Disney Expects $200M loss from John Carter

Disneyfanman

Disneyfanman

Well-Known Member
It sure swung for the fences. There is a bunch of money on screen. My whole family enjoyed it, but wouldn't recommend it. That kind of says it all. You have to wonder how the story got so muddled. Especially with a Pixar pedigree.

Here's what is scary. Cars 2 and JC both had an issue with story. I can't remember ever walking out of a pixar movie feeling that way. Now we have these two (even though JC wasn't technically Pixar). If Brave gives me the same, average flick feeling..............Uh oh.
 
radiohost

radiohost

Well-Known Member
This is as bad as it gets.

A no name star + a story 99% of the movie going audience has never heard of + probably the worst marketing of a Disney movie since 'The Black Cauldron' = Somones sorry rear end getting fired on Buena Vista Street in Burbank!

I feel really bad for Andrew Stanton. But you know, he's a smart guy. He knows the business as good as anyone in that company. Don't you think at least halfway through production he would have called up Lasseter and see if he can go to Iger to let him know that this could get really, really bad? Because right now the studio will lose nearly a quarter of a billion dollars on this film.

Not something you want in your speech when your made a "Disney Legend"...
 
dr_teeth90210

dr_teeth90210

Active Member
If this stays true then it will be the biggest flop in movie history.... by a landslide. You would think after Mission Space that Disney would have learned to stay off Mars.
 
erasure fan1

erasure fan1

Well-Known Member
Im not really sure when Disney is going to realize just because you slap your name on it, doesnt mean its going to do well. One of the issues (in my eyes anyway) is the fact that Disney has watered down its own movie name with all the direct to DVD garbage they have spewed out over the years. Im not real sure they have the confidence of the consumer anymore. And when they do have an excellent film (like princess and the frog) they shot themselves in the foot with their marketing.
 
Uncle Lupe

Uncle Lupe

Well-Known Member
Just from watching the few trailers I have seen I had no clue what the movie was about.

It needs that classic movies trailer voice to come on a say, " In a world.. where an ordinary man can be extraordinary."

Throw in some quick cut scenes between quotes that explain the story better.

"John Carter fights with them but fights for us."


Boom! That's a trailer for the common man.
 
T

TurkA77

New Member
I would fire the whole marketing team.

All you read on the internet is how big of a flop its going to be, it never really had a chance. What a shame....


It was a really good movie for those wondering.
 
flavious27

flavious27

Well-Known Member
Not too surprised by this. The studio has been spending too much on movies that just cost too much and or does not have any appeal. They are not going to have a new johny depp movie every year to carry the studio. They need movies like The Help and the The Proposal, and less like Prom and Mars Needs Moms.
 
tiaragirl

tiaragirl

Well-Known Member
My boyfriend and his best friend tried to convince me to go see this - and I flat refused. Andrew was shocked that I was so adamantly against it, but the marketing and promotion for this movie - Disney or not - was so poor that I didn't see the point in spending $13.50 on a ticket.

The sad thing is, there's clearly a lot more people like me - who love Disney, but felt that it wasn't worth the time. It was probably all about presentation. I don't know. I wish it wasn't the case, but hopefully a lesson is learned. Mediocre isn't something that should be associated with Disney.
 
Master Yoda

Master Yoda

Pro Star Wars geek.
Premium Member
Uncle Lupe said:
Just from watching the few trailers I have seen I had no clue what the movie was about.

It needs that classic movies trailer voice to come on a say, " In a world.. where an ordinary man can be extraordinary."

Throw in some quick cut scenes between quotes that explain the story better.

"John Carter fights with them but fights for us."


Boom! That's a trailer for the common man.
Click to expand...
This is it in a nut shell. There has been an absolute marketing barrage done for this film but if you do not already know the story, there is no way you will get it from the trailers. Just another example of quantity not equaling quantity.
 
fractal

fractal

Well-Known Member
I know they tried to keep it close to the original story, but I think they needed to have him transported to a fictional planet. When the story was written, people thought there may be civilizations on Mars. Today we know there isn't ( at least over the last thousand years or so ). So right away, you are asked to believe something that you know is not true. That was very hard to do and the reason I didn't have an interest in seeing the film.

Sci-Fi works better if you can believe what you are seeing may really happen either sometime in the future (Star Trek), or in the case of Star Wars - way in the past and in a galaxy far, far away.
 
xdan0920

xdan0920

Think for yourselfer
fractal said:
I know they tried to keep it close to the original story, but I think they needed to have him transported to a fictional planet. When the story was written, people thought there may be civilizations on Mars. Today we know there isn't ( at least over the last thousand years or so ). So right away, you are asked to believe something that you know is not true. That was very hard to do and the reason I didn't have an interest in seeing the film.

Sci-Fi works better if you can believe what you are seeing may really happen either sometime in the future (Star Trek), or in the case of Star Wars - way in the past and in a galaxy far, far away.
Click to expand...

I heard this exact thing from my wife, who had zero interest in this movie. Then my friend, who I tried to convince to see it with me in her place. It's a valid argument. We know too much about Mars. This movie would have worked much better as a story based off John Carter of Mars, but updated to make it more appealing to this generation.
 
AswaySuller

AswaySuller

Well-Known Member
What a shame.....

But it was probably foolish spending £230 mil on a first movie...if it were a sequel to a film that had done really well... Fair enough but someone is soooooooo getting fired over this.

I also kinda feel for Andrew Stanton, he did a fantastic job on Nemo and Brad Bird's live action debut did really well and was thoroughly enjoyable.

I think Disney pumped all this money in hoping to spawn a franchise....
It just reminds me of when Universal put a big pile of chips on Van Helsing.
 
HM Spectre

HM Spectre

Well-Known Member
The marketing for John Carter was beyond terrible. I saw countless ads for it but none of them were presented in a way that simplified what looked to be a confusing plot. When I saw the advertising, it seemed like something I’d enjoy if I knew the source material but something I wouldn’t watch otherwise. If you’re trying to pull in a broad audience, that’s not the way to do it. It doesn’t sound like it was incredible material to begin with anyway even though Stanton was on the project… the animation quality is a key to Pixar’s success but it’s really the stories and concepts that bring in the box office gold. How did Cars 2 make $50M less domestically than the original despite a budget $80M higher with built in awareness? The movie wasn’t as good. It doesn’t matter how much money is poured into the budget if the story isn’t there to generate word of mouth. Spending $250M + $100M on advertising for a concept with questionable quality is insane.

Also, as was said, can we please get away from Mars? The original “Mars” book was written in the early 1900’s and we know there’s no civilization there now. People go into fantasy generally knowing it’s not real but the best of the bunch make the imagination ask “what if?” People already know there’s no civilization on Mars so it’s hard for imaginations to overcome their knowledge. It’s why many movies are set in the future, past or unknown place. Star Wars is set “a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away”, Lord of the Rings is set in Middle Earth, Avatar was set in the future on a planet in Alpha Centuri, Harry Potter was largely set in a place hidden from normal people, etc. The imagination needs room to run wild and Mars doesn’t provide that anymore. Mars Needs Moms, John Carter... make it stop!
 
I

Ignohippo

Well-Known Member
Besides, all of the first shots and trailers we saw all looked like things we've seen before (the Geonosis Battle in Star Wars; futuristic tribespeople fighting like in Avatar). There was nothing in the trailers that looked unique or imaginative.

That is, until the fan trailer hit the internet. That looked like a movie people would be interested in.

It's a shame. Marketing completely blew this one.
 
pumpkin7

pumpkin7

Well-Known Member
Disneyfanman said:
Here's what is scary. Cars 2 and JC both had an issue with story. I can't remember ever walking out of a pixar movie feeling that way. Now we have these two (even though JC wasn't technically Pixar). If Brave gives me the same, average flick feeling..............Uh oh.
Click to expand...

while i haven't' seen John Carter (not sure if it's out in the UK yet but i don't think i'll be going to see it.), Cars 2 was just awful. i was really excited to see it, and i came out thinking 'what on earth was that?'. they just completely shyed away from what made the original Cars awesome.

oh well. bring on Brave and lets hope it's better.
 
MKCP 1985

MKCP 1985

Well-Known Member
tiaragirl said:
My boyfriend and his best friend tried to convince me to go see this - and I flat refused. Andrew was shocked that I was so adamantly against it, but the marketing and promotion for this movie - Disney or not - was so poor that I didn't see the point in spending $13.50 on a ticket.

The sad thing is, there's clearly a lot more people like me - who love Disney, but felt that it wasn't worth the time. It was probably all about presentation. I don't know. I wish it wasn't the case, but hopefully a lesson is learned. Mediocre isn't something that should be associated with Disney.
Click to expand...

^^^

This

Why $13.50 for a ticket? Because at our local theater it was almost exclusively showing in 3D which means extra expense.

Please understand that in most instances, we would rather not wear 3D glasses for 2 hours to watch a cinematic story that could just as easily, just as well be told without 3D and for less cost to me.

I would have seen this movie last weekend except that it was not showing in a regular 2D theater at a reasonable time and our party didn't want to pay extra for 3D.

So what did we do? We saw 21 Jump Street instead. :shrug:
 
PhoenixSpirit

PhoenixSpirit

Member
I agree with the marketing failure. I live in the UK and for once in my life I saw about 5 movies on a 3 week period at the local Odeon cinema. Each time, the trailer for John Carter was shown and each time I just sat there completely lost. Who were the bad guys? Who was he fighting for? Who was that girl?! And then after the trailer we had ANOTHER trailer for it with a guy talking about a competition or partnership between the film and Odeon, with the same trailer again. Talk about overkill.
I still don't understand the film, and I'm not interested in seeing it. It reminded me slightly of Avatar, with the visuals. Plus, just because it's 3D doesn't make it better.
I'm saddened that this is the kind of film and marketing Disney is producing these days. They can do alot better.
 

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom