John Carter of Mars

[Galmorzu]

The trailers didn't do anything for me at all, so I really had no interest in seeing this. However this weekend I felt like hitting a movie, and from the good word of mouth I've been hearing, I thought I would checking it out.

I'm glad I did because I had a real blast with this movie. Very fun.

Also, Woola stole every scene he was in. I absolutely loved that alien dog.

[JonWes]

I really enjoyed the movie! Shame on the marketing folks that they couldn't communicate how great this movie was. I don't know why it was such a strain, either. I feel like they didn't show half the great stuff they could have.

Taylor Kitsch was so much better than I thought he might be, and the design work was wonderful. I loved Woola. Loved him. I am mad we didn't get a Woola plush figure.

[Stratos*Major]

All this John Carter talk has driven me back into E.R.B.'s books!

FINALLY finished Stephen King's "Under the Dome". Had to before I started with the Martian Tales of John Carter!

[Captain Marvel]

It's really weird that there has been practically no merchadising for JOHN CARTER at all -- that's usually one of the things present-day Disney ensures happens for all their movies.

It's not like this the value of merchandising should surprise industry folks -- George Lucas proved it by keeping the merchadising rights for Star Wars and using them to promote the first movie when 20th Century Fox was doing little regular marketing.

[JonWes]

I've no doubt Disney tried to get some merchandising partners onboard, but maybe after Tron Legacy people were gun shy and preferred to wait to see how the property did.

[Patreek]

I feel like they changed to a new trailer this week? The one I've been seeing lately was SO much better. Of course now it is too late. People were already sick of seeing the one that they didn't like.

[Adam_Prince of Eternia]

I just got home from seeing this and I do not understand the negative press it has received, I thought it was great.

[JonWes]

I feel like they changed to a new trailer this week? The one I've been seeing lately was SO much better. Of course now it is too late. People were already sick of seeing the one that they didn't like.

Once you make that first impression, it's nearly impossible to go back and correct it. I had a small glimmer of hope that word of mouth might kick in, but it fell a ton in the second weekend.

[Patreek]

Yea... at least it is doing really well abroad. $179,272,000 isn't so bad... I think they will at least make their budget back.

[markatisu]

Ouch, this is going to hurt

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disn...r-john-carter/

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118051647

“In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter."

[JonWes]

Oh man... I hope this doesn't affect the MOTU movie.

[Patreek]

so... if it cost $250mil and has made $184.... where is the rest of that money coming from? That can't all be advertising can it?

[SCB]

Honestly, the two properties are pretty far apart outside of this forum. Thor was probably closer.

[JonWes]

Honestly, the two properties are pretty far apart outside of this forum. Thor was probably closer.

I think that's true. And I've said before (somewhere) I do think MOTU... or certainly He-man, has better name recognition than John Carter. Plus, there's more nostalgia factor. I definitely think a MOTU movie could (and should) look a lot different than John Carter too. My worry is that, despite all of that, it won't matter to the studio. Sometimes the higher up you go in the food chain the less engaged with the details you become, and some exec could make a decision that wasn't that well informed.

We'll see though. No use crying over milk that hasn't even spilled yet. It's just a lot of these fantasy movies haven't done spectacularly lately. I sort of worry about that more than any one movie. That being said, Clash of the Titans did well enough to earn a sequel. So who knows.

[Krueger]

I think that's true. And I've said before (somewhere) I do think MOTU... or certainly He-man, has better name recognition than John Carter. Plus, there's more nostalgia factor. I definitely think a MOTU movie could (and should) look a lot different than John Carter too. My worry is that, despite all of that, it won't matter to the studio. Sometimes the higher up you go in the food chain the less engaged with the details you become, and some exec could make a decision that wasn't that well informed.

We'll see though. No use crying over milk that hasn't even spilled yet. It's just a lot of these fantasy movies haven't done spectacularly lately. I sort of worry about that more than any one movie. That being said, Clash of the Titans did well enough to earn a sequel. So who knows.

I agree with everything you've said. MOTU is still much more mainstream and will stand a much better chance of finding an audience than John Carter. I just hope Sony doesn't get cold feet. Thing is, the main reason why John Carter is going to be such a colossal failure isn't because people don’t like these sorts of films, but rather because the budget was allowed to go completely out of control. 250 million is absurd and is not needed for any type of film. John Carter could have been made minus 100 million of the final budget, no problem. Sony certainly won’t be pumping 250 million into a MOTU film, and so they shouldn't. We can get the visually appealing MOTU film we’ve all wanted for no more than 150 million, which is a much more manageable budget.

so... if it cost $250mil and has made $184.... where is the rest of that money coming from? That can't all be advertising can it?

Rule of thumb is that a film needs to double its budget globally in order to be in with a chance of making money. So John Carter will need to make about 500 million worldwide in order to break even. Remember, cinemas take a cut of the ticket sales. Including marketing costs, some say it needs to make at least 600 million worldwide. Obviously it’s not going to.

[Heeeere's Olesker!]

I agree with everything you've said. MOTU is still much more mainstream and will stand a much better chance of finding an audience than John Carter. I just hope Sony doesn't get cold feet. Thing is, the main reason why John Carter is going to be such a colossal failure isn't because people don’t like these sorts of films, but rather because the budget was allowed to go completely out of control. 250 million is absurd and is not needed for any type of film. John Carter could have been made minus 100 million of the final budget, no problem. Sony certainly won’t be pumping 250 million into a MOTU film, and so they shouldn't. We can get the visually appealing MOTU film we’ve all wanted for no more than 150 million, which is a much more manageable budget.



