Disney says 'John Carter' to lose $200 million

MSN Entertainment ^ | March 19, 2012 | AP

[Vince Ferrer]

"John Carter" is now officially a flop of galactic proportions.

The Walt Disney Co. said Monday that it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March.

"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.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Aren’t they loved by children from 4 to 44?

Maybe, but I'm 46. (ugh)

[piasa]

I didn’t even hear about this movie until it was already declared dead. Just heard the first ad for it last week. Some “marketing.”

[LukeL]

That is the films budget, are forgetting marketting, distribution costs, overruns, executive costs, costs from shelving other projects, international distribution, localization costs, regional marketing, etc.

[Nachum]

It's actually made $180 million

Indeed. And it is not quite out of the theaters yet, or out on DVD and on Cable. The movie will lose money, but not 200 million. I liked this movie for a lot of reasons, part of which was it was devoid of foul language and good guy I could root for. It mangled some of the story of Princess of Mars, but it got enough of the flavor and wonder of the book to make it worth viewing IMHO. The fantasy aspect of the story is why the books were so wonderful and the movie captured it well.

[DManA]

Movie bookkeeping is where the real story telling takes place these days.

[mrsmith]

Wasn’t a lousy movie.
Had a couple plot gaps and backed away a little from Burrough’s work.
Was an above average movie and took in above average money.

I saw a report that it would have had to make 600 million to break even... Hollywood accounting must be very interesting.

[Neanderthal]

In the book Dejah Thoris did not wear clothes - just a necklace and bracelets. In the movie they put clothes on her.

I think I understand the problem.

[TexasFreeper2009]

I LOVED it!

I even started reading the series because of it.

[Raider Sam]

Stop making overpriced re-packaged versions of movies we have already seen, and maybe we come back. I saw Remember the Titans. I didnt need Glory Road, The Great Debators, The Blind Side, The Express, or Gridiron Gang. Those movies may have had brilliant acting, but the story of sports/competition giving a platform for a group of oppressed people to prove their worth against the prejudice of their time, while softening the hearts of some of the “oppressors” by working side by side was already told. Other than different uniforms, what makes the movies unique?

[Oztrich Boy]

I don't understand how it can be a $200 million loss when it cost $250 million to make, and has already made $53 million at the box office

The producersb onlt get about 53% of the BO.

But it was marketed poorly

Book and working title Princess of Mars

The someone in marketing had a thought (Be kind, it's an only child): A Disney movie with "Princess" in the title, boys won't go to it.

Right diagnosis, wrong solution. That problem could have been fixed by with the right marketing

So John Carter of Mars. Oh no girlz don't like sci-fi ans won't go to see it.

Final choice John Carter and noone went to see it.

I mean back in the 80s, who would have gone to see a film if if had been John Conner's Parents instead of Terminator

[Nervous Tick]

No kidding -- they made a movie about my congresscritter?

By the way he's one of the Good Guys... staunch conservative.

[Vince Ferrer]

In the book Dejah Thoris did not wear clothes - just a necklace and bracelets. In the movie they put clothes on her.

I think I understand the problem.

What to do, be true to literature, or go for the PG-13 international market? Watchmen had the same problem, a major character who walked around naked most of the time. Since there was an actual reason for this, it had to have been tough to argue to cut it out. They ended up keeping it.

[vbmoneyspender]

I really liked the movie and I think the reviews against it were ideologically motivated. The only hint of pc in the movie was Dejah Thoris' sword fighting capabilities. Otherwise, the movie was a throwback to 1950s and earlier action movies.

The Tharks play the role of the Indians in the movie and they are depicted (with the exception of Tars Tarkas) as baby-murdering, bloody thirsty savages. What's worse is the Thark/Indians don't help the good guys out until they are prodded into it by a Virginian who fight on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Playing the role of the cowboys are the humanoid residents of Helium - and they are depicted as straight-up good guys. While the bad guys are self-proclaimed gods who want to control everybody (boy that sounds familiar).

In short, Hollywood has become so ideologically polluted that it cannot except straightforward good vs. evil movies like this anymore.

Exit question, can you recall any recent Hollywood action movie where the hero is a heterosexual American who gets married to the heroine at the end of the movie.

[vbmoneyspender]

I really liked the movie and I think the reviews against it were ideologically motivated. The only hint of pc in the movie was Dejah Thoris' sword fighting capabilities. Otherwise, the movie was a throwback to 1950s and earlier action movies.

The Tharks play the role of the Indians in the movie and they are depicted (with the exception of Tars Tarkas) as baby-murdering, bloody thirsty savages. What's worse is the Thark/Indians don't help the good guys out until they are prodded into it by a Virginian who fight on the side of the Confederacy in the Civil War.

Playing the role of the cowboys are the humanoid residents of Helium - and they are depicted as straight-up good guys. While the bad guys are self-proclaimed gods who want to control everybody (boy that sounds familiar).

In short, Hollywood has become so ideologically polluted that it cannot except straightforward good vs. evil movies like this anymore.

Exit question, can you recall any recent Hollywood action movie where the hero is a heterosexual American who gets married to the heroine at the end of the movie.

[AnTiw1]

i believe they’re all available free online at gutenberg.org

[gogogodzilla]

Ditto (3D, too).

That said, I think the name helped to kill the movie. It ought to have been called Barsoom.

Those who’d read the books would know what to expect... and those who hadn’t would have thought it some sort of fantasy movie (which isn’t too far off the mark.)

[redhead]

"Screw it. I’ve got ALL the books, and they never get old."

I have them on my Kindle. Right now, I'm reading "Princess of Mars."

[Nachum]

Exit question, can you recall any recent Hollywood action movie where the hero is a heterosexual American who gets married to the heroine at the end of the movie.

Well.. at the end of the last Transformers, he sort of proposes to his girl at the end.

In the last Tron sequal, he goes off with the girl at the end. Not sure if it is marriage, but you get the idea he will.

In The Prince of Persia, the hero eventually marries the Princess.

Avatar marries off the hero to Pocahontas of Pandora. Even if they are blue aliens

Thor wants to marry the girl, but they are separated

Spiderman finally gets to date Mary Jane Watson (the get married in the comic book)

Capt. America would have married his WWII sweet heart, but he gets frozen solid in Ice- she gets old.

They are making the Hunger games and (warning, plot spoiler...)........ the book marries off the girl to her childhood sweetheart.

So, there are a few. Kind of.

[DManA]

It comes down to, Disney really only understands and can program for little girls.

[redhead]

"CGI can’t carry a lousy movie, guys."

Yep. Just watched "Tintin" yesterday. The books were awesome. The movie might be okay for entertaining little kids, but it was really blah. The CGI was absolutely stunning, though. Incredibly beautiful. Just a flop as a movie.