honestly...who the frick watches this movie, don come to me with black girls because parents don't go with their daughters to watch a movie of a bedwench
>After a month in cinemas it will finally limp across the half a billion mark meaning it's only a horrible loss for Disney and not a catastrophic one like Elemental
k
>half a billion
So $500 million? Pretty standard for a Disney movie. They always manage to generate ludicrous amounts of profit. Aladdin gross over $1 billion.
>The rule of thumb is for a movie to earn back at least 2.5 times its budget in order to be profitable >Budget: $250m (this ignores millions wasted on marketing and promotion but we'll use this number) >$250m * 2.5 = $625m >$500m < $625m >Profit condition not met.
And keep in mind they wanted this movie to gross > $1b, some were even saying it would be over $1.6b. This is a massive failure no matter how you slice it, because they not only lost out on costs, they lost all the potential revenue that would have easily been generated by halving the budget, casting a white Ariel, and lazily doing a 1:1 copy of the original. It would have made over $1b lmao. Instead they released garbage and are paying for it
Worse are the copers for streaming "WELL IF THEY WATCHED IT ON DISNEY+ THAT MEANS THEY MUST HAVE PAID THE $9.99 ENTIRELY JUST TO WATCH THAT ONE SINGLE MOVIE" like that's not how streaming works to the consumer. If I go the gym and use a treadmill, I didn't pay just to recoup the treadmill's cost. And worse, most people with D+ are families sharing plans. If I want Disney+, there's 10 other family members who might have watching other things.
It's not like people consciously pay for subscriptions services monthly. They sign up and just let it go, like you would for gyms.
The streaming cope is really funny when you realize that Disney+ is a cashflow negative business. Most SVOD services are.
Really, the only angle the shills for this movie have are merch sales. The problem is that this is a very congested market. Kids have so many options. The other Disney remakes that were far more successful didn't have much of a merch legacy. In fact, most new merch tied to those brands have now defaulted back to the original animated movies. This might be a different story because Disney wanted this to be huge (they greenlit a blackwashed Ariel toddler cartoon), but that remains to be seen.
I am 100% convinced these box office numbers are completely made up. I don't know a single person who still goes to movies and my local theaters are almost always empty
Deadline, a Hollywood trade outlet, said the breakeven point is $560 million. A month after release, it hasn't hit that. At this point in its run, most of the money earned goes to the theatres. Disney didn't spend $250 million on this with the intent of it grossing less than their $90 million Cinderella remake from 2015.
The 560 million figure is factoring in the assumed lifetime ancillary sales (PVOD, streaming, Blueray/DVD sales, merchandising), which estimate at around 280 million or some shit. It is super cope.
Cinderella did pretty meh but it was the very first of these recent live-action remakes. Mulan too because of Covid.
But yeah TLM is the first one that bombed that had no real excuse to bomb.
Disney's something of a tainted brand for a large chunk of the audience now with all the ESG and gay shit so I still don't think it would have done The Lion King numbers or even hit $1billion but it's still making a cool $800-900m with a white Ariel. Christ even a less ugly black one would have done the trick, cast Zendaya or something.
I have a feeling that Indiana Jones will underperform too.
I, for one, won't be bothering with it, despite being the target demographic (I've seen every episode at the cinema).
Indiana Jones budget is 300 million, got trashed by critics and apparently it humiliates Indy. It's gonna be a megaflop.
10 months ago
Anonymous
It also has another fricking Kathleen Kennedy frumpy British brunette as the lead. What did they pay Ford to get him to star in another one? It must have been like $50m.
10 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm not sure how many fans want to see Indiana Jones as a broken, helpless old man who cowers in the corner while his patronising goddaughter takes the lead, but that's what we're given, and it's as bleak as it sounds.
That's a quote from the BBC review, not some alt-right youtuber baiting for clicks but one of the most globohomosexual news corporations on the planet.
If even they hate the old white man emasculation it must truly be awful.
>cast Zendaya or something.
Pls no. Halle Bailey was ugly as frick but Zendaya isn't pretty either. Granted she's better than the fish faced monster they actually cast but that's not a very high bar to cross.
I wouldn't mind the black actress if she were hot. The thing is they keep getting ugly deformed looking Black folk instead of attractive nubian queens. What's up with that?
This movie only made 270m domestic and 229 international so Disney only made 253.6m so far. With a reported marketing budget of 140m dollars it has still yet to turn a profit, and will not at this point even if you assume a very low marketing budget of only 100m.
Nope, movie studios gets more in the first week and it decreases each subsequent week. Overall it averages out to 60% domestic and somewhere between 20-40% international. >Traditionally, a larger chunk went to the studio during the opening weekend of a film. As the weeks went on, the theater operator's percentage rose. A studio might make about 60% of a film's ticket sales in the United States, and around 20% to 40% of that on overseas ticket sales.