Rule of thumb is that a film needs to double its budget globally in order to be in with a chance of making money. So John Carter will need to make about 500 million worldwide in order to break even. Remember, cinemas take a cut of the ticket sales. Including marketing costs, some say it needs to make at least 600 million worldwide. Obviously it’s not going to.

With the cost of prints and ads, triple, sometimes more considering ad costs. Trust me on this.

[heavy-eternium]

only we, the motu fans, compared motu with john carter , the same with Thor or LOTR. sony with motu think on the smurfs or transformers , 80's icons beyond the genre.

[Angel-T]

Man such bad news. I just saw this film and I gotta say I really loved it. Such a shame the trailers were a let down. I hope it dosen't effect MOTU's chances. Real effort went into this film the same level of Effort and care that I would want to see applied to MOTU.

[markatisu]

so... if it cost $250mil and has made $184.... where is the rest of that money coming from? That can't all be advertising can it?

Advertising was reportedly $175million, an outrageous amount given how utterly awful the advertising was imho

But like Jack said you aim for 3x to recoup all your money but at least 2x for a high risk movie would probably be considered a success or at least "alright"

Disney estimated this movie needed to make $600m just to break even, had it hit big that would have been no problem since movies like Pirates make $800m-1.2b WW and even CARS 2 which is one of the least popular Disney movies made $560m WW on a budget of $200m (but its worldwide increased more than 60% of its previous International so it expanded the franchise)

You can use the latest Narnia as an example, the third movie in the series was dumped by Disney and FOX made it on a budget of $155m, it did only $103m in the US but $311 overseas which was good enough to greenlight a 4th movie (thought Walden Media lost the license earlier this year so the 4th movie is in legal limbo).

Had John Carter at least cleared $100m in the US I think Disney would accept a 2x amount and consider it the cost of investing in a possible franchise. But its in jeopardy of not even clearing $80m in the US

[SCB]

He-Man fans group He-Man, the new Conan, and Thor in the same category. However, I bet studio executives see it in a different way. They probably group He-Man with other popular toy properties from the 80's such as Transformers, Ninja Turtles, and GI Joe.

[Krueger]

Talking about profit, according to Box Office Mojo the studios end up taking on average about 55% of the final gross. So I would say about 2.5x the budget is enough. I suppose the rest of the costs (like advertising) can be sorted out by DVD sales and TV rights. Marketing costs are very rarely disclosed.

Take this example. The new X-Men film, First Class, had a whopping 160 million budget. Worldwide, it made $353,624,124. So that's just above twice the budget. Certainly not 2.5x, though. Also, and more importantly, that's not taking into account the marketing costs. Yet it was declared a success by FOX and, as a result, they're pushing ahead with a direct sequel. So, even though it didn't really make that much money, yet it was seen as a success evidently enough. So I think 3x the budget is a bit on the steep side.

He-Man fans group He-Man, the new Conan, and Thor in the same category. However, I bet studio executives see it in a different way. They probably group He-Man with other popular toy properties from the 80's such as Transformers, Ninja Turtles, and GI Joe.

Exactly. I've said this many times before. In a lot of ways, MOTU is completely different to John Carter.

[Heeeere's Olesker!]

Well this isn't good:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/20/news....htm?hpt=hp_t3

[13977]

BBC reporting a similar story, saying "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.":

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200

No looking good, and its not good press for people who haven't seen it yet

[markatisu]

Talking about profit, according to Box Office Mojo the studios end up taking on average about 55% of the final gross. So I would say about 2.5x the budget is enough. I suppose the rest of the costs (like advertising) can be sorted out by DVD sales and TV rights. Marketing costs are very rarely disclosed.

Take this example. The new X-Men film, First Class, had a whopping 160 million budget. Worldwide, it made $353,624,124. So that's just above twice the budget. Certainly not 2.5x, though. Also, and more importantly, that's not taking into account the marketing costs. Yet it was declared a success by FOX and, as a result, they're pushing ahead with a direct sequel. So, even though it didn't really make that much money, yet it was seen as a success evidently enough. So I think 3x the budget is a bit on the steep side.

3x is the rule for total profit (it is large enough to encompass production, distribution, and marketing. No company is going to scoff at 2 or 2.5 but you always aim for 3.

Plus every movie has a specific context, 2x for something massive like The Avengers or a Transformers movie is not going to be met very well at the corporate office. Whereas 2x for something like GI Joe or a Ghost Rider would probably be met with resounding cheers.

You also never ever want to use the home video argument as a positive, that is supplementary income. Its a good talking point for Kevin Smith movies because for the most part he meets his budget and pads the profit with home video from his fans. But something like John Carter is going to require Avatar or Dark Knight volume of home video sales and that will just help to make up the bust at the box office.

I am really surprised with the whole thing though, it seems praised by fans of Sci-Fi while it was hated by critics. And worse movies in the US and UK have more made money. The whole thing is just baffling.

[vancak]

The whole situation with this movie completely baffles me. There has been virtually no merchandising for this movie, no toy line, and the previews were bad. I'm a huge John Carter fan, and up until the latest preview (which came out a week before the movie), none of the previews made me want to go out and see it. I would've waited til Redbox got it and rented it. Whoever was in charge of the marketing for this film should be fired. It's like they wanted John Carter to fail. And every critic who gave it a bad review is nothing more than a pompous ******** who thinks that everything should be to their artsy, high-falutin' standards. I've done what I could to encourage people to go see it. Hopefully the DVD sales are good on it. I usually don't get DVDs when they come out, as I wait til I can get them for a really good deal. I will, however, buy John Carter when it's released. The worst part is that they left a great opening for sequels, which probably won't happen now.

I do hope that John Carter becomes a cult favorite like Office Space. Office Space was a major failure at the box office, yet (through the help of Comedy Central) it has become a classic.