Father’s Day/Juneteenth Weekend Thread | Flash implodes with 55M, Elemental bombs with 29M, holdovers hold atrociously | Theaters are dead, streaming is dead. Everything is dead really.

[Torontofan]

3 minutes ago, Cap said:

Maybe it’s time to move on from that debate. Or, more accurately, take it to the Disney Thread or the Politics Thread —-

 

LMFAO. I was about to say it’s off-topic, because there isn’t a Disney release this weekend 😂😂😂. Oops. NeverMind there. 
 

Anyway; bottom line. Let’s move on. 

 

I apologize, realized this thread was like 100 pages so topic done to death and gets annoying to mods and everyone

Edited June 19, 2023 by Torontofan

[Taruseth]

55 minutes ago, toutvabien said:

I mean, human rights are formed and protected by the law and that has very obvious connection to politics. It is a political opinion and takes political power to want/be able to strip certain groups/communities of people off their rights or to simply hold power and privileges over them - a bigoted political opinion, but still. It is political to be turned off by black-led films. The thing is, inclusivity and representation in Hollywood aren't exactly political. Disney understands how much profit they can make off black audiences by having a black actress as their live action Ariel. They also know that decision can get white liberals/Democrat voters/left-leaning people AND other racialized communities to get interested in such film.

 

Big Hollywood studios want money and diversity makes money; and the audience interest drive can be political. And that goes beyond film; ever wonder who made Hamilton huge?

Black Panther audience demographic was something like 37 % black, 35 % white, while Hamilton is more like 5 % black and 80 % white.

 

Musicals are over indexing for white and asian people.

Even more in other areas: The musical audience is college educated (like 80 % with 45+% holding an advanced degree) and has a high (to very high) income.

 

But for movies diversity certainly is a thing studios are looking at.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Taruseth

[thedude11]

1 hour ago, Eric Prime said:

Moderation

 

@thedude11 @Torontofan Yeah we're not doing this. None of this "people are trying to say I'm racistj because I don't like Disney" strawmanning, nor any of this transphobic "Trans people having beer is bad for business" rhetoric. You're both trying to derail the thread and make up a bunch of garbage that I'm not letting slide.

 

Anybody who continues these idiotic conversations are getting threadbanned. That is all.

mods are always so thin skinned it’s pretty funny. if you don’t think disney has been playing the “you’re racist card” you’re either willfully ignorant or blind 

[Cap]

2 minutes ago, Torontofan said:

 

I apologize, realized this thread was like 100 pages so topic done to death and gets annoying to mods and everyone

As they say; arrive fashionably late and leave early. 😘

[Cap]

Just now, thedude11 said:

mods are always so thin skinned it’s pretty funny. if you don’t think disney has been playing the “you’re racist card” you’re either willfully ignorant or blind 

As I have said before, and will say again, if you think we are thin skinned or doing something wrong; PM so we can talk about it. 
 

 

[toutvabien]

Just now, Taruseth said:

Black Panther audience demographic was something like 37 % black, 35 % white, while Hamilton is more like 5 % black and 80 % white.

 

Musicals are over indexing for white and asian people.

Even more in other areas: The musical audience is college educated (like 80 % with 45+% holding an advanced degree) and has a high (to very high) income.

Yea, I referred to Hamilton to prove that politics can drive an audience, such as white Liberals making Hamilton huge because of its diversity, a show that wasn't accessible to racialized communities and minorities.

[Nero]

1 hour ago, IronJimbo & Sheldon's Son said:

Damn, sad to see ATSV drop from estimates, give it it's PLFs back you cowards!

Hey 👋. Are you a new poster? If not what was your previous name?

[Taruseth]

Just now, toutvabien said:

Yea, I referred to Hamilton to prove that politics can drive an audience, such as white Liberals making Hamilton huge because of its diversity, a show that wasn't accessible to racialized communities and minorities.

