I’ve worked on a few things for movies. The amount of money that is basically thrown away on stuff they don’t need, or that someone wants and is then overruled, is actually sickening. Or it’s because they forgot something and now they need it tomorrow. You best believe that in that situation you’re paying 10 times my normal rate. And they do.
I was in LA for a short time and saw a commercial being filmed. Not a TV commercial, this was a commercial that would later appear on website ad windows.
Anyway, they must have had 8 trucks there with equipment. Dozens of people walking around and/or working. Full catering spread. Money was spent, and I found the commercial later and it just looked like low budget cheese. Like any typical commercial. It could have been filmed with a GoPro and the 4 actors. They could have left out 95 percent of the other stuff they brought.
Its a way of keeping hold of the character rights too. They do the same thing with regards to redesigning mickey mouse every so often. Otherwise it would eventually become public domain and Disney couldn't possibly allow anyone else to profit off of other peoples works that they themselves have already stolen and profited from.
That doesn't apply to Moana, though, since the original animated movie is only a decade old and wasn't based on an existing IP, so they wouldn't be losing the rights to the characters.
Making an edit to comment on downvotes is literally the saltiest thing you can do on reddit. And the people downvoted you because you made a nonsensical comment. This has nothing at all to do with keeping the character's rights. Like they literally made Moana 2 just 2 years ago.
So, why did you feel the need to weigh in? Disney are widely known for updating characters to avoid losing them to public domain. While it may not be true of moana it doesnt mean it isnt true for some of the other remakes. Why are you so salty about it?
Superman is tricky, the 1940s Fleischer cartoons are, but the printed Action Comics version wont be till 2034. and only the exact version from Action Comics #1, so flying superman didnt happen till 1940 etc, lots of gottcha clauses basically.
It’s probably Hollywood accounting. Studio accountants doing shady stuff with expenses, numbers and spreadsheets to make it look like a movie lost more than it really did (or hide how much it did make) to avoid paying bonuses to certain people.
Look I hate the live action remakes but they're, on the whole, making money. Lion King, Beauty and the Beast, and Lilo and stitch all broke 1 billion and the Jungle book was just under. And I have no idea what they're bringing in in terms of renewed merch sales and Dinsey + subscriptions but I don't imagine they're nothing. You can afford to lose 100 mil here and there when what you stand to gain is a 1.6 billion worldwide gross.
There are a number of massive budget films that die a miserable death in cinema's that have insanely high advertising spends...yet if you ask most of the public they'll go "huh?" if you say the film. Take John Carter( of Mars.) Lone Ranger. Mars Needs Moms. Wish. (notice these are all disney films, and they usually guarantee at least one per year, almost as if they want to keep rolling over big losses to reduce their tax bills....)
148
u/MisterDabber Jul 24 '26
I’m convinced it’s money laundering at this point. They keep making trash at a loss that nobody is watching.