- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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
re: 'The Little Mermaid' Official Trailer | Disney
Posted on 3/13/23 at 5:16 pm to SlimTigerSlap
Posted on 3/13/23 at 5:16 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
They are hellbent on believing that a pubically traded company is intentionally sabotaging its bottomline.
Don't be an idiot. Me discussing whether Dumbo made money or not doesn't mean I think Disney is trying to lose money.
For all we know, there could be IP law reasons why they are remaking all these movies.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 5:17 pm
0
Posted on 3/13/23 at 5:19 pm to Bronc
It's in the name dummy. It's a remake for a reason. The whole reason they are making the movie is because of familiarity with the IP. Don't pretend like you didn't just say people in other countries aren't familiar with Disney.
I don't think that point is really even debatable. Talk about playing dumb.
I don't think that point is really even debatable. Talk about playing dumb.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 5:23 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 5:35 pm to JasonMason
quote:
It's in the name dummy. It's a remake for a reason. The whole reason they are making the movie is because of familiarity with the IP.
I agree with that.
So, how do you make money on a property that has reached every household already?
Either create a spinoff or regurgitate the same script with different faces and updated visuals. None of this is new.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 5:36 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 5:37 pm to SlimTigerSlap
Right. My comment was in response to this not reaching a significant new audience.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 6:01 pm to JasonMason
quote:
Right. My comment was in response to this not reaching a significant new audience.
This new iteration will be the standard for future generations though, like it or not.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 6:13 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
You speak so definitively for someone who's very often wrong.
I'm hardly ever wrong, you just don't like it.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 6:34 pm to JasonMason
quote:
Don't pretend like you didn't just say people in other countries aren't familiar with Disney.
Learn to read words fricktard, bolded for emphasis for the slow of learning
quote:
Most of these films when they hit, hit because of international audiences. And a lot of those territories are not going to be awash in Disney culture the way America is. Let alone for a film from the 1980's that mostly released here.
quote:
I guess cause you love to argue by playing stupid, but do you really not see why international appeal hits more quadrants than America? Yes there is plenty of familiarity as far as American IP's go, so there is the nostalgia factor too, but there is vastly more potential newcomers to these remakes than you will find in America. Which helps grow the brand.
As I said before the other day, playing stupid this often is just going to lead people to confusing you for an actual moron.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 7:56 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
They are hellbent on believing that a pubically traded company is intentionally sabotaging its bottomline.
I know for a fact that companies and retailers are willing to take a loss to play the DEI game. They know they won’t even sell enough to hit production MOQs and are willing to negotiate out markdowns from allowances.
It’s 100% retarded but they get the tinglies and have no concern when a product has sub 50% sell thru and hits the clearance bins.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 8:00 pm to concrete_tiger
quote:
I know for a fact that companies and retailers are willing to take a loss to play the DEI game. They know they won’t even sell enough to hit production MOQs and are willing to negotiate out markdowns from allowances.
It’s 100% retarded but they get the tinglies and have no concern when a product has sub 50% sell thru and hits the clearance bins.
Welp, there it is. You know for a fact. Can't argue with that.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 8:09 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
Welp, there it is. You know for a fact. Can't argue with that.
Yes, yes I do. I am in consumer products and sell to almost every retailer in the first world. I deal with licenses you all know. I have to sit in on dei meetings with retailers and amend our line plan accordingly.
Don’t be contrarian just for the sake of it. Do you think the market is screaming for commercials with chicks with mustaches?
Posted on 3/13/23 at 8:38 pm to concrete_tiger
quote:
I know for a fact that companies and retailers are willing to take a loss to play the DEI game. They know they won’t even sell enough to hit production MOQs and are willing to negotiate out markdowns from allowances.
It’s 100% retarded but they get the tinglies and have no concern when a product has sub 50% sell thru and hits the clearance bins.
Sure, it's called Intangible Benefits/Goodwill Benefits and Corporate Social Responsibility. Most people in business understand that there are things that you can do that are not immediately beneficial to the bottom line but ultimately serve the interest of the business. Be it fostering a positive corporate image, improving the reputation of the brand, reversing bad PR, incentivizing brand loyalty, positioning to reach new market segments, and attracting employee talent.
Think the small business restaurant owner that cooks and donates food to a local church or foodbank. They are taking a direct loss but they are building goodwill and positive brand imaging. Nike using their supply chain to produce Breast Cancer Awareness clothing that they don't make a profit on. Tech companies at the height of the recent boom that had all sorts of crazy employee benefits to attract top talent.
