The Little Mermaid (05/2023) live-action Disney remake

Last edited:
Anyway by these new rules that success = 2.5x the costs all the films i'm watching recently are all MASSIVE FLOPS so I guess I'll watch TLM at some point soon :D I think i've only seen the animated one once so maybe I won't even notice the plot differences or the race swapping!


rp2000

Edit: removed stuff that will probably just de-rail the thread a bit too much!
 
Last edited:
rp2000 said:
Edit: removed stuff that will probably just de-rail the thread a bit too much!
Click to expand...
Correct, all bar John Wick 4 are commercial flops as they haven't made money, just like tlm - although the covenant was probably down to the ******* decision to only release in 2000 odd theatres in the us.

Sisu only had a very limited release though, but its an awesome movie, thoroughly recommended.
 
VincentHanna said:
It hit $560 million which was the prediction to start to get in to profit.

That's without any merchandise sales over the next 5-10 years.
Click to expand...
Some people tend to forget that "box office" sales are very much not the only thing that makes money for movies, the "long tail" is what has made so many films including a lot of what are now considered classics their real money and has resulted in more than one "flop" getting sequels that did better than the first film at the box office*.
And for Disney the box office has tended to be secondary to all of the merch and tie in materials that can still be bringing in large sums of money for decades (a cinema flop for disney can still be a huge marketing push for the parks and toys).

They also forget that most films according to the hollywood accounts never turn a profit...I'm sure that officially the original Star Wars film didn't turn a profit officially until at least the early 2000's according to some of the interviews that the actors who were getting points off the net were saying, I'm not sure if that's changed.


*It's always strange how many "huge flops" have got multiple sequels, either they people greenlighting them loved wasting money, or they were not such big flops.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
Some people tend to forget that "box office" sales are very much not the only thing that makes money for movies, the "long tail" is what has made so many films including a lot of what are now considered classics their real money and has resulted in more than one "flop" getting sequels that did better than the first film at the box office*.
And for Disney the box office has tended to be secondary to all of the merch and tie in materials that can still be bringing in large sums of money for decades (a cinema flop for disney can still be a huge marketing push for the parks and toys).

They also forget that most films according to the hollywood accounts never turn a profit...I'm sure that officially the original Star Wars film didn't turn a profit officially until at least the early 2000's according to some of the interviews that the actors who were getting points off the net were saying, I'm not sure if that's changed.


*It's always strange how many "huge flops" have got multiple sequels, either they people greenlighting them loved wasting money, or they were not such big flops.
Click to expand...

Apart from star wars made $775m profit. The original movie that is, the first. Adjusting for inflation it's still one of the biggest box office hits ever.

So not sure anything you've said is correct.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: jcr
Begbie said:
Apart from star wars made $775m profit. The original movie that is, the first. Adjusting for inflation it's still one of the biggest box office hits ever.

So not sure anything you've said is correct.
Click to expand...
I would try and find the interview for you, but it's from memory fairly well quoted and referenced over the years.

Star Wars, like may "successful" films according to the official accounts for residuals didn't turn enough profit to pay out for many, many years. IIRC several of the actors have said at least as far along as the early 00's that the statements they received claimed they were not due the residual payments (it might have been David Prowse who mentioned it repeatedly).

And the "long tail" (look it up) is where most films make the bulk of their non merch/licensing money from, a huge box office weekend is nice, but many films make more outside of the cinema especially IIRC kids films where you tend to get one big shot at the cinema, but decades of availability via home media and TV (and for some, relatively frequent small screenings).
It's one of the main reasons you'll sometimes see a film that didn't do great at the cinema getting a direct sequel years later.
 
Last edited:
Werewolf said:
I would try and find the interview for you, but it's from memory fairly well quoted and referenced over the years.

Star Wars, like may "successful" films according to the official accounts for residuals didn't turn enough profit to pay out for many, many years. IIRC several of the actors have said at least as far along as the early 00's that the statements they received claimed they were not due the residual payments (it might have been David Prowse who mentioned it repeatedly).

And the "long tail" (look it up) is where most films make the bulk of their non merch/licensing money from, a huge box office weekend is nice, but many films make more outside of the cinema especially IIRC kids films where you tend to get one big shot at the cinema, but decades of availability via home media and TV (and for some, relatively frequent small screenings).
It's one of the main reasons you'll sometimes see a film that didn't do great at the cinema getting a direct sequel years later.
Click to expand...

I think you may be talking about ROJ and David Prowse not getting any of the (gross) profits from the movie. He had a clause in his contract to receive profits from the movie, the company claims it didn't make any because they done some funky finance stuff.

There's no doubt movies make a lot of money over time, but they still have to be good. There is very few movies that fail at the cinema and make a ton of movie over a long space of time.
 
Last edited:
VincentHanna said:
It hit $560 million which was the prediction to start to get in to profit.

That's without any merchandise sales over the next 5-10 years.
Click to expand...

The issue is that it would have made double that if they stayed true to the casting and just made a straight adaptation. They had it in their hands and thrown it away. It's not going to help Disney's money troubles now because the money coming in has slowed to a trickle. And Disney won't care about it what it can do from now on, only what it can do in the first month or so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom