The Little Mermaid | Disney | May 26, 2023 | Queen Halle will rule the summer!

[kayumanggi]

 

[Mickiland16]

2 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

People seem to be convinced that East Asian countries don’t like movies with black leads, but I don’t know how accurate that is. I do know that the Black Panther movies were very domestic heavy, so there’s that. 

To be fair, Black Panther did more domestic but overseas money was still higher than every Thor movie, all the Guardians of the Galaxy movies, Spider-Man Homecoming, Batman, Superman and both Doctor Strange movies.

As for The Little Mermaid it probably won't do Aladdin numbers because the former overperformed in Japan and South Korea but $600M OS should still be doable.

[PlatnumRoyce]

6 hours ago, Valonqar said:

 

No. It's an American thing. People go to see LM. That's what matters.

Is that true? If you look at sony hack, Sony expressed this concern about INT audiences. When Sony put together their initial INT marketing slide deck, they explicitly flagged "Annie casting apprehension" as a core challenge in INT markets where the play/film musical is well known (such as the UK). Similarly, when soliciting feedback from foreign distributors (? honestly I'm not sure what a 'DCP screening' is), their Philippines distributor/guy explicitly said Philippines audiences were racist against black leads (that they were "generally not interested" in them) and Taiwan's distributor claimed "replacing main actors with african-american stars seems to be a politically correct decision" (there's a chance this is less disparaging than it implies in a US context). Argentina's distributor said "Nevertheless, being Annie an African American actress, this ends up being another challenge."

 

It really seems like people with skin in the game expected non-US gross to be impacted by this sort of casting/casting "controversy".  I agree it seems to be a us centric discussion but 

 

Quote

People go to see LM. That's what matters.

 

Yeah, but that's also true in the US. Successfully selling the film as "Live action version of Disney's little mermaid" is clearly the most important thing marketing has to do and clearly has done. 

[joselowe]

At the Disneyland special today 

 

[Issac Newton]

 

 

 

[JustLurking]

 

4 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Is that true? If you look at sony hack, Sony expressed this concern about INT audiences. When Sony put together their initial INT marketing slide deck, they explicitly flagged "Annie casting apprehension" as a core challenge in INT markets where the play/film musical is well known (such as the UK). Similarly, when soliciting feedback from foreign distributors (? honestly I'm not sure what a 'DCP screening' is), their Philippines distributor/guy explicitly said Philippines audiences were racist against black leads (that they were "generally not interested" in them) and Taiwan's distributor claimed "replacing main actors with african-american stars seems to be a politically correct decision" (there's a chance this is less disparaging than it implies in a US context). Argentina's distributor said "Nevertheless, being Annie an African American actress, this ends up being another challenge."

 

It really seems like people with skin in the game expected non-US gross to be impacted by this sort of casting/casting "controversy".  I agree it seems to be a us centric discussion but 

 

 

Yeah, but that's also true in the US. Successfully selling the film as "Live action version of Disney's little mermaid" is clearly the most important thing marketing has to do and clearly has done. 

Black-led films struggling overseas is not a new piece of information so I'm not sure what there is to debate. There are very few black actors that were able to gain star status internationally, Will Smith being one of them. Almost every black-led film heavily skews domestic nowadays.

 

I think TLM will be a 45 DOM:55 INT situation.

Edited May 15, 2023 by JustLurking

[Noctis]

Why does the title say mixed social reactions? The ones I read have been more positive. 

 

These title threads have become stupid and childish. 

[JohnnyGossamer]

3 hours ago, Noctis said:

Why does the title say mixed social reactions? The ones I read have been more positive. 

 

These title threads have become stupid and childish. 

Yeah. Well. That's been a thing for a little while. Gotta accept they're just joking around is all... I prefer them more honest without the joking but, hey, nothing wrong with a little fun. Maybe I'm becoming an old grump.

[Valonqar]

11 hours ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

Is that true? If you look at sony hack, Sony expressed this concern about INT audiences. When Sony put together their initial INT marketing slide deck, they explicitly flagged "Annie casting apprehension" as a core challenge in INT markets where the play/film musical is well known (such as the UK). Similarly, when soliciting feedback from foreign distributors (? honestly I'm not sure what a 'DCP screening' is), their Philippines distributor/guy explicitly said Philippines audiences were racist against black leads (that they were "generally not interested" in them) and Taiwan's distributor claimed "replacing main actors with african-american stars seems to be a politically correct decision" (there's a chance this is less disparaging than it implies in a US context). Argentina's distributor said "Nevertheless, being Annie an African American actress, this ends up being another challenge."

 

It really seems like people with skin in the game expected non-US gross to be impacted by this sort of casting/casting "controversy".  I agree it seems to be a us centric discussion but 

 

 

Yeah, but that's also true in the US. Successfully selling the film as "Live action version of Disney's little mermaid" is clearly the most important thing marketing has to do and clearly has done. 

 

But OS doesn't know WTF Annie is! You think white Annie would have done well? Eh.

