Originally Posted By AutoPost This topic is for Discussion of <a href="http://www.LaughingPlace.com/Latest-ID-76839.asp" target="_blank"><b>Latest: THR: Why Disney's 'Mars Needs Moms' Bombed</b></a> <p>Disney's "Mars Needs Moms" opened to an abysmal $2.1 million dollars. <i>The Hollywood Reporter</i> offers a variety of possible reasons the film failed to connect with moviegoers.</p>
Originally Posted By FerretAfros >>Disney knew there was a problem more than a year ago when screening an early cut of the film. It's no coincidence that the studio, under the new leadership of Rich Ross, decided to part ways with ImageMovers shortly after the screening. But it was too late to shelve Mars without eating significant costs.<< At what point should they just call it a loss and move on? I'm sure that they would have lost a lot of money on it if they had dropped it at the time, but it seems like they've lost a lot more by pushing forward with production. Just a strange film. >>Mars skewed slightly female.<< Interesting. The ads all seemed to be aiming directly for the male audience, though just not well. There were a lot of bodily-function jokes and the lead characters all seemed to be male, yet for some reason the dudes stayed away. Does this mean that boys really are smarter than girls? : ) >>Disney had been enjoying a sustained winning streak at the box office, which helps to cushion the blow of Mars. The two top 2010 releases at the worldwide box office both belonged to Disney; Toy Story ($1.06 billion) and Alice in Wonderland ($1.02 billion)...Tangled also has been an overachiever, grossing $551.5 globally, making it the No. 8 2010 release.<< Funny that they don't mention Tron. While not a failure, I'm also not sure if it would qualify for the 'winning streak', even though it is Disney's most recent release.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>The reason it bombed? It's not very good.<< That's NEVER the reason a movie bombs. If it were, Alvin and the Chipmunks The Squeakuel would have never been made, let alone brought in 10 bazillion dollars. It bombed because either people weren't aware of it, and/or the people who were aware of it didn't think they'd like it, and/or there was something else that they would rather see (like, say, Rango). The quality of the movie itself only comes into play after people have actually seen it - repeat viewings word-of-mouth recommendations, etc. And this past weekend, they hadn't seen it. Come to think of it, with those numbers, nobody will have seen it this weekend either.
Originally Posted By Manfried It bombed because its not very good. I, unfortunately, paid money to see it. I can safely say its not very good.
Originally Posted By mawnck I did too, and can confirm that it's not very good. Those of you who didn't see it, keep up the good work. But that's beside the point. You're talking about people who didn't see it, and neither you or I are in that category. Besides, Gnomeo and Juliet wasn't much better, and it was the #1 movie for a week or two in there. The promotion, the reviews, the trailer, the posters, the title, and past experience with similar movies ... all of this stuff goes into someone's choice on whether to see a movie or not. The movie itself does not. They. Have. Not. Seen. It.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip After viewing the trailers I had absolutely no interest in seeing it. Among other things, I don't like the image capture technology. It leaves everyone looking like the undead.
Originally Posted By John3K (((>>The reason it bombed? It's not very good.<< That's NEVER the reason a movie bombs. If it were, Alvin and the Chipmunks The Squeakuel would have never been made, let alone brought in 10 bazillion dollars.)) Not to mention "Avatar."
Originally Posted By Longhorn12 >The movie itself does not. They. Have. Not. Seen. It.< That's really stupid logic. You just said that the reviews alter peoples opinions on going. Or do reviewers now just randomly type words, and no longer view said movies?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I'm partly with you, mawnck, but reviews are an important factor. Lots of people read reviews when deciding what to go see. And now with online sites like Rotten Tomatoes, which let you see a whole bunch of reviews at once, it's even easier. The reviews for Alvin were mostly " pretty bad, but will amuse the kids, " which was enough to make parents bite the bullet and go. The reviews for Mars were just abysmal. And did I mention that mo cap looks cold?
Originally Posted By calgrl2490 This movie looked horrible (based on the trailers). My impression from the trailers was that the storyline would be really uninteresting. Mars needing moms? Really? Ehhhhh I just don't see how that's appealing. But I also agree with the person who thought this was marketet for guys. I'm 21 and a girl who really didn't find anything for me in the trailers. And I know if I was a kid there is no way I would have seen this because A) no princesses and B) no cute characters like Toy Story or something. I love how Disney doesn't want to do princess movies anymore but they want to crank this ish out.
