Disney's JOHN CARTER - Page 2

Base_Delta_Zero · March 18 2012, 05:30 PM

Great film. Very fun, especially the scenes that were done better than they were in the SW prequels. It felt more Star Wars than that trash. Hope they make sequels. Now I have to go read the books.

Bob The Skutter · March 20 2012, 10:46 AM

BBC News

Walt Disney has said it expects to lose $200m (£126m) on its movie John Carter, making it one of the biggest flops in cinema history.
The film, about a military captain transported to Mars, could result in an $80-120m loss for Disney's movie business during the current quarter.
Disney shares fell 1% in after hours trading after the announcement.

Also says they're likely to make a profit with TV rights and so on but must be a blow to Disney for it to have made them a total loss on their movies this quarter.

Deckerd · March 20 2012, 10:51 AM

D'you think that might be partly because it was so derivative?

Bob The Skutter · March 20 2012, 11:05 AM

Deckerd wrote:

D'you think that might be partly because it was so derivative?

No, it was because it was badly marketed. Everyone would have loved it if they'd just marketed well and people would have gone to see it...

Gov Kodos · March 20 2012, 11:20 AM

Bob the Skutter wrote:

Deckerd wrote:

D'you think that might be partly because it was so derivative?

No, it was because it was badly marketed. Everyone would have loved it if they'd just marketed well and people would have gone to see it...

It might have done better, but the budget should have been reined in long before it ever got to be a marketers problem to sell the film.

Deckerd · March 20 2012, 11:29 AM

Why go to all that effort and expense and be left with a product which a substantial number of people who saw it didn't realise it wasn't on Earth?

Gov Kodos · March 20 2012, 11:37 AM

You're gonna have to ask the director that. I wish Helium had looked more alien than steampunk, for instance.

Deckerd · March 20 2012, 11:42 AM

I think marketing are more guilty here than the director. Whoever decided to remove 'of Mars' from the title probably cost Disney $100m or so.

Mr Light · March 20 2012, 11:50 AM

But every Mars movie has bombed

"Mars Needs Moms", Disney's Mars movie last year, is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Ghosts of Mars... Red Planet... that other one from around 2000...

Deckerd · March 20 2012, 11:54 AM

Mars Attacks?

Mr Light · March 20 2012, 12:26 PM

Mars Attacks, international gross 101 million, budget 100 million, that's a flop. (I like the movie though!)

Mars Needs Mom, int gross 39 mil, budget 150 mil.

Ghosts of Mars, int gross 14 mil, budget 28 mil.

Red Planet, int gross 33 mil, budget 80 mil.

Mission to Mars, int gross 111 mil, budget 100 mil.

Gov Kodos · March 20 2012, 12:27 PM

I'd say the blame of those films was in being bad films not the title. A different name would have smelt as bad.

Asbo Zaprudder · March 20 2012, 02:01 PM

Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) was a fairly decent film despite the cheesy title and cost £1.2M to make - does anyone know if it turned a profit?

propita · March 20 2012, 03:49 PM

It was being called a flop before it was even released, yet many here seem to have enjoyed it. Maybe if the film had received some studio support, it wouldn’t be such a flop.

The politics inside a studio are self-defeating at the studio level, but I suppose they help those individuals involved.

Bob The Skutter · March 20 2012, 03:53 PM

That's not it at all. The trouble here is it's even a niche within a niche. Only certain Sci-Fi fans seem to be enjoying it. I don't know anyone who's seen it and enjoyed it, other than those on this board. Which is fine if it's a small budget, but £250m isn't small.

March 18 2012, 05:30 PM	#16
Base_Delta_Zero Commodore Location: Maine	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER Great film. Very fun, especially the scenes that were done better than they were in the SW prequels. It felt more Star Wars than that trash. Hope they make sequels. Now I have to go read the books.

March 20 2012, 10:51 AM	#18
Deckerd Fleet Arse Location: in the Frozen Wastes	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER D'you think that might be partly because it was so derivative? __________________ They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

March 20 2012, 11:29 AM	#21
Deckerd Fleet Arse Location: in the Frozen Wastes	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER Why go to all that effort and expense and be left with a product which a substantial number of people who saw it didn't realise it wasn't on Earth? __________________ They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

March 20 2012, 11:37 AM	#22
Gov Kodos Vice Admiral Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER You're gonna have to ask the director that. I wish Helium had looked more alien than steampunk, for instance. __________________ “Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” Rumi

March 20 2012, 11:42 AM	#23
Deckerd Fleet Arse Location: in the Frozen Wastes	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER I think marketing are more guilty here than the director. Whoever decided to remove 'of Mars' from the title probably cost Disney $100m or so. __________________ They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

STAR TREK

CSI

ABOUT US

March 20 2012, 11:50 AM	#24
Mr Light Admiral Location: Pennsylvania	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER But every Mars movie has bombed "Mars Needs Moms", Disney's Mars movie last year, is one of the biggest box office bombs of all time. Ghosts of Mars... Red Planet... that other one from around 2000... __________________

March 20 2012, 11:54 AM	#25
Deckerd Fleet Arse Location: in the Frozen Wastes	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER Mars Attacks? __________________ They couldn't hit an elephant at this distance.

March 20 2012, 12:26 PM	#26
Mr Light Admiral Location: Pennsylvania	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER Mars Attacks, international gross 101 million, budget 100 million, that's a flop. (I like the movie though!) Mars Needs Mom, int gross 39 mil, budget 150 mil. Ghosts of Mars, int gross 14 mil, budget 28 mil. Red Planet, int gross 33 mil, budget 80 mil. Mission to Mars, int gross 111 mil, budget 100 mil. __________________

March 20 2012, 12:27 PM	#27
Gov Kodos Vice Admiral Location: Gov Kodos Regretably far from Boston	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER I'd say the blame of those films was in being bad films not the title. A different name would have smelt as bad. __________________ “Your task is not to seek for love, but merely to seek and find all the barriers within yourself that you have built against it.” Rumi

March 20 2012, 02:01 PM	#28
Asbo Zaprudder Rear Admiral Location: Chairman of the bored	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER Robinson Crusoe on Mars (1964) was a fairly decent film despite the cheesy title and cost £1.2M to make - does anyone know if it turned a profit? __________________ "It is a lonely life, the way of the necromancer... oh, yes. Lacrimae Mundi - the tears of the world."

March 20 2012, 03:49 PM	#29
propita Rear Admiral Location: fresno, ca, us	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER It was being called a flop before it was even released, yet many here seem to have enjoyed it. Maybe if the film had received some studio support, it wouldn’t be such a flop. The politics inside a studio are self-defeating at the studio level, but I suppose they help those individuals involved.

March 20 2012, 03:53 PM	#30
Bob The Skutter Admiral Location: Bob The Skutter	Re: Disney's JOHN CARTER That's not it at all. The trouble here is it's even a niche within a niche. Only certain Sci-Fi fans seem to be enjoying it. I don't know anyone who's seen it and enjoyed it, other than those on this board. Which is fine if it's a small budget, but £250m isn't small. __________________ It's all right, children. Life is made up of meetings and partings. That is the way of it. I am sure that we shall never forget Tiny Tim, or this first parting that there was among us.