re: 'John Carter' goes down as one of the biggest flops in history ($200M loss)

quote:

---

The way movie studios report losses is such a racket. This movie could have very well made money but the studio could have come up with magic numbers to report a loss. Happens frequently.

---

I can't read 5 pages, but what I did read, people seemed to skim over this.

This guy nailed it. The movie is flopping, but they way they report this stuff might as well be fraud. They're gonna get a HUGE tax write off and still make a profit on this movie.

It's called Hollywood Accounting

quote:

---

Winston Groom's price for the screenplay rights to his novel Forrest Gump included a share of the profits; however, due to Hollywood accounting, the film's commercial success was converted into a net loss, and Groom received nothing.

---

quote:

---

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.

---

Yes.

quote:

---

What should be the blame but won't is the studio meddling, the title, terrible marketing/trailer.

---

Exactly. And no one is blaming these things, or taking solace in the fact that it MAY be a good movie despite the trailer.

quote:

---

$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.

---

Can't disagree. And Disney has to be flubbing their numbers a bit:

quote:

---

John Carter has earned $53,172,000 in North America, as of March 18, 2012 and $126,100,000 in other countries, as of March 18, 2012, summing up to a worldwide total of $179,272,000.[64] In North America, it opened in first place on Friday, March 9, 2012 with $9.81 million.[65] However, by Sunday, it had grossed $30.2 million, falling to second place for the weekend, behind The Lorax.[66] Outside North America, it topped the weekend chart, opening with $70.6 million.[67] Its highest-grossing country was Russia and the CIS, where it broke the all-time opening-day record ($6.5 million)[68] and earned $16.5 million during the weekend.[69] Despite strong overseas numbers, however, The Walt Disney Co. has admitted that the film is a box office bomb, and is expected to lose as much as $200 million.[70]

---

They aren't telling us something. Given international numbers hitting $250 million isn't out of the question over the next two weeks.

And MARKETING isn't Stanton or the actors' fault, if it cost that much and failed that much, do we have to hope the MOVIE fails?

quote:

---

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.

---

Agreed. But that's a whole other thread we should start. Debating the necessities of a good trailer.

I thought it was pretty good.

Tim Riggins should've never left Dillon, TX.

John Carter can thank 10,000 B.C. for this flop. People are getting smarter thank goodness, still very dumb though in move selections.

I'm with you on this. I wasn't familiar with the franchise at all and the early teaser trailers and posters of "John Carter" said absolutely nothing to me.

I had literally no idea what the hell was coming out in 6 months. Anyways, last weekend my buddy who has read the books wanted to go and I came away more entertained than Cowboys & Aliens and lots of other movies I've seen. Also, if you have a kid between 7/8 to 14/15 they will love this movie. It hits on a lot of demographics and I think the director did a hell of job with such a crazy/hard to bring to the screen idea on his first try.

quote:

---

If it takes them years to maybe make the money back it's a financial disaster.

---

That's the case the great majority of the time. Box office is kind of chump change as far as potential revenue goes, plus there are a lot of people that need to be paid from those receipts. Like I said, I dunno how long it would take to recoup such a big loss, but it'll happen sooner than most people think. And Disney can probably run it on TV any time that they want and rake in ad revenue.

ETA: This is why I'm not fazed much by a movie flopping anymore. People wonder why bad movies keep getting made, well think of movies as the gift that keeps on giving to the movie studios. After your movie is made, you no longer have to worry about paying for pesky things like marketing and production. If your movie airs on TV, the channel handles promotion (or better yet, if you own a network...)

ETA Again: Look no further than to the fact that there are entire studios built around churning out crap that they can air on television (see: The Asylum).

quote:

---

Likewise. I would guess part of the problem with the movie was the plain name, John Carter. No name or event recognition for a science fiction movie like this spells doom. If the movie was name something like "Invasion of Mars" it probably would have attracted an additional 50 million movie goers.

---

Or even... "John Carter of Mars"

quote:

---

these kind of financial flops are strengthening the position of a breed of filmmakers like Jason Blumhouse, who I am working for now

---

Isn't his name Jason Blum? And yes, he has a brilliant model. I hope to see as many models for production as there can be. Big budget is one of those.

quote:

---

He takes marketable scripts and makes films for under 5m that have studio distribution in place. He has changed the game a bit with the paranormal activities and Insidious.

His company offers back end points on the gross, which is why he was able to lure Joe Johnston on our 2.5M film.

---

I wish I could work in this kind of innovative atmosphere.

yeh ... his name is blum .. Blumhouse productions is his company.