John Carter

Tools    





28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Pulling in $30 million is pretty good, except when your film cost around $250 million and it's Disney and it's suppose to be the big huge blockbuster.

It didn't beat last weeks #1, The Lorax, which took in another $39 million.

The best chance the film has is overseas.

People expected it to do moderate at best in NA, with the terrible marketing Disney gave it, I'm surprised it managed $30 million.
__________________
"A laugh can be a very powerful thing. Why, sometimes in life, it's the only weapon we have."

Suspect's Reviews



John Carter loses Disney £126 million
A statement from Disney has confirmed that sci-fi flick 'John Carter' has become one of the biggest flops in movie history. It will lose the company $200 million (£126 million).

Speaking to its shareholders, Disney gravely announced the hit that its studio division would take as a result of their gamble on Pixar director Andrew Stanton's live action debut.

They said: "In light of the theatrical performance of 'John Carter' ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter."

The film was dogged by concerns over marketing, which failed to sell the story to its target audience thanks to a nondescript name, confusing trailer and lack of big name stars.

The story of a 19th century American war veteran transported into the middle of a grand-scale conflict on Mars, which was based on the seminal sci-fi novels of 'Tarzan' author Edgar Rice Burroughs, was given a lukewarm reception by critics and audiences.

Disney still have a chance to make back some cash this summer though, with Pixar animation 'Brave' and comic book flick 'Marvel's Avengers Assemble' still to come.
http://uk.movies.yahoo.com/john-cart...0-million.html



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
From the trailer ive seen this film looks great, I am surprised it hasnt done that well.
__________________
~In the event of a Zombie Uprising, remember to sever the head or destroy the brain!~



\m/ Fade To Black \m/
Im going to buy it when its in the cheaper end of the price range like I always do, its very rare that I buy a dvd when its first released tbh.



The film is great, a really top notch fantasy/sci-fi - one of the best I have ever seen. I went to the theater twice, once in 3D and once in 2D, to watch it.

So far it has earned $183 million. By the time it leaves the theater it will be close to paying for itself - and by this time next year it should be showing a profit (from DVD sales).

I think the film was very poorly advertised. In fact, Disney announcing an expected loss while the film is still in the theaters was truly a moronic move.
__________________
Have you ever held a lion in your arms? I have. He smelled funky.



Except Disney already predicted a $200 million dollar loss on the film. I can't imagine they're too far off on that. You have to remember that for big budget films like this it cost just as much to advertise as it does to make the film. So far it hasn't even made it's budget, much less the advertising costs. The film would have to do over $500 million before it's profitable. It will not make money in the theater, and it may not make money for years, if at all.
__________________



I know I've mentioned this to a few of you, but I'll post it here for anyone who wants to check it out.

This is Mark Kermode's review and chat with Simon Mayo about John Carter. Skip to about 1 hour 3 minute mark if you just want to pick it up from the JC section of the podcast.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series...l#playepisode3

I find that, whether I agree with him or not, it's just entertaining.



I saw the trailer and I thought it was really good. However when I came to watching it wasn't that great at all! I am just waiting to watch the Wrath of the Titans!



ivo
Movie Forums Extra
I will rate this movie 6/10.I expected more.



Except Disney already predicted a $200 million dollar loss on the film. I can't imagine they're too far off on that. You have to remember that for big budget films like this it cost just as much to advertise as it does to make the film. So far it hasn't even made it's budget, much less the advertising costs. The film would have to do over $500 million before it's profitable. It will not make money in the theater, and it may not make money for years, if at all.
As of today its at $234.5 million. Should clear $250 million before leaving the theaters. Divide that in two (profit sharing between Disney and theaters) and that leaves it about $125 million in the hole. I can't imagine Disney spent more than $100 million in advertising - the advertising for this film was aweful. Still, that leaves it $200+ million in the red. So, yeah, I guess that comes to a whole lot of DVDs and Bluerays they need to sell. I'll be buying mine.

Maybe they could re-release it in 3D! Oh, wait...



28 days...6 hours...42 minutes...12 seconds
Just because the advertising was awful doesn't mean it wasn't expensive. I saw ads everywhere, so it was a big marketing push for it. They HAD to with the amount of money they poured into it already. The problem was they didn't know how to market it.



The problem was they didn't know how to market it.
I don't know if that's right. The problem was that they didn't want to market it as sci-fi, hence dropping the "From Mars" from the title, despite it still having an "M" in the logo at the end of the film (apparently). So they spent $250m+ (some rumours have it touching $300m) on a film they wanted to sell, but not make.