Okay, that makes sense, initially thought the inclusion of a musical is slightly weird as musicals are pretty un-diverse (at least from the audience side). Question is if white liberals aren't making up a large part of the audience of other musicals too. I'd guess they do as college educated white by now tend to lean liberal. And the average person that watches a musical is a white, college educated (high income) women.

[Torontofan]

17 minutes ago, Cap said:

As they say; arrive fashionably late and leave early. 😘

 

Yeah I was out all weekend with wife and wondering why the hell is a rather so so weekend have a 100 plus pages lol 

[Spidey Freak]

1 hour ago, Boxx93 said:

That show was already in production during the making of the live action remake. They already invested money on it, so it was always gonna come out regardless of the box office results.

 

The show existing does count towards the profitability of the IP regardless. Disney greenlit that show once they saw how obsessed little black girls were with Halle Ariel and it meant $$ for Disney+

 

TLM's DOM performance has proven that this take on the character is indeed popular with its core audiences who will want more of her so tune into the show on Disney+ 

[Welcbr12]

Well, at least it's not a decrease 

 

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, toutvabien said:

The thing is, inclusivity and representation in Hollywood aren't exactly political. Disney understands how much profit they can make off black audiences by having a black actress as their live action Ariel. They also know that decision can get white liberals/Democrat voters/left-leaning people AND other racialized communities to get interested in such film.

 

Big Hollywood studios want money and diversity makes money; and the audience interest drive can be political. And that goes beyond film; ever wonder who made Hamilton huge?

Setting aside macro-political debates, I love whoever first shared one of these Echelon insights omnibus polls because they just explicitly asked this question in a major poll. This is just really cool stuff I've been looking for. Let's just get attempts at descriptive data on these topics. 

 

Macro Q - More/fewer movies with the following themes:

"politics" "cultural issues" and "Movies focused on diversity and inclusion" were all split into three separate questions. https://echeloninsights.com/in-the-news/may-22-omnibus-political-update/

I think the various polling really shows a "African-American v. non-African-American" split on these issues (though morning consult stuff shows less extreme racial splits). 
 

 

Quote

Disney understands how much profit they can make off black audiences by having a black actress as their live action Ariel. They also know that decision can get white liberals/Democrat voters/left-leaning people AND other racialized communities to get interested in such film... ever wonder who made Hamilton huge?

On the other hand, it's clear that the second half of the statement simply didn't happen with TLM. Based on that (pre-TLM release poll) non-African-American interest in the film split 26/27% for Dems and 19% for GOP (both including leaners) versus 46% of African-American audience expressing interest. I think that also meshes well with existing demo data we have from places like posttrak. There's a split here, but it's not like TLM did particularly well among e.g. white liberals. Ultimately, TLM simply underperformed nearly across the board and was mostly saved by a really strong African-American showing. Contrast that to a film like Lion King that hit its marks across the board and had a very strong African-American audience bump on top.

I can definitely see the case for the first half (longer term value from really maximizing interest from a decently large subsection of audience) but would love to read more. 

 

 

On the Hamilton point, I wouldn't undersell "Founders Chic" aspect of its success. The racebending ended up really synergizing with broader interest in patriotic/nationalistic content and it allows Hamilton to deny common contemporary sticking point. 
 

Edited June 19, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[OncomingStorm93]

I feel pretty confident that Disney's casting choices with TLM played less of a role in it's underperformance than it's the upteenth Disney Live Action Remake, and while the 1989 original has it's loyal fans, the fact is it was never as popular as the rest of the Renaissance-era animated musicals. It's total B.O. was $211m, compared to B&TB's $440m two years later, and Aladdin's $500m three years later. Not to mention Lion King doing almost $1b five years later. It made basically what the original Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians did in the 1960s.

 

The simplest explanation is that The Little Mermaid is not one of the more popular Disney animated musicals, and didn't warrant such an expensive live action remake.