 

Will Smith is big because he made color blind movies like white actors. Nothing culturally specific, just universal themes. He fights vampires, robots, bad guys in general. Or tries to get a girl. You can't expect Get Out to resonate outside of US where people have no clue about themes and metaphors, etc. But Bad Boys? I Am Legend? Boom. Or BP. In US, that was really something that had something to say while OS it was a retelling of TLK or any line of succession story that is universal to any culture. 

 

here's a white culturally specific movie that did only about half of the domestic business OS - My Big Fat Greek Wedding. It was insane hit dom (almost 250M) but OK hit OS (around 130M). Or Wedding Chrashers. Over 200M dom, only 79M OS. Comedy doesn't always translate. Culturally specific shit doesn't either.

 

LM falls into universally themed (not culturally specific) movie so whether the lead is black, white, etc doesn't matter. She's a mermaid. Her father is white, her biological sisters are Indian, Asian, white. They are mermaids, they have no race like humans. They can look any way they like. It isn't a story about a black girl and a whilte boy in contemporary America. It'sa  story about a mermaid and a prince in a fantasy land. It's a very important difference. One has limited appeal (mostly the country of origin)  the other does not. 

 

 

Edited May 15, 2023 by Valonqar

[WorkingonaName]

 

Quote

 Her father is white, her biological sisters are Indian, Asian, white. 

 

Damn King Neptune got around. 

[grey ghost]

1 hour ago, Valonqar said:

 

But OS doesn't know WTF Annie is! You think white Annie would have done well? Eh.

 

Will Smith is big because he made color blind movies like white actors. Nothing culturally specific, just universal themes. He fights vampires, robots, bad guys in general. Or tries to get a girl. You can't expect Get Out to resonate outside of US where people have no clue about themes and metaphors, etc. But Bad Boys? I Am Legend? Boom. Or BP. In US, that was really something that had something to say while OS it was a retelling of TLK or any line of succession story that is universal to any culture. 

 

here's a white culturally specific movie that did only about half of the domestic business OS - My Big Fat Greek Wedding. It was insane hit dom (almost 250M) but OK hit OS (around 130M). Or Wedding Chrashers. Over 200M dom, only 79M OS. Comedy doesn't always translate. Culturally specific shit doesn't either.

 

LM falls into universally themed (not culturally specific) movie so whether the lead is black, white, etc doesn't matter. She's a mermaid. Her father is white, her biological sisters are Indian, Asian, white. They are mermaids, they have no race like humans. They can look any way they like. It isn't a story about a black girl and a whilte boy in contemporary America. It'sa  story about a mermaid and a prince in a fantasy land. It's a very important difference. One has limited appeal (mostly the country of origin)  the other does not. 

 

 

 

 

Then why did Nope fail overseas?

 

It's not about racism on the surface.

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

 

 

Then why did Nope fail overseas?

 

It's not about racism on the surface.

 

Because it's From the Director of Movies We Didn't Care About First 2 Times Around? That was pushed in all promos. Lets not pretend that "From the director of Hereditary and Midsomer" sells tickets either in US or OS. 

 

I'm a big fan of Us but had no interest in Nope as soon as they released that comic trailer. Teaser seemed ominuous but trrailer revealed it was another comedy or sci fi comedy. 

[PrinceRico]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

 

 

Then why did Nope fail overseas?

 

It's not about racism on the surface.

Nope was such a great sci fi movie. Can’t wait to see Peels new Christmas horror film.

[joselowe]

1 hour ago, grey ghost said:

 

 

Then why did Nope fail overseas?

 

It's not about racism on the surface.

To be fair although NOPE underperformed in the US compared to Jordan’s last two films it made around the same amount overseas as the reboot of Scream (which is a bigger franchise) which was also released in 2022.

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, WorkingonaName said:

 

 

Damn King Neptune got around. 

 

as King Neptune should 

[grey ghost]

7 minutes ago, joselowe said:

To be fair although NOPE underperformed in the US compared to Jordan’s last two films it made around the same amount overseas as the reboot of Scream (which is a bigger franchise) which was also released in 2022.

 

The domestic-overseas ratio was unusually lopsided for Nope.

[grey ghost]

9 minutes ago, joselowe said:

To be fair although NOPE underperformed in the US compared to Jordan’s last two films it made around the same amount overseas as the reboot of Scream (which is a bigger franchise) which was also released in 2022.

 

Or black actors outside of Will Smith have limited appeal overseas.

[JustLurking]

25 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

Because it's From the Director of Movies We Didn't Care About First 2 Times Around? That was pushed in all promos. Lets not pretend that "From the director of Hereditary and Midsomer" sells tickets either in US or OS. 

 

I'm a big fan of Us but had no interest in Nope as soon as they released that comic trailer. Teaser seemed ominuous but trrailer revealed it was another comedy or sci fi comedy. 

Come on man. The list of black-led films doing better in the US is very freaking long. Hell, why do you think the rocky franchise became very domestic-skewing as soon as Creed started? No one's saying OS audiences will crucify Halle and burn down the theaters in protest, but it's foolish to pretend black lead doesn't equal to less appeal overseas. In this case the huge appeal of disney live actions overseas should balance it out, so I think it'll still be an OS-skewing film, but definitely not to the degree of Aladdin or BatB.