Keep coping, it’s a flop.
it's doing decently in muttland but it bombed or underperfomed everywhere else.
Disney had the easiest cashgrab in its hands but it sabotaged itself by choosing a ugly nigress for the leading role.
every other soulless live action Disney remake easily grossed more than a billion. This one still needs at least $100 more million to break even, and it's on its last legs.
It's the last Renaissance film that had major lasting appeal and Princess crossover potential. Hercules, Tarzen, Poke a Hot Ass, and Hunchback aren't in the same league. Tarzan and SmokeumHauntAss will never be remade, Hunchback would be better geared for older audiences, and Hercules is too "toxic masculinity" now.
It’s really not doing that well in the US. It ranks 123 domestically all time, but I you adjust for inflation it falls out of the top 200 and of the list which is horrible for a big budget Disney movie remake of one of their most popular princesses and cartoons
>every other soulless live action Disney remake easily grossed more than a billion.
Except Dumbo - I think a creepy-looking Danny DeVito killed that one.
Ticket sales have all gone down over the years, yet articles keep saying they set records. This is cheap media play.
Let's take an example from gymnastics, loss of interest in the sport. So what do they do? Boost up some b***h as the "greatest gymnast", boost up her scores, say she sets all these new records, and when she falls they start pulling shit like "all four gymnasts were so good they all tied for first place! they all get gold medals!!!"
It's such lame pr strategy. Afterall you can't really prove actual ticket sales
Apparently not because that info comes from investors reports. Essentially these big budget film's costs are wildly out of control and Disney was assuming all these movies were going to pull over a billion. Basically studios are lying to the public through their teeth about production and marketing costs and general profitability. But they can't lie to accountants and investors about the money and apparently NOTHING has actually made money this year somehow, and that was with GOTG3 included.
>movie was expected to reach one billion >barely made it's money back >got trashed in reviews
I am woke as frick and I hope Disney just stops making these soulless low-effort remakes.
Everyone in the woke crowd thought Lil Mammymaid would join the 1 billion club easily. Now you guys are trying to celebrate barely grossing half of it?
Even if they can deduce that one movie had X number of minutes watched per account, I think it's hard to qualify that as success. I was never going to pay for Cocaine Bear, or much less buy a BluRay, but if it's on Peawiener for 'free'? Sure, sold. And that's the view with a lot of streaming, you're paying monthly for the entire catalog access, not just one movie, that's what VOD is for.
honestly...who the frick watches this movie, don come to me with black girls because parents don't go with their daughters to watch a movie of a bedwench
Every movie swims towards a half billie until they surpass it, which apparently The Nappy Mermaid hasn't.
>After a month in cinemas it will finally limp across the half a billion mark meaning it's only a horrible loss for Disney and not a catastrophic one like Elemental
k
It will lose a hundred million bucks for Disney. Groomers are celebrating.
400 million more and it'll break even
>only half a billion one month after release
that’s not very good
>needs 560 million to break even
Oh no no no no no no no
the little mermaid more like the little koolaid
HANDS UP. DON'T SHOOT!
>half a billion
So $500 million? Pretty standard for a Disney movie. They always manage to generate ludicrous amounts of profit. Aladdin gross over $1 billion.
The Blackwashed Mermaid and profit don't belong in the same sentence.
>The rule of thumb is for a movie to earn back at least 2.5 times its budget in order to be profitable
>Budget: $250m (this ignores millions wasted on marketing and promotion but we'll use this number)
>$250m * 2.5 = $625m
>$500m < $625m
>Profit condition not met.
And keep in mind they wanted this movie to gross > $1b, some were even saying it would be over $1.6b. This is a massive failure no matter how you slice it, because they not only lost out on costs, they lost all the potential revenue that would have easily been generated by halving the budget, casting a white Ariel, and lazily doing a 1:1 copy of the original. It would have made over $1b lmao. Instead they released garbage and are paying for it
>lost all the potential revenue that would have easily been generated by
...any other film.
A holiday weekend is a much coveted release date.
Worse are the copers for streaming "WELL IF THEY WATCHED IT ON DISNEY+ THAT MEANS THEY MUST HAVE PAID THE $9.99 ENTIRELY JUST TO WATCH THAT ONE SINGLE MOVIE" like that's not how streaming works to the consumer. If I go the gym and use a treadmill, I didn't pay just to recoup the treadmill's cost. And worse, most people with D+ are families sharing plans. If I want Disney+, there's 10 other family members who might have watching other things.
It's not like people consciously pay for subscriptions services monthly. They sign up and just let it go, like you would for gyms.
The streaming cope is really funny when you realize that Disney+ is a cashflow negative business. Most SVOD services are.
