John Carter (of Mars)

paddy kerins

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read an awful lot of posts on various forum boards over the past days about what a great film it is and how it's a shame that we won't see a sequel. Maybe if all these people had gone to see the film in the cinema rather than wait for it to leak then there could a sequel.

True. I almost feel ashamed for doing so

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

Maybe if all these people had gone to see the film in the cinema rather than wait for it to leak then there could a sequel.

I did, and brought the kids too.

OldeCinemaSoz

I just loved that yoke of a dog who paraded about with his
mutt face helping Carter while he slaughtered the beasts
in one of the film's best scenes.

Smithey88

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read an awful lot of posts on various forum boards over the past days about what a great film it is and how it's a shame that we won't see a sequel. Maybe if all these people had gone to see the film in the cinema rather than wait for it to leak then there could a sequel.

Because if they did that, they would of had to pay
Truth be known same people who downloaded the movie, who also want a sequel, wouldnt go see the sequel but sooner wait for it to hit the net.

Mickeroo

Pretty sure poor old JC would have bombed ragardless.

Liam O

Seen it on a dingy and dirty screen in the Savoy and was still very impressed by the visuals and the plot was very enjoyable I thought. Really enjoyed the twist at the end too.

Zubeneschamali

Mickeroo wrote: »

Pretty sure poor old JC would have bombed ragardless.

Disney more or less announced that it was going to crater before it came out.

Rabidlamb

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read an awful lot of posts on various forum boards over the past days about what a great film it is and how it's a shame that we won't see a sequel. Maybe if all these people had gone to see the film in the cinema rather than wait for it to leak then there could a sequel.

I am the worlds greatest downloader but I still hit the cinema 3 or 4 times a year for the big productions, e.g. Prometheus, TDKR, The Hobbit.
I'm afraid John Carter didn't even register on my radar, I saw nothing compelling in the trailers that would entice me to see it in the cinema.
The aliens looked MIB cartoonish, never even heard of the original comics, looked like a poor mans Attack of the Clones & had the word Disney strapped to the trailer, total put off as you think it's only aimed at kids.
They only have themselves to blame.

A_Sober_Paddy

Visually impressive movie...but other than that I found it average at best.

Think I gave it a 6/10 on IMDB

Mickeroo

Rabidlamb wrote: »

The aliens looked MIB cartoonish, never even heard of the original comics, looked like a poor mans Attack of the Clones & had the word Disney strapped to the trailer, total put off as you think it's only aimed at kids.
They only have themselves to blame.

They weren't comics, they were novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, novels that have greatly influenced countless movies and books for the last 100 years. Unfortunately unless people are into sci-fi they'd probably never have heard of them which was a big part of the problen. This was a big part of the problem, along with the much marketing campaign, or lack there of. John Carter of Mars had been re-hashed so many times that it looked like a re-hash itself.

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

I've read an awful lot of posts on various forum boards over the past days about what a great film it is and how it's a shame that we won't see a sequel. Maybe if all these people had gone to see the film in the cinema rather than wait for it to leak then there could a sequel.

While your point is a decent one and moral, I wouldn't be too hard on the guy. Avatar was the most pirated film of all time. It was also the highest grossing movie of all time.

Do you think if that rip wasn't available he would have hopped to the nearest showing? People pirate because its free and easy. The people who pirated John Carter were never going to see it anyway. It's not a lost sale. Piracy is never the reason a movie sinks or swims.

It failed because the marketing was shocking. They spent all that money for very little return. The posters were useless. The tv spots told us nothing about the movie. I had no prior knowledge of the story and even though I saw several in the week leading up to release.....I was still clueless as to what the movie actually was.

The name wasn't great. You can only get away with circuitous titles if you have buzz. This had none. It had virtually no online presence. It wasn't helped by the timing of its release. Didn't the lorax eat into it's demographic? that was poor planning.

As to the movie itself, watched it on bluray there yesterday. I thought it was flawed, but very enjoyable. It's disappointing we will never see a sequel.

Bullseye1

Does the home entertainment release of a movie not go towards its overall "box office" take? If it were to do well in that area might Disney not reconsider? Also Tron:Legacy did not do to well at the box office but it looks like it will get a sequel.

Sad Professor

Studios frequently do rely on Blu-ray sales to make profit on a film, but it can take a lot longer. There's no way John Carter will make enough on home video to justify a sequel.

