Posted on 04/20/2012 7:28:46 PM PDT by Vince Ferrer
DISNEY DEPARTURE: Rich Ross quit as Disney's studio head on Friday, a move seen as taking responsibility for at least a couple of write-offs that include a $200 million loss on "John Carter."
BIG-BUDGET AVERSION: The move comes as Disney looks to trim what it spends on movies. Although Ross helped restructure and cut costs, some big-bet movies still bombed.
(Excerpt) Read more at finance.yahoo.com ...
I think so.
When marketing alone cost that much.
So this guy is actually responsible for 2 of the biggest “money-losing” movies of all time in the same year, why shouldn’t he be fired?
What other big bombs did he have a hand in? lol
Andrew Stanton is the guy who really did this movie though, I think. Has he been let go? lol.
Apparently this film did well in Russia of all places.
If they had any new ideas or creativity left, they could make good movies on $50 Million. Imagine making 7 good original movies with actual stories for the same price as this behemoth?
Same here.....
***“Raiders of the Lost Ark” or “Indiana Jones”?***
Anyone remember the spoof TENNESSEE BUCK!
Disney lost it’s unique awe inspiring spark when it went left. Used to be when they put out a movie families would be storming the gates to see it. Now you don’t know what you are going to get. They “progressed.”
“Was this guy also responsible for “Mars Needs Moms”??”
It was my understanding that the reason Mars was left off of the title of the latest bomb was because that movie left them with an aversion to Mars.
So... Disney is run by morons?
“Mars needs Moms” is a stupid title... not because of the “Mars”. It was marketed toward boys and who among them wants to see a movie about moms?
“John Carter” was a stupid name for a movie
“Hey, I’m going to see John Carter.”
“Who’s that - your insurance agent?”
I saw it - it was OK - had flashes of ‘Flash Gordon’ from the 80’s...but still was OK.
Disney made it? Well, that’s just weird....
Two major turn-offs to Hollywood films for me is preachy, left wing sermonettes and over-the-top special effects that defy all laws of physics.
Hollywood can't seem to function without one or the other and all two often both.
Or what if “Jaws” had been called, “People in Coastal Massachusