"John Carter of Mars" Moving Ahead!

[Harvey]

If I understand things somewhat correctly, it did pretty good business, especially overseas, but it wasn't enough because of the overinflated budget. If it continues to do well in Drive-Ins, dollar theaters, DVD and cable, I don't see why they wouldn't produce a more reasonably budgeted sequel. Studios love franchises.

Studios abandon intended franchises all the time. As for the film's "pretty good business," it did horribly domestically (the film won't even reach $75 million by the end of its run) and was, at best, unimpressive outside of the United States (between $188 and $210 million).

Also, ask yourself when a franchise sequel cost less than its predecessor and you'll have a pretty good idea why John Carter (which had a colossal production budget reportedly between $250 and $300 million; this doesn't account for prints and advertising) won't be getting a sequel.

 

[RAMA]

I know what it's production budget was, but I still refuse to believe a movie that made $275 million is a "failure". I haven't seen it yet though of course..

RAMA

 

[Harvey]

(1) $275 million indicates total grosses, not revenue. Exhibitors get a significant cut of that and if anyone involved has points on the gross, then Disney will be receiving even less from the box office.

(2) In the blockbuster economy of Hollywood, $275 million can, sadly, mean failure. In this case, it certainly does (see: Walt Disney Chairman being fired over the movie).

 

[Professor Zoom]

I know what it's production budget was, but I still refuse to believe a movie that made $275 million is a "failure". I haven't seen it yet though of course..

RAMA

It doesn't matter what you believe. The facts are it was a failure. It won't be getting a sequel. At least, not paid for by Disney.

 

[RAMA]

(1) $275 million indicates total grosses, not revenue. Exhibitors get a significant cut of that and if anyone involved has points on the gross, then Disney will be receiving even less from the box office.

(2) In the blockbuster economy of Hollywood, $275 million can, sadly, mean failure. In this case, it certainly does (see: Walt Disney Chairman being fired over the movie).

In a strictly business sense yes, but $275 million is a serious chunk of change, and lots of people have seen it, by most older measures it would have been a hit. The Superman movie from a few years ago was said to be a failure, but between its $400 million gross, it covered its $270 million cost, and also made money on DVD. So you could say, bad for the studios, but good for fans who liked them...or were able to see them.

So I'll go on to add my new category of box office in today's blockbuster Hollywood economy: "movies that don't justify cost, but actually grossed a lot of money!"

 

[Gaith]

Well, judging by this blu-ray cover art, Disney is actively trying not to make one more cent off the feature!

​

 

[RAMA]

Ugh that's an awful cover!

 

[Warped9]

Well, judging by this blu-ray cover art, Disney is actively trying not to make one more cent off the feature!

​

This is an example of crass stupidity. Here's a chance to recoup some of their investment and yet they're going out of their way to try to make it tank.

What is fucking wrong with these idiots???

I really hope the film becomes some sort of cult success that over the years totally embraces these assholes.

 

[Harvey]

That's the way Hollywood economics work. Movies that don't do well in early revenue windows have less money spent on them in later windows (such as home video). Of course, that becomes a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy, but that's the way it goes.

 

[RAMA]

http://www.covershut.com/covers/John-Carter-2012-Front-Cover-64962.jpg

This one for DVD is better!

 

[Warped9]

http://www.covershut.com/covers/John-Carter-2012-Front-Cover-64962.jpg

This one for DVD is better!

Yep, thats a lot better.

 

[AvBaur]

I do feel bad for Taylor Kitsch. First he's cast in two of the biggest sci-fi action movies of the year and then they both turn out to be among the worst flops of all time.

Now if Savages tanks, too, that guy's career is over.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Well, judging by this blu-ray cover art, Disney is actively trying not to make one more cent off the feature!

​

Jesus, just ADD the "Of Mars" already...

 

[Psion]

Alright, alright! Some unpaid intern worked really hard on that cover. Try showing some respect for her feelings.

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Well, judging by this blu-ray cover art, Disney is actively trying not to make one more cent off the feature!

​

Jesus, just ADD the "Of Mars" already...

Mentally, I fill in the title with "thinks WTF".

 

[Professor Zoom]

Mentally, I fill in the title with "thinks WTF".

 

[JD]

http://www.covershut.com/covers/John-Carter-2012-Front-Cover-64962.jpg

This one for DVD is better!

Yep, thats a lot better.

Yeah, if I do decide to eventually buy it, it'll definitely be that version. That other one is atrocious. If I do buy it, I'm tempted to write 'of Mars" under the title in permanent marker.

 

[RJDiogenes]

So I'll go on to add my new category of box office in today's blockbuster Hollywood economy: "movies that don't justify cost, but actually grossed a lot of money!"

Exactly. It brought in a lot of money, but was a failure because of the overinflated budget. There's no reason a movie has to cost a quarter of a billion dollars. A reasonably priced (and well-marketed) sequel would be successful-- and generate more interest in the original as well.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

So I'll go on to add my new category of box office in today's blockbuster Hollywood economy: "movies that don't justify cost, but actually grossed a lot of money!"

Exactly. It brought in a lot of money, but was a failure because of the overinflated budget. There's no reason a movie has to cost a quarter of a billion dollars. A reasonably priced (and well-marketed) sequel would be successful-- and generate more interest in the original as well.

Quarter of a billion dollars is now what blockbusters cost. It's stupid but it seems $200m or more is standard. So it's not really over-inflated by the current standards, just more than the movie could support.

 

[RJDiogenes]

Unfortunately, the lesson they will learn is not that budgets in general are overinflated (although apparently they did cut the budget on Lone Ranger)-- the lesson they will learn is that people don't like John Carter.