- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'John Carter' goes down as one of the biggest flops in history ($200M loss)
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:38 am to Freauxzen
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:38 am to Freauxzen
quote:
if these films fail, big companies like Disney will interact MORE with the process, not less. Hoping that these fail is not the right way to think if you want studios to make better films.
Seems like either way they will interact more either way with that kind of money on the line. Movie tanks, we should have done more. Movie succeeds, it was our brilliant marketing, we need to do more.
1
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:40 am to Napoleon
quote:
You know that there is some serious evidence to back this up. It is quite possible the books we know of as written by Shakespeare, weren't.
I don't care. It's Roland Emmerich of all people bringing the story to the limelight. If it were say, someone like Tarantino or the Coen Bros, then ok, but Emmerich?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:42 am to Freauxzen
quote:
The CGI is necessary
that's a major problem that creates a huge gamble
unless you have an established market of kids (esp ones who buy toys), you're taking a major risk
quote:
It's far more natural feeling than movies with twice the budget.
$500M movies?
quote:
Who does a good job.
still doesn't have name recognition that will make an audience trust him or want to see the movie
quote:
It obviously won't be
no i mean "hero/savior" sci fi movies. that market is pretty flooded (with good and bad movies)
quote:
I really chalk this one up to people not liking true adventure anymore
define "true adventure"
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:43 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Exactly. They already mingle enough, and if these films fail, big companies like Disney will interact MORE with the process, not less. Hoping that these fail is not the right way to think if you want studios to make better films.
So if the movie does well, they keep shelling out mediocre movies. If it bombs, they just control the process more vertically and still shell out the same movies.
So..lose/lose (for us as movie watchers)?
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 9:44 am
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:45 am to OMLandshark
quote:
t. If it were say, someone like Tarantino or the Coen Bros, then ok, but Emmerich?
Yeah, then he screwed up the timeline, ruined the story, and didn't even use one of the five people thought to be the actual ghostwriter.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:51 am to Freauxzen
quote:
But if highly creative and inspired movies fail, studios will make more Jack and Jills, NOT LESS.
And I still don't get why anyone cares about Jack and Jill. These studios are going to make stupid movies no matter what happens to John Carter.
You may find Jack and Jill ridiculous and unnecessary. I find Harold and Kumar unncessary.....but I see no one complaining that it got made. Or the 10th American Pie movie. Or any pf the other countless dumbass movies studios make.
The studios make those movies because the risk is little with a possible giant reward if one takes off.
But it's not a zero sum game......the success or failure of John Carter has nothing to do with whether Jack and Jill gets made. Newsflash: It's getting made regardless because Sandler makes money just like Kumar does.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 9:59 am to simbo
quote:
I find Harold and Kumar unncessary.....but I see no one complaining that it got made.
Because it was, you know, funny, and is also a film we've never seen: a film starring an asian and an Indian with no other white lead, and it makes us identify with their ridiculous plight. Jack and Jill should be in no way compared to Harold and Kumar. Even though the second wasn't nearly as good, it still had its great moments.
quote:
But it's not a zero sum game......the success or failure of John Carter has nothing to do with whether Jack and Jill gets made. Newsflash: It's getting made regardless because Sandler makes money just like Kumar does.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:12 am to OMLandshark
It's a real shame this movie is going to go down as a historical flop, because it's actually a pretty good movie.
I can think of a lot more movies more deserving of losing money than John Carter.
I can think of a lot more movies more deserving of losing money than John Carter.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:14 am to rickgrimes
It was an assanine time to release a summer blockbuster type movie. Between th eretarded trailers and the timing of the release, it was doomed to fail.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 10:14 am
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:25 am to SpqrTiger
Its reminding me of the backlash against TRON Legacy, which was also undeservedly lashed at.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:28 am to H-Town Tiger
quote:
Seems like either way they will interact more either way with that kind of money on the line. Movie tanks, we should have done more. Movie succeeds, it was our brilliant marketing, we need to do more.
Inception ring any bells?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:30 am to alajones
quote:
It was an assanine time to release a summer blockbuster type movie. Between th eretarded trailers and the timing of the release, it was doomed to fail.
But at the same time, would you release this film against Batman, Avengers, etc.? Hell no.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:32 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Inception ring any bells?
inception is an outlier, and it was directed by the biggest name at the time (coming off TDK...oh and he makes awesome movies regardless) with a big bankable star headlining (leeeeeeeeeeeo)
i don't think studios mingle with nolan much, and with good reason
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:32 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Inception ring any bells?
I've heard of it, have not seen it, don't know anything about marketing, budget or level of studio meddleing.
Frankly the name John Carter, as you guy's mention is freaking stupid. I've never heard of this character. You have that, with stupid trailers = something I have no interest in seeing.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 10:36 am
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:34 am to Freauxzen
quote:
The CGI is necessary and actually done very well. It's far more natural feeling than movies with twice the budget
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:47 am to Pilot Tiger
quote:
because it forces studios to make better movies. Or at least, that's the reasoning.
But this is the kind of movie you want studios to take chances on and make. It isn't a sequel or a remake so wanting it to bomb is really stupid.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 10:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
inception is an outlier, and it was directed by the biggest name at the time (coming off TDK...oh and he makes awesome movies regardless) with a big bankable star headlining (leeeeeeeeeeeo)
BECAUSE Nolan was so successful. It has less to do with NOLAN, and more to do with his success.
It was also an unproven idea, an original concept, and not exactly "bankable." Look at A.I., from a far more popular and loved director (not to mention a historically popular name attached to the idea in the first place).
Same genre of film, same type of "big stars at the time." And what happened? Failure (despite the movie being ok).
quote:
i don't think studios mingle with nolan much, and with good reason
For no other reason than he succeeds. They often don't give others the privilege.
But that is proof that they will trust someone if they can garner acclaim and popularity or success in general. That is just very very hard to do.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:00 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
that's a major problem that creates a huge gamble
unless you have an established market of kids (esp ones who buy toys), you're taking a major risk
Point taken. Again, the marketing for this was terrible to say the least.
quote:
$500M movies?
Ok, a bit of an exaggeration, but Carter felt far more real than Avatar, just saying.
quote:
still doesn't have name recognition that will make an audience trust him or want to see the movie
Fair enough. And it's hard to attach "From the director of Finding Nemo" to such a vastly different property.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:01 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I really chalk this one up to people not liking true adventure anymore. It's almost like as a culture, we can't.
are you trolling the board right now?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:02 am to Freauxzen
quote:Not against, they would've had to have reserved a weekend for themselves a long time ago.
But at the same time, would you release this film against Batman, Avengers, etc.? Hell no.
I get what you are saying about adventure movies. I thought Prince of Persia was pretty decent. I don't think it flopped, but it came and went with no real fanfare.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 11:04 am
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News