Finally, "The Little Mermaid", who is now black... Is in theaters!

[Mushroom]

If you followed the comics then you'd know that DC characters have no character outside of the hero.

Prior to the 90s Batman was not the haunted hate filled character modeled today.

Uh, Sergeant Rock comes immediately to mind, along with most of Easy Company. They were also big in the horror and western genres before the CCA was established.

And Batman started as dark and hate filled. Hell, when he started he had a gun and shot criminals! It was only when the CCA was created that he changed, and his "code against killing" developed. But that was not the original character, he was created more in the mold of The Bat and The Shadow, and had no problem using guns or killing people.

Batman #1, Spring 1940

Oh, and the "Dark Knight" is a throwback to that, and the inspiration to the Batman 1990 movie. But that was not 1990s, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight was in 1986. Gotham City was dystopian (it was the 1980s, Dystopian futures were big) and he was returning to his more violent roots and not working with the cops as he did for the previous decades.

Actually, I have been following comics for decades. Having read the Golden Age and Silver Age originals. Even remembering the original Joker origin as The Red Hood (1951). Hell, I still laugh at the "kids" that think that Spider-Man's black outfit came from either a meteor (movie), or Madame Web (tv cartoon).

 

[Dadoalex]

Uh, Sergeant Rock comes immediately to mind, along with most of Easy Company. They were also big in the horror and western genres before the CCA was established.

And Batman started as dark and hate filled. Hell, when he started he had a gun and shot criminals! It was only when the CCA was created that he changed, and his "code against killing" developed. But that was not the original character, he was created more in the mold of The Bat and The Shadow, and had no problem using guns or killing people.

Batman #1, Spring 1940

Oh, and the "Dark Knight" is a throwback to that, and the inspiration to the Batman 1990 movie. But that was not 1990s, Frank Miller's The Dark Knight was in 1986. Gotham City was dystopian (it was the 1980s, Dystopian futures were big) and he was returning to his more violent roots and not working with the cops as he did for the previous decades.

Actually, I have been following comics for decades. Having read the Golden Age and Silver Age originals. Even remembering the original Joker origin as The Red Hood (1951). Hell, I still laugh at the "kids" that think that Spider-Man's black outfit came from either a meteor (movie), or Madame Web (tv cartoon).

Indeed.
The original Batman was a dark character.
Starting in the 90s he was reimagined as closer to the original, nutso.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Well, it has made around $211 million now in total. So it just might show a small profit before it leaves theaters.

It has already made 11 million in profits after just 3 days.

 

[Mushroom]

Starting in the 90s he was reimagined as closer to the original,

1986. Once again, the Dark Knight was 1986.

And the main character went "dark" along with most of comics when the CCA lost their authority. That had actually started in 1971 when Marvel produced the first mainstream comics in 17 years without the CCA approval stamp. That was a 3 story arc which had a strong anti-drug message, but all references to drugs were banned by the CCA. They published them anyways, and soon the code was changed to allow drugs so long as the message was not to use them.

But by the late 1970s, the CCA had been changed significantly from their origin in 1954. By that time many publishers were gone, EC had left comics and printed Mad as a magazine so not under their authority, and changing culture forced them to allow more into their stories. Especially when DC and Marvel were protesting having comics banned for "nudity" and showing characters in underwear or sexualized setting while other comics were given free reign in doing the same thing,

By the 1980s DC had largely dropped the CCA, and soon Marvel did the same. Marvel would still submit their comics, but if it was denied still publish them and simply leave off the seal of approval. But by 2001 Marvel stopped even submitting and the CCA collapsed shortly afterwards.

But the Dark Knight of 1986 was published without the CCA seal because DC had already left the CCA by that point. But I do remember many of the changes, even when Wonder Woman dumped her spandex and took up mod clothes, suede with fringes, and givenchy capes in 1970. But most of what you are bringing up was more of the fact that DC and Marvel realized that the CCS had no authority over them and simply stopped caring.

