The live action Little Mermaid is at $543 million globally. Chances are good it won’t crack $600 million.
Reports put the cost of production at around $250 million. The break even point for such a budget is typically $700-750 million. So this movie is on track to lose a cool hundred million dollars, which is bad enough already.
But consider the fact that three previous live action remakes have broken the billion dollar barrier at the box office. In terms of established expectations, Little Mermaid is leaving as much as a quarter to a half a billion dollars on the table.
I blame some of this on the inherently flawed concept. Live action versions of people are obviously fine, and simulated live action versions of cuddly animals are popular. Simulated live action versions of dead-eye fish and creepy sea insects? Not as appealing.
But there’s simply no denying that the unnecessary race swapping of white ginger Ariel to yet another black actress did not go over well with non-woke foreign markets. Asian countries in particular roundly rejected this movie, which is why the international box office fell well short of domestic. This trend was completely reversed with the previous live action remakes, btw.
So yeah, don’t run your retard mouth about shit you don’t understand, whoever you were lol
In some cases, yes. The second article references $10M that Disney essentially paid to itself (ABC) for promotion during the Oscars alone.
Correct, which in my mind is likely a shell game to avoid taxes. Likely claimed as an expense when really it's just filtered through the beast.
It's not a shell game to avoid taxes (I'm a corporate attorney). It's a necessary, legally required business/accounting practice for entities with common ownership. Indeed, as opposed to being obfuscating, it actually provides a significant amount of clarity that benefits Disney, investors, regulators, and tax collectors.
This sounds exactly like what a corporate attorney would say to play a shell game to avoid taxes (or perhaps "pay less taxes").
This amuses me, thank you.
No offense, but you don't have any idea what you're talking about. It's an expense for the entity that produces the movie and potentially taxable revenue for ABC. I wonder what you think should happen when ABC gives commercial time to a Disney movie that it would have otherwise sold to some other company (and how that would be any more clarifying than the existing regime)?