"John Carter of Mars" Moving Ahead!

[Bob The Skutter]

Far from a failure, it made $100 million! $70 million indeed. Remember when movies made that much in an entire run?

That was also when they didn't cost §250 mil. to make. (+marketing)

Also that was a time when they didnt make as much money from cable, DVD-bluray, overseas markets and so on to justify such costs. Let's put it into perspective, it made $100 million in a WEEK.

RAMA

Which likely means it will make less than $50m next, and £20 after that, falling somewhat short of the $500m it needs to break even. Though you're right, with all the other rights in there it will never ever be a financial failure.

 

[Mach5]

falling somewhat short of the $500m it needs to break even.

It would need a lot more than that, considering how small the studio's cut from overseas sales is.

Luckily, it doesn't really have to, since home video and TV are where the money is.

 

[BillJ]

Far from a failure, it made $100 million! $70 million indeed. Remember when movies made that much in an entire run?

That was also when they didn't cost §250 mil. to make. (+marketing)

Also that was a time when they didnt make as much money from cable, DVD-bluray, overseas markets and so on to justify such costs. Let's put it into perspective, it made $100 million in a WEEK.

RAMA

Just going to depend on what type of "legs" it has as to whether or not it'll be profitable.

 

[davejames]

Even if the movie hangs around and eventually makes back it's budget, the studio can already see that there just isn't enough interest or excitement out there to justify another one.

Green Lantern and SR both eventually made back THEIR money, but by then it was already too late.

 

[Warped9]

I don't know. I was wrapped up enough in the movie that I never once thought, "I've already seen this in XXXX".

Agreed, At no point did I fell this was ripping off or copying anyone else. Indeed at no point did I think it felt anything like Star Wars. If anything I liked it better than any of the Star Wars films..

 

[BillJ]

Even if the movie hangs around and eventually makes back it's budget, the studio can already see that there just isn't enough interest or excitement out there to justify another one.

Green Lantern and SR both eventually made back THEIR money, but by then it was already too late.

If this movie ends up making $500 million at the box office worldwide (a big 'if'), there will be a sequel. I just imagine that Andrew Stanton will not be a part of the project.

 

[Mach5]

If anything I liked it better than any of the Star Wars films..

ANY of the Star Wars films?

Or did you mean just the prequels?

 

[Captain Craig]

Remember when movies made that much in an entire run?

Yeah, but production and marketing budgets were much lower back then, too.

And ticket prices.

While we reminisce lets not also forget that a movies run at a theater could be 6mo to a year depending on it's success. Hollywood didn't have a "blockbuster" calendar for an entire calendar year. It's "official summer season" didn't start till Memorial Day etc, etc. so a film had more time to make back it's money.

Now, if a movie of this magnitude doesn't make back most or all of it's production in budget 2-3 weeks it's not going to last more than 75-90 days in the top dollar theater. Only the big boys get 100 days or more and those are summer films. Avengers, Batman, Spiderman will get 100 days and since Lorax broke out it may as well. That's rare for late winter films though.

 

[Warped9]

If anything I liked it better than any of the Star Wars films..

ANY of the Star Wars films?

Or did you mean just the prequels?

I was never a big fan of the Star Wars films. Granted I think the original trilogy is better than the more recent trilogy, but I was just never into SW. At best I liked some of the hardware but the universe and the characters just didn't do it for me or at least not enough. A lot of it struck me as something more for kids and adolescents than adults.

 

[stj]

Some of the press I've seen says that the movie cost $350 million, requiring twice that to "break even." Given creative accounting, it is hard to say what the real costs are. Whatever there may be in merchandising, DVD sales, broadcast rights, and a property that will be in the vaults, we can safely say that it is quite certain that John Carter will not lose money. The thing is, businessmen are insanely greedy and want to make their costs back on the domestic run, right now, because then their profits will be obscenely huge.

My reading of the press on this is that there is a semiorganized attempt to label this a bomb. It's not a very strong story but the FX are fantastic and, let's face it, most people in the US are not a bit bothered by the Mighty Whitey trope. (Especially not the people who claimed to be offended by Avatar, I suspect.) Every indication is that the movie is going to be more popular than the business press (and the supposed reviewers, if you can call someone who trims opinions to suit the script a reviewer) wants to imagine. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't an extremely strong hold for next week.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I've read anything from $250-$350 for the budget. I'm guessing it is closer to the lower number, because the press tends to exaggerate costs of high profile movies (especially if they 'flop'). 'Avatar's cost was exaggerated quite a bit before the premiere as well.

But only Disney knows.

It certainly won't be a complete disaster, it already is pulling a decent amount overseas. But it will be a looong struggle for it to break even.

 

[nightwind1]

I don't know. I was wrapped up enough in the movie that I never once thought, "I've already seen this in XXXX".

Agreed, At no point did I fell this was ripping off or copying anyone else. Indeed at no point did I think it felt anything like Star Wars. If anything I liked it better than any of the Star Wars films..

Well, I liked it better than the prequels.

 

[Kelso]

I didn't like John Carter more than the original Star Wars trilogy... but it wasn't around when I was 7.

 

[Warped9]

I didn't like John Carter more than the original Star Wars trilogy... but it wasn't around when I was 7.

See, thats the thing. When Star Wars first came out I was 18 and it just didn't grab me. And I'm someone who likes space adventure. But SW just didn't grab me. The Empire Strikes Back was a better film than the first and yet I wasn't enthralled with that either. The third film wasn't a good enough followup to the second in my view. But the original trilogy is better than the sequels.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't an extremely strong hold for next week.

It might be the #3 movie next week, after 21 Jump Street and the Lorax (though maybe not in that order). And the week after that Hunger Games opens... John Carter will need to REALLY hold...

 

[Kelso]

I didn't like John Carter more than the original Star Wars trilogy... but it wasn't around when I was 7.

See, thats the thing. When Star Wars first came out I was 18 and it just didn't grab me. And I'm someone who likes space adventure. But SW just didn't grab me.

Oh, I can believe that. I love it, but I grew up playing Star Wars wars in the backyard. Of course, my brother always made me be Chewbacca- which meant that I didn't get the lightsaber and wasn't allowed to speak. He would 'translate' what I was saying for the amusement of the neighborhood kids. Even so, that sort of thing endears one to a property in a way that seeing it as an adult tends not to.

I have similar fond memories of watching Star Trek with cardboard Spock ears taped to my head, but that was completely voluntary. Those were the days....

 

[Samurai8472]

http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

Interesting article claiming the movie was doomed ever since the first trailer hit.

 

[Hyperspace05]

I don't agree completely with that article - the first teaser wasn't that bad. I liked the style.

The full trailer was bad, though. I never noticed that the trailer really explains nothing about what is going on.

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I have a question that I don't want to read through the thread to get an answer for..

Is the 3D version made for 3D like Avatar or cut and pasted into 3D like The Phantom Menace, after being made as 2D? I am completely sick of 3D plus it is a pain to wear glasses over glasses and I want to go see this in 2D but if there is a really good reason to see it in 3D I will do so.

I read the book so many times in high school, I am really looking forward to it.

 

[Daneel]

^
John Carter was filmed in 2D. The 3D version is a post-production conversion.