Help support the Mego Museum
Help support the Mego Museum

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

John Carter shaping up to be one of the costliest flops in movie history

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • johnmiic
    replied
    According to Movietickets.com John Carter isn't doing soooo badly. They're not listing $$$ but stating it's in the top 5. Maybe it will continue to chug along as theaters waiting for summer flicks & keep it around till mid-April:

    TOP MOVIES

    The Hunger Games
    Wrath of the Titans
    The Lorax
    21 Jump Street
    John Carter
    Casa de mi Padre
    Project X
    Act of Valor
    Safe House
    A Thousand Words

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackKnight
    replied
    ^^^
    And it remains to be seen ..., as to how much, but without question a portion of that revenue was achieved because of Ledger's Death, and the Media Surrounding That, and His Dark Portrail of the Joker.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnmiic
    replied
    Originally posted by samurainoir
    John carter's box office to date...

    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: *$63,767,688 ***27.0%
    +*Foreign: *$172,100,000 ***73.0%
    =*Worldwide: *$235,867,688 *
    Maybe when they figure in the DVD sales and rentals/VOD, chances of a sequel will fare better. I'd love to see a sequel or 2 from this. A sequel could be cheaper to make if they keep the sets, props, costumes in storage. The CGI ships could be re-used & perhaps not having to CGI-animate 2 populations of Green Martians would help as well.

    Originally posted by BlackKnight
    I know Right .
    It was also in the Top 25 Movies for 2011 ..., Despite all the Haters out there.
    I showed it to my nephew and he liked it. He wasn't familiar with GL but during the film I asked what he thought and he liked the story and didn't feel it dragged or anything.

    I think GL and any DC super hero film will suffer from the Batman effect now. They will be compared to the money Dark Knight made and if they don't make at least a billion dollars they will be considered failures. That really isn't a fair comparison. I don't think any Super Hero film is going to come close to what Dark Knight made. Avengers could possibly-if it's really good but it's a long shot at best.
    Last edited by johnmiic; Mar 30, '12, 1:38 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • enyawd72
    replied
    Ahhh...Cutthroat Island. Another awesome performance by Frank Langella.

    I freaking love the part where Langella tells his first mate to set sail. The mate says "But Captain, there's not enough food on board."

    Langella shoots him and says "One less mouth to feed."

    Classic.

    Leave a comment:


  • Bruce Banner
    replied
    Originally posted by Brazoo
    Time Magazine recently listed these as the top biggest box office bombs - but notes that John Carter will probably take the highest spot:

    1) Cutthroat Island
    2) The Alamo
    3) The Adventures of Pluto Nash
    4) Sahara
    5) Mars Needs Women
    6) The 13th Warrior
    7) Town & Country
    8) Speed Racer
    9) Heaven's Gate
    10) Stealth
    I'm surprised that The 13th Warrior is on that list. I always liked it. The Viking warband in that was really cool, especially Vladimir Kulich who played Buliwyf.
    It's also a very loose adaptation of the classic work Beowulf.

    I'd have thought Waterworld would have been on that list... I remember reading about how expensive it was to make and how it ultimately did really badly at the box office.
    But I kind of like it... especially the extended cut with the extra scenes.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brazoo
    replied
    I think it's a safe bet that John Carter lost A LOT of money - but generally speaking I don't think we have the correct facts about these things. What I mean by that is, we're not really in a position to figure out if a movie made money accurately based on what we get to see.

    We're always looking at reported production budget - they're almost NEVER accurately reported - studios leave off marketing expenses or how much things like product placement covered...

    Then we compare this (fairly imaginary number) to the box office - but obviously that money doesn't all go back to the studio. Theaters work out deals with distributers for titles - these are often based on percentages - so if a movie is a hit, a theatre chain might have to give back a bigger percentage to the distributer. There are different deals in place with different theatre chains and movies - all the deal making and bidding that takes place - it's all kinda muddled from where we sit.

    Generally speaking foreign box office brings in less money than Domestic - because foreign theaters can take a bigger cut - then there's all kinds of tariffs and things for each country.

    We really don't have much idea about what the numbers we look at means in terms of profit. From what I've read, a rough guide is 50% of box office for domestic - and foreign can be much lower.

    I think if blockbuster movie is getting a sequel it's safe to say that it made money in one way or another. I think that's the real test.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brazoo
    replied
    Originally posted by johnmiic
    I didn't realize Mars Needs Moms was Berkeley Breathed's story. I'm sure he wasn't thrilled at the Disney version.
    You're totally right! I don't think he was completely quiet about it either.



