John Carter

[MattKeil]

Box Office Mojo has the global take for John Carter at $180m so far but Disney announced today that they expect to take a $200m loss on the project when all is said and done. So either they spent more then the rumored $250m making it or they spent way too much marketing it.

Making it the biggest box office bomb of all time. Even adjusted for inflation, the previous record holder, Cutthroat Island, only lost $150 million.

[Arakis99]

Took the kids this weekend. My fairly bright 11 year old said 'It was good, but the story was confusing'. I read all the books, so it was tough for me to separate the movie from the books.

I saw JC and was entertained, mostly out of nostalgia. I can see how the story was a little confusing to an 11 year old.

The Therns were completely changed from the book series and the jumping was grossly exaggerated and a little silly, even for a fantasy book that takes place on a populated Mars.

If the script writers wanted to flesh out the largely unanswered questions on how Carter gets to Mars, they could have at least made it a bit more straight forward. This is a synopsis of ERBs plot in the books "While attempting to

Spoiler: minor movie spoiler

evade pursuit by hiding in a sacred cave

, he(JC) is mysteriously transported to Mars". That was about it in the books.

[spiffy]

Yeah, the Therns were really unfortunate, in my opinion. I much preferred them in the books as normal people, using tradition and religion to bring about their more humanly goals of power and sacrifice (if I remember correctly).

Spoiler: plot stuff

In the movie, their magical-techno powers fell deep into cheeseball Star Trek territory. I never wanted to see shape-changing or teleportation in a movie again, even before John Carter. And their pseudo science laser beams and flying boots only serve to undermine the technology of Barsoom that, while futuristic in some ways, seem to operate under more limited and believable rules.

I'm also not sure why the Thern decided to send John Carter back to earth near the end and then tail him for twenty years, when he could have just stabbed him in the gut and got on with his plans.

All in all, the Therns seemed like a poor stab at trying to find a unifying 'bad guy' and reason for planet-hopping, but it would have been a better story without them.

[charmtrap]

Making it the biggest box office bomb of all time. Even adjusted for inflation, the previous record holder, Cutthroat Island, only lost $150 million.

The LA Times quotes analysts that say Disney will need to gross $600m (worldwide) to break even. I can't imagine how they thought they were gonna sell that many tickets with a character no-one's ever heard of.

[Hugin]

The LA Times quotes analysts that say Disney will need to gross $600m (worldwide) to break even. I can't imagine how they thought they were gonna sell that many tickets with a character no-one's ever heard of.

Well, to be fair, Avatar doesn't have any characters anyone has heard of going into it or even any super high end stars. If you can put yourself into a mind state where you go "We're going to make an epic, state of the art CG sci fi fantasy action movie set in a lush totally alien environment with a ton of CGI "actors" a la' Avatar", it makes a weird kind of sense. I mean it's still crazy, but you can see the movie they were trying to make, why they spent the money on it, and the results they were trying to achieve.

They were just really wrong.

[Razgon]

Avatar did have quite another USP though than John Carter.

[Hugin]

Avatar did have quite another USP though than John Carter.

Which was?

[charmtrap]

Well, come on...Avatar had James Cameron, as close to a superstar as directors get. People are gonna flock to a Cameron picture, almost regardless of content.

[Hugin]

Well, come on...Avatar had James Cameron, as close to a superstar as directors get. People are gonna flock to a Cameron picture, almost regardless of content.

Yeah. Man, I bet the Marketing folks who were forbidden to even mention that this was a movie by a Pixar Wall-E/Toy Story guy were hella pissed. I thought Razgon meant something in the movie itself.

[Razgon]

Really? I have to explain what Avatar was selling itself as? It was a major revolution in 3D technology, brought about by James Cameron.

The movie itself is mediocre, but thats besides the point. The whole idea behind the movie, and why people went, wasn't the lush fantasy and the aliens and the pocahontas story - No, it was the 3D.

[Hugin]

Really? I have to explain what Avatar was selling itself as? It was a major revolution in 3D technology, brought about by James Cameron.

The movie itself is mediocre, but thats besides the point. The whole idea behind the movie, and why people went, wasn't the lush fantasy and the aliens and the pocahontas story - No, it was the 3D.

Uh...no? I certainly buy James Cameron as an attraction, but the 3D per se is is a double edged sword, especially since you can't actually demonstrate the 3D stuff in most of the advertising, which can't be presented in 3D. People certainly complained enough about it in the various internet threads. The trailers for Avatar don't mention 3D at all. It's all "From the Director of Aliens/Terminator2/Titanic", paired with super epic action/sci-fi visuals.

Yes, clearly there's been this trend of people going to see movies in Imax and 3D and people slapping 3D on everything, I'm sure that helped Avatar make money, because Cameron's implementation was revolutionary. But in terms of the way the movie was marketed, I'm going to have to go with Charmtrap. The average person went for the visuals and for Cameron, not for 3D

[Razgon]

I mean 3D technology as in the visual effects that makes the world seem more real and not only the silly 3D glasses you have to wear, so basically its the same thing we are talking about.

In the context here, John Carter cannot be likened to Avatar, in that its two very different USP's between the two movies no matter what you think Avatars was. Avatar was a glorified tech demo while John Carter was a re-imagining of an old franchise.

[Ginger Yellow]

Yes, clearly there's been this trend of people going to see movies in Imax and 3D and people slapping 3D on everything, I'm sure that helped Avatar make money, because Cameron's implementation was revolutionary. But in terms of the way the movie was marketed, I'm going to have to go with Charmtrap. The average person went for the visuals and for Cameron, not for 3D

I don't know about trailers, but all the newspaper and TV coverage of Avatar pre-release - and there was a huge amount of it - banged on about how Cameron had basically invented a new way of filmmaking for 3D. It was absolutely central to the marketing that this was going to be the 3Dest film ever.

[JD]

Anyway...

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.

The firm is still likely to make a substantial quarterly profit, though, thanks to its TV businesses.

It is estimated that John Carter cost $250m to make and it is likely that Disney spent another $100m on marketing.

[BiggerBoat]

Well, come on...Avatar had James Cameron, as close to a superstar as directors get. People are gonna flock to a Cameron picture, almost regardless of content.

The success of Avatar wasn't based on people rushing to the theater to see it in its first weekend (as with most blockbusters), but long term success over several weeks. With most movies the studios would be happy to get a drop of only 40% in the 2nd week. Avatar dropped 1.8% in week 2, and only 9.4% in week three. This continued for several weeks. Heck, in some weekends it even bounced back and gained more than the week before.

Same sort of trend as Titanic. Despite the revisionist backlash for both movies, it comes down to positive word of mouth and repeat viewings.

Shame about John Carter. I was really holding out hope that it was going to be a great movie (not just a good one, or a rather bad one depending on your point of view). I don't understand why it cost so much money. Is it all up there on the screen?

[Alistair]

The story-telling in this is pretty ok, but it's kind of incoherent. Why are they getting married, with the various other SPOILER things that happen alongside? It maka no sense.

Overall it's enjoyable, but its later stages were a big huh? for me

[Hugin]

Anyway...

Posts 142 and 147 man.

[Brendan]

I took the kid today and we loved it. (Saw it in 2D.) Such a visually awesome movie, great action, the story holds together...

Spoiler: minor nitpick

Only real gripe was tiny -- I though the Edgar Rice Burroughs wraparound with "write a book or something" was cheesy. If that hadn't been done before, it'd be cute, but it has been.

I thought this was definitely one of the better movies I've ever taken my kid to. I'm seriously annoyed at the critical reaction. Jaded, fun-hating hacks.

If you have kids who like action or fantasy movies, by all means, take them.

Kid was horribly disappointed there are no action figures.

I concur. I watched it with my old man and we both got a kick out of it.

It isn't brilliant but it is a fun old fashioned science fiction adventure film. The 3D sucked but otherwise the special effects were excellent and the design was great. It was like watching live action Frank Frazetta artwork.

I'm extremely disappointed that it tanked. It would have made a great franchise if it had been treated correctly by Disney's marketing department.

Also, Woola is fucking awesome.

[Kemper Boyd]

Just saw this with my daughter and was pleasantly surprised how much I liked it. It really is too bad it was marketed so poorly. Just in terms of entertainment, I don't see much difference between this and The Hunger Games. In fact, JC was a much more enjoyable movie to watch. Oh well...at least the Tharks were as awesome as they always have been.

[DennyA]

It's really mind-boggling that $100m went into marketing this. All I saw were some terrible trailers that made it look like a sequel to 2000BC or whatever that movie was...

[Cormac]

Looks like its not the "biggest flop ever" like it was made out to be by the press. Its apparently already make back its budget with some regional releases still upcoming. (also of course the income from the DVD/Blu sales)

[corsair]

Just saw this with my daughter and was pleasantly surprised how much I liked it. It really is too bad it was marketed so poorly. Just in terms of entertainment, I don't see much difference between this and The Hunger Games. In fact, JC was a much more enjoyable movie to watch. Oh well...at least the Tharks were as awesome as they always have been.

I enjoyed John Carter, but if I was going to recommend one of them, it would be The Hunger Games, hands down. But then, I found for me that Suzanne Collins' books were better than anything ERB ever wrote.

[Kemper Boyd]

I enjoyed John Carter, but if I was going to recommend one of them, it would be The Hunger Games, hands down. But then, I found for me that Suzanne Collins' books were better than anything ERB ever wrote.

...and I would counter that The Hunger Games was probably fantastic if you had read the books and just okay without them. On their own, neither movie really does a very good job of telling their story, but - to me - John Carter was more engaging and fun.

[corsair]

...and I would counter that The Hunger Games was probably fantastic if you had read the books and just okay without them.

I read the book after I saw the movie, so I can't say I agree with that assessment at all (the difference between the book and the movie is very slight, which is not surprising since it isn't a long book and the author had a hand in the screenplay).

[charmtrap]

Looks like its not the "biggest flop ever" like it was made out to be by the press. Its apparently already make back its budget with some regional releases still upcoming. (also of course the income from the DVD/Blu sales)

Uh, that figure the author is quoting is the gross. That $254m gets split with the theaters that show it, so cut that number in half. It needs to gross at least $600m worldwide based on the budget and estimated marketing to break even.

[DrCrypt]

I enjoyed John Carter, but if I was going to recommend one of them, it would be The Hunger Games, hands down. But then, I found for me that Suzanne Collins' books were better than anything ERB ever wrote.

Ha ha ha! And I think Mad Magazine has more cogent political analysis than the Economist or the Washington Post! Here's your Napoleon hat. You earned it.

[corsair]

Ha ha ha! And I think Mad Magazine has more cogent political analysis than the Economist or the Washington Post! Here's your Napoleon hat. You earned it.

I get this feeling you think that was clever....I'm never quite sure why people would make posts like this. I mean, a drive-by snark where you simply end up shooting yourself in the foot? Shrug.

Anyway, for anyone having intelligent comments on why you prefer the one over the other (such as the person I was responding to), there's always a difference in taste and opinion. It's okay to differ.

[Stepsongrapes]

Uh, that figure the author is quoting is the gross. That $254m gets split with the theaters that show it, so cut that number in half. It needs to gross at least $600m worldwide based on the budget and estimated marketing to break even.

While it is true that the number is gross, from what I've read, theaters don't make anywhere even near 1/2 of the ticket. They make more as time passes from initial release, but the aggregate is pretty far from 1/2.

[corsair]

While it is true that the number is gross, from what I've read, theaters don't make anywhere even near 1/2 of the ticket. They make more as time passes from initial release, but the aggregate is pretty far from 1/2.

I take it from the comments that JC will need $600 million to break even, that means that will roughly cover the $250 million in production and $100 million in advertising costs, so that means they are getting a little more than 50% (and I don't know if any of those figure cover distribution costs, but assume that they are tucked in there somewhere). I suspect once they finish the world-wide rollout and then DVD/Blu-ray release they'll get their costs back or close to it. It was always a movie that was going to need to play well to the rest of the world, and it's doing that, even if it bombed here. A bit of a shame because I'd like to have seen it go a few sequels.

[DrCrypt]

I get this feeling you think that was clever....I'm never quite sure why people would make posts like this. I mean, a drive-by snark where you simply end up shooting yourself in the foot? Shrug.

It was clever. You didn't recognize it because you're stupid enough to think that The Hunger Games is better written than a book by Edgar Rice Burroughs, a literary opinion which makes you essentially either illiterate, retarded or literally bonkers.

Anyway, for anyone having intelligent comments on why you prefer the one over the other (such as the person I was responding to), there's always a difference in taste and opinion. It's okay to differ.

Right, right, all opinions are equally valid to morons. Since you want an "intelligent" critique of your earlier statement, here's one.

Edgar Rice Burroughs was a genre-setting pioneer who has given us one of the 20th Century's most unique, memorable and timeless characters, Tarzan. He also gave us John Carter of Mars and Barsoom, a character and a world which inspired everything from Star Wars to Avatar. Before Edgar Rice Burroughs, no one was writing this kind of stuff, and pretty much every science-fiction book or movie of the 20th Century liberally uses core concepts, ideas and themes that he originated. If you enjoy science-fiction or fantasy, you owe Edgar Rice Burroughs a debt of gratitude, because short of Jules Verne, I can't think of a more important father of the genre.

The Hunger Games, on the other hand, is a book that originates nothing, mashing together concepts, ideas and even characters explored far more competently in Battle Royale, The Running Man, 1984, Clockwork Orange, The Lottery, etc. It brings absolutely nothing new to the table, and I would describe the book's author, charitably, as being a readable hack with a good ear for the internal monologues of hysterical, boy-obsessed teenage girls and good taste in which existing movies and books she's going to rip-off.

Saying that Suzanne Collins's books are "better" than "anything" Edgar Rice Burroughs is absurd. It's not a matter of opinion by any measure, because Burroughs' works have helped define everything in the genre that came after them. Originality, vision, timelessness... these things count. And while I have no idea if the Hunger Games will turn out to be timeless despite itself, it is undeniable that the series fails when it comes to the first two criterion.

Finally, I would conclude by noting that I enjoyed the Hunger Games for what it is, so this isn't about hating a popular phenomenon. It's about utter contempt for a statement so personally myopic and oblivious of literary context that it might as well have been uttered by the first segment of the Human Centipede sewn to Suzanne Collins's anus.

Thank you and good night.