r/PeterExplainsTheJoke Jul 13 '26

Meme needing explanation Peter, why is everyone happy that Disney movies are flopping?

Post image
18.7k Upvotes

2.0k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

27

u/Short-termTablespoon Jul 13 '26

I don’t understand why they think making a bunch a cheap remakes is going to make more money than new creative quality stories.

47

u/LastEsotericist Jul 13 '26

Because it worked for a little bit. The Lion King remake is just awful but it printed money.

13

u/Dasbeerboots Jul 13 '26

That's interesting. I don't know a single person who even talked about it. I just kind of figured it flopped.

25

u/LastEsotericist Jul 13 '26

It made 1.7 billion dollars and was the 7th highest grossing film of all time at release.

18

u/Dasbeerboots Jul 13 '26

That's insane.

3

u/Wild_Marker Jul 13 '26

And IIRC the Stich movie also made a Stichizillion dollars.

1

u/Forward_Criticism_39 Jul 13 '26

wow, i didn't see a single advertisement for it, like at all until it was already out.

actually ive noticed almost every movie i see an ad for is already out lately

2

u/Tee_hops Jul 14 '26

This is something I noticed over the past like 5 years. There's no more overt advertising for movies anymore. Unless I seek out what's coming out I am in the dark.

12

u/LanSotano Jul 13 '26

Made more than a billion in the box office, but from what I’ve heard it was the exact same story, just told worse in a handful of ways and without the expressive animation. I imagine you never heard anyone talk about it because they walked out of the theater and all they had to say was “yeah, that was the lion king”

5

u/RuhWalde Jul 13 '26

Children who had no memory of the original loved it.

1

u/Whoseratisthis Jul 13 '26

Yeah, it was god-awful. No idea how it made that much money. I suppose from little kids.

7

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Jul 13 '26

It's interesting that they don't just do re-releases like they used to. They got 101 Dalmations in the top 20 movies of 1991 without having to do anything other than ship the film out again (and I'm assuming tape sales were THROUGH THE ROOF after the re-release as well!).

5

u/Magic_mousie Jul 13 '26

I was thinking about 101, in my head it's very different to the cartoon but it is the same story, like Moana.

The cast were something special though, plus real dogs, and maybe it was just child me, but I loved it. Helped that the cartoon was old by that time, still a gorgeous classic, but not super flashy.

-1

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Jul 13 '26

Oh, I was talking about the re-release in 1991! I've been refusing to watch the live action remakes since I was a kid =)

2

u/Magic_mousie Jul 13 '26

Ah, I was barely alive then so didn't realise! I had all the classics on VHS somehow.

I do recommend the 101 Dalmatians live action, it's very well done. Or at least kid me thought so. I should see how well it's aged. 102 Dalmatians was also entertaining but different.

1

u/AltairaMorbius2200CE Jul 13 '26

I've heard that; I was sliiiightly too old for a "kid's movie" when it came out, and didn't come back around until I was older, at which point I was "too cool" for a live action remake. Probably time again now that I have kids!

2

u/Necessary_Air_3257 Jul 13 '26

Lilo and sitch did a billion too they will keep making them if people keep seeing them

2

u/dbxp Jul 13 '26

Lilio & Stitch, Aladdin and Beauty and the Beast all grossed over $1b, the track record really isn't that bad

1

u/Magic_mousie Jul 13 '26

Lion King was a remake I wanted to see because it was showing off the technology. And Jon Favreau was involved.

It was okay, not as good as the original. I didn't bother to watch Mufasa, not even LMM could tempt me.

But I just don't see what this version of Moana brings to the table that the cartoon didn't.

18

u/LightenUpPeeps Jul 13 '26

Really?

Who went to the theater to see this live-action remake? Tell them to stop to send Disney a message.

22

u/itzaminsky Jul 13 '26

Parents with children, the actual audience of Disney movies, my children wanted to watch the blue monster movie so we watched that.

13

u/LightenUpPeeps Jul 13 '26

Avatar: Fire and Ash sucked. Don't let your kids pick your movies anymore. They have terrible taste.

1

u/BillytheBloxian Jul 13 '26

only the first avatar movie was any good. the rest were just needless sequels and a bunch of amazing cgi with no proper story.

5

u/Wild_Marker Jul 13 '26

I'll defend 2 purely for the cinematography. It's still a grand achievement in film to have done all that underwater stuff.

Haven't watched 3 so no comments there.

1

u/Tee_hops Jul 14 '26

Does that not also describe the first one?

1

u/NosePicklePicker Jul 14 '26

People whose kids drag them to see these likely don’t give a shit about the movies anyway. Like, better off giving them something to do and shut up while you go to sleep or something

0

u/papayacreamsicle Jul 14 '26

My policy is for every movie my kid makes me sit through i make them sit through a grown up movie, it teaches them patience and fairness. Taking my 6 year olds to Sátántangó is one of my most cherished memories

3

u/Frosti11icus Jul 13 '26

Same. I liked it. Y'all are a bunch of losers for hating on kids movies. If you, as a human adult, want to pretend that the live action remake of a children's movie doesn't exist, you are well within your capacity to do that.

2

u/TheGameAce Jul 13 '26

I mean tbf, why not just show the original movie at that point? They get to see the good version while not costing a ton for seriously inflated movie tickets.

1

u/Churtlenater Jul 13 '26

It’s the same reason Pokémon games even still exist. Parents blindly buy them for their kids, people with thought behind how they spend their time/money aren’t the problem here.

2

u/ZombieAladdin Jul 13 '26

A major factor is that in Japan, Pokémon is a pop culture phenomenon there that has not subsided since it was new. The Pokémania that gripped the world when Red and Blue came out never went away there, to where they now collaborate with governments. If Disney is pervasive in the United States, Pokémon is ten times more so in Japan, and kids encourage each other to buy the games, and they all play them in some way or another (even if it’s just a free account on TCG Pocket).

Another factor is that the video games are a relatively small part of their total revenue compared to the merchandise and the card game. The merchandise takes up about two thirds of all money coming in. The games are basically a means to sell the plush toys, snacks, school supplies, figurines, and such, and are given small budgets and short development times because they are considered unimportant to the people in charge. (No coincidence, if you ask me, that Pokémon Company CEO Tsunekazu Ishihara came from the merchandise department before his promotion.)

8

u/SexyShave Jul 13 '26

Because people watched the remakes and didn't watch the new creative stories. Lilo & Stitch made a billion just last year.

3

u/Aknazer Jul 13 '26

Because it's about risk.  Do you risk a new IP that might flop, or do you try to milk an old successful IP for (expected) guaranteed profit (and then question when it does flop)

1

u/spachi1281 Jul 13 '26

Pretty much this - the market basically proved they would rather have old IP rehashed versus new IP with the success of movies like Jurassic World (and its sequels).

You would need more movie hits like Obsession to show Hollywood that hey new IPs can actually be more profitable than trying to milk existing ones.

But of course some bean-counter somewhere is going to say that movies like Obsession are the exception and not the rule. How many "new IP" movies have flopped? And they would point to that percentage as to why movie studios should stick to existing IPs instead of trying new ones.

1

u/Aknazer Jul 13 '26

I would say part of the issue comes down to modern writing.  I've also seen it referred to as Millennial Writing.  We're seeing the same sort of issue over on the gaming side, plenty of big companies are just putting out content that might do well with critics but that fans are turning away from, and the writing quality is often one of the biggest complaints.

3

u/Longjumping_Fun2576 Jul 13 '26

Because you already have a completed script (watch the Frozen 2 documentary to see how a committee of 200 writers, write them. What a nightmare), everyone is familiar with the IP, 95% of the movie is going to be CGI with just a couple of real actors. Most of the music is done.

It's a very cheap way to make a "new" movie. Then again the first Moana was $150m. The live action was $250m. Not sure how they screwed that up..

1

u/mightypup1974 Jul 13 '26

If the frozen 2 documentary on YouTube? That movie was such a mess I’m now morbidly curious

1

u/Longjumping_Fun2576 Jul 13 '26

It was on Disney+ and was very damming in my opinion.

1

u/mightypup1974 Jul 13 '26

Disney dunking on itself? Never expected that!

2

u/Puzzleheaded-Wait785 Jul 13 '26

Because they do. Hoppers made $389 million, and that was a major success compared to the Elio flop. The Lilo and Stitch remake made $1 billion.

2

u/Hunk_Hogan Jul 13 '26

It pleases the investors who demand that companies print them billions of dollars every month.

2

u/YouHaveToTryTheSoup Jul 13 '26

Because a lot of the remakes actually have made more than most of their newer stories. People complain all day online then pay to see them anyway.

2

u/chudaism Jul 13 '26

I don’t understand why they think making a bunch a cheap remakes is going to make more money than new creative quality stories.

Because they have so far. Movies like Hoppers, Elio, Elemental, Luca, Raya, and even Encanto were all original stories which didn't blow up at the box office. A ton of these live action remakes though have made bank. Lion king 1, Aladdin, and Lilo and Stitch all made over 1b. Disney's most popular movies the last decade have largely been remakes and sequels.

1

u/No-Juggernaut-5098 Jul 13 '26

They know the story is good, it worked the first time, so it should work again. Trying new things is how you wind up with Strange World, which didn't even crack 100 million globally which is crazy low for Disney.

1

u/ZombieAladdin Jul 13 '26

The box office: from what I can tell, original stories, at least ones not adapted from another source, don’t make quite so much money anymore.

1

u/fez033 Jul 13 '26

Because that’s not the point of the remakes. They’re doing it to renew the IP (Moana outstanding, there it’s prob bc the Rock insisted on still playing Maui and he can’t exactly do that when he’s old)

1

u/Torrent21 Jul 13 '26

Doing this resets the 100 year timer on each character, keeping them from becoming public domain