Minorities in Comics and Other Media, etc

[Moon Ronin]

It's still playing in theatres. It should finish domestic box office north of $300 million and global well over $500m WW+.

The film has held onto most of its screens and will likely do so because it's doing well in the US. It's not a box office juggernaut by any means but it's not also a disaster a lot of folks are making it out to be because of the strong US box office. North American audiences don't have problems with black mermaids.

I mean, it's getting an animated spin-off, if it was a disaster, it's highly unlikely Disney would spin it off. For me, the funniest part of that announcement were how they dude bros reacted to it, some of them were like "does it mean Ariel is black forever", at this point, I guess she is.

Yeah its still in theaters but with it going in the week 4 it means that the studio makes less money from ticket sales. Usually with a huge company like Disney they will get 100% of ticket revenue for the first two weeks of release then that amount reduces as time passes to 50% then down to 25%. So it depends on when it passes the $500 million market yield will diminish how much the studio receives meaning the movie that under performed in its opening 2 weeks will have to make even more to recuperate cost. Residual equity also has to be accounted for. Even though Disney is a multi billion dollar company they use investors like the Vanguard Group and Blackrock to fund production. The same is done in other multi million dollar industries like oil and gas. These residual investors expect a return on their investment, if they invest one dollar and then get that dollar back its a net zero return. Which is not good as an investor considers anything under a 20% residual a failure. So TLM needs to make in the High 500 million to low 600 million to even start making money for the studio. Now Disney will most likely "pay" its streaming service around 100 million to have it on its service which on paper will be revenue and will make it an artificial investment success. This is basically moving money from one pocket to the other for accounting to artificially boost the investment outlook. So yes in the end it will look like success but in actuality it is on the road to be an investment fail. Listen in on Disney's quarterly reports as shareholders and investors have voiced their concern over how sustainable this practice is and the doubts of the market success of future projects.

It is going to have to lose screens with all of the up coming movies that are guaranteed a set number of screens. The number of screens TLM has to diminish to make room for the addition of new movies coming out. That is how it goes this time of year as it is the most completive for screen space. If the TLM were still at the number one sport and the and the ticket sells didn't diminish over 60% and there were not a slew of big name movies coming up then yeah it could retain a large market share. But, with those factors it would not be surprising to see a reduction of screen space of 30% or more in the next few weeks.

Don't confuse saying that the movie is a investment failure to it being a "disaster". Even though the theatrical release of the movie is sub-par Disney does notice an after market value to the propriety. Right now the most popular doll sold in North America is the Ariel movie tie in doll. This indicates that the propriety has value outside the movie so an animated series that is less expensive to produce that can be used to market more toys and products is completely logical. The after market value is still yet to be determined but indicators as for now show that it is strong so for the foreseeable future yes Ariel will be black.

Internationally is not too tricky for the movie industry. To me it was not surprising that movies like the Fast franchise do well outside the US and ones like The Little Mermaid don't. Action is easy to translate. Driving a car fast and explosions are the same in Montana as it is in Malaysia. Where as The Little Mermaid is slow paced and is relying heavy on nostalgia to fill seats. Race is not the wholly reason for the low reception of the movie internationally and most likely the biggest issue is a cultural disconnect with the audience abroad.

One thing that Disney is doing that is head scratching is releasing three high budget movies TLM: 250+ mil, Elemental: 200+ mil, and Indiana Jones 5: 300+ mil (not counting marketing) in such a short span of time. This has the company competing with itself over market share in an economy that has less induvial disposable income. That means that the combined amount that Disney need to make from all of its summer movies to break even is almost 2 billion dollars in one of the most completive times with budget minded consumers.

[Username taken]

Yeah its still in theaters but with it going in the week 4 it means that the studio makes less money from ticket sales. Usually with a huge company like Disney they will get 100% of ticket revenue for the first two weeks of release then that amount reduces as time passes to 50% then down to 25%. So it depends on when it passes the $500 million market yield will diminish how much the studio receives meaning the movie that under performed in its opening 2 weeks will have to make even more to recuperate cost. Residual equity also has to be accounted for. Even though Disney is a multi billion dollar company they use investors like the Vanguard Group and Blackrock to fund production. The same is done in other multi million dollar industries like oil and gas. These residual investors expect a return on their investment, if they invest one dollar and then get that dollar back its a net zero return. Which is not good as an investor considers anything under a 20% residual a failure. So TLM needs to make in the High 500 million to low 600 million to even start making money for the studio. Now Disney will most likely "pay" its streaming service around 100 million to have it on its service which on paper will be revenue and will make it an artificial investment success. This is basically moving money from one pocket to the other for accounting to artificially boost the investment outlook. So yes in the end it will look like success but in actuality it is on the road to be an investment fail. Listen in on Disney's quarterly reports as shareholders and investors have voiced their concern over how sustainable this practice is and the doubts of the market success of future projects.

It is going to have to lose screens with all of the up coming movies that are guaranteed a set number of screens. The number of screens TLM has to diminish to make room for the addition of new movies coming out. That is how it goes this time of year as it is the most completive for screen space. If the TLM were still at the number one sport and the and the ticket sells didn't diminish over 60% and there were not a slew of big name movies coming up then yeah it could retain a large market share. But, with those factors it would not be surprising to see a reduction of screen space of 30% or more in the next few weeks.

Don't confuse saying that the movie is a investment failure to it being a "disaster". Even though the theatrical release of the movie is sub-par Disney does notice an after market value to the propriety. Right now the most popular doll sold in North America is the Ariel movie tie in doll. This indicates that the propriety has value outside the movie so an animated series that is less expensive to produce that can be used to market more toys and products is completely logical. The after market value is still yet to be determined but indicators as for now show that it is strong so for the foreseeable future yes Ariel will be black.

Internationally is not too tricky for the movie industry. To me it was not surprising that movies like the Fast franchise do well outside the US and ones like The Little Mermaid don't. Action is easy to translate. Driving a car fast and explosions are the same in Montana as it is in Malaysia. Where as The Little Mermaid is slow paced and is relying heavy on nostalgia to fill seats. Race is not the wholly reason for the low reception of the movie internationally and most likely the biggest issue is a cultural disconnect with the audience abroad.

One thing that Disney is doing that is head scratching is releasing three high budget movies TLM: 250+ mil, Elemental: 200+ mil, and Indiana Jones 5: 300+ mil (not counting marketing) in such a short span of time. This has the company competing with itself over market share in an economy that has less induvial disposable income. That means that the combined amount that Disney need to make from all of its summer movies to break even is almost 2 billion dollars in one of the most completive times with budget minded consumers.

Interesting analysis. Thanks.

My understanding is that Blackrock and Vanguard partially own Disney group, outside of their equity investment, it sounds a little strange that they will provide additional funding and expect separate return outside of the revenue Disney group has declared (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I will definitely read). I know for a fact that Disney is one of the only studios (if not the only one) that relies on their own funds to produce their films (i think they mentioned this publicly but I can't remember when).

The Little Mermaid will definitely lose screens but a lot of that depends on how well the movie holds. Right now, TLM is playing in more theatres nationwide (4,320) than Transformers (3,678) which opened up after it. It will lose screens especially with a lot of tentpoles coming out, but I expect Disney to re-jig its theatre counts to support newer releases.

I don't really talk much about movie budgets because the studios don't generally make them public. Most budgets that we get are from industry insiders. Outside of earnings calls or some creative folks airing their grievances, the studios tend to downplay how much their movies actually make (probably to reduce residual payments). Disney is notorious for downplaying opening weekend numbers while at the same time negotiating very hard with movie exhibitors. I mean, Paramount says the first Transformers film lost them money and Fox said Aliens never made a profit (I think that ended in a lawsuit or something).

That being said, I agree that Disney's release strategy is very odd. Releasing so many tentpoles right next to each other looks very strange from the outside looking in.

[Agent Z]

They would probably call the UAE "Based" because of the trans flag and they're fighting the "woke propaganda" in the US.

And then go back to bashing any Asian country that isn't Japan once they forget about this.

[Moon Ronin]

Interesting analysis. My understanding is that Blackrock and Vanguard partially own Disney group, outside of their equity investment, it sounds a little strange that they will provide additional funding and expect separate return outside of the revenue Disney group has declared (I'm not saying you're wrong, just that it's something I will definitely read).

The Little Mermaid will definitely lose screens but a lot of that depends on how well the movie holds. Right now, TLM is playing in more theatres nationwide (4,320) than Transformers (3,678) which opened up after it. It will lose screens especially with a lot of tentpoles coming out, but I expect Disney to re-jig its theatre counts to support newer releases.

