- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Despite Forbes story claim, Disney lost far more than 5 million $ on The Little Mermaid
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:04 pm
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:04 pm
It's more like $150 million in losses, after newly revealed numbers on marketing (thanks UK) budget.
Production + Marketing - UK tax credit. Then 50% of the box office ends up with a net loss of well over 100 million.
And Snow White? That'll be even a bigger black hole, thanks in large part to Rachel Zegler & reshot CGI dwarves.
Production + Marketing - UK tax credit. Then 50% of the box office ends up with a net loss of well over 100 million.
And Snow White? That'll be even a bigger black hole, thanks in large part to Rachel Zegler & reshot CGI dwarves.
6
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:08 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
I know this says UK Tax credits, but I really wish the states would band together and require movie producers change their accounting practices.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:19 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
The blue haired Disney defender princesses are already downvoting lolol
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:31 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Link dude?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 5:34 pm to jlovel7
I can't link any YouTube vids or the resident soy boys will break down in tears.
Resent FORBES story though. Site grants users limited views, so visit at your own discretion.
Resent FORBES story though. Site grants users limited views, so visit at your own discretion.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:07 pm to scottydoesntknow
quote:
The blue haired Disney defender princesses
Who was the Star Wars acolyte guy? Sammy?
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:34 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
It's more like $150 million in losses
Netflix spent $150 million on Beverly hills cop 4 haha
You don't seem to be including any value to their streaming platform in your valuation of The Little Mermaid.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:38 pm to Corinthians420
quote:
You don't seem to be including any value to their streaming platform in your valuation of The Little Mermaid
You're kidding, right? How is Disney + doing these days? TLM isn't jacking up those numbers. And putting it on their streaming service actually cuts into whatever DVD sales and rentals they might have had, but since the movie was a colossal bust, IN THE THEATERS, I can't imagine having in on their server will profit them too much.
Look at what they did to WIllow.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:39 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Despite Forbes story claim, Disney lost far more than 5 million $ on The Little Mermaid
Why do you say "despite Forbes story claim" when the Forbes article says the exact same thing you did?
quote:
Studios film in the UK to benefit from the government's Audio-Visual Expenditure Credit (AVEC) which gives them a cash reimbursement of up to 25.5% of the money they spend in the country.
To qualify for the reimbursement, at least 10% of core production costs need to relate to activities in the UK.
quote:
The first was the cash reimbursement which came to $65.2 million (£49.7 million), bringing the movie's net costs down to $289.9 million. Deducting that from Disney's $285 million share of the theater takings gives the movie's result at the box office which was a $4.9 million loss.
quote:
However, the financial statements also do not show the marketing costs of the movie so if the home entertainment and merchandise sales should be added on to the theater takings, the marketing cost should be deducted from them.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:48 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
Why do you say "despite Forbes story claim" when the Forbes article says the exact same thing you did?
Easy. Because the headline states the erroneous '5 million dollar loss' then proceeded to further explain it was worse, much worse, in the body of the article.
The merch sales won't be spectacular if the movie is trash. It's simple. It didn't do well. Toys & other related items don't move off the shelves when there's no buzz.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 6:51 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:02 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
quote:
Because the headline states the erroneous '5 million dollar loss' then proceeded to further explain it was worse, much worse, in the body of the article.
I need help with my reading comprehension if you have some free time. I was reading the article looking for where it said it was much worse but I came across this:
quote:
This pushed the picture back into the black, but not thanks to its performance in theaters or due to a reduction in its costs. Addressing both of these points is the only way to be sure that a movie will make a profit and it hasn't escaped the attention of Disney's chief executive Bob Iger. It explains why he said last year that the studio needs to "reduce costs on everything that we make because, while we're extremely proud of what's on the screen, it's gotten to a point where it's extraordinarily expensive." The Little Mermaid is proof of that
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:13 pm to ThoseGuys
Plunges to 5-million-dollar loss.
That's not 'in the black'.
But yeah, you do need to work on your reading comprehension. Without breaking down the entire article line by line, there's some fuzzy math involved by Disney as well as the fact that production costs were approx 100 million higher than reported.
That's not 'in the black'.
But yeah, you do need to work on your reading comprehension. Without breaking down the entire article line by line, there's some fuzzy math involved by Disney as well as the fact that production costs were approx 100 million higher than reported.
quote:
However, the financial statements also do not show the marketing costs of the movie so if the home entertainment and merchandise sales should be added on to the theater takings, the marketing cost should be deducted from them. Disney doesn't disclose its marketing spend per movie, or the revenue from home entertainment and merchandise generated by each picture, so this can only be estimated which yields an unreliable result.
This post was edited on 9/16/24 at 7:15 pm
Posted on 9/16/24 at 7:21 pm to SouthEasternKaiju
Yeah that says it doesn't disclose marketing cost or merchandise revenue.
So we have no clue on expense or revenue. At no point does the article reference an estimate on marketing cost.
I never trust Hollywood math. No film ever makes as much money or loses as much money as a studio claims. They spin stuff like they were a DJ.
The only damning thing I took from that article, which I think is a much bigger story, is Bob Iger talking about how they have been spending too much money.
That sounds more alarming than anything else.
So we have no clue on expense or revenue. At no point does the article reference an estimate on marketing cost.
I never trust Hollywood math. No film ever makes as much money or loses as much money as a studio claims. They spin stuff like they were a DJ.
The only damning thing I took from that article, which I think is a much bigger story, is Bob Iger talking about how they have been spending too much money.
quote:
explains why he said last year that the studio needs to "reduce costs on everything that we make because, while we're extremely proud of what's on the screen, it's gotten to a point where it's extraordinarily expensive."
That sounds more alarming than anything else.
Posted on 9/16/24 at 8:14 pm to JoeHackett
quote:
However, the financial statements also do not show the marketing costs of the movie so if the home entertainment and merchandise sales should be added on to the theater takings, the marketing cost should be deducted from them.
Well, I hate to dowse water on your fire, but marketing costs for the past seven years, marketing has accounted for 34-37 percent of combined production costs for movies released by the six big studios.
$284.8 million was Disneys share of ticket sales. Disney confirmed the costs went above $300M, plus the expected $100M in marketing, meant the film was $115M in the hole
And if you think merch was going to save them. Go to the Disney store. Search for "Little Mermaid", and you well see the majority of the available items are for the animated version. The first Live version piece of merch I came across was $34.99, on sale for $9.98
Posted on 9/16/24 at 9:34 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
Well, I hate to dowse water on your fire, but marketing costs for the past seven years, marketing has accounted for 34-37 percent of combined production costs for movies released by the six big studios.
How would that dowse water on my fire? What does any of that have to do with the fact that the OP is misleading? "Despite Forbes story claim" is inaccurate when he's referencing a story that points out that marketing costs should be taken into consideration when judging profitability.
Posted on 9/17/24 at 12:24 am to ThoseGuys
Willow comes to mind. It did so poorly that it’s been scrubbed off the entire service. It can’t be rewatched or even bought, purchased from Disney.
And Snow White went through extensive reshoots & CG animation to fix what should have been there in the first place, real dwarves.
And Snow White went through extensive reshoots & CG animation to fix what should have been there in the first place, real dwarves.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News