Amph John Carter (of Mars)

The spate of unsuccessful films of about 10 years ago about Mars may indeed have been a factor, but it's "Mars Needs Moms" that was probably the final nail in the coffin. I read Disney lost way over a hundred million dollars on that film, and it caused them to completely shutter Robert Zemeckis' digital Imagemovers animation/effects company which they bankrolled. I think they may have just been a little superstitious, you know, "let's not tempt fate, enough with movies with Mars in the title, even if they're set on Mars!"

 

I think it's very funny, actually, that after a movie bombs because it's awful, people get superstitious about the title.

 

That is indeed pretty funny.

 

The reason I won't be going to see John Carter is the same reason I didn't go to see Mars Needs Moms: the trailer is awful. Why don't they ever figure out that they need to shake up the marketing? Because every trailer is the same nowadays and you'd think somebody would say, "Maybe it's the advertising that is failing."

 

The Unnecessary Tweaking of Movie Names

 

The reviews are pretty much confirming the rumors. It may not be a terrible film, but it's unlikely to become the monster global hit Disney needs to recoup its production and marketing investment. The movie is likely to be badly outclassed and crushed between The Lorax and The Hunger Games.

 

This also sounds like another movie that pre-hate buzz will make it do much worse at the box office than it really deserves. I'm just hopping beyond hope that it is at least serviceable and breaks even so they green light the sequels.

 

The reviews are running at 65 per cent at rotten tomatoes.

 

Interview with Michael Chabon, who worked on the movie's script.

 

The2ndQuest, you have a point about the audience clash, but if JC fails to open as big as Lorax or bigger and drops heavily, 65% or so in week 2, then Wrath of the Titans will no longer matter, except potentially overseas (maybe that's what you meant?).

Clash of the Titans did 2/3 of its business overseas, so the sequel is a legitimate threat to your scenario of Disney depending heavily on foreign box office for JC.

I'm guessing Hunger Games isn't skewed as heavily female as Twilight (or at least girls/young women won't have to go see Hunger Games by themselves) and will really eat into JC's potential second week audience.

 

Clash of the Titans was indeed a much bigger hit than people seem to think. $125 million budget, 4x budget box office worldwide. That would be the equivalent of JC being a $1 billion worldwide hit.

If JC makes the $500 million that Clash of the Titans made, it will be deemed a failure, though not a megadisaster.

But I don't know about "adult audiences" going to see either of those movies. It looks to me that the audience for Wrath and JC is going to be young male, sort of an 11-25 demographic. I don't see Hunger Games bringing in a much younger audience, just a more gender-mixed one.

Looking at the trailers of both JC and Wrath, the primary message seems to be: "girls, stay away from this. Anyone over the age of 25, stay away from this."

 

There's hardly anyone left alive who is an original fan of the source material. Almost no one knows ERB from his original work. That goes for Tarzan and everything else. He's known overwhelmingly derivatively/cinematically/adaptationally (not a word!). He's not like Tolkien, and the John Carter series is not like Middle Earth. I don't think you're going to find many older moviegoers seeking this out other than the usual committed lifelong sci fi junkies like me. We're a relatively small group.

To be honest, Hunger Games looks a lot darker and more grown up from the trailers alone than JC, which looks like a PG-13 version of Conan the Barbarian, just as Wrath of the Titans looks like a PG-13 version of Immortals. I didn't want to see the R rated versions, and I most certainly don't want to see the PG-13 versions.

But Hunger Games has a lot more authentic appeal to my lifelong sci fi junkie instincts than John Carter, just speaking as one of those older people not directly targeted by either movie.

 

You may be right. It's a fun month for movies. 4:44, and finally "Turn Me On, Dammit" is getting a U.S. release, though I'm not sure if it's coming to Chicago. It was still playing in Norway when I was there last year.

 

What a thrill ride this must be for Disney.

RT for John Carter is settling in below 50%. Let's just say that some of this may be that the critics read the movie news too and no doubt smell blood. They become less forgiving in their reviews than they might otherwise have been. In my view the same thing happened to Water World - a relatively entertaining movie, but the critics piled on anyway because it was predetermined to be the most expensive film flop ever.

Box office guru is predicting that JC will make $27 million this weekend and be beat out by a $45 million Lorax weekend. He also says the production + marketing costs could = $400 million, putting the box office break even number at around $800 million.

With a $27 million opening weekend and steep declines, however, we're looking at worldwide box office of maybe $100 million U.S., perhaps $150-$200 million foreign, suggesting as much as a $200-250 million loss on this movie. They might get $50-100 million back on video sales/rentals. JC will do well on rental at the very least because people will pay good money to see a train wreck - and this will be the most famous flop of 2012 most likely.

At any rate, Disney c

 

According to box-office analysts, Disney could lose up to $165 million on "John Carter"

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story

 

Lorax was just behind JC for Friday, but JC's numbers probably include the $500k midnight take. JC's box office is probably front loaded for Friday, so the prediction of $25-27 million opening weekend and second place to Lorax seems on track, which means that $165 million loss looks realistic.

 

Which is a hiccup for Disney, albeit a painful one. They made 4.8 billion dollars last year, and their 2011 total assets was up there with Apple and Exxon-Mobile at 72 billion dollars.

Linkie

Rounded the 4.8 billion up to 5 billion; it's about 3% of their profits last year. Disney will always have the fallback of its parks, unlike other movie studios. In a way, they're practically an Apple prototype; Apple doesn't make a whole lot of money on their computers, but iTunes/IoS in general more than makes up for it.

 

No question, Disney can survive a decade of bad movies, and it has before.

 

It's not Disney that has to worry, it's the individuals attached to the project. What will a $250 million flop do for, say, Stanton's (live-action) career? Or for Taylor Kitsch's?

 

I just think it's funny how we can talk about how much a movie will Loose, and it hasn't even been released yet, I really feel the gloom and doom people should wait to "KILL" a movie until it at least has been released if not shown in the theaters for a week or two. It's just I keep hearing how this is going to be a flop and not one word actually about the movie, what's wrong, what's right with it.