Really, the only angle the shills for this movie have are merch sales. The problem is that this is a very congested market. Kids have so many options. The other Disney remakes that were far more successful didn't have much of a merch legacy. In fact, most new merch tied to those brands have now defaulted back to the original animated movies. This might be a different story because Disney wanted this to be huge (they greenlit a blackwashed Ariel toddler cartoon), but that remains to be seen.
Now post the 100+ woke flops
I am 100% convinced these box office numbers are completely made up. I don't know a single person who still goes to movies and my local theaters are almost always empty
Super Mario went pass that within its first two weeks lol.
Deadline, a Hollywood trade outlet, said the breakeven point is $560 million. A month after release, it hasn't hit that. At this point in its run, most of the money earned goes to the theatres. Disney didn't spend $250 million on this with the intent of it grossing less than their $90 million Cinderella remake from 2015.
The break even point is more than that home skillet
250 budget + 140 million for marketing
The 560 million figure is factoring in the assumed lifetime ancillary sales (PVOD, streaming, Blueray/DVD sales, merchandising), which estimate at around 280 million or some shit. It is super cope.
Or how about just another moron reporter that knows nothing about movies but has a job writing about them
We already had a few of these articles
Only half a billion more and it will meet the projected revenue!
>swims toward
>desperately thrashes, half drowning, choking toward
only losing the costs of advertising.
>the only disney remake that won't make 1 billion
Ummm...
Cinderella did pretty meh but it was the very first of these recent live-action remakes. Mulan too because of Covid.
But yeah TLM is the first one that bombed that had no real excuse to bomb.
What would Spermaid have made if Ariel was as close to the cartoon visually as possible?
Probably 1 billion or more like Aladdin, Lion king, jungle book, and beauty and the beast. One of the most popular princesses and cartoons.
Disney's something of a tainted brand for a large chunk of the audience now with all the ESG and gay shit so I still don't think it would have done The Lion King numbers or even hit $1billion but it's still making a cool $800-900m with a white Ariel. Christ even a less ugly black one would have done the trick, cast Zendaya or something.
Her being a redhead and white was fundamental to her look. It's like making a Shrek remake where Shrek looks orange.
>Shrek looks orange.
I'd watch that.
I have a feeling that Indiana Jones will underperform too.
I, for one, won't be bothering with it, despite being the target demographic (I've seen every episode at the cinema).
Indiana Jones budget is 300 million, got trashed by critics and apparently it humiliates Indy. It's gonna be a megaflop.
It also has another fricking Kathleen Kennedy frumpy British brunette as the lead. What did they pay Ford to get him to star in another one? It must have been like $50m.
>I'm not sure how many fans want to see Indiana Jones as a broken, helpless old man who cowers in the corner while his patronising goddaughter takes the lead, but that's what we're given, and it's as bleak as it sounds.
That's a quote from the BBC review, not some alt-right youtuber baiting for clicks but one of the most globohomosexual news corporations on the planet.
If even they hate the old white man emasculation it must truly be awful.
>cast Zendaya or something.
Pls no. Halle Bailey was ugly as frick but Zendaya isn't pretty either. Granted she's better than the fish faced monster they actually cast but that's not a very high bar to cross.
They've both got ugly faces but at least the Mudmaid chick has a good body. Zendaya has nothing. No idea how that ugly c**t has become an it girl.
She's black and she's (allegedly) female. That's pretty much all it takes nowadays.
i do get tired of israelites and their lies. i also get tired of stupid goyim falling for israeli pilpul and wordgames.
Gradually I began to hate them.
I wouldn't mind the black actress if she were hot. The thing is they keep getting ugly deformed looking Black folk instead of attractive nubian queens. What's up with that?
Wrong about what? Movie studios one get 60% of the domestic gross and 40% of the international gross.
>https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/093015/how-exactly-do-movies-make-money.asp
>https://www.musicgateway.com/blog/filmmaking/how-do-movie-theaters-make-money#:~:text=Studio%20and%20Theater&text=However%2C%20the%20movie%20studio%20usually,Theaters%20receive%20the%20remaining%2040%25.
This movie only made 270m domestic and 229 international so Disney only made 253.6m so far. With a reported marketing budget of 140m dollars it has still yet to turn a profit, and will not at this point even if you assume a very low marketing budget of only 100m.
>Movie studios one get 60% of the domestic gross
What's even funnier is that Disney+ eliminates most of the home-video market profits too.
And that D+ isn't individual accounts, you can have like 20 people utilizing one with different profiles.
Yup, after this movie finishes flopping in theaters there’s no market for it except for Disney+ which is losing money save subscribers
Only after the first two weeks. Usually Disney gets 70-80%% of the profit during the first 14 days.
You lost again Chud.
Nope, movie studios gets more in the first week and it decreases each subsequent week. Overall it averages out to 60% domestic and somewhere between 20-40% international.
>Traditionally, a larger chunk went to the studio during the opening weekend of a film. As the weeks went on, the theater operator's percentage rose. A studio might make about 60% of a film's ticket sales in the United States, and around 20% to 40% of that on overseas ticket sales.
Keep coping, it’s a flop.
Lol That was only for avengers un like you movie theaters don’t do it for free
>270 million domestic
WHAT IS AMERICA'S CULTURE CENTERED AROUND
Indiana jones will take its screens, it's going to end on $550m which will be a loss of $75-100m.
>it's going to end on $550m
You really see it gaining another $50 million before it finishes its run in cinemas? How?
>guys
a little presumptuous don't you think?
>less than half what the other live action Disney remakes got
Not as much competition
Didn't fight the greatest global review bomb in history.
Post-COVID movie.
I think she's hot
it's doing decently in muttland but it bombed or underperfomed everywhere else.
Disney had the easiest cashgrab in its hands but it sabotaged itself by choosing a ugly nigress for the leading role.
every other soulless live action Disney remake easily grossed more than a billion. This one still needs at least $100 more million to break even, and it's on its last legs.
It's the last Renaissance film that had major lasting appeal and Princess crossover potential. Hercules, Tarzen, Poke a Hot Ass, and Hunchback aren't in the same league. Tarzan and SmokeumHauntAss will never be remade, Hunchback would be better geared for older audiences, and Hercules is too "toxic masculinity" now.
>Hercules is too "toxic masculinity" now.
That's already been greenlit. Guy Ritchie is directing.
>original Hercules was soi as frick
>remake is gonna be even more soi
It’s really not doing that well in the US. It ranks 123 domestically all time, but I you adjust for inflation it falls out of the top 200 and of the list which is horrible for a big budget Disney movie remake of one of their most popular princesses and cartoons
>every other soulless live action Disney remake easily grossed more than a billion.
Except Dumbo - I think a creepy-looking Danny DeVito killed that one.
Ticket sales have all gone down over the years, yet articles keep saying they set records. This is cheap media play.
Let's take an example from gymnastics, loss of interest in the sport. So what do they do? Boost up some b***h as the "greatest gymnast", boost up her scores, say she sets all these new records, and when she falls they start pulling shit like "all four gymnasts were so good they all tied for first place! they all get gold medals!!!"
It's such lame pr strategy. Afterall you can't really prove actual ticket sales
Go be a fricking moron somewhere else
>Box offices are all that matters
>Implying GOT3 is remotely a flop
Stop reading headlines.
Cope
It's opened low but it had good legs. You just have to look at how it and Ant-man performed to see that
It’s the only Disney movie that made money this year lol
250 million budget. 250 million marketing. The movie has only made Disney 300 million, when they expected 1 billion.
>The movie has only made Disney 300 million,
Nowhere near.
You were saying...?
Why include GOTG3. It's their only hit this year
Because even with their biggest hit included, they still lost nearly 1 billy. That's how dire the situation is.
No mention of the appalling Ant-Man either.
Apparently not because that info comes from investors reports. Essentially these big budget film's costs are wildly out of control and Disney was assuming all these movies were going to pull over a billion. Basically studios are lying to the public through their teeth about production and marketing costs and general profitability. But they can't lie to accountants and investors about the money and apparently NOTHING has actually made money this year somehow, and that was with GOTG3 included.
>movie was expected to reach one billion
>barely made it's money back
>got trashed in reviews
I am woke as frick and I hope Disney just stops making these soulless low-effort remakes.
It didn’t make its money back though lol
Is this stealth damage control?
They lost money, it flopped sweaty
Budget was 250mil, plus marketing which for this movie was around 100mil. Theaters take 50%, so this film needed to make 700mil to break even.
Good job OP, 200 mil to go before this stops being a total failure lmfao.
Everyone in the woke crowd thought Lil Mammymaid would join the 1 billion club easily. Now you guys are trying to celebrate barely grossing half of it?
Even if they can deduce that one movie had X number of minutes watched per account, I think it's hard to qualify that as success. I was never going to pay for Cocaine Bear, or much less buy a BluRay, but if it's on Peawiener for 'free'? Sure, sold. And that's the view with a lot of streaming, you're paying monthly for the entire catalog access, not just one movie, that's what VOD is for.
>swimming
$250 million to go before breaking even
No wonder movies are so bad nowadays. They can shit out whatever they want, people will still gobble it up.
>still hundreds of millions away from breaking even
laugh at mouse shills lmao
So it barely broke even more or less. Everything past 600 million will barely be considered a profit.