MovieChat Forums > The Little Mermaid (2023) Discussion > Wait, made 500M already, but no Celbrati...

Wait, made 500M already, but no Celbrations, bragging...

posted a year ago by ranmast (626)
38 replies | jump to latest

Finger pointing, parades, victory claims, racist accusations. It seems some people have been extremely humbled by their own ignorance on how box office and movie business work.

This movie, even going over this mark is not going to break even with just the box office, and will need the help of the dolls it will sell and some shady streaming business?

And no, do not ask me for numbers or facts that you are going to ignore, deflect, lie about, become delusional with, ask for presidential confirmation and NASA's approval, anyways. No, if you want to believe your own lies, that's you problem, not mine.

[–] BourbonKing (5777) a year ago

We can see the blood stain on the backside of your khakis, Cletus.

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Can you say it again, but without crying this time?

[–] RockAway (1601) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

The fact that even Deadline hasn't put an article about the 'big' accomplishment says a lot, really a lot...

They put an article the day Spiderverse did it (500M), even when the numbers weren't official at the moment of the article. The noisy silence about this is baffling...

[–] Satan2016 (25525) a year ago

Everyone reported $500m 4 days ago! Google The Little Mermaid 500.

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Still no bragging or celebration. They seem to be accepting the movie is not breaking even.

[–] Cac1981 (331) a year ago

Only reason anyone would celebrate is cause of all you racist incels whining about it. And you’re still looking to troll. Sad existence you lead, Cletus

[–] Cac1981 (331) a year ago

Must be boring in your moms basement

[–] Ranb (9595) a year ago

Why would anyone celebrate a film making a profit, if it did?

The only rejoicing I've seen here was by people who were so happy that a film about a black mermaid was a flop.

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Really? I don't need to even go outside this very site:

https://moviechat.org/tt5971474/The-Little-Mermaid/647dd88cf227251e479fb52a/Already-grossed-more-than-the-1989-original

[–] Ranb (9595) a year ago

That post seems more "matter of fact" and not a "celebration" or "rejoicing" to me.

[–] Satan2016 (25525) a year ago

[deleted]

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

“Already”? Even though it took this long for it to finally make $500M?

[–] Information-Police (4889) a year ago

It's grossed 2x its budget already. Not counting merchandise.

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

Don’t forget the additional $140M they spent on marketing (according to Deadline), for a total of $390M they put into this film.

[–] Information-Police (4889) a year ago

I'm using the production budget for comparison to the 1989 movie because that's the number I have. That movie had promotional campaigns, too.

I read it needed $500 MM to be a success. That passed that already with more to come.

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

The '89 Little Mermaid was made on a considerably smaller budget and made 5 times that in profits. Even with advertising factored in, it still made more than enough. Budgets and marketing in current year are a different beast altogether, and the latter cannot be ignored.

The general rule is that a movie needs to make 2.5 times its budget to break even. The LM remake hasn’t done that yet, and it likely won’t. It’s gonna be streaming soon, and that’ll be the end of it.

[–] moviechatterer (15583) a year ago

"needs to make 2.5 times its budget to break even"

Thats some fucked up logic right there , proably resevered for movie nerds who want to declare a particylar movie a flop for whatever reason.

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

Look it up if you don’t believe me. It’s common knowledge.

The number is an estimate, but when you factor in how much they also spend on marketing and how much the theaters keep, the logic is sound.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a year ago

You don't know about any of that. You were the idiot claiming the batman was a flop. If that was the case we wouldn't be getting a sequel to it. You have some seriously bad takes on stuff man. I'm glad people like you are not in charge of Hollywood or making films.

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

I never said it was a flop.

You’re still on time-out, go back into your hole. While you’re down there, look up how the box-office works.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a year ago

Oh but you wanted it to be though didn't you? If you adjust for inflation it is more profitable than Batman Begins was. Be honest why are you a scumbag who doesn't respect other people's view? Why do you think people need your approval to have an opinion on a film? Should I put more stock in your view or the mass majority?

Oh no I'm calling the shots here kid. You are far down there. You watch your tone and be respectful. Me 80 you 0. You need to score one pont for my respect.

[–] LanceDance (1298) a year ago

What was that? I couldn't hear you from all the way up here.

[–] moviefanatic505 (6094) a year ago

Get up here man. I am trying to help you. I'm so high up I'm looking down on you.