    Originally posted by samurainoir
    In defense of TinTin... It killed at the international box office (including Canada, where he's always been quite popular given the Nelvanna cartoon and the fresh population).

    I don't think TinTin hit the uncanny valley too badly though... They really were a bit more stylized based on herge's designs than say Beauwulf or final fantasy.


    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: *$77,591,831 ***20.7%
    +*Foreign: *$296,402,120 ***79.3%
    =*Worldwide: *$373,993,951 *


    John Carter was actually more in the Pixar camp in terms of development, and director Staton basically bought his cachet with the box office success f Finding Nemo and Wall E.

    I think critics really are giving John Carter a bum deal.
    I don't think Tintin was THE hit they were going for. The popularity of Tintin and the fact that it has fans in every generation - I think they were shooting much higher.

    Look - The Smurfs earned 200 million more than Tintin - and it probably cost at least half the money.

    Personally, I think it was the motion capture technique that threw things off. It's true, they did use more stylization, but I think a Pixar style character designed and animated Tintin would have been HUGE.

    Sorry for taking this thread off-track though!

    I don't think the production or movie itself is the problem with John Carter. I think it was all on the marketing. The ads never told people what the movie was - and the name didn't help. People can only pay attention to so many things.

    I don't think the critics effected it much - almost all of the top 10 movies were poorly reviewed by critics AND judging by Rotten Tomatoes most of them weren't liked much by the audiences either.

    Leave a comment:


  • samurainoir
    replied
    John carter's box office to date...

    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: *$63,767,688 ***27.0%
    +*Foreign: *$172,100,000 ***73.0%
    =*Worldwide: *$235,867,688 *

    If they cut the budget on a sequel to under 100 million, they might still have a franchise if not for the fact that the negative publicity seems to have poisoned the well.

    Green lantern

    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: *$116,601,172 ***53.0%
    +*Foreign: *$103,250,000 ***47.0%
    =*Worldwide: *$219,851,172 *

    Same with GL.
    Last edited by samurainoir; Mar 30, '12, 1:26 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackKnight
    replied
    Originally posted by samurainoir

    I think critics really are giving John Carter a bum deal.
    They did the Same thing to the Lantern Guy.
    I personally Hate Most Critics. They just don't get the Flicks I enjoy for the Most part.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackKnight
    replied
    Originally posted by MIB41
    I somehow feel vindicated.
    I know Right .
    It was also in the Top 25 Movies for 2011 ..., Despite all the Haters out there.

    Leave a comment:


  • samurainoir
    replied
    In defense of TinTin... It killed at the international box office (including Canada, where he's always been quite popular given the Nelvanna cartoon and the fresh population).

    I don't think TinTin hit the uncanny valley too badly though... They really were a bit more stylized based on herge's designs than say Beauwulf or final fantasy.


    Total Lifetime Grosses
    Domestic: *$77,591,831 ***20.7%
    +*Foreign: *$296,402,120 ***79.3%
    =*Worldwide: *$373,993,951 *


    John Carter was actually more in the Pixar camp in terms of development, and director Staton basically bought his cachet with the box office success f Finding Nemo and Wall E.

    I think critics really are giving John Carter a bum deal.

    Leave a comment:


  • BlackKnight
    replied
    I really like The 13th Warrior .
    ...., I guess it's 1 of My Guilty Pleasure Movies..., after reading this Thread, and the Various Articles.

    Leave a comment:


  • johnmiic
    replied
    I didn't realize Mars Needs Moms was Berkeley Breathed's story. I'm sure he wasn't thrilled at the Disney version.

    Leave a comment:


  • torgospizza
    replied
    Originally posted by Brazoo
    Sorry - I was being really REALLY unclear!
    Yeah you were, but that's cool! After reading your explanation, I totally get what you're saying about the Uncanny Valley and agree pretty strongly. They're just not where they need to be yet. The Polar Express kind of exemplified what you're saying. I never saw it and it might be a great film, but the animation seemed distracting to me. Just life-like enough to underscore how it wasn't life-like.

    Leave a comment:


  • Brazoo
    replied
    To compare - here's images from Berkeley Breathed's original kids book "Mars Needs Moms":





    It's full of motion and silliness...

    Then here's what Disney did to it using motion capture:





    Creepy, lifeless and humorless - and it lost a TON of money.

    I think I understand the reason. I don't think it's cost, the movie still cost $150 million. It's about turn around time. It's about cranking out movies. I think sometimes people can tell the difference - and people just aren't buying these films so far.

    Maybe they think if they keep pushing that people will come around.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
😀
🥰
🤢
😎
😡
👍
👎