Tron: Legacy made considerably more at the box office than John Carter. And it cost about 100 million less to make. It was disappointment but not a flop.

Capt'n Midnight

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Does the home entertainment release of a movie not go towards its overall "box office" take? If it were to do well in that area might Disney not reconsider? Also Tron:Legacy did not do to well at the box office but it looks like it will get a sequel.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1104001/business
Tron Legacy
Budget
$170,000,000 (estimated)
Gross
$172,062,763 (USA) (14 April 2011)

So Tron Legacy broke even in the US,
the profit came from world wide sales ( less advertising )

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=tron2.htm
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $172,062,763 43.0%
+ Foreign: $228,000,000 57.0%
= Worldwide: $400,062,763







JC
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/business
Budget
$250,000,000 (estimated)
Gross
$72,724,715 (USA) (3 June 2012)

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $72,794,595 25.8%
+ Foreign: $209,700,000 74.2%
= Worldwide: $282,494,595

Looks like it's made profit, but there is about $100 million of advertising to be counted too


Mars needs moms
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1305591/business
Budget
$150,000,000 (estimated)
Gross
$21,345,454 (USA) (12 June 2011)

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=marsneedsmoms.htm
Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $21,392,758 54.9%
+ Foreign: $17,600,000 45.1%
= Worldwide: $38,992,758


But Hollywood accountants are very creative , moving money around to avoid tax and hide from the competition

http://talkvietnam.com/2012/03/megabomb-john-carter-may-be-hollywoods-biggest-loser/

Sometimes it’s not revenues that sink a film. Director Andrew Stanton’s movie has a reasonably strong $184 million worldwide box office, so far.

The key problem for “John Carter” was that it cost more than $350 million to produce and market, according to industry sources, who say even that number is likely understated.

- yip probably another $100m in marketing

In 2011 alone, there were two big losers. Disney released “Mars Needs Moms,” for which it took a write-down of at least $70 million, on a film that had a worldwide box office of only $38.9 million.
...
“The studios are just spending too much money and there’s just not the box office there to support it,” said Paul Dergarabedian, president of Hollywood.com.

“John Carter’s’ bloated budget would have required it to generate worldwide tickets sales of more than $600 million to break even,

I still can't understand the insane amount of money spent of advertising films
in many cases I think it's counter productive, heavy advertising sounds like desperation ?

for some of the biggest turkeys the advertising is greater than the box-office take, it would be literally cheaper to not advertise it !

I'd rather see the money on the screen than on ads
then again with Pluto Nash and Cuthroat Island, you can't really see the money on the screen. In the latter it's there if you look but you can't justify it in the sets because it doesn't stand out enough.

you don't need to throw money at the screen in every scene
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078748/trivia

20th Century Fox Studios almost did not allow the "space jockey", or the giant alien pilot, to be in the film. This was because, at the time, props for movies weren't so large and it would only be used for one scene. However, conceptual artist 'Ron Cobb (I)' convinced them to leave the scene in the movie, as it would be the film's "Cecil. B. DeMille shot", showing the audience that this wasn't some low-budget B-movie.

Outkast_IRE

Honestly its the marketing department that worked for John Carter that deserved to be shot, they should of known they had a good film on their hands and started doing proper press screenings weeks before the release, and did a few audience previews in different cities. Also their marketing team constantly compared it to avatar so people just thought disney were trying to do their own version.

I will purchase this on blu ray, therefore contributing , im just sad i didnt see it in the cinema.

krudler

for all the money spent on advertising John Carter, I saw one banner in the cinema and not a single trailer for it past tv spots, I get most of that would have been in the states but it seems an insane amount of money to spend on something that would have been better left to word of mouth

Capt'n Midnight

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Honestly its the marketing department that worked for John Carter that deserved to be shot,
..
Also their marketing team constantly compared it to avatar so people just thought disney were trying to do their own version.

But to advertise it with a CGI scene that looks like similar to the arena from Attack of the Clones ?

It's the same colour, the monsters are standard Star War monsters, the spectators are thin and spindly, the curves and dimensions of the arena aren't that different.

And then he is able to swing the rock and chain - huh ? (the trailer doesn't explain)
So he's superhuman so any sense of peril is diminished.



It's OK to release a me-too film , but only if you are aiming low like direct to DVD. And the Avatar concept was based in part on guess what ?


