- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- 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 11:37 am to molsusports
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:37 am to molsusports
quote:
Well I guess everything is subjective but I thought Cowboys and Aliens was good campy fun and made sense as that.
Right, but you saw and I saw it. SO we can debate that and respect other people's opinions. I enjoy that, and that's why we have this board.
But the only two people in this thread that seem to have seen the movie are OML and I, and there seems to be a lot of "well the trailer sucked, the budget was too high, the film should fail etc." Maybe everyone should go see the film first?
quote:
I haven't seen John Carter (eventually I might) but what about it resonates so strongly for you?
One of the better adventure films to come out in the last few years. Simple as that.
quote:
you really seem to think it is good
Yes. It's good. Not great, not wonderful, not the best thing ever to be put on screen, but a solid adventure film with a lot of goof talent behind it. It's a little campy and cheesy, so there's that too.
quote:
I think most of us have just missed why you think it is special
Well, first, most have missed why I like it because... oh wait, most haven't seen it yet. And that's fine, I'm not saying everyone needs to rush out and see it, but there's a lot of judging in the first part of this thread, without a lot of actually watching the movie.
And I don't think the film is "special,"
I just think, to repeat myself:
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.
That's what I'm arguing with.
0
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:40 am to Freauxzen
quote:
Exactly. So how many people arguing about the quality of the MOVIE JOHN CARTER, nto the TRAILER JOHN CARTER, have seen this film?
Well, i agree with you in theory there but i doubt you responded in a similar fashion when people who haven't seen "Jack and Jill" were bashing it as crap and laughing about it not doing better in the box office.
You seem emotionally attached to the film for some reason (sounds like you really like the director?) And RE: the budget issue I think I already addressed that in a prior post. People can feel justified in criticizing a film more if it has a larger budget but doesn't turn out to be special. That, I think, is the spirit of the criticism you quoted but seem to misrepresent (I quoted it again below)
quote:
I want movies that look like crap, ones where studios sink 250M+ into them just for the sake of doing it, to BOMB.
That person is not saying they don't want $250 million dollar films to be made - he is saying they want the expensive films that are made to be sound and entertaining. His perception is John Carter failed in those basic respects
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:48 am to molsusports
quote:
Well, i agree with you in theory there but i doubt you responded in a similar fashion when people who haven't seen "Jack and Jill" were bashing it as crap and laughing about it not doing better in the box office.
Well because the trailer matched expectations. If you look at some reviewers for general consensus, people like John Carter. Not one critic is saying the movie deserves to flop.
Jack and Jill was universally panned. There's a difference.
And it was obvious what that movie was for. And if anyone has paid attention to Sandler's career, then yeah, we can all assume why the movie was made. You can't and shouldn't say the same thing about Andrew Stanton.
quote:
You seem emotionally attached to the film for some reason
No. I like film. I like film that gets inspirations from its roots in art and literature. I like science fiction. I also like honest debate, and thoughtful understanding of quality (which one must experience to determine), etc.
quote:
sounds like you really like the director?
He's an up and comer, nothing more. I think hoping he fails is stupid.
quote:
People can feel justified in criticizing a film more if it has a larger budget but doesn't turn out to be special.
You also can't justify judging a film if you haven't seen it. That's what I mean.
quote:
That person is not saying they don't want $250 million dollar films to be made - he is saying they want the expensive films that are made to be sound and entertaining. His perception is John Carter failed in those basic respects
His perception is invalid since he hasn't seen the film yet.
And how many times do we have to repeat on here:
Profit =/= Quality
Never has that been true in film, and never will it be.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 11:55 am
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:50 am to Freauxzen
quote:
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?
i don't want it to fail. i think that he may have taken too big of a step. only a few guys can handle a super budget movie well
roland emmerich was mentioned earlier. let me just say this: that guy can make a big sci fi epic on time and on budget with a high chance of it making money
your boy will get another shot in live action. he just won't have near the budget of $250M (and he shouldn't)
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 11:51 am
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:53 am to Freauxzen
quote:
And how many times do we have to repeat on here:
Profit =/= Quality
when you're dealing with movies with budgets above $200M, profit matters a lot more
it's just hard for me to imagine that many movies made with a $250M budget will be that good, for a variety of factors
even ROTK had a budget sub $100M
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:53 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i don't want it to fail.
