The Little Mermaid passes $400M globally

[tylertremallose 1,353]

3 hours ago, Economy said:

I wonder if promo was a factor. I saw like 0 promo on it and until yesterday didn't even know that movie was already out

there was tons of promo for the movie. the amount of billboards i saw for it, all the little teasers that played on tv and youtube. the merch. 
it was there 

[JustTea 4,134]

2 hours ago, Borislshere said:

Considering most of those that have seen the film praise both Halle and Melissa, that’s not the problem. Idk why you guys keep wanting to act like racism isn’t playing a big factor into this. For the past 4 years, I’ve seen nothing but faked racist imagery of Halle and people talking about nothing but boycotting for her alone. 
 

Idk, the fact that they changed Ariel's appearance completely from the original princess = racism? They could've used Ursula's actress as Ariel and it would've been the same result tbh. Skin tone is probably the least impactful thing, she just has very different facial features, hair isn't red & loose, eyes aren't blue... just why? Those changes are totally unnecessary for the protagonist.

Disliked Hermione as Belle too, but at least she had very similar features. Imagine if they cast someone totally different (pale) to play Pocahontas or Tiana, wouldn't that be cancelled instantly?

[PartySick 144,913]

9 hours ago, River said:

you alone gave them $399m with all the rewatches

Plus all the merch. His collection

[PartySick 144,913]

25 minutes ago, JustTea said:

Idk, the fact that they changed Ariel's appearance completely from the original princess = racism? They could've used Ursula's actress as Ariel and it would've been the same result tbh. Skin tone is probably the least impactful thing, she just has very different facial features, hair isn't red & loose, eyes aren't blue... just why? Those changes are totally unnecessary for the protagonist.

Disliked Hermione as Belle too, but at least she had very similar features. Imagine if they cast someone totally different (pale) to play Pocahontas or Tiana, wouldn't that be cancelled instantly?

It's a reimagining though, not a direct recreation. They also changed plot elements, added new songs, but the only thing anyone complains about is Ariel's color. That's why it's racism

I challenge any dissenter to tell me why Ariel being black changes who she is, instead of just the way she looks

[Flippy 11,564]

2 hours ago, JustTea said:

Idk, the fact that they changed Ariel's appearance completely from the original princess = racism? They could've used Ursula's actress as Ariel and it would've been the same result tbh. Skin tone is probably the least impactful thing, she just has very different facial features, hair isn't red & loose, eyes aren't blue... just why? Those changes are totally unnecessary for the protagonist.

Disliked Hermione as Belle too, but at least she had very similar features. Imagine if they cast someone totally different (pale) to play Pocahontas or Tiana, wouldn't that be cancelled instantly?

It's not the fact that they changed Ariel's appearance. It's that people have a huge problem with it because she's black. Ariel's race never had anything to do with her character. It was her voice that made her unique and that is exactly why Halle was cast as Ariel, because of her voice. While the changes are unnecessary, that still doesn't change the fact that this is The Little Mermaid. It's the same story with an extra added things. People are too focused on their prejudice to even give this movie a chance. 

I agree with Emma Watson as Belle, however here is where the problem lies. Pocahontas & Tiana's race DOES have something to do with their storylines. Pocahontas was a real person and Tiana's life... Well, have you seen P&TF?  Tbh I do hope that they stop with the live actions but your last point is absolutely flawed.  

[Sugar Baby 758]

12 hours ago, TylerMedeiros said:

Racism

Are you calling me racist ? 

[COOOK 76,406]

2 hours ago, Jay23 said:

But no problem with the casting of Ursula is exactly modern racism. 🤦🏻‍♂️ Halle Bailey did such a great job with her role and was amazing whereas Melissa was barely passable for her role. 

thank yew, someone had to spill for once. the only problem i saw in this movie is ursula and why nobody dragged that tragic makeup. her parts felt like watching a hallmark movie for toddlers with that busted look while her performance had like 3 different voices that constantly took me in and out of the movie. the real scene stealer's vanessa.

the real conversation about live actions is how we- mostly millennials- praise the originals like some god-tier cinematographic opus and feel so threatened by new interpretations. it's not that big of a deal and no one's damaging anyone's memories- whatever that means.

[Roughhouse Dandy 8,437]

8 hours ago, Ivannn said:

And yet merchandise is not counted in movie earnings but as a brand that certain movie or charachter is.

Merch will not prevail into saying movie is a success If box office Numbers Are not there.

Well, I said in the first sentence I typed that merch revenue isn't included in box office, so there's that. 

What I said is the massive amount of merch they're selling with Halle's face on it and the remake's branding on it *is* attached to the revenue influx and is a factor in the company's opinions on whether the movie was a success. 

The merch is earning them countless millions on top of box office. Add it to the box office and the execs are not about to call the decision to make the movie a bad one. 

[Ivannn 1,079]

18 minutes ago, Roughhouse Dandy said:

Well, I said in the first sentence I typed that merch revenue isn't included in box office, so there's that. 

What I said is the massive amount of merch they're selling with Halle's face on it and the remake's branding on it *is* attached to the revenue influx and is a factor in the company's opinions on whether the movie was a success. 

The merch is earning them countless millions on top of box office. Add it to the box office and the execs are not about to call the decision to make the movie a bad one. 

But merch is not a factor in company’s opinion on whether the movie is a success or not but Purely box office results.

Many movies Had great sales in merch and DVD’s or even VHS’s and were not considered success Because of bad box office result. Sequels were canceled etc.

One of such results is also last Pirates of the Caribbean movies. It Had average box office result for that franchise and amazing DVD + BluRay sales but sequel never happened ( and it was long debates whether it ever will even before whole Johnny Deep drama ). 
 

There Are countless of similar examples in movie history. 

Sorry to say this Because I did Enjoy Little Mermaid live action but this movie will not be considered a success in box office.

[Roughhouse Dandy 8,437]

38 minutes ago, Ivannn said:

But merch is not a factor in company’s opinion on whether the movie is a success or not but Purely box office results.

Many movies Had great sales in merch and DVD’s or even VHS’s and were not considered success Because of bad box office result. Sequels were canceled etc.

One of such results is also last Pirates of the Caribbean movies. It Had average box office result for that franchise and amazing DVD + BluRay sales but sequel never happened ( and it was long debates whether it ever will even before whole Johnny Deep drama ). 
 

There Are countless of similar examples in movie history. 

Sorry to say this Because I did Enjoy Little Mermaid live action but this movie will not be considered a success in box office.

From a box office perspective, that is correct.

From an executive IP perspective, merch sales are very much a factor. 

[Obobo 2,673]

Black Panther did well overseas so I don’t think it can only be racism… you know a movie can be bad for other reasons?

I didn’t watch it because Flounder and Sebastian looked borderline horrifying, Ursula had on elementary art teacher makeup and the CGI looked like it came from 2013 instead of 2023…

[Borislshere 52,679]

5 hours ago, JustTea said:

Idk, the fact that they changed Ariel's appearance completely from the original princess = racism? They could've used Ursula's actress as Ariel and it would've been the same result tbh. Skin tone is probably the least impactful thing, she just has very different facial features, hair isn't red & loose, eyes aren't blue... just why? Those changes are totally unnecessary for the protagonist.

Literally every live action actress has had different facial features as they are real people…

her hair is red AND loose. They used a mixture of her locs and loose hair. And do you really care about eye color? You just named so many things that don’t matter when it comes down to the character and you still want me to believe her skin color isn’t playing a factor? Okay. 

[Karl 3,173]

Just seen it, loved it! Perfect casting, only thing I wasn't a fan of was flounder but everything else is an improvement, much more depth to everything.

[PartySick 144,913]

3 hours ago, COOOK said:

the only problem i saw in this movie is ursula and why nobody dragged that tragic makeup. her parts felt like watching a hallmark movie for toddlers with that busted look

I saw the makeup artist for TLM was mad at the LGBT community for criticizing his work saying "I can do it just as good as any drag queen"

I unapologetically love Melissa and anything she does so I don't personally have an issue with it but I do see...let's just say, room for improvement

[StrawberryBlond 14,102]

It's doing not bad but still a long way away from the reported $560 million it apparently has to make to break even and it's going to have to get the bulk of it domestically at that because its doing terribly internationally. This should have been a smash but apart from Halle's rendition of Part of Your World and the amazing way Vanessa was portrayed, this was a great big disappointment. It's beyond me at this point why Disney still has a whole bunch of remakes lined up. Lion King was its last big hit, everything made since then has flopped and/or come under heavy criticism. And naturally, the pandemic resulting in cinema closures completely destroyed Mulan's chances of smashing and it probably would have been one of the studio's biggest ever hits if it hadn't been for that. Those Pinocchio and Peter Pan remakes weren't even released in cinemas but instead put straight to Disney+. Little Mermaid was supposed to make up for those losses and pay for those non-theatrical releases but its not come through as expected. Yet, the list of upcoming remakes just seem to get longer by the day. They're even planning to remake Moana, which is only 7 years old and also remakes of movies that weren't even that big to begin with like Sword in the Stone and The Aristocats. How can Disney keep going on in this way? They say the definition of madness is doing the same thing over and over expecting different results. 

5 hours ago, PartySick said:

It's a reimagining though, not a direct recreation. They also changed plot elements, added new songs, but the only thing anyone complains about is Ariel's color. That's why it's racism

I challenge any dissenter to tell me why Ariel being black changes who she is, instead of just the way she looks

A lot of people are complaining about the plot changes and new songs. The biggest complaints are regarding (spoilers ahead including the ending)...

Spoiler

 

- The bad-looking CGI of Sebastian and Flounder

- The nonsensical changing of Scuttle from a male seagull to a female gannet who can talk and sing underwater and eats a fish even though fish are supposed to be fully sentient in this movie

- The performances of Triton and Ursula just coming across dull and boring

- The removal of Ursula's Garden of Lost Souls which have been replaced by merely turning her victims into dust which is nowhere near as creepy

- The fact that Ariel uses her 'siren song' on Eric after she rescues him which totally leaves us questioning if Eric is truly falling in love with her or he's been manipulated

- Ursula deciding to wipe Ariel's memory of the fact that she needs to kiss Eric within 3 days to stay human which is totally pointless

- That horrendously bad Scuttlebutt song

- The major part of Eric saving the day by steering the ship into Ursula is changed to Ariel doing it instead (even though she has no legs and no sailing experience) meaning Eric doesn't save her once in this movie which totally defeats the point of Triton having a change of heart at the end because he's supposed to realise that Eric saving Ariel means humans can't be all bad but in this case, Eric does nothing to change his perception of humans, yet Triton mysteriously accepts him.

 

Basically, Disney was doing what its always done with these remakes - keeps the parts that we could take or leave and changes the parts that we want kept the same. As for the casting choice, people will always be upset if a character doesn't look exactly how they look in the original artwork, even if they're the same race. I've seen many people get annoyed when other elements of a character is changed like hair colour/style, eye colour, height, weight, age, etc. If they don't look like the original character in a dramatic way, it turns people off because it's like a completely different character who they can't connect with. Film is a visual medium, so the image that you project of it is going to be a major part of what makes audiences decide to see it or not. It may be superficial, but it's just the way the business works. While it may seem from the outside looking in that race was the only and biggest factor here, watching the movie makes it clear that even if Ariel looked exactly the same as the animation, it wouldn't have made any difference because once word got out about those major changes that I mentioned, it was what ultimately made anyone who was still interested in it lose faith. Even those who have liked Halle in the role have said that the rest of the movie's terrible. This is what gets to me about these remakes: just as I get close to wanting to get behind one of my favourite Disney film's remake and want to see it, I hear about the terrible plot changes and decide it's not worth it. 

3 hours ago, COOOK said:

the real conversation about live actions is how we- mostly millennials- praise the originals like some god-tier cinematographic opus and feel so threatened by new interpretations. it's not that big of a deal and no one's damaging anyone's memories- whatever that means.

It's not that we're threatened by new interpretations. It's that we're annoyed at being suckered into seeing them by genius marketing and deceitful advertising only to be let down (and those with kids are getting nagged to take them to see inferior remakes into the bargain) and the more successful these remakes get, the more Disney gets the message that they should just focus on giving us inferior remakes instead of original animation like the good old days. The only language Disney will understand is money. The more money we give them, the more inferior remakes we get but if we give them no money at all, they'll go bankrupt, so it's a lose/lose situation.