An interesting and revealing article about the whole debacle.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-...t-trailer.html



The Vulture article is interesting, but seems to go about blaming Stanton as a deliberate tactic. It's blame game time, and I think the bottom line is Disney never should have offered up so much money for a property that wasn't likely to make that amount back.

The best marketing in the world wasnt going to secure this as the hit necessary to make that kind of money back.

It's unfortunate because I quite enjoyed the movie, It's a bit of a mess for sure, but it's worth seeing.



... I think the bottom line is Disney never should have offered up so much money for a property that wasn't likely to make that amount back.
I think you're right. However...

The best marketing in the world wasnt going to secure this as the hit necessary to make that kind of money back.
Whilst I'd like this to be the case, I'm not convinced. Have you seen the **** they manage to sell?



Greeting everyone. This is my first posting. I must say that I'm quite bothered by the fallout over John Carter. Seams everyone around the world is scrambling to understand, and lay what convenient blame they can, on its failure. My confusion and frustration on the matter comes from the fact that I thought it was an excellent movie all around. Yes, it could have benefitted from following the source material closer, but the truth is not many movies survive the transition from written to visual medium.
Normally I can point to any movie's bombing and say that it is a direct result of a lack of marketing. However, Disney dumped millions into the marketing of John Carter. So, what then? I think the answer is the type of marketing.
Ask anyone who is a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs, at the time of their publication, the John Carter series was just as popular as Tarzan, perhaps even a bit more. Tarzan, though, gained more notoriety due to the advent of motion pictures. Who can argue with nearly 170 different actors playing the same literary character? Besides the recent endeavor, no actor had ever portrayed John Carter. So...unless someone had actually read the books, how could they know anything about the character?
Hollywood at large seams to think that if they throw millions of dollars into creating trailer leading up to the release of a film, that's all the marketing needed. Unfortunately, nothing could be further from the truth, and in the case of John Carter, at the risk of being cliche, the proof is in the pudding. Disney should have bankrolled a series of three, possibly four, hour long progressive specials on the history of John Carter, and re-introduced him to the public.
Trailers are good, they serve a purpose, and ordinarily an excellent marketing tool. Honestly, other than whatever movie I've gone to the theaters to see, they're half the reason I go to the movies in the first place. The point is, some material need more. Another prime example, in my opinion, that could have benefitted from more than trailers: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
So tell me what you think.



"A Princess of Mars" is my favorite book, so I am still looking forward to seeing this movie. Unfortunately, the local cinemas ran a total of 4 showing per day from the day it was released - 3:30 and 10:00pm, in 2D or 3D. Period. (Add to that the fact that we were in the middle of an exercise during the run, so I was working 7 days a week, and there wasn't much opportunity to go to the theater.) Compare that to the 12-16 showings per day (in 2D, 3D and IMAX) at the same theaters for The Avengers, and it's no wonder John Carter lost money.

I'd still like to know where the marketing budget went for this movie. I see someone said they saw ads everywhere. The only ad I saw was during the Super Bowl, and it sucked. No advertising in the theater. No John Carter candy wrappers. No John Carter merchandise in Wal-Mart or Target. Only a couple of tie-in comic books that even comic shops were barely aware of. The unauthorized comics (the novel is public domain, after all) sold more that the official ones.

I know opinions vary, and I have not seen the film yet, but from everything I've heard, this is - at least - a pretty good film that was really done in by poor marketing and a studio that wanted to be rid of it before it was even released.
__________________
"I made mistakes in drama. I thought drama was when actors cried. But drama is when the audience cries." - Frank Capra
Family DVD Collection | My Top 100 | My Movie Thoughts | Frank Capra



Haven't read any of the books, though I'd like to. I'm willing to bet they're much better than the movie was. I really didn't like it, at all. Instead of going down the campy road, which would've made it significantly better, they took it too seriously despite the material's potential for a very entertaining b-movie sci-fi action flick.



Movie Forums Extra
I almost feel like these huge budgets are bad ideas in today's industry. A few million is enough to make an awesome movie..



I'm sure this'll be a pointless respones, but I'll do it anyway 'cos I'm in the mood. They're not looking to make an awesome film, they're looking to make hundreds of millions of dollars. If it's also a great film, well that's a nice bonus.
__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.