- 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 11:03 am to CocomoLSU
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:03 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
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.
Pretty much. And sometimes they let things go right, give creators freedom and let them make movies that they want to make.
quote:
So..lose/lose (for us as movie watchers)?
We are going to get crap movies, we will also get great movies. The distribution of those qualities will always be wide ranging.
We just have to hope that some directors can make it through the slop to make the movies they want. John Carter, although not the greatest, is one of those films. It's just good, a lot of fun, and well made.
How many "great" movies have been flops? Quite a few actually.
I'm really just against three things:
1) The trailer sucks...so the movie sucks.
2) Movies like this shouldn't be made.
3) Movies with $250 million budgets should fail.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 11:04 am
3
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:05 am to Freauxzen
quote:The trailer was bad. It looked like 10000 B.C. meets Attack of the Clones.
1) The trailer sucks...so the movie sucks.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:07 am to alajones
quote:
The trailer was bad. It looked like 10000 B.C. meets Attack of the Clones.
And I've said that that is a fair assessment of the trailer. I hate the trailer too and went to see the movie despite the trailer, simply because I'll see most science fiction films, regardless of content.
Sometimes that works out well: See John Carter, the trailer does not do the film any justice.
Sometimes that doesn't: See the bore that was Cowboys and Aliens.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:07 am to rickgrimes
quote:
The Walt Disney Co. on Monday acknowledged in a statement that the movie's poor performance at the box office likely will force Disney to take a $200 million writedown. The company expects its studio divison will post an operating loss of as much as $120 million in the second fiscal quarter of this year.
"John Carter," based on an Edgar Rice Burroughs character, was made for about a quarter-billion dollars;marketing costs were another $100 million on top of that. But the movie grossed only $30.2 million domestically during its first weekend of release, taking in a measly $13.5 million its second.
The picture was brighter overseas, grossing around $126 million abroad in the 10 days since its March 9 release.
“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," the company said in a statement. "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."
quote:
It rates alongside such stinkers as "Mars Needs Moms," a 2011 movie that cost $150 million to make and grossed $39 million worldwide
I've never even heard of this movie.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:08 am to Freauxzen
quote:This is what I don't get. If it is so expensive to load a film up with CGI, it would seem like more advances would be made in traditional special FX that would not cost as much yet not degrade the overall artistic vision of the movie.
3) Movies with $250 million budgets should fail.
I know, easy to say right...Empire Strikes Back anyone?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:08 am to Freauxzen
quote:
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).
kubrick isn't bankable, though
spielberg is hit or miss when he's not doing adventure tales
quote:
Same genre of film, same type of "big stars at the time."
jude law and that kid from 6th sense are nowhere near the level of leo today
quote:
For no other reason than he succeeds.
because he's a great director with a name. the john carter director? no name
nolan has a name b/c he attached himself to bankable franchises and made good/great movies that made a frick ton of money
quote:
But that is proof that they will trust someone if they can garner acclaim and popularity or success in general
i agree
quote:
That is just very very hard to do.
which is why inception is an outlier
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:09 am to molsusports
quote:
are you trolling the board right now?
Yes because I troll the Movie/TV Board all the time.
I'm not making good points, are defending a film I generally like.
:sarcasmoff:
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:09 am to iwyLSUiwy
quote:I did a thread on it last year. Even with worldwide sales, DVD and toy projected sales, it was going to lose 100 milllion dollars and be labeled as the biggest flop ever.
quote:
It rates alongside such stinkers as "Mars Needs Moms," a 2011 movie that cost $150 million to make and grossed $39 million worldwide
I've never even heard of this movie.
Until now anyway. Disney needs to rethink their spring releases.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:09 am to Freauxzen
quote:
It was also an unproven idea, an original concept
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:12 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Sometimes that doesn't: See the bore that was Cowboys and Aliens.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:14 am to alajones
quote:
. Disney needs to rethink their spring releases.
They need to go back to their roots, and do one awesome cell-drawn animation movie a year, and two cheap made just for kids live action movies, and let Pixar handle the CGI movies, and Touchstone or whoever their adult wing is make one or two serious movies a year.
Disney used to have greatness year after year. They would be better off re-releasing some of their more obscure movies than making 250M dollar bombs.
I think the name of this movie and the trailer hurt it the worst.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:14 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
kubrick isn't bankable, though
At the time? But he already was immortalized in film history cannon by AI.
quote:
spielberg is hit or miss when he's not doing adventure tales
Regardless of quality, the guy puts butts in seats.
quote:
jude law and that kid from 6th sense are nowhere near the level of leo today
But they aren't Riggins either.
quote:
because he's a great director with a name. the john carter director? no name
nolan has a name b/c he attached himself to bankable franchises and made good/great movies that made a frick ton of money
Right. Who's first film banked more than all Nolan films combined through the prestige I'm sure.
You're right he doesn't have a name, but to say he's not an up and coming talent is shortsighted.
quote:
which is why inception is an outlier
Agree on most accounts.
You do realize that my arguing is really the sentiment that we should hope for Andrew Stanton, someone who we should be keeping an eye on, who goes out on a limb to make something close to his heart, in genre that we all like, with a alrge budget, to fail?
Hoping for Meet the Spartans to fail is one thing. Hoping for Stanton to fail, who may be able to enchant us like Nolan one day, is stupid.
Stanton is obviously the kind of guy we want to see making films.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:16 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
Yes yes, Ducktales. Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:16 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
CocomoLSU
What was Cowboys and Aliens good?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:18 am to Freauxzen
Crap, where was all this discussion yesterday when no one was biting on my Prestige thread or Spencer Davis group thread?
:endpityparty:
:endpityparty:
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:23 am to Freauxzen
quote:
I'm really just against three things:
1) The trailer sucks...so the movie sucks.
2) Movies like this shouldn't be made.
3) Movies with $250 million budgets should fail.
You seem serious I guess so I'll respond as if you are.
1) agree that's not 100% - just like you can be fooled by a good trailer for a bad movie
2) I'm not sure what you mean by "movies like this" - if you mean big budget fantasy or adventure films you must be joking tho. It seems to me there are plenty of those
3) I don't think anyone feels that way - but the average viewer who hears that a film took $250 million to make has higher expectations. And if they aren't wowed (mostly by the production value) then they are going to have a more negative opinion than they would if the same movie had a much lower budget. Conversely if you have a movie like District 9 then I think people tend to be even more impressed when it was made without a blockbuster budget
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:24 am to Freauxzen
quote:
What was Cowboys and Aliens good?
I liked it a lot. It had its holes and errors, but it was well-enough done for me to enjoy it. Plus, I loved the idea behind it. Thought it looked great (even the CGI was good). I chalked it up in the "pure/mindles entertainment" category, had decent expectations going in, and walked out really liking it. It was just fun.
I won't tell you it's great cinema, but it's definitely worth the price of admission IMO. I'd recommend it as a fun, entertaining movie.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:27 am to molsusports
quote:
You seem serious I guess so I'll respond as if you are.
Why wouldn't I be?
quote:
1) agree that's not 100% - just like you can be fooled by a good trailer for a bad movie
Exactly. So how many people arguing about the quality of the MOVIE JOHN CARTER, nto the TRAILER JOHN CARTER, have seen this film?
So don't respond to me, look at what I started responding to, the first page of this thread. Here are some quotes:
quote:
Finally a movie that looked completely retarded gets what it deserves. I just wish the same could be said for others..ie) Jack and Jill....
quote:
good
quote:
And they spent 250 million making this.
quote:
I want movies that look like crap, ones where studios sink 250M+ into them just for the sake of doing it, to BOMB.
quote:
2) I'm not sure what you mean by "movies like this" - if you mean big budget fantasy or adventure films you must be joking tho. It seems to me there are plenty of those
See the first page. Not my quotes.
quote:
I don't think anyone feels that way
First page.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:30 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Sometimes that works out well: See John Carter, the trailer does not do the film any justice.
Sometimes that doesn't: See the bore that was Cowboys and Aliens.
Well I guess everything is subjective but I thought Cowboys and Aliens was good campy fun and made sense as that.
I haven't seen John Carter (eventually I might) but what about it resonates so strongly for you? you really seem to think it is good and I think most of us have just missed why you think it is special
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:32 am to CocomoLSU
quote:
I liked it a lot. It had its holes and errors, but it was well-enough done for me to enjoy it.
Fair enough. I won't debate personal opinions. And yeah that made more money than Carter. I don't think it was "a success" though.
quote:
Plus, I loved the idea behind it.
I did too. And I thought the trailers were ok for the most part. I think one set really bugged me though. Where they told the whole film in the trailer.
quote:
Thought it looked great (even the CGI was good). I chalked it up in the "pure/mindles entertainment" category, had decent expectations going in, and walked out really liking it. It was just fun.
See, I couldn't do that. And you know I defend Micheal Bay on here. I just really never got into the film. And the middle of the film was a total bore.
Wiki:
quote:
Budget $163 million
[2] Box office $174,822,325
So it scraped and probably made more internationally.
And I want Favreau to keep making films, same as Stanton. But I personally didn't like that film.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 11:33 am
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News