Originally Posted By schnebs I think it was because of "Alice in Wonderland", Autopia Deb. Disney figured that because Burton and Depp gave 'em a surprise blockbuster in a period where there's not as much competition for screens, Stanton and "John Carter" might do the same. Oops...
Originally Posted By oc_dean Everyone knows the "Alice in Wonderland" story. But does everyone know the John Carter from Mars stories? I didn't! The first I ever heard of the comic book character ... was a column from Al Lutz a couple years ago ... about the development of the film.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb I like the Friday Night Lights kid, but he's not even in the same galaxy as Depp box office draw wise. And expecting Burton-like numbers from an animation director's first live action feature was sloppy thinking, if that was the reason behind dropping a movie in early March.
Originally Posted By oc_dean According to Box Office Mojo ... only 12 days out - 55 million domestically, 126 worldwide. By the time it's completed it's run .. at the rate it's going ... should recap it's cost. Then there's all the after markets .. such as rental, DVD/Bluray sales, pay-TV. How Disney is declaring it a loss, so early ... seems strange to me!
Originally Posted By skinnerbox The $200 write down makes sense. Given the current rate of sales at the box, JC will probably earn around $300 mil worldwide. Because of the $250 mil production costs (some insiders claim it was actually higher), Disney would need at least $500 mil minimum at the box to break even. So... if they get $300 mil, then they'll have to write down $200 mil for sure. My guess is, they'll be writing down more than that.
Originally Posted By irishfan Saw it at IMAX last week, three of us went, and we all enjoyed it. A kind of guilty pleasure I guess, silly, but lots of fun.
Originally Posted By andyll <<Saw it at IMAX last week, three of us went, and we all enjoyed it>> I keep hearing things like this. There is no doubt in my mind that Disney Marketing really screwed this one up. Really too bad because I'd like to see future John Carter movies which is unlikely now. As far as taking the huge write off... it's better to get it off the books as soon as possible so it doesn't cloud any success of 2nd & 3rd quarter movies. However... after working in the corporate world in a position to hear these types of discussions it puts incredible pressure on the soon to release movies. Sometimes companies make lousy decisions in an attemp to 'catch' up lost revenue.
Originally Posted By Autopia Deb >>>General consensus is that the BEST trailer that has yet appeared was put together by a fan of the books, using all found material that was available on line previous to the opening of the film. Even Andrew Stanton, the director, has gone on record stating that this does a much better job of presenting the film. What do you think of this: <a href="http://insidemovies.ew.com/201...trailer/<<<" target="_blank">http://insidemovies.ew.com/201...<<</a> My son had ZERO interest in the film until he saw this trailer. He'd still rather see 21 Jump Street, but he says this trailer makes the movie look like something he'd like to see now.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Thanks to Hunger Games estimated weekend opening of $155 million, John Carter is estimated to earn only $5 million for the past three days, bringing the estimated domestic total to $62 million since its opening on March 9. Even though it continues to do well overseas ($172 million so far), I still don't see this film earning more than $300 million worldwide during its theatrical run. Disney is correct in anticipating a $200 million write down for the film. Unbelievable to be so far off the mark on this one. I guess Prince of Persia didn't teach them anything about lame marketing strategies.
Originally Posted By basil fan People are certainly buying tickets to Hunger Games. Anybody know if they're liking it? My local paper gave it a terrible review.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox Hunger Games currently has an 85% favorable rating in Rotten Tomatoes. And 88% of the audience liked it, out of 72,583 ratings. Compare that to John Carter, which has a 51% favorable rating in RT, with only 70% of the audience liking it, out of 30,342 ratings.
Originally Posted By Jim in Merced CA The 'buzz' I've been hearing is very good. It's not a movie I'm going to see in theaters, but my pre-teen nieces went to the midnight showing, so I guess that may be the audience.
Originally Posted By mawnck "Pirates of the Caribbean: Princess of Mars". Fixed. Obviously people will go see **anything** with "Pirates of the Caribbean" in front of it.
Originally Posted By leemac <<I don't think all the marketing in the world could have saved this turkey.>> And that it is. What a truly awful movie. We've been told that it was $300m production costs and $150m marketing. The original movie was greenlighted at $150m by Dick Cook. The Company can only look to itself and Rich Ross for this disaster. He allowed Stanton to surround himself with an entirely Pixar senior team who have absolutely no experience with live action. At least Tom Cruise and Paramount had the good sense to surround Brad Bird with live action veterans for MI:GP. The release date was non-sensical too. Just because the Company got a $1bn+ grossing movie out of Alice with a Q2 release date doesn't mean that it is a golden release date. I really fear for Oz next March. Then there is Rich Ross' obsession with remaking the entire studio system. He forced MT Carney on the marketing group and she was solely culpable for the mess of John Carter. That and allowing Stanton to be involved in the marketing which was a mess (Led Zeppelin's Kashmir wasn't appropriate at all). He has no business running a major movie studio. I'm so worried about Brave - Mark Andrews has been given way too much control over John Carter and Brave. That and the fact that the Studio has only one other non-DreamWork live action product this year in Timothy Green in August. How on earth Iger can continue to claim that building a studio around tentpole releases is a good model is beyond me.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "That and the fact that the Studio has only one other non-DreamWork live action product this year in Timothy Green in August." << So we aren't considering "The Avengers" to be live action? -Jeff
Originally Posted By leemac ^^ I just don't class it as WDP as it was funded by Paramount. Disney paid a whopping $115m for the theatrical rights to The Avengers and Iron Man 3. That is a heck of a minimum guarantee. It does plug a large hole in the release schedule though. The issue is that after The Avengers there is only Brace, Timothy Green and Wreckit Ralph on the horizon. That is a pretty weak slate.
