MovieChat Forums > The Little Mermaid (2023) Discussion > Let's make it offical. THIS FLOPPED. GO ...

Let's make it offical. THIS FLOPPED. GO WOKE GO BROKE.


Due on streaming at the end of this month. So its theatrical run is basically done. Let's look at the total:

$543,441,325

Let's break these numbers down.

$290,522,732 domestic
$253,577,409 international

Domestic - the chains get 50%, so let's reduce domestic take to: $145,261,366
International - the chains get 60%, so let's reduce international take to:$101,430,963.6

Total: $246, 692,329
Budget: 250,000,00
Total: -3,307,670

Right now you're thinking 'But it can make up 3 million in the last few weeks. This broke even!

Wrong. We need to factor marketing into this.

$-3,307,670
-$140,000,000 (reported budget)
Total loss: $143,307,670

So I guess race swapping Ariel to virtual signal cost them $143 million! It's expensive to virtual signal!




reply

At least they didn't make her a trans "woman". That'll be the next remake.

reply

while you are right, who the fuck would even be asking for that?? Who the fuck is asking for ANY of this silly swapping shit? no one. people attend it because it is there, that's all. no one was ever begging for a black mermaid. no one. maybe 4 people. who cares.

reply

So Disney owes you a live action mermaid film with a white actress? Entitled much?

reply

how's all your SJWing working out for ya? CONVERTED anyone yet?

dint think so

reply

What SJWing are you talking about? I'm not the one crying about how a film I don't like makes me less of a man. That would be you.

reply

Still talking random nonsense, huh? Nothing changes.
Enjoy your SJWing. Every one needs a hobby.

reply

YOU REPEAT YOURSELF CONSTANTLY AND NEVER ACTUALLY SAY ANYTHING.🫤

reply

Ha.

reply

YOU really don't need a film to make YOU less of a man. 😂🤣

reply

Back to gaslighting people, Ranb?

reply

Why do you choose to question your self-worth? Doing that makes you look weak.

I really can't stand these people who complain about how fragile they are.

reply

Case in point.

reply

Your accusation is a confession. Good luck with that.

reply

Aaaaaand you’re still doing it.

reply

And you're still doing it. You can be stronger. Your "I'm a victim" trope is not convincing.

reply

Says the pot calling the kettle black.

reply

I'm mocking your insincere pleas that I need to respect your fake trauma. Look for sympathy somewhere else.

reply

That is exactly what a narcissist would say when called out for their actions. Then turn around and accuse the other person of what they’re doing themselves.

Lowlife.

reply

do they want to make a product that people purchase? or lecture us and pretend they are such holy moral angels and if someone doesn't want it then just call everyone racist?(meanwhile a black led spiderverse movie of a smaller property beat it) kind of a silly way to do business

sincerely from a leftist tired of being told all characters need to be race swapped and if i dont want that im a racist. while i have been to see and financially support plenty of black led, whether its acted or directed films.

reply

People have purchased the black mermaid film product, to the tune of $297 million in the USA and $564 million worldwide. If the average price of a movie ticket in the USA is $11, then this means about 27 million people watched the black mermaid product just in the USA.

I did not get a lecture. Did you get a lecture? If so, what did it consist of? Did the lecture change how you live?

I'm not aware of anyone saying that all characters need to be race swapped. This is a new one on me. Where are you getting this from?

reply

and yet it was still a box office flop. considering its advertising and it being a well known property those sals are bad. especially when spderverse broke 600 million.

being told the movie flopped because you not seeing it means you are racist.

the recent trend of nonstop race swapping characters?

reply

Seeing as how this film and many others are 2 hour long product ads, I suspect Disney is making a good deal of money on the entire Little Mermaid product line.

Who is telling you that you are racist for not seeing the film? Did you believe them? I hope not.

Just because some films are remade with actors of a different race than the original, does not mean "all characters need to be race swapped". The recent trend is not all characters getting race swapped. Did you notice that most of the characters in The Little Mermaid were not race swapped? Changing the color of Ariel's skin does not constitute "all".

Where are you really getting this from?

reply

which was not what the origional post was about. it said it was a failure at the box office. You are goal post shifting

have you not seen all the articles?

https://www.theroot.com/can-you-guess-whythe-little-mermaid-is-hit-but-not-in-c-1850510208

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/09/the-little-mermaid-global-backlash-black-ariel

just like they did with ghostbusters 2016, they blamed sexism and incels.

shes the lead and main character. there is a trend of for no reason race swapping leads. Disney and these companies are not your ally or mine.

they do it to raise controversy. its free advertising. they think they can then use this to champion others to go see it to get back at all those bad racists who are criticizing the movie.

reply

If I wanted to reply to the original post, I would have done so. But I specifically replied to your post by clicking on the reply button on your post. Understand how that works?

You mentioned a product, race swapping and racism. I addressed your claims. It is fine if you want to discuss other things, but I see no reason cloud the issue by suggesting that I should confine my posts to what the original post is about instead of addressing what you claimed.

