roughly $650 million, is pretty bad news for TLM. That's flop territory. There's no reason to believe the film will have good legs. Even if we're very generous and give it's legs a 3x multiplier, that's still sub $560 million WW for it's total run, which falls short of breaking even. At this point TLM would need to have unbelievable holds the next few weeks to have a prayer of not flopping, and with films like Transformers: RotB, Spiderman Across the Spiderverse, Elemental (which might also flop), and The Flash on the horizon, that is not likely to happen at all.

TLM ain't coming anywhere close to a billion. It may not even hit half a billion.

The whole estimation of break even points for movies for their theatrical releases are just estimates. And depending upon how much a certain part of the internet dislikes a movie, that estimate grows inexplicably from 2x its production budget to 2.5x to even 3x.

Some movies do get roughly the same spent on their ad buys as their production budget, some more, some less. Disney is also notorious for demanding very unfavorable cuts of domestic releases for weeks, upwards of even a month or longer, of either 100% of all ticket sales or very high amounts like 75% - 90%. Marketing deals, which are largely just licensing deals with various companies like fast food restaurants, also reduce the ad expense some. They obviously have to negotiate lower tallies in China, but that's the CCP taking their cut.

Anyways, on a supposed budget of about $250m, this movie is doing fine and will turn a profit in the end - either purely through ticket sales, or from ticket sales along with current and future licensing deals, sales on streaming and bluray/4k, and by driving attraction to their theme parks, cruises, and Disney+ service.

I see a fair amount of doom and gloom regarding the financial prospects of this film, whereas if another film with a $250m budget had reaped nearly that entire amount in its first three days of release no one would be ringing any alarm bells. I mean, we haven't even seen if it has legs for a second weekend yet. My guess is it will hobble along nicely given that the user scores seem to holding, so word of mouth is probably good.
 

Husky

THE Prey 2 fanatic
Target audience? Who would that be...no one asked for these movies? How many 12-year old girls in case study demanded live action remakes of 25+ year old Disney animated movies? Seems like they're just shooting from the hip.
lmao this gets me thinking, surely these remakes don't appeal to kids as well as the animated originals. There's a reason Disney's new princess IP are all still animated. The remakes will appeal to kids, but surely they're really just capitalizing on the nostalgia of the parents.
I suppose no one waits for demands for a movie to be made, so much as demand is built at the box office. Four of their remakes are in the top 50 highest-grossing films of all time: The Lion King (8th), Beauty and the Beast (19th), Aladdin (39th), and Alice in Wonderland (45th). These remakes might be soulless, but god they must be such a goldmine—the original wouldn't break the box office if it was reissued, but the remake lets them double-dip with the same story they told before, and might even increase retail and streaming demand for the animated original.

If The Little Mermaid were to totally bomb, I wonder how Disney would react. They have other remakes in production, and they'd probably need to see a pattern of failure before they—what the fuck, they're developing a Moana remake?
 

CGNoire

Member
So true.

A lot of Disney stuff is geared to adults with money to burn. Every person I know whose gone on a Disney cruise doesn't go because their 10 year old is begging to be on a giant ship meeting Mickey Mouse at the pool. It's the parents! And some friends and coworkers who have gone do it WITHOUT their kids! I guess those fuckers drop off Peter and Paula at their mother in laws place for a couple weeks during the summer. lol

That Star Wars hotel is also not geared to kids either at $5000/night. That's for SW geeks 40 years ago who grew up watching Empire Strikes Back 18 times.
Yep its like some people here willfully forget about the Booming Kidult Demographic.

And its not just males with arrested development. We litterally have commercials now a days aimed at grown ass woman that have narration that sounds no different than a saturday mourning ad for "DreamPhone."
 

Batiman

Banned
I’m more than capable of sifting through reviews to find ones I think are interesting and useful. If a group of people want to leave and bunch of 1 star reviews because they didn’t like Chris Pratt as Mario then fine. They have every right to do that.

What I don’t like is review sites picking and choosing what is ‘worthy’ of being counted. If you hide the true ratings for critics and users to push more favorable ratings then your site is not trustworthy. Plain and simple.
Aren’t “true”ratings only coming from the people that actually watched the film though? Whats trustworthy about opinions from people that haven’t seen it? This is making no sense to me
 

pel1300

Member
lol @ the lame "It's not for you, it's for kids!" defense. Shills used to say that to defend shitty Star Wars movies. I remember shills saying it to defend the prequels and later the shitty sequel trilogy.

Disney remakes and sequels to classics are designed to attract Gen X and millennial parents who wanna relive their childhood. If you don't think this is part of their target audience, you're naive.
 
Last edited:
Local news stations are running stories about black people buying out entire theaters for their daughters and nieces, so I expect this will do a billion dollars.

https://deadline.com/2023/05/little-mermaid-box-office-profit-loss-halle-bailey-1235383099/

In a rare situation for a Disney tentpole, particularly a live-action title based on a treasured classic animated musical, The Little Mermaid looks to bank more at the domestic box office ultimately than overseas, with $300M-$350M U.S./Canada to $260M abroad.

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.
 

Kilau

Member
The whole estimation of break even points for movies for their theatrical releases are just estimates. And depending upon how much a certain part of the internet dislikes a movie, that estimate grows inexplicably from 2x its production budget to 2.5x to even 3x.

Some movies do get roughly the same spent on their ad buys as their production budget, some more, some less. Disney is also notorious for demanding very unfavorable cuts of domestic releases for weeks, upwards of even a month or longer, of either 100% of all ticket sales or very high amounts like 75% - 90%. Marketing deals, which are largely just licensing deals with various companies like fast food restaurants, also reduce the ad expense some. They obviously have to negotiate lower tallies in China, but that's the CCP taking their cut.

Anyways, on a supposed budget of about $250m, this movie is doing fine and will turn a profit in the end - either purely through ticket sales, or from ticket sales along with current and future licensing deals, sales on streaming and bluray/4k, and by driving attraction to their theme parks, cruises, and Disney+ service.

I see a fair amount of doom and gloom regarding the financial prospects of this film, whereas if another film with a $250m budget had reaped nearly that entire amount in its first three days of release no one would be ringing any alarm bells. I mean, we haven't even seen if it has legs for a second weekend yet. My guess is it will hobble along nicely given that the user scores seem to holding, so word of mouth is probably good.
It has legs, but only for a day.
 
Top Bottom