[PlatnumRoyce]

2 hours ago, Valonqar said:

 

But OS doesn't know WTF Annie is! You think white Annie would have done well? Eh.

I'm talking about what Sony itself flagged internally as the film's core strengths and challenges for marketing the film (which is separate from if the film ultimately is a hit or flop). Again, that line was explicitly in reference to markets like the UK that had a pre-existing brand awareness. If you're interested you can go to archive.org for wikileaks' sony documents and search "annie" in URL section to find it yourself. That INT marketing memo was something done in early production so it wouldn't have been able to price in the film's apparently very poor quality and it really does appear if more time was spent concerning about other issues and opportunities flagged. But it's also a real thing they were thinking about both domestically and internationally. 

 

That being said, I do think there's something to this distinction you're drawing and probably explains a decent amount of variation. 

 

Quote

TLM falls into universally themed (not culturally specific) movie so whether the lead is black, white, etc doesn't matter. She's a mermaid. Her father is white, her biological sisters are Indian, Asian, white. They are mermaids, they have no race like humans.

 

I suspect "adaptation of well know IP" falls into a different category because there's clearly a particular target image being referenced as the film's core marketing pitch (hence the decision to die the actresses hair red). I don't really have a good grasp on what triggers "this is just like that movie" but larger anxieties about the film presumably matter. "Bond is not blonde" surfaced during anxiety about Bond's casting for instance. 

 

One reason I suspect this will not have that big of an impact is that it's hard to see why people would be anxious about the film. Disney live action reboots are pretty pre-sold and have an existing track record. 

 

At the end of the day, we're talking about the audience reception to film/marketing not the internal logic of the film. Meta-narrative of film is the potential problem not arguing about internal logic of it.  People know these are actors imitating other actors/characters. I assume the main thing they need to clear is a bare minimum "I see this as the same character" impulse.

On the other hand, I don't really get how people look at the CGI animals and see the 1990s animated characters in them. 

[Valonqar]

26 minutes ago, JustLurking said:

Come on man. The list of black-led films doing better in the US is very freaking long. Hell, why do you think the rocky franchise became very domestic-skewing as soon as Creed started? No one's saying OS audiences will crucify Halle and burn down the theaters in protest, but it's foolish to pretend black lead doesn't equal to less appeal overseas. In this case the huge appeal of disney live actions overseas should balance it out, so I think it'll still be an OS-skewing film, but definitely not to the degree of Aladdin or BatB.

 

Rocky franchise isn't a good example cause it's old. I've just checked and Rocky movie released the closest to Creed to compare is Rocky Balboa which did 70M/85M dom/OS vs Creed 109M/63M dom/OS, Creed 2 115M/98M dom/OS Creed 3 156M/117M dom/OS. So Balboa and Creed OS is in the same range. Creed skews dom but it isn't doing worse than Balboa OS. You can see an increase that could be exchange rate or actual growth. There's a difference between no appeal at all and more appeal dom. Some movies simply overperform dom rather than underperform OS which creates a difference.

 

14 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

I'm talking about what Sony itself flagged internally as the film's core strengths and challenges for marketing the film (which is separate from if the film ultimately is a hit or flop). Again, that line was explicitly in reference to markets like the UK that had a pre-existing brand awareness. If you're interested you can go to archive.org for wikileaks' sony documents and search "annie" in URL section to find it yourself. That INT marketing memo was something done in early production so it wouldn't have been able to price in the film's apparently very poor quality and it really does appear if more time was spent concerning about other issues and opportunities flagged. But it's also a real thing they were thinking about both domestically and internationally. 

 

That being said, I do think there's something to this distinction you're drawing and probably explains a decent amount of variation. 

 

 

I suspect "adaptation of well know IP" falls into a different category because there's clearly a particular target image being referenced as the film's core marketing pitch (hence the decision to die the actresses hair red). I don't really have a good grasp on what triggers "this is just like that movie" but larger anxieties about the film presumably matter. "Bond is not blonde" surfaced during anxiety about Bond's casting for instance. 

 

One reason I suspect this will not have that big of an impact is that it's hard to see why people would be anxious about the film. Disney live action reboots are pretty pre-sold and have an existing track record. 

 

At the end of the day, we're talking about the audience reception to film/marketing not the internal logic of the film. Meta-narrative of film is the potential problem not arguing about internal logic of it.  People know these are actors imitating other actors/characters. I assume the main thing they need to clear is a bare minimum "I see this as the same character" impulse.

On the other hand, I don't really get how people look at the CGI animals and see the 1990s animated characters in them. 

 

Fans of known IP are protective of the images they had in their heads for so long. So any deviation from it is going to create negative reaction. Daniel Radcliffe's blue eyes (Harry's are green), blond Bond (he's brunette), etc. However, no one is sensitive to those negtive reactions so they don't get as much media coverage as negative reactions to race and gender swaps. But they exist in any fandom where an existing source is adapted to the big screen.