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
Most all sites report $500 mil as the point where it's profitable:
https://movieweb.com/the-little-mermaid-box-office-success/
https://www.piratesandprincesses.net/how-much-money-must-the-little-mermaid-make-to-break-even/
The only one listing $750mil is here:
https://www.thefilmik.com/disneys-the-little-mermaid-budget-revealed/
And that's not counting ESG bucks.
You get a 'D' for reading comprehension.
Your first link:
So, this article which cites another article for that entire analysis, is saying that if it makes $560M at the box office that it can break-even if it has massive post-box office success. That includes the money Disney+ will pay Disney on the books for the streaming rights (meaning that Disney owns the risk if this movie doesn't drive subscribers to their service in a way that justifies that price).
Your second link contains practically no information:
So, according to this article, $500M only covers the production costs not the $140M marketing costs that the first article cites. It's also using a standard of "success" as opposed to break-even. So, it's probably not a literal loss of a hundred million dollars as OP states but it's only flirting with breaking even which makes it a failure.
Who are they paying for this "marketing"? Themselves, since Disney is such a media giant. It is an incestuous relationship that must be broken.
I'm not here to cheerlead trash like this film, but things like this will keep getting made and we will continue with the "The walls are closing in" nonsense until we wake up.
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.