I don't really talk much about movie budgets because the studios don't generally make them public. Most budgets that we get are from industry insiders. Outside of earnings calls or some creative folks airing their grievances, the studios tend to downplay how much their movies actually make (probably to reduce residual payments). Disney is notorious for downplaying opening weekend numbers while at the same time negotiating very hard with movie exhibitors. I mean, Paramount says the first Transformers film lost them money and Fox said Aliens never made a profit (I think that ended in a lawsuit or something).

That being said, I agree that Disney's release strategy is very odd. Releasing so many tentpoles right next to each other looks very strange from the outside looking in.

Used Blackrock and Vanguard as an example as yes they are massive shareholders in Disney but they have in the past have also been addition investors in projects and they are recognizable names. Investor information is kept from the public so there is no knowing who invested what project. And budgets are tricky to track as companies will take money from other projects or not report overs and unders as Disney itself has been under SEC investigation for doing just that.

Disney looks like it is ready to play the long game and If successful will be able to turn a huge profit. George Lucas made so much more money off of product licensing for toys, books, and other products than he did on his movies. With that I can see Halle Bailey's Ariel here to stay for a very long time. I do find it funny that people have issue with that based on race. If there was no market for it then it would not sell and despite the lack luster theatrical release things like doll sells fully indicate that there is a market for the propriety. In the long run The Little Mermaid will make the company money, just not the Walt Disney animation group that put the movie out.

One of the things that hobble movies is that every one has their own streaming platform days is the loss of home video revenue. Disney especially made a killing in the home video market with VHS and DVD sales and rentals. Streaming has really cut into that market which can be compounded by they fact that companies now own their own streaming services so they seldom lease the right to other services and keep it all in house. Disney Plus has lost over 4 million scribers this year the first quarter of 2023 on top of losing 2.5 million in the last quarter of 2022 is the reason that Disney just cut so much content from the platform to try and get some of that money from tax losses. To be fair though most of the losses this year deal with India after the company (Disney) lost streaming rights to Indian Premier League cricket matches. Also with movies going to steaming services so quickly after some movie goers wait the few months (some times shorter than that) to see the movie at home taking a costly trip to the theater that can balloon up over $100 for a family of 4. Which is ok for smaller budget films but has the potential of cutting into bigger budget films and with over a 2 hour run time some parents may be waiting becasue that is a long time for a kids movie.

I haven't seen the movie becasue one, I'm really not a fan of remakes/reboots as I feel they are creatively bankrupt. And 2 even if it was a brand new product it's just not they type of thing I would spend my time and money on. But that is my opinion and really don't expect people to share it.

Bottom line The Little Mermaid IP will be successful but the movie will in all likely hood break even, at best make a very small profit relative to the investment.

[Username taken]

Used Blackrock and Vanguard as an example as yes they are massive shareholders in Disney but they have in the past have also been addition investors in projects and they are recognizable names. Investor information is kept from the public so there is no knowing who invested what project. And budgets are tricky to track as companies will take money from other projects or not report overs and unders as Disney itself has been under SEC investigation for doing just that.

Disney is the only studio that I am aware of that funds its movies itself. They put that out some years ago, it could have changed but I'm not sure.

Disney looks like it is ready to play the long game and If successful will be able to turn a huge profit. George Lucas made so much more money off of product licensing for toys, books, and other products than he did on his movies. With that I can see Halle Bailey's Ariel here to stay for a very long time. I do find it funny that people have issue with that based on race. If there was no market for it then it would not sell and despite the lack luster theatrical release things like doll sells fully indicate that there is a market for the propriety. In the long run The Little Mermaid will make the company money, just not the Walt Disney animation group that put the movie out.

I don't like that people are unhappy because of the race change. It's a little silly to be honest. I don't really care for race changes but at the same time, The Little Mermaid is a kid's film and it's just weird that some people have problems with black mermaids.

That being said, race changes to established characters like Ariel has added fuel to the fire that is the "great replacement". It was a fringe belief, but it's become mainstream, and some people are freaking out and some folks are making money off these fears. Honestly, it's not easy to keep seeing people talking about a decline in the populations of certain demographics. No one wants to see their people fade away but folks need to know where to direct their anger at. Black mermaids or black elves isn't accelerating population declines, Disney isn't turning kids gay, Target isn't turning kids trans, I think if folks knew where to address their anger, it would help to unpack what's happening in society.

One of the things that hobble movies is that every one has their own streaming platform days is the loss of home video revenue. Disney especially made a killing in the home video market with VHS and DVD sales and rentals. Streaming has really cut into that market which can be compounded by they fact that companies now own their own streaming services so they seldom lease the right to other services and keep it all in house. Disney Plus has lost over 4 million scribers this year the first quarter of 2023 on top of losing 2.5 million in the last quarter of 2022 is the reason that Disney just cut so much content from the platform to try and get some of that money from tax losses. To be fair though most of the losses this year deal with India after the company (Disney) lost streaming rights to Indian Premier League cricket matches. Also with movies going to steaming services so quickly after some movie goers wait the few months (some times shorter than that) to see the movie at home taking a costly trip to the theater that can balloon up over $100 for a family of 4. Which is ok for smaller budget films but has the potential of cutting into bigger budget films and with over a 2 hour run time some parents may be waiting becasue that is a long time for a kids movie.

Agreed.

I haven't seen the movie becasue one, I'm really not a fan of remakes/reboots as I feel they are creatively bankrupt. And 2 even if it was a brand new product it's just not they type of thing I would spend my time and money on. But that is my opinion and really don't expect people to share it.

I agree.

Apart from TLM (which I was dragged to), I haven't actually watched the previous remakes in the theatres. I don't like them and they're not for me.

Bottom line The Little Mermaid IP will be successful but the movie will in all likely hood break even, at best make a very small profit relative to the investment

Agreed.

[skyvolt2000]

I haven't seen the movie becasue one, I'm really not a fan of remakes/reboots as I feel they are creatively bankrupt.

The reason why they do that is because they OWN the rights to that stuff. You don't have to pay someone for their idea.

The race changing-same reason along with BRANDING.

Why would I pay for say Static from Milestone when I can use Victor Mancha-son of Ultron (nephew to Simon Williams) and make his black. I cover links to Avengers and Runaways.
Who would cost you more to market? I mean you could toss out a toyline of a new Victor and repaints of Wonder Man, Ultron and Wanda.

Streaming has really cut into that market which can be compounded by they fact that companies now own their own streaming services so they seldom lease the right to other services and keep it all in house. Disney Plus has lost over 4 million scribers this year the first quarter of 2023 on top of losing 2.5 million in the last quarter of 2022 is the reason that Disney just cut so much content from the platform to try and get some of that money from tax losses.

Of course you are going to lose that when folks have other ways to view that stuff.

Red Box (which I STILL don't get)
Public library
Folks selling digital codes on Ebay
How many of those shows are syndicated on Cartoon Network or Comedy Central?
How many are on HULU still?

[Agent Z]

The Black action star pantheon by Polygon

https://www.polygon.com/23729939/gre...k-action-stars

[Username taken]

Anyone playing Final Fantasy 16?

[Moon Ronin]

The reason why they do that is because they OWN the rights to that stuff. You don't have to pay someone for their idea.

The race changing-same reason along with BRANDING.

Why would I pay for say Static from Milestone when I can use Victor Mancha-son of Ultron (nephew to Simon Williams) and make his black. I cover links to Avengers and Runaways.
Who would cost you more to market? I mean you could toss out a toyline of a new Victor and repaints of Wonder Man, Ultron and Wanda.




Of course you are going to lose that when folks have other ways to view that stuff.

Red Box (which I STILL don't get)
Public library
Folks selling digital codes on Ebay
How many of those shows are syndicated on Cartoon Network or Comedy Central?
How many are on HULU still?

Even though they still own the rights to a character it doesn't mean that they don't still have to pay writers, producers, and so on. So It's really not cheaper to make a movie with that is a remake vs putting out something that is new. It's more that they are hedging on nostalgia of Gen x and older Millennials to spend money on something which has been somewhat of a hit in the past. The markets now indicate that that approach is threadbare and as such in most cases markets should shift and not double down. To my point, writhing and film making is an artform so do do something like take Picasso's Surrealism and rework it in a realism style is creatively bankrupt.

Race changing is something complexly different. With most of the questions revolves around the question of "why". As a "Mexican"-American (which is something that I rarely call myself) I didn't rush to see Wakanda Forever becasue Namor looks like me now. If the reason for the change in race or gender is for DEI reasons its an odd marketing strategy as it is aimed at a minority within a minority that in the end will hurt the art form. My brother on the other had as a theory that Disney Marvel rewrote Namor and his people is in contrast to Warner DC's Aquaman so that the two would not really be compared by audiences. If this is the case it was done very well as the two were very different so the art didn't suffer for it and actually helped it set apart. Already explained that race changing in a remake is not cheaper as for BRANDING that seems to fall under the DEI reasoning and again that is an odd marketing strategy.

There is a difference between an adaptation and a film remake/reboot. Four to Five years ago I too would have paid to see a Static adaptation to screen but now with the saturation of Super Hero movies I would most likely give it a pass as I have the majority of the many of the latest Super Hero movies that have been put out in the past few years. Adaptations could be ripe for changing the race as the Jack Reacher movies adapted from the Lee Child books may have been way more successful if some one like John David Washington (who was awesome in Tenet) were the lead vs. Tom Cruse. There will be source purest that will complain but that cannot be completely labeled as racist as even with Jack Reacher the book purest argued that he is over 6 foot and blond both of witch Tom Cruse is not.

Privacy and the like aside studios are narrowing the choices for consumers to watch their product after it leaves the theater and intern they are also removing a source a revenue in doing so. In contrast they are also pulling away from theater revenue by releasing a movie on their in house streaming service with in months, weeks, after the movie leaves theaters its cheaper to wait a bit and see it at home. Even their syndication of TV shows are effected with them now being exclusively shown on in house steaming services and this is again another loss of revenue for both the studio and the actors in those shows. Streaming in the beginning was a great business with 3rd parties like Netflix and Amazon being the only game in town but with studios now with in house services the probability of a streaming bust in on the horizon.

[Agent Z]

‘The Little Mermaid’ Becomes a Blockbuster in the Philippines Amid Racist Backlash Elsewhere in Asia

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/mo...sh-1235521433/

[skyvolt2000]

There is a difference between an adaptation and a film remake/reboot. Four to Five years ago I too would have paid to see a Static adaptation to screen but now with the saturation of Super Hero movies I would most likely give it a pass as I have the majority of the many of the latest Super Hero movies that have been put out in the past few years. Adaptations could be ripe for changing the race as the Jack Reacher movies adapted from the Lee Child books may have been way more successful if some one like John David Washington (who was awesome in Tenet) were the lead vs. Tom Cruse. There will be source purest that will complain but that cannot be completely labeled as racist as even with Jack Reacher the book purest argued that he is over 6 foot and blond both of witch Tom Cruse is not.

You do understand you are NOT required to see all those movies.

So all this nonsense about super hero fatigue is silly at best.

Static shouldn't have to suffer because fanboys run to every movie or are soured on the crap DC tossed out. He is NOT owned by them.

Because when they stop and all we get is Batman or Peter Parker-I don't want to hear complaining. Because everyone was giving options and some fanboys chose to be bigots because they could not accept a movie with a lead that was not straight white and male.

Privacy and the like aside studios are narrowing the choices for consumers to watch their product after it leaves the theater and intern they are also removing a source a revenue in doing so. In contrast they are also pulling away from theater revenue by releasing a movie on their in house streaming service with in months, weeks, after the movie leaves theaters its cheaper to wait a bit and see it at home. Even their syndication of TV shows are effected with them now being exclusively shown on in house steaming services and this is again another loss of revenue for both the studio and the actors in those shows. Streaming in the beginning was a great business with 3rd parties like Netflix and Amazon being the only game in town but with studios now with in house services the probability of a streaming bust in on the horizon.

No the issue is way too much stuff is no longer-you have to be at home to watch or else wait for reruns.

If Married with Children was coming out at 8 PM guess what you were in front of that tv at 7 watching In Living Color, Roc, The Simpsons or Living Single waiting for Al.

Now there is no rush because it an issue of when it's convenient for ME.

Then we get shows axed in 3 months with some folks not even knowing those shows were airing.

[Alex_Of_X]

Anyone playing Final Fantasy 16?

I wish, dude T.T. PS5-less and on a verge of moving, so doesn't make sense do saddle myself with a 500$ crate

[Username taken]

I wish, dude T.T. PS5-less and on a verge of moving, so doesn't make sense do saddle myself with a 500$ crate

Oh yeah, it's a PS5 exclusive (i think it's a timed exclusive). I completely forgot.

I was looking for opinions because I'm not sure whether I will get the game yet.

I don't really trust game reviewers anymore, I prefer to get "ordinary" folks opinions.

[the illustrious mr. kenway]

https://aiptcomics.com/2023/06/23/tz...-tko-presents/

A spotlight on Tze Chun, an indie comic book publisher and shortener of Mogwai: secret of the gremlins.

[Username taken]

https://us.yahoo.com/entertainment/c...212819978.html