There was a reason for race swapping. Someone wanted to do it, maybe to appeal to a wider portion of an audience that did not watch the 1989 film. Or perhaps not. But I still see no reason for anyone to be upset that Disney remakes a property they own and also makes changes.

Since the 1989 version of The Little Mermaid is Disney property and the 1837 story is in the public domain, I see no reason for anyone to be bothered by any changes Disney makes.

reply

UGH...YOU ARE SUCH A PATHETIC LITTLE CREATURE...I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE BEING SO SMALL AS TO CARE ABOUT SUCH RIDICULOUS MATTERS.🙂

reply

Disney, Hollywood, and every DemoKKKrat party activist clearly care very much about these "ridiculous" matters.

reply

🤣

reply

I don't think moviechat is for you.

reply

THAT'S FUNNY...EVERYONE THINKS THAT VERY THING ABOUT YOU.

reply

Nope..just you Kowokeski.

reply

HELLO, FACELESS WEIRDO WHO I DO NOT KNOW.

reply

Ha ha 😂
If only….

reply

I actually agree with him ;)

Gtfo kowalski

reply

YOU ARE A PIECE OF SHIT...OBVIOUSLY YOU PRFER THE COMPANY OF FELLOW TURDS...I DON'T BLAME YOU...I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO HANG OUT WITH IDIOTS TOO IF I WAS ONE.

reply

Calling you an idiot would be a compliment compared to what you are.

reply

So WHY THE FUCK ARE YOU HANGING OUT WITH US YOU STUPID?

I don't want to hang put with him, I'm just tired of you shouting your stupid ideas everywhere.

reply

YOU ARE VERY CUTE WHEN YOU ARE ANGRY.😉

reply

I’ll give you credit. You are the biggest troll I have ever seen on any forum. I tried blocking you once but it just turned the threads into an incoherent mess.

reply

THAT MADE ME SMILE.🙂

reply

Great. Enjoy it. I believe your days here are numbered. 😊

reply

LMAO...ALMOST 5 YEARS AND OVER 36,000 POSTS...I AM ETERNAL,SON.

reply

Or perhaps many of us know that it will be released on Disney+ soon enough. Why would we pay more to go see it in the theatre when we can watch it at home in a few months?

reply

YUP...ALI WANTS TO SEE IT BUT WE DON'T REALLY DO THEATERS...TOO PRICEY.

reply

Too pricey, and I can't pause to pee. 😊

reply

Really strange that this streaming phenomenon used as a excuse for horrible Box Office performance only apply to this movie. Why it didn't affect Top Gun, Avatar 2, Super Mario Bros, Guardians of the Galaxy 3. This excuse is only valid to the movies you want or care. Avatar 2 has several months on Disney+ and it made 2 billions.

reply

Top Gun, Avatar 2, Super Mario Bros, Guardians of the Galaxy 3 all have more widespread appeal. They appeal to boys and men, as well as girls/women and interested people of different ages. The Little Mermaid was a great movie, but it has limited appeal and many will not go see it because the story doesn't interest them.

reply

I didn't see any of those in the theatre either.

reply

WELCOME TO THE NEW WORLD...MOST STREAM EVERYTHING...FEW FILMS WILL BE MONSTER BOX OFFICE WINNERS....AND THOSE FEW WILL BE HUGE IPS WITH MASS APPEAL AND THEATER WORTHY EFFECTS.

STREAMING WAS ALREADY CUTTING INTO THE THEATERS RELEVANCE...THEN THE PANDEMIC HAMMERED IT IN....STREAMING IS OPTION 1,2 AND 3 FOR MOST.

reply

Ariel's race is not the reason why this didn't make more money. I went and saw it and really enjoyed it, but The Little Mermaid has limited appeal. The average man isn't going to go see this in the theatre. Most young boys will not want to see it (or at least will pretend that they don't want to) because they will assume it is too girly. It's not a superhero movie or an animated family film or a slasher film or a Tom Cruise action movie, so it was never going to be a huge hit, no matter who played Ariel.

reply

The original begs to differ. It was a smash hit and ushered in what is known as the Disney Renaissance.

So like Lion King and Alladin, it had the potential to make bank on a live action version.

I think where they got it wrong was not creating a colorful underwater world with cartoon like creatures. Why did the fish need to look "real?"

So with a white skinned, red headed Ariel, super colorful water world, catchy tunes playing on the trailer, this could have done very well. Like a billion dollars well.

reply

The original was animated, much shorter and released in a very different time. The Lion King and Aladdin have more widespread appeal and would interest boys and girls and more adults. A white Ariel would not have much difference.

reply

It would have for international audiences, particularly China, who took offence at black Ariel. (Chinese do not consider African Americans attractive. They adore white skin and actively avoid the sun to have white skin.)

reply

TO THAT I SAY...FUCK CHINA...BUT YOU ENJOY BOWING DOWN TO YOUR NEW RACIST BUDDIES.

reply

Why is it so bad that certain people find beauty in certain attributes? Women normally find men with dark hair and tanned skin more attractive than a man with light hair/red and fair skin. Are they racist? Or are tastes just tastes? Not for me to judge.

reply

YOUR COMPARISON IS FLAWED AND QUITE FRANKLY...WRONG.

reply

Please travel to China and challenge them on their inherent racism. I beg you.

reply

I WOULD NEVER TRAVEL TO CHINA...NOR DO I ENDORSE THEIR OR YOUR FUCKED UP THOUGHTS ON SKIN COLOR.


