06-19-2023, 03:41 AM
(06-19-2023, 12:37 AM)PhoenixDark wrote:Have to disagree with you here.(06-18-2023, 11:41 PM)HaughtyFrank wrote: But it has the first *checks notes* non-binary character!
Quote:Even the target audiences realize how cynical this is, and how there's little real effort into telling diverse stories. It's solely marketing. Sometimes it works. Lords knows I thought Little Mermaid would flop but it's clearly a success. Usually it fails tho.
The little Mermaid actually did kind of flop. It did really well in the US but with a total box office of 468 million and a budget of 250 million it may have not even broken even. (rule of thumb is usually that it needs to make twice the budget to account for marketing)
Oh wow you're right. I glanced at a headline awhile ago that said the WW numbers weren't horrible but assuming it won't have legs much longer...that's gonna be what a 500-600m total gross? Whereas if they had just cast [random white girl singer] it prob does double. And while that says some ehh things about overseas markets at the same time if you're signing the checks how much longer are you gonna go in this direction...
In addition to these remakes being some of the most cynical cash-grabs ever made, trying to jam the casting down everyone's throat with the massive PR campaign really put the focus on how this was offering nothing EXCEPT for the casting choice.
That's what they don't get. Focus on the fact that you've cast a real talent in the role and how this is going to give viewers something new and fresh and most people don't give a fuck.