Blockbusters have to stand out , they have to be special. You can't make something that sounds like Avatar and looks like Star Wars and get away with it.

Avatar was the first big 3D film. How would it have fared if released now ?
Star Wars had history, lots of people hooked on the series.

John Carter had lots of material, maybe do a cartoon



Overall where do Hollywood get inspiration for movies ,

Stuff like Armageddon and Deep Impact out at the same time ??

Galvasean

Bluray not out here 'til July. I's out in the States already though.

krudler

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

But to advertise it with a CGI scene that looks like similar to the arena from Attack of the Clones ?

It's the same colour, the monsters are standard Star War monsters, the spectators are thin and spindly, the curves and dimensions of the arena aren't that different.

And then he is able to swing the rock and chain - huh ? (the trailer doesn't explain)
So he's superhuman so any sense of peril is diminished.



It's OK to release a me-too film , but only if you are aiming low like direct to DVD. And the Avatar concept was based in part on guess what ?


Blockbusters have to stand out , they have to be special. You can't make something that sounds like Avatar and looks like Star Wars and get away with it.

Avatar was the first big 3D film. How would it have fared if released now ?
Star Wars had history, lots of people hooked on the series.

John Carter had lots of material, maybe do a cartoon



Overall where do Hollywood get inspiration for movies ,

Stuff like Armageddon and Deep Impact out at the same time ??

but the original story of John Carter Of Mars is a massive influence on modern sci-fi, the movie isnt trying to be Avatar, its based on a 100 year old series of books: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_carter_of_mars

audiences just didnt know this and think John Carter is jumping on the bandwagon of other sci-fi movies, its the other way around.

Zubeneschamali

krudler wrote: »

audiences just didnt know this and think John Carter is jumping on the bandwagon of other sci-fi movies, its the other way around.

If you were doing a live action Jungle Book movie, you would not sell it with a scene of Mowgli in a loincloth swinging on a jungle liana and yelling, because movie-goers would think "Tarzan". It doesn't matter that Tarzan is a rip from Kipling, just as it doesn't matter that Lucas lifted that Arena sequence from ERB.

Use something else, something cool and unique, to sell the movie.

Capt'n Midnight

also http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/03/09/is_john_carter_the_last_great_action_movie_jumper_.html

norrie rugger

Ordered this on BluRay, as I was on honeymoon for its theatrical release.
Been one of the few films lately that I have been looking in the mail box repeatedly for.

Outkast_IRE

Outkast_IRE wrote: »

Honestly its the marketing department that worked for John Carter that deserved to be shot, they should of known they had a good film on their hands and started doing proper press screenings weeks before the release, and did a few audience previews in different cities. Also their marketing team constantly compared it to avatar so people just thought disney were trying to do their own version.

I will purchase this on blu ray, therefore contributing , im just sad i didnt see it in the cinema.

The marketing department hold very little of the blame for the dreadful campaign that was used to sell John Carter. The blame lies at the feat of Andrew Stanton who had so much pull thanks to his success at Pixar that he was able to have complete control of the marketing.

This is an interesting read about just how Stanton's ability to veto any marketing decision he disagreed with (mentioning Pixar in the trailers) pretty much sank the film.

Zubeneschamali

Deleted User wrote: »

The marketing department hold very little of the blame for the dreadful campaign that was used to sell John Carter.

Yes, that's what the marketing department told me, too.

Sad Professor

Stanton was involved in the early stages of the marketing as many big directors are, but that doesn't mean he masterminded the whole campaign. Of course some anonymous Disney marketing exec is going to blame him.

The biggest problem with the marketing was that it made the film look like a across between Tarzan, Avatar and Star Wars. And guess what? It is! So the marketing wasn't misleading. I suppose they could have played up the fact that the film is based on source material that predates all of those stories, but it still probably wouldn't have been enough to dissuade audiences from believing they had seen this film already.

Bullseye1

Is this out on BD or DVD yet?

norrie rugger

Yes

Bullseye1

Bullseye1 wrote: »

Is this out on BD or DVD yet?

It's out Friday week.

norrie rugger

Deleted User wrote: »

It's out Friday week.

Amazon US has it and are dispatching.

norrie rugger

norrie rugger wrote: »

Amazon US has it and are dispatching.

That they are and while the the release is region free a number of people have had problems with the discs over here.