 

[BlueGin]

Well, it has made around $211 million now in total. So it just might show a small profit before it leaves theaters.

Yes, the film budget was between $200-250 million. However, the advertising and promotional budget is estimated to have been in the $250-300 million range. That means it has only about a month to make between $500-550 million to really break even. And yes, literally it only has about a month, because that is the current lifespan of a movie in the theaters in 2023.

It is not like when the first came out in 1989 where they typically had a theatrical run of 3 months or more. Hell, it was not even unusual in the 1970s to have movies play for a freaking year in the theaters. Star Wars actually ran in the local cinemas for 44 weeks, just short of a year. Back to the Future had a theatrical run of 37 weeks (about 9 months). ET is still the record holder at over 60 weeks, that is over a year.

But will Mermaid recoup all the money in the box office? I doubt it. And the general consensus in Hollywood is that if a movie does not break even in the US during its initial theatrical run, it is a flop. And the returns on overseas markets are generally much less than in the US market because of how the money is split.

Stats are showing the audience is mostly made up of Gen z. Very small demo of kids. And the Spider verse is due out soon which I think will do better and knock the wind out of the LM sails.

 

[CarsomyrPlusSix]

The Little Mermaid is now portrayed by an African-American actress and with the movie the best! Diversity is wonderful and people might even prefer an African American actress in this role.

The mantra "Go woke go broke" well be challenged here, because if this movie makes a lot of money then it is not always true that woke goes broke.

Well you go watch it or take your kids to watch it?

Lol what a troll

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Stats are showing the audience is mostly made up of Gen z. Very small demo of kids.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

All the little black girls will go see it.

So, half of 6% of the population

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The Little Mermaid is now portrayed by an African-American actress and with the movie the best! Diversity is wonderful and people might even prefer an African American actress in this role.

The mantra "Go woke go broke" well be challenged here, because if this movie makes a lot of money then it is not always true that woke goes broke.

Well you go watch it or take your kids to watch it?

‘"The Little Mermaid", who is now black..’

The little mermaid has always been black – the animated film got it wrong.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

She has an amazing voice.

Sad that so many people will hate her just because of her skin color

Ridiculous that so many conservatives will be outraged just because of her skin color.

 

[BlueGin]

Per deadline.com

“heavy female leaning at 68%, with 61% between 18-34, and the largest demo being millennial 25-34 year olds at 35%. Diversity demos strong across the board, with 35% Black, 25% Latino and Hispanic, 26% Caucasian and 11% Asian”.

Highest demographic of viewing audience is women (millennials and Gen Z. Ages 18-34).

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Per deadline.com

“heavy female leaning at 68%, with 61% between 18-34, and the largest demo being millennial 25-34 year olds at 35%. Diversity demos strong across the board, with 35% Black, 25% Latino and Hispanic, 26% Caucasian and 11% Asian”.

Highest demographic of viewing audience is women (millennials and Gen Z. Ages 18-34).

Thanks

And pretty much exactly what you would expect for a Disney princess movie. I have never understood adults that loved Disney princess movies but I know a lot that do.

 

[BlueGin]

Thanks

And pretty much exactly what you would expect for a Disney princess movie. I have never understood adults that loved Disney princess movies but I know a lot that do.

Little girls of 2023 prefer Moana over the rest of the princesses. Black LM was just a pander which in the long run will have a hard time making its money back for Disney. International BO is not doing that well.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Little girls of 2023 prefer Moana over the rest of the princesses. Black LM was just a pander which in the long run will have a hard time making its money back for Disney. International BO is not doing that well.

Production cost was 200M, it will likely make that by the end of the long weekend.

 

[Mushroom]

The little mermaid has always been black – the animated film got it wrong.

Oh yes, because we all know that Hans Christian Anderson really imagined her as black when he wrote the story in early 1800s Copenhagen.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Who really cares?

Everything has to be black, white, brown, yellow, etc etc

You're being played people

 

[BlueGin]

Production cost was 200M, it will likely make that by the end of the long weekend.

Try 500M. And they also only get a small percentage of foreign BO profits.

 

[Dadoalex]

1986. Once again, the Dark Knight was 1986.

And the main character went "dark" along with most of comics when the CCA lost their authority. That had actually started in 1971 when Marvel produced the first mainstream comics in 17 years without the CCA approval stamp. That was a 3 story arc which had a strong anti-drug message, but all references to drugs were banned by the CCA. They published them anyways, and soon the code was changed to allow drugs so long as the message was not to use them.

But by the late 1970s, the CCA had been changed significantly from their origin in 1954. By that time many publishers were gone, EC had left comics and printed Mad as a magazine so not under their authority, and changing culture forced them to allow more into their stories. Especially when DC and Marvel were protesting having comics banned for "nudity" and showing characters in underwear or sexualized setting while other comics were given free reign in doing the same thing,

By the 1980s DC had largely dropped the CCA, and soon Marvel did the same. Marvel would still submit their comics, but if it was denied still publish them and simply leave off the seal of approval. But by 2001 Marvel stopped even submitting and the CCA collapsed shortly afterwards.

But the Dark Knight of 1986 was published without the CCA seal because DC had already left the CCA by that point. But I do remember many of the changes, even when Wonder Woman dumped her spandex and took up mod clothes, suede with fringes, and givenchy capes in 1970. But most of what you are bringing up was more of the fact that DC and Marvel realized that the CCS had no authority over them and simply stopped caring.

Apologies, I thought we were discussing the evolution of comic book characters in movies and tv.
You are right, the comic book evolution of Batman preceded the 90s character on tv.

 

[Mushroom]

And the Spider verse is due out soon which I think will do better and knock the wind out of the LM sails.

And that is showing exactly why Sony Marvel is getting it right, and Disney Marvel is getting it wrong.

They realized that there was a little known 2011 story written about a different character with the same powers, and ran with that. I know of nobody that complained that Miles Morales Spider-Man was black, because he was not the Peter Parker Spider-Man. No more that we complained that in Spider-Man 2099 he was Miguel O'Hara, a Latino. It is comics, there is absolutely nothing wrong with running an alternate universe, or a new character taking up the mantle of another. But when you go through convolutions in order to make it happen and change the original character, it is guaranteed to alienate fans.

And yes, I bet the Spiderverse in the end will kick the snot out of Mermaid. Especially when one considers it cost less than half of what was spent on Mermaid. Total cost for the newest Spiderverse movie is only $100 million. And that is up from the $90 million of the first (total spent was $120 including marketing) which grossed over $380 million. Even if the entire run of that newest Spiderverse movie does what the opening weekend was of Mermaid, it will have made money. Because they have spent only a fraction of the money on it that Disney has.

And the marketing is also telling. Sony has largely been using more guerrilla marketing, with targeted ads on social and streaming media, and word of mouth by fans. The first movie only had an ad budget of around $30 million, and estimates is that they are spending around the same amount on this movie (maybe as much as $145 million in total on Spiderverse 2). Unlike the House of Mouse, which bought tons of broadcast TV commercials for $1 million a minute or more (total for Mermaid including marketing is believed to be in excess of $500 million).

And for all the "wokies", I can almost promise that few if any "Conservatives" will complain about that the last or this new Spiderverse movie. Even with a bi-racial Black and Latino lead character, who might have a white girl as a love interest. Because it is being constructed in a way that is not forced and fits into the universe. I even caught that the "villain" will likely be the Irish-Mexican Spider-Man of Miguel O'Hara in the trailers. Heck, I even love that they brought back Peter Porker in the original movie.

We as fans can accept "changes", they just have to make sense.

 

[Mushroom]

Try 500M. And they also only get a small percentage of foreign BO profits.

More recent estimates have actually pushed it closer to $250 million. And the marketing is believed to be as much if not more. Especially with the huge TV marketing blitz with prime time commercials running at $1 million a minute. So yes, the true cost is closer to $500-550 million.