[–] Ranb (9595) a year ago

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

In a break-even scenario off a $560M global box office (meaning a net profit of $71M before participations and residuals are accounted for), we’re told that Little Mermaid‘s global film revenues would amount to $547M against its combined production, global theatrical and home entertainment marketing expenses of $476M. The pic’s revenues broken down include $267M in global theatrical film rentals, $100M net in domestic pay/free TV and what Disney pays itself to put the movie on Disney+, $100M in global home entertainment (DVD, digital), and $80M in international TV and streaming.

It seems that this May 31, 2023 article is not as pessimistic as you are. As of 7/5/23, Box Office Mojo is saying the gross is $527 million.

[–] queefqueen (49) a year ago

A lot of that number is Disney buying out empty theaters, as they were proven to be doing so far back as Captain Marvel.
Another fun indicator is how Boxofficemojo were already reporting the grosses for the 2nd, 3rd and 4th of this month ON THE EARLY MORNING OF July 2.

So of course either time travel exists, or they published their lies too early. But this pile of shit is not still making whatever they claim it is this late in the game, and has not for weeks.

They've been adding at least a million per day to the daily figures that just truly isn't there. People wonder where all that marketing money goes, and well there you have it.
They really don't want to have this be seen as the failure it is.

[–] Ranb (9595) a year ago

Or advanced ticket sales?

[–] JoWilli (19957) a year ago

The budget was $250m.

250 x 2.5 = $625m

It lost money and flopped.

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Yes, this is the general rule. But people here and in other sites will play dumb, ignore it, act delusional, call you crazy or ask for your credentials and all the federal, papal, scientific proofs this is how you determine how much a movie needs to break even.

Well, this movie cost 250 millions as production cost and 140 M of marketing cost. A total of 390 millions total cost. No one has come with a logic explanation on how this movie making 560 million (that's its top right now) can cover for 390 million of costs when you take away the theaters' share (near half the total box office). So, their next best answer is dolls and posters and streaming, a streaming that Disney is going to pay to guess who? Disney. So, at best case scenario, a box office failure.

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[deleted]

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Asking this is futile and impossible to know, since Disney is a multi billion dollars company spread around the whole planet; with dozens, maybe hundreds of divisions. So, even if their movie/animation division is bleeding money as a bullet in an artery, as you generously confirmed, how the rest of their divisions are doing is a mystery and we cannot know how they cover for the losses The Little Mermaid, Lightyear, Strange Words, Antman 3, Indiana Jones 5 and others are bringing to the company... They will either get back on track or keep losing money until they can't do it anymore...

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[deleted]

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Hmmmm, I don't know, just a few months ago Anheuser-Busch Inbev SA seemed like a great and secure idea for an investment, today I would NOT take that risk and am very glad never did. People with brain know that the only sure things are Death and Taxes. Disney, as you see is not on that list.

Regarding people talking about specific figures of a division of a multi-division company is inevitable. If not we just have to ask for newspaper and media news sites to close their financial and economy sections. Unless you believe these news are made, by these media companies, just for private investors and not for the general public. Don't think that's how the economic and financial world works.

Now, if the problem with talking about specific figures of a business division (even if they don't tell the whole story) could be that squabbling about them may probably offend, hurt, trigger or bring to reality some people, then though luck for them, because no matter how these people cry, whine, threaten or fight, its not gonna happen, its not gonna stop. Sorry, but people will not stop talking about how much some product is creating losses to its parent company, as much as people will not stop talking about a sport athlete who was overpriced and is not giving the performance expected of him/her/them...

[–] [deleted] a year ago

[deleted]

[–] mitzibishi (1835) a year ago

You do know the studio doesn't get the full amount earned right? Do you think the theatres put movies on for free and don't have bills to pay?

[–] ranmast (626) a year ago

Are you talking to me? Are u talkin t me? I ask because it seems you are responding to my comment, ironically the one in which I declare exactly the same thing you are saying, that there is no way that a movie that makes 560 million at the box office (that's its top right now) can cover for 390 million of total costs. So, let me know what part of my post is incomprehensible or where did I make a mistake.

Darn! I even said:

when you take away the theaters' share (near half the total box office)

[–] mitzibishi (1835) a year ago

Calm down Scrappy Doo. Did somebody steal your scooby snacks?