Disney is staring down the barrel of a no good, very bad year
The Little Mermaid opened this Memorial Day weekend. Pre-sales, being the tickets that people buy in advance, were looking strong. It looked like it would open to over 100 for the 3-day weekend, and 130 for the 4-day. Potentially the highest opening weekend for Memorial Day ever.
That didn't happen. While it had a strong opening day, it failed to keep up the pace for the rest of the weekend. Ultimately opening under 100 for the 3-day weekend. The expected casual audience, referred to as "walk-ups" didn't show up in the numbers that were expected (based on past live-action Disney films). Hollywood trades are seemingly ignoring this, most of them calling the opening weekend a success.
While the Domestic opening weekend is certainly not bad, it's worldwide opening weekend is terrible. Internationally the film opened behind Fast X's second weekend. It's acting closer to Dumbo, a big bomb for Disney in 2019, than any of the successful live-action Disney films. Domestically, also, the film is acting closer to Solo, another bomb, than Aladdin (which had amazing legs).
Why this happened is still being debated. Some say that having a black lead turned off a lot of the international audience, others say they were turned off from a lack of a big star in the film (like say Will Smith in Aladdin or Emma Watson in Beauty and the Beast). Whatever the case is for the international audience, it's clear that there was a total market rejection of the film. Domestically, it seems like casual audiences are experiencing a bit of fatigue with these live-action movies (perhaps due to all the bad ones going straight to Disney+).
And maybe, perhaps, Disney betting big on Disney+ in 2022 while the other studios started to refocus on theatrical, was a mistake. Maybe that's diluted the Disney brand in all forms.
But whatever it is, Disney now has two bombs on their hands. Ant-Man failed to make a profit and now Little Mermaid is unlikely to reach that as well (considering the huge 250 million dollar budget on it). And the rest of the year is not looking any better for them.
Disney went to Cannes with Indiana Jones and Elemental. Which we all assumed was a sign of confidence in the films. That ended backfiring as both Indiana and Elemental ended up rotten on RT. Now they have to deal with a negative reception for both films, on top of the fact that there was very little excitement for both to begin with. Pixar, and Disney animation as a whole, is now looking at back to back to back bombs (Lightyear, Strange World, and now Elemental). Indiana Jones had an inflated budget of 300 million and now looks like it won't break even either.
Haunted Mansion might surprise, but it's gonna be a tough ladder to climb considering the really big 150 million dollar budget.
The Marvels will need to be as well received as Guardians in order not to be Ant-Man'd out of existence, which most people are not expecting, especially as you need to watch two TV shows to understand it.
Wish could finally be a win for Disney's animation department, but considering the track record I wouldn't count on it.
It's really not looking good for Disney, what a fall considering the immense success they experienced in 2019. They really might just end up with one success this year (Guardians).
My problem with Disney's live action remakes is that they're soulless. Two of the more recent ones are a testament to this.
Aladdin was panned for atrocious CGI and Will Smith frankly being a bad casting choice for the Genie, in a "how dare you stand where Robin Williams once stood" kinda way.
The Lion King was panned for being a shot-for-shot remake of the 1997 original, but with realistic CGI-rendered animals that show no emotion whatsoever.
I haven't watched The Little Mermaid. A friend of mine has and said it's pretty good. But I think the audience is just sick and tired of Disney doing half-arsed live action/CGI remakes. Halle Bailey may have been brilliant as Ariel but the damage has already been done, not by the vocal minority complaining that Disney casted a black actress to play the lead (few people care about this), but by past Disney live action remakes being so underwhelming.
Lilo & Stitch is my favourite Disney film, and I dread to think what they're gonna do to butcher that.
This is why I've avoided them in general. I've read the online critiques, I've watched the YouTube critics, and they all say basically the same thing: the magic of Disney from the early 90's is dead. Gone are the efforts at good writing, replaced with pandering instead. Gone is the good acting, with actors instead offering wooden performances. And gone are the amazing songs that were the hallmarks of Disney classics, and instead we're left with either actors who can't sing, lyricists who can't write, or both. In the end, I don't mind some nostalgia bait here and there, but when that's seemingly all that a film has going for it, I'd rather watch something with more substance instead. I don't care how visually impressive a film is, if it has no heart then I'm left feeling like my time will be wasted watching it.