[Kon]

22 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

I feel pretty confident that Disney's casting choices with TLM played less of a role in it's underperformance than it's the upteenth Disney Live Action Remake, and while the 1989 original has it's loyal fans, the fact is it was never as popular as the rest of the Renaissance-era animated musicals. It's total B.O. was $211m, compared to B&TB's $440m two years later, and Aladdin's $500m three years later. Not to mention Lion King doing almost $1b five years later. It made basically what the original Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians did in the 1960s.

 

The simplest explanation is that The Little Mermaid is not one of the more popular Disney animated musicals, and didn't warrant such an expensive live action remake.

 

The Little Mermaid happened in a time where animated movies weren't so popular and Disney wasn't in a good place. The Little Mermaid box office was pretty impressive in that conditions.

 

It was The Little Mermaid popularity what helped future Disney Animated movies.

 

Also, The Little Mermaid has a domestic OW slightly bigger than Aladdin. So, I would hardly say Aladdin brand is stronger.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Kon

[Boxx93]

49 minutes ago, Spidey Freak said:

 

The show existing does count towards the profitability of the IP regardless. Disney greenlit that show once they saw how obsessed little black girls were with Halle Ariel and it meant $$ for Disney+

 

TLM's DOM performance has proven that this take on the character is indeed popular with its core audiences who will want more of her so tune into the show on Disney+ 

Friendly reminder that Disney+ is still losing money (and subscribers) to the company.

 

And as other posters have said. TLM is doing Ok domestically. Its just that with so many movies flopping all around, it makes it the movie look like a BO  juggernaut in comparison.

Edited June 19, 2023 by Boxx93

[Bobzaruni]

this thread is cooked

[Human]

It was Oliver and Company that made Disney animation back into an animation juggernaut and started the Disney Reinassance.  It is not given its credit, since it is not a well liked movie.  It is what started the style of the Reinassance with its objectively sucky parents, broadway musicals, and child focused target audiences.

[PlatnumRoyce]

29 minutes ago, OncomingStorm93 said:

It made basically what the original Jungle Book and 101 Dalmatians did in the 1960s.

This is a common mistake because BoxOfficeMojo & co. don't have historical (pre-comscore?) weekly box office data. Going to contemporary sources, I see that, in the year 1960 the overall box office record holder was the Ten Commandments with 34M in domestic rentals. In the 1987 version of Variety's "all time box office" list, 101 Dalmations is listed as having 37M in domestic rentals or (~85th place all time). There's just no way 101 Dalmations made 200M at the Domestic Box office anytime near the 1960s.  What you're seeing is the functional equivalent of DVD sales folded into a longer term box office run for these legacy Disney animated kids movies. If you did that for TLM, it would skyrocket up these lists. 

 

Quote

The simplest explanation is that The Little Mermaid is not one of the more popular Disney animated musicals, and didn't warrant such an expensive live action remake.

 

I doubt it. The simplest explanation is the one people would have given in 2022: The Little Mermaid was is a massively well known and liked Disney staple. The "2006 Platinum DVD release" generated $50M or so of revenue on the opening week and at least 95M over the entire 2006 holiday season (using the-numbers' data). I can see the case for it being weakest of prime Disney renaissance but it also must be a massive merch mover and Disney clearly knows how much people do or do not like various princesses.

We can perhaps argue it was mistakenly viewed as on par with BatB, etc. instead of a step below it but that's not the whole story. Even if Disney was able to make this film for $150M, there's just no way making under $500M would be interpreted as a success especially when it was marketed as a big tentpole. Lack of star power seems like a stronger argument than this. 

 

 

[Starphanluke]

3 hours ago, Issac Newton said:

Updated Estimates for Weekend + MON

...why did Transformers go up on Sunday. That's weird.

[LegionWrex]

Just now, Starphanluke said:

...why did Transformers go up on Sunday. That's weird.

 

Father's Day is my guess.