And let's not pretend that anti-representation screechers aren't keenly aware of this also. Hence trying to punish companies that engage in the sort of diversity they don't like by review bombing, boycotting, making threats to the business, and using their conservative media allies and political representatives to attempt to name and shame(or sometimes directly take action like in Florida) as a means to create a chilling effect toward the inclusivity and representation that they hate.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 8:41 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 8:40 pm to Bronc
quote:
Disney owns that version, so they can do with it what they want. In this case, they chose to cast a black person in the lead and literally nothing about the rest of the story needs to change.
In the original animated version, Eric believes Ariel to be the one who saves him; however, she can not speak. So then he believes her to be a different person.
Vanessa then shows up and pretends to be the person who saved him. Is that not how the original story played out?
So I assume Vanessa will be another black actress. Not a big deal in my opinion, but I can’t imagine him mistakenly remebering rescuers of different ethnicities.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 8:43 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 9:00 pm to SlimTigerSlap
quote:
This new iteration will be the standard for future generations though, like it or not.
Is the cgi lion king the new standard? Is the live action Aladdin the new standard? What about Emma Watson's Belle?
Every single one of the animated features have been better than the live action remakes and this one will be no different. That doesn't mean it won't make money, but you're foolish if you think this will be any different than the other live action remakes.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 9:05 pm to Bronc
quote:
And a lot of those territories are not going to be awash in Disney culture the way America is. Let
I can't believe you doubled down on this you absolute knuckle dragger. Again, not only do people from all over the globe visit Disney World and Disney Land every year, but they have parks in multiple countries. Don't tell me you're this stupid.
Do you think they don't all know the classics? The 90s renaissance? People from all over the world WORK for Disney. You're a fricking moron.
On the one hand you make a point that the movies make most of their money from international audiences and then you try and make the point they aren't familiar with the classics.
Your dumbass still won't concede you're wrong and the box office numbers and budget. So you try and conflate something barely related with digital/physical sales and digital rights.
Your biggest weakness is you can't ever admit when you've said something mind numbingly stupid. You always double and triple down.
Posted on 3/13/23 at 9:19 pm to RLDSC FAN
Could have been great had they not gone woke
#notmyariel
#notmyariel
Posted on 3/13/23 at 9:28 pm to JasonMason
quote:
can't believe you doubled down on this you absolute knuckle dragger. Again, not only do people from all over the globe visit Disney World and Disney Land every year, but they have parks in multiple countries. Don't tell me you're this stupid.
Seriously, try one more time you absolutely brain dead fricking illiterate retard
quote:
And a lot of those territories are not going to be awash in Disney culture the way America is
Do you really want to make the absolutely moronic argument that the international market is equally awash in Disney IP and nostalgia the way America is??? That the potential new brand growth is no different domestically vs internationally? Do you really think you can make that argument?
No one has said Disney is without a foreign impact, no one. But if you don’t think part of the rationale behind these films that were once heavily domestic-only releases decades ago isn’t to grow the brand internationally due to present-day worldwide distribution into countries that are not as awash in Disney culture, you truly are fricking retarded, and the heavy international bend of the revenue speaks to that
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 9:29 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 10:04 pm to Bronc
.
This post was edited on 3/13/23 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 3/13/23 at 10:18 pm to MStant1
quote:
Little Mermaid being black or white, literally doesn't matter
Of course it does. Mermaids are purely based in European history. Sirens (now conflated with mermaids) came from Greek literature. Mermaids as we know them come from Scottish, Irish, German, and Danish stories
The red hair of the Little Mermaid story lends credence to her being based on a Viking/Celtic origin. Because Denmark sits due south of Norway (Vikings) and due east of the UK (Celts). The waters between them would have been where mermaids would have resided
All of these cultures were exclusively white
Posted on 3/13/23 at 10:46 pm to RobbBobb
quote:
The waters between them would have been where mermaids would have resided
No, they wouldn’t reside there cause they don’t exist. But you are making space to suspend disbelief that anatomically impossible fish women exist alongside talking Jamaican accented crabs in order to accept the story being told, but can’t allow your brain to get over the apparently much higher bar of accepting those fish people might have some additional melanin in their bodies….
Posted on 3/13/23 at 11:18 pm to Bronc
quote:
No, they wouldn’t reside there cause they don’t exist.
Youre a complete and utter moron
in the 1800s sailors reported multiple sightings of mermaids. How the hell was the average person, living in a farm community know whether they were real or not
Most of your drivel comes from a total lack of an historical perspective. Mermaids stories of the day are exactly like UFO stories of the 1900s. And look at the industry of movies telling UFO stories. And yet they cant be proven
Btw, even Christopher Columbus wrote in his logs of seeing 3 mermaids. People accepted it even as far back as the 1400s
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News