Disney has kind of always moved in cycles, so I'm not too surprised. The issue is that when Disney was releasing bombs in the 80s, their animation department was largely spared (except for Black Cauldron).
Now the issue is that they are so big and releasing so many different movies that a lot of them are just... bad.
A high volume of low-effort content instead of a low volume of high-effort content.
I suspect it’s suffering from Big Company issues. It is hard to get enough people to rally together for more unique ideas. Communicating even what your new IP is widely enough to gain traction is difficult. So you’re stuck with whatever is easiest to convey across dozens of communication borders: “The Little Mermaid but it’s live action”
The Aladdin remake has a less impressive "Prince Ali parade" scene than the ACTUAL LIVE PARADE DISNEYLAND PUTS ON EVERY NIGHT, and that really just confirmed to me that these are all cash grabs.
To their credit, successful cash grabs at first, but there's 0 ambition here, and a lot of focusing on focus groups. The novelty is wearing off even with the people who don't care, and I think we're seeing a drop in Disney quality across the board.
I just watched ant man, and a LOT of the plot tropes are exactly what i'd use as an example of what disney marvel was doing less of original, and why it was popular. Feels like their who writing process has gotten "streamlined" and the quality drop is kicking them in the teeth all over.
Yea but those who do are very whiney. They tend to be the same people worked up about seeing a gay person on screen.
Interesting to bring these up considering they were immensely successful. Critics might have been mixed on them, but audiences flocked to them like moths to flames.
Probably because the Maleficent and Alice in Wonderland ones were actually kinda decent.
Eh, the way the movies (Aladdin and Lion King) performed implies that the general audience loved them.
Beauty and the Beast preceded them and was also widely loved. So there was definitely good will but the other movies also had good legs.
I'm hoping they bring out a Stitch that looks as alarming as the original CGI design for Sonic.
Something like this?
Mmm, nah, honestly, that's still too beautiful. It needs to be something unmistakably wrong, something truly uncanny that inspires a torrent of bewildered questions and makes me resentful of God.
I recently started watching the 2019 live action The Lady and the Tramp, and had to stop watching mid-way to compare to the classic animation. Something felt off with the way the movie started.
The classic movie actually represented the characters faithfully as dogs doing dog things and acting more like dogs (or puppies). They talked and behaved so strangely in the live action I wonder if anybody involved in the writing has experience with dogs.
One example: dogs categorically do not enjoy playing "dress-up". They may enjoy the positive attention and develop positive associations, but in no way do they understand why they are wearing costumes (or why you, the human, are delighted by it).
I have no problem with taking creative liberties, but cartoon dogs shouldn't act like human children, even if they do have a lot in common.
You have just described my opinion on the Disney live action remakes. I tried watching a few and simply am not interested in any of the new ones. Good point about Lilo and Stitch. It's one of my favorites as well. I am kind of hoping they either do it justice or skip the live action remake.
I think the last Disney film I saw was Luca.
I like Disney, but I feel that they're leaning way too much on rehashing existing IP—Little Mermaid, Pinnochio, Peter Pan, Star Wars—instead of telling big new stories. Granted, I don't have children (yet), but if I did, I've probably watched the original Little Mermaid with them by now, and the proposition of seeing the same story but in live action doesn't have much relative appeal.
Disney's problem twenty years ago was that they were diluting their hit films with dogshit direct-to-VHS sequels. Lion King 2: Simba's Pride, Atlantis 2, 102 Dalmations, everything that came after Lilo & Stitch, etc were testaments to this. Decent sequels like Toy Story 2 were the exception rather than the norm.
One good thing Bob Iger did with his reign as Disney's CEO was focus on reviving key franchises and making new films. It's the reason why "Disney Sequel" has now become a symbol of quality rather than a cheap cash-grab.
