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.

[zeugma]

Only Disney could lose money on an Edgar Rice Burroughs story.

[Dilbert San Diego]

I agree. I think that the computer graphics special effects look so fake, as to be distracting.

[zeugma]

This is the first I’ve heard about the movie. I haven’t read any Edgar Rice Burroughs for decades, but I think I read just about all of them when I was younger, including John Carter on Mars. And I still have them around somewhere, I think.

 

Books by Burroughs on Project Gutenberg US (first 5 Barsoom books)

Books by Burroughs on Project Gutenberg AU (Rest of them)

[zeugma]

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

I’m sure the Disney CEO will earn a big bonus as a result. Just seems to be the way corporations work. Be a total screw up and get a $100 million payday.

No, I’m not a corporation hater like liberals, but I am very cynical about CEOs getting rewarded for poor and mediocre performance. It seems they can’t lose. Do great, get a huge bonus. Screw up royal, get a medium bonus. No downside.

They should be punished for screwing up like the rest of us. Getting fired with a $50 million golden parachute does not constitute punishment to me.

[Kickass Conservative]

I'm waiting for Prometheus.

Everything before or after will pale in comparison.

[Category Four]

I don't remember which it is, but it's either the Rule of 2.4 or the Rule of 2.5.

Simply put, for every $10 it costs to make a movie, it has to bring in $24 or $25 to cover costs, actors' salaries, all that other. So yeah, if it cost $180M to make, it would need to bring in about $450M to be considered a "break even."

[SJSAMPLE]

Yep, same here.
“A Princess of Mars” is the first.

There’s a lot of other smaller novellas originally published in magazines and such. There’s even a “Tarzan on Mars”.

Everything else seems so derivative compared to the Carter series.

[visualops]

I remember hearing a movie was coming out, called “John Carter” and for me there was no clue as to what is was about or like. Even some promo photos I don’t recall anything distinguishing. So yes, bad marketing. You only have a few seconds to create an impression, and the impression they left was “a movie about some guy”.

[pabianice]

Good point. I was amazed that “Avatar” even broke even. It was a remake of “Dances with Wolves,” with blue Indians and flying wolves. Just the PC garbage was enough to make me gag. I stopped watching about 2/3 through. And no, you don’t have to tell me how it ended.

[pabianice]

Fear not. The next Star Trek Rebooted movie is in production. In it, Kirk and Spock have an inter-species affair, Scotty is caught with child porn, and the Romulans make a campaign movie for Obama.

Abrams cannot write to save his life. "Lost." "Star Trek." And now "Alcatraz," which lasted exactly five weeks in our house. Abrams never learned that without internal logic, no story can succeed, and today's audiences are just too damn stupid to be able to tell.

[Tex-Con-Man]

And no, you don’t have to tell me how it ended.

SPOILER ALERT!

Cameron made another bazillion...

[morphing libertarian]

According to boxofficemojo Carter has taken in $179,000,000 worldwide.

Can someone explain how this movie is losing $200 million?

[morphing libertarian]

Your statement only proves costs are not costs.

[TexasFreeper2009]

they are free on Itunes too :)

[ctdonath2]

Promotional costs are often close to the budget to make the movie - so in this case, you could guesstimate Disney spent a half billion dollars total so far on “John Carter”. Sure they expect long-tail sales to add up, but not that much.

[ctdonath2]

“Hollywood accounting must be very interesting.”

Yes it is. The scriptwriter for “Forrest Gump” was not paid because the movie did not make any money (according to the creative accounting).

[freedumb2003]

>>I hope there’s a sequel<<

2 words: Van Helsing. The producers of that turkey had planned an entire franchise on that movie and character. They also were going to build an entire THEME PARK based on it.

In reality, they created a rather lame “haunted house” at Universal Studios, Hollywood. Then, after a year they dropped the name entirely and the Van Helsing name slunk off into silence.

Hollywood doesn’t like losers and even breaking even is losing. Unless someone puts their own money into it there won’t be a sequel for 10 years at least.

Maybe next time they will call use “A Princess of Mars” (the best in the series) and feature a hot chick, ala the Vallejo covers (think Brigette Nielsen in her prime). Check back in 2022.

[freedumb2003]

http://s1.moviefanfare.com/uploads/2010/09/Producers-1968.jpg

The Producers.

First they make a (very good) movie.

Then they make a so-so Broadway musical based on the movie.

Then they make a terrible movie based on the so-so Broadway musical based on the movie.

What could go wrong?

[Raider Sam]

I agree. I just think producers see something work, and then saturate it with the same story 10 times in a few years, and its like “why watch the new one”?