YOU AND CHINA NEED TO GROW THE FUCK UP.😘

reply

I have and I did. They did not care. Challenging a person's racism is not the big deal you seem to think it is.

reply

Bull $hit. So, Frozen 1 and 2, Beauty and the Beast and even Alice in wonderland, movies made for girls and than appealed to girls made billions. The Frozen movies, were made for kids, mainly little girls and Frozen 2 is the highest animated movie of all time. So, no widespread appeal, still made billions.

Really, what's the difference in audience appeal between Beauty and the Best and The Little Mermaid. They have the same audience target. If anything Ariel is way more popular than Belle. Ariel was (and i say was until this year) the top 1 Disney princess seller for Disney. And I hope you don't come with the crap of Emma Watson, because as famous as she can be, she cannot carry a billion dollar movie by herself. Nope.

reply

“Ariel was (and i say was until this year) the top 1 Disney princess seller for Disney”

Whilst Ariel makes the top 5, Elsa is normally No.1 when it comes to bankability and merchandise. I have a 9 year old daughter, so I’m obliged to know about these things, lol.

reply

Nope. The break even has already been out at 560.

Also you didn't factor in the first week bonus or how Disney cuts their movies.
Also also it's not 50/50 and 40/60.
Also also also you're ignoring Disney plus at an estimated value of 100 million.
Also also also also you're ignoring VOD which is an estimated 80 million.
Also also also also also you're ignoring merchandise.

Want to know how it's a success? The spin off has already been confirmed. Keep seething though. Can't wait to see your tears when Tommy Possible flops.

reply

NARWHALE IS KIND OF FUCKING AWESOME.🫵🏾

reply

Oh Mr. Awsome as some here call you. You are just stretching some facts in order to defend this. You seem to be using the 560 break even amount given by Deadline. But you fail to mention that most of your 'ALSO' points were already considered by Deadline when making this number the breaking point. First, they mention it in the article and second they always do their financial analysis including these variables. They don's tend to forget these things (like Disney cuts, Digital and streaming numbers). The only variable they don't use is the dolls. But Ariel and TLM was already one of the top Disney Seller way before this new movie.

reply

Right. It averages around 56/44%.

Internationaly is even worse. Averages around 30/70. 30 for the studio.

Disney plus can be evaluated at anything they want. Bullshit.
VoD when it’s free on Disney plus? Call Bullshit again.
Merchandise … there is some market but not as much as you/they want there is. And anyway it’s going to be hard to quantify the sales boost due to this movie as opposed the original.

Fact is: it is a flop.

reply

I just checked google news by date, the only thing that was said was that the cast is excited about talk about a sequel, but this was a month ago. There’s been nothing since.

The break-even is $800m
Disney wanted this to be their big blockbuster and bring in $800-$1B


$200m to make
$400m+ P&A (print & advertising aka pr) perhaps as high as $600m because of merchandise

My example is Minions which had a pr budget of $600m

Also if you see the movie advertised everywhere and talked about, the numbers are more like $600m

Disney + = unless this movie brings in new subscribers, that’s a moot point

Please provide the link @Narwhale37 where there’s going to be a sequel, I couldn’t find it, perhaps you’ll have better luck then me.

reply

Why do you attribute the alleged failure it to race swapping instead of the script, acting or direction? Ariel's skin color was not the biggest change they made from the 1989 version.

While I have read about $140 million estimates for marketing, how is it you're so sure that is what Disney spent.

You also seem to be pleased that it might be a flop. Why?

reply

Because his favorite YouTube grifter told him it flopped.

reply

Race-swapping is rather disgusting

Disney has enough creatives to come up with something new rather then re-making all their cartoons

It’s ridiculous.

Same thing will happen to Snow White btw. It will be #BudLighted

reply

Why is it disgusting? Is it disgusting when John Wayne and Tom Cruise do it too?

reply

When John Wayne did it it was probably less disgusting and more hilarious, at least to modern eyes. It is laughable.

As for Tom Cruise, I don't know what you're referring to.

reply

In the original asian Top Gun movie, Pete Maverick was a black trans person.

reply

They were both cast in films, which in the source material, their character was Asian.

John Wayne was made up as a Mongol in "The Conqueror". Cruise's character in "Edge of Tomorrow" was Japanese in the book, "All You Need is Kill". The book had a diverse cast of characters, so it was not like the film was an American remake of the Japanese book.

reply

You mean 'virtual' signaling. Get your racism straight.

reply

WORLDWIDE
$555,100,263

$250m x 2.5 = $625m

est net loss is $70m

I am surprised disney hasnt gone bankrupt yet...

reply

They make bank at the themeparks.

reply