I don't think you do, but that's who my initial responses were to.
quote:
i think that he may have taken too big of a step. only a few guys can handle a super budget movie well
That's the problem, he did handle it well. it's a good movie.
quote:
roland emmerich was mentioned earlier. let me just say this: that guy can make a big sci fi epic on time and on budget with a high chance of it making money
Exactly. And I believe Micheal Bay does it even better. And I can enjoy Bay movies (contemporary Emmerich, not so much).
quote:
your boy will get another shot in live action. he just won't have near the budget of $250M (and he shouldn't)
Right, I hope so. But again, it's the sentiment of hoping he fails that I was responding to on the first page.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:55 am to Freauxzen
quote:
And yeah that made more money than Carter. I don't think it was "a success" though.
Definitely not a big one, if at all. Like you said, it made:
quote:
Budget $163 million
[2] Box office $174,822,325
So it scraped and probably made more internationally.
And that is domestic and foreign combined (Wiki usually has both combined). So it barely recovered its production budget. I don't know what the marketing budget was on it, but with rentals and DVDs, it likely turned a small profit (by normal accounting measures). But yeah, it didn't make as much as I thought it would overall. I still liked it though. I can see why some would think the middle was boring though, but it didn't bother me that much.
Also, on a side note, I saw A.I. mentioned earlier. It made almost $240 million in box office alone (budget was $100MM), and was 11 years ago when rentals were still a strong part of movie-making revenue. So it did pretty well (I believe you called it a failure earlier).
Posted on 3/20/12 at 11:59 am to Freauxzen
i almost brought up Bay but there is too much haterade about the TMNT movie to bring him up
and he makes much better movies than RE
i won't lie i kind of have a chunk of me that hopes movies with $250M budgets fail
most expensive films (wiki)
pretty bleak list in the top 25
and he makes much better movies than RE
quote:
But again, it's the sentiment of hoping he fails that I was responding to on the first page.
i won't lie i kind of have a chunk of me that hopes movies with $250M budgets fail
most expensive films (wiki)
pretty bleak list in the top 25
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:00 pm to Freauxzen
John Carter and Freauxzen sitting in a tree....
True, but there is a general expectation of "Budget should = Quality" to some degree.
quote:
Profit =/= Quality
Never has that been true in film, and never will it be.
True, but there is a general expectation of "Budget should = Quality" to some degree.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:02 pm to Freauxzen
I get what you are saying Freaux, we should not want a movie like this to fail because its far more likely that the blame will fall on the things we should want to see moreof : a promising/lesser known director getting bigger movies and this type of genre.
What should be the blame but won't is the studio meddling, the title, terrible marketing/trailer.
$250 seems like too much for this type of project, without a well known director. Could they have made it for 125-150? Most may not have known Nolan when he made BB, but we all knew who Batman was. Personally I've never heard of the character and with such a generic name, there needs to be more to the title.
And how hard is it make a good trailer? E made a trailer so good he got a studio to offer to buy the giant turd that was Medellin.
What should be the blame but won't is the studio meddling, the title, terrible marketing/trailer.
$250 seems like too much for this type of project, without a well known director. Could they have made it for 125-150? Most may not have known Nolan when he made BB, but we all knew who Batman was. Personally I've never heard of the character and with such a generic name, there needs to be more to the title.
And how hard is it make a good trailer? E made a trailer so good he got a studio to offer to buy the giant turd that was Medellin.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:06 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
I like science fiction.
In light of an earlier Movie/TV Board thread we both participated in I'm actually really surprised to see you repeatedly refer to John Carter as Science Fiction
quote:
And how many times do we have to repeat on here:
Profit =/= Quality
OK, you are better than that. You should not stoop to pretending everyone who disagrees with you doesn't agree with something that basic. In fact, I would guess that same guy would probably pan movies like Armageddon or Con Air as being bad even tho they probably made a lot of money.
I think his point was clear (if you put $250 million into a picture people want to see something that justifies that expense in the finished product). I probably largely agree with what I perceive to be the spirit of OMLandsharks criticism - if you are a movie studio and have a limited number of projects that you can sink hundreds of millions of dollars into I think there should be compelling stories, characters, and plot as well as nice special effects. Spending that much money to produce an adequate action movie with special effects, a goofy premise, and acceptable execution is just so far below the bar set by LOTR as to be disappointing to the viewer
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:07 pm to CocomoLSU
Cowboys and Aliens was one of the most disappointing movies I've seen in a long time. The trailer for that absolutely killed. That was a great trailer. I rarely go to the theatres but I went opening night and when I left I just kind of chuckled walking out of the theatre laughing at how terrible it was. I think the first Iron Man overrated John Favreau for me when I can now see him turning out to be just a pretty average director. That's about how I felt about Cowboys and Aliens; very average. The movie didn't know what it wanted to be. The first scene had this gritty true western feel to it and I was like o heck yes just what I wanted. Then it nevere had another scene like it. The movie had three different styles all in one.
I'm with you, I loved the idea behind it. But the movie was so much more corny than the trailer led you to believe.
I couldn't chalk it up to mindless entertainment. Story was way to stupid and wasn't what it was leading you to believe so I was so disappointed I couldn't be entertained.
But over the years I've noticed that I dislike more movie than you in general. I don't consider myself a snob but am critical when my expectations are high and I'm really let down because not enough effort was put into the story ala this and Transformers 2.
I'm with you, I loved the idea behind it. But the movie was so much more corny than the trailer led you to believe.
I couldn't chalk it up to mindless entertainment. Story was way to stupid and wasn't what it was leading you to believe so I was so disappointed I couldn't be entertained.
But over the years I've noticed that I dislike more movie than you in general. I don't consider myself a snob but am critical when my expectations are high and I'm really let down because not enough effort was put into the story ala this and Transformers 2.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:11 pm to iwyLSUiwy
quote:It must have been pretty corny then because my kids even thought the trailers looked dumb.
But the movie was so much more corny than the trailer led you to believe.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:17 pm to iwyLSUiwy
And oddly enough, I liked C&A and didn't really like Iron Man (well, certainly not as much as everyone else did).
Oh I definitely am not a very harsh critic when it comes to movies. Movies are supposed to be (mainly) entertainment. If I watch a movie and don't regret the time I spent doing so, it's okay by me. Sure, there are movies that I dislike ( like this piece of shite). But I'd say I'm relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. Plus, I usually mainly see movies that I know/think I will enjoy and avoid ones I don't, and that helps.
quote:
But over the years I've noticed that I dislike more movie than you in general. I don't consider myself a snob but am critical when my expectations are high and I'm really let down because not enough effort was put into the story ala this and Transformers 2.
Oh I definitely am not a very harsh critic when it comes to movies. Movies are supposed to be (mainly) entertainment. If I watch a movie and don't regret the time I spent doing so, it's okay by me. Sure, there are movies that I dislike ( like this piece of shite). But I'd say I'm relatively easy to please when it comes to movies. Plus, I usually mainly see movies that I know/think I will enjoy and avoid ones I don't, and that helps.
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 12:20 pm
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:19 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
And that is domestic and foreign combined (Wiki usually has both combined). So it barely recovered its production budget. I don't know what the marketing budget was on it, but with rentals and DVDs, it likely turned a small profit (by normal accounting measures). But yeah, it didn't make as much as I thought it would overall. I still liked it though. I can see why some would think the middle was boring though, but it didn't bother me that much.
And that was from a:
1) More bankable director than Stanton
2) More bankable stars.
But no one was hoping that would fail?
quote:
Also, on a side note, I saw A.I. mentioned earlier. It made almost $240 million in box office alone (budget was $100MM), and was 11 years ago when rentals were still a strong part of movie-making revenue. So it did pretty well (I believe you called it a failure earlier).
Surprising. I stand corrected. I thought it was considered a flop at the time?
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:21 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i almost brought up Bay but there is too much haterade about the TMNT movie to bring him up
Unneeded hate until we see what he does with it. I don't judge Bay until I see his films, because they are, more often than not, tons of fun. We'll get his version of TMNT and TMNT as a property won't go aaway. no harm, no foul.
quote:
and he makes much better movies than RE
Truth.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:23 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
John Carter and Freauxzen sitting in a tree....
I've said like six times, it does not THAT much to do with the actual film and more to do with the sentiments that it should fail, or that it sucks, without actually having seen it.
quote:
True, but there is a general expectation of "Budget should = Quality" to some degree.
And how many people are judging quality without having seen the film?
This post was edited on 3/20/12 at 12:24 pm
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:23 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
Surprising. I stand corrected. I thought it was considered a flop at the time?
It likely was not what people were expecting based on the elements you mentioned before (Spielberg, actors - HJO was pretty popular, etc.).
It's like Waterworld...I remember hearing about how it was the biggest flop in history (I know it was the most expensive movie at one point), but going back now and looking at the numbers, it did pretty well actually.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:24 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
It's like Waterworld...I remember hearing about how it was the biggest flop in history (I know it was the most expensive movie at one point), but going back now and looking at the numbers, it did pretty well actually.
And it's a fun movie. People love to talk about it is a flop. I like it, so what if it flopped, it entertained me the few times I saw it, and Kevin Costner kept making movies.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 12:26 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
've said like six times, it does not THAT much to do with the actual film and more to do with the sentiments that it should fail, or that it sucks, without actually having seen it.
Truth. I don't know if it has been mentioned in the thread but this is a good parallel to Waterworld.
However word of mouth-- not just in actual quality, but in perception works both ways. Studios have to be willing to live with this.
Page 5 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News