I saw a lot of that style of terrible VHS sequel as a kid, and would argue that Lilo and Stitch' sequels don't fit in here, and have a lot to do with Stitch still being an iconic character today. The TV series had an interesting premise that fit with the movies, and was genuinely enjoyable to watch as a kid. The series reinforces the beautiful themes in the movie, even if it wasn't the same quality, and made it resonate all the more when I re watched the movie again as an adult.
To me Stitch is more iconic because of the overall quality of Lilo & Stitch and because he was featured in Kingdom Hearts II, III and Birth By Sleep, not because of the films/TV series that came afterwards.
I mean... Stitch: The Movie (the second movie in release order but also the third chronologically) was a blatant tie-in for the TV series. I didn't like how they decided to go full Pokémon and unleash all of Jumba's previous experiments at the end. Plus Dr Hämsterviel was a shitty villain.
The TV tie-in series was an interesting concept, but given the actual number of episodes they did, and the fact that 624 experiments were unleashed onto Earth, the idea was way too big in scope and honestly couldn't be explored fully in just 67 episodes. Leroy & Stitch just served as a shitty wrap-up to that story which introduced an evil twin to Stitch because why not?
I still dread to think what Disney are going to do with Lilo & Stitch when the live-action film comes around.
Perhaps it's because I watched the TV show while I was in its demographic, but it was my absolute favorite thing on Disney Channel when it was airing. And Hamsterviel did a good job at being a villain for a kid's show -- threatening, but not scary.
I similarly dread what they'll do to Lilo & Stitch, but I have a lot of nostalgia for the Lilo & Stitch tv series. They weren't as fundamentally amazing as the movie, but for the Saturday morning cartoon audience they were aimed for, they were solid.
I guarantee that at least among American audiences, more people remember Stitch fondly from that show than Kingdom Hearts: Birth By Sleep. Stitch was included in Kingdom Hearts games because he was already an iconic character (though I'll agree largely from the original movie, not the sequels/tv show).
I thought Luca was amazingly done. Encanto was also good, though not as charming.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Walt_Disney_Pictures_films
It wouldn't surprise me if movies in general take a bit of a hit this year. Aside from the reasons you listed (which are all good thoughts), I think for many people it's simply just too expensive to go to the movies, especially for a family picture like The Little Mermaid. If you're a family of four, cinema tickets alone get very spendy very quickly even before you factor in snacks.
Anecdotally I don't know anyone that hasn't been hit by the increase to the cost of living, and our social activities are reverting back to those of my student days of hanging out at someone's house and playing games or watching movies there. All two of my cinema trips in 2023 have been paid for by gift vouchers I received for Christmas. I do like going to the cinema, but frankly it's just not cheap enough any more to regularly spend my money on a movie I may not enjoy.
I'm there. I need to ask for a 30% raise to be back where I was standard-of-living wise circa 2020. The belt has been ever-tightening since Covid, but decreased personal costs (no transit passes, outings, etc) made up for it, then with this inflation spiral my real out of pocket costs are up 20% from baseline, paired with an increased property tax bill.
I feel you. I work at a non-profit hospital on the support side so we're last on the totem pole in terms of market adjustments. With all the reimbursement cutbacks and economy since 2012 he annual merit increases (if we got them at all some years) didn't really keep up with inflation prior to 2020.
Yeah... my boss gave me a 10% raise, and was miffed that I was appreciative, but clear that it didn't even cover CoL increases.
We’ve also all come to expect that most movies will end up on some streaming service with three months. Most people are more than willing to wait than to spend the extra money to see a movie in theaters.
I love going to the movie theater. But honestly it’s so cheap to get a nice home theater setup these days that I understand why many would prefer to just wait to stream at home. A 60” 4K screen, 4K movie stream, and a decent 2.1 sound setup is only a few hundred dollars and something you probably want anyway for other media.
I think you're probably exaggerating for effect, but I'm very interested in where you can get a 60" 4K for a few hundred dollars.
I think if you're not including the big brands that's very achievable.
Here's a 58'' for $430CAD ~= $320 USD
Well, that shows you how often I've checked TV prices recently!
Yes. And I see 50” TVs for $230 USD. Even a 43” Samsung is only $380. I think my 50” Samsung TV was just above $400 at Best Buy years ago.
Mario Movie? Record breaking box office numbers, and a very long tail with the movie still being shown and getting respectable numbers right now.
Avatar and Puss in Boots also did very well (both December releases). GotG is on track for solid box office numbers.
I get the feeling with that, but Mario did just make gangbusters. Guardians is doing pretty well. And Spider-Verse is looking to open to over 100 million (looking at the presale data).
So I think the way that could be affecting is, let’s say a family is budgeting how often they’re gonna go to the movies, and they decide we can go like three times this year. It’s becoming obvious they’re not choosing Disney movies like they used to.
There's also layoffs hitting the economy as well.
I was laid off in late January. I'm in the tech sector, which is famously volatile... but my mom also got laid off recently, and she works for the University of Chicago. Now I've been reading articles about Disney doing layoffs and JP Morgan doing layoffs, and it's only a matter of time before the economy slows enough that other non-tech sectors start performing layoffs.
I think it's already starting to happen and people are cutting back while they can.
Are movies more expensive worldwide?
Also, compare with alternatives. I suspect that for many people, watching movies at home has gotten better. TV's have improved, people have better Internet, and they have had practice figuring out whatever streaming issues they might have had during the pandemic. It seems like that raises the bar for venturing out?
Where I live in the UK, a single adult ticket to see The Little Mermaid at an early-evening showing would cost £12.50 (~$15).
So for my whole family it would cost the same as paying for Netflix for almost three months, and that's just to get into the building. Doesn't include travel and parking costs, or food if we wanted that. I can't pause the film if I want to go to the toilet or get more snacks, I have no control over the volume (it's always too loud) and there's bound to be some idiot(s) making noise in the auditorium.
I have no idea why I would go to the cinema. Paying an order of magnitude more money for a considerably worse experience just seems insane to me.
I really like the experience. It might help that the types of movies I see are less prone to having loud children or douche bag adults. Parking is always free around me and my local theater is actually in walking distance.
My local theater has extremely cheap prices ($12 vs $20 for AMC), along with reclining sofa seats and a full bar plus food brought to you. This is the only future for movie theaters in my opinion, and the longer they take to adapt to this formula, the more money they'll lose. They really need to offer something people don't have at home.
While I don't go that often, I personally separate in-theatre movie watching from in-home. There's something about going with a group together, nom-noming on overpriced concessions, and walking out of the theatre together to go grab a drink or whatever.
I like both, and do both.
It's quite expensive for a family to go here - $15 to $20 for a ticket per person and, let's say, $12 for a drink and a snack per person. I go by myself so it's not a huge deal but if you've got two kids and a friend of theirs, that's $100 easily.
Going to a big movie is still enjoyable but usually only if they're with assigned seating which means less people overall and during afternoon showing instead of Friday/Saturday nights. Less chance of little kids running around, teens running in and out of the theater, theater-talkers, etc.
To be honest I am really surprised the execs at Disney even greenlit Elemental. The concept just seemed so bland and it feels like simply knowing the concept of the film feels like it makes the entire plot redundant.
On the other hand it seems like a lot of Disney film execs don’t exactly know what makes a good movie either. Will Smith as the genie in the Aladdin remake could have been a good fit if he was allowed to do more original adlibbing - there are small moments when this happens, and those moments were what made the character great in the original as well - but instead he was given the impossible task of replacing Robbin Williams. Every Disney movie seems to have some sort of production hell because of disagreements by the producers, and I assume it’s why there are so many potentially queer people inserted into them but they aren’t allowed to show any kind of sign of same-sex attraction or admit to being anything other than cis.
Granted, I didn’t see any of these more recent movies so maybe they are better than I am expecting.
Honestly my reaction to when they announced the release was something like "What? Didn't this already come out?" I think the fact that there was a boomlet of crybabies complaining about the Black lead, like, 5 years ago confused me. Why was it in development for so long?
Announced in 2019, production was supposed to start in March 2020. I think originally it was supposed to come out in 2022.
Many people are also fed up of ESG molded bland remakes, it is what it is Disney is rewriting old bland IP people are not asking.
CNN is saying it opened to $117 million…not sure if that’s the three day or including Thursday previews though.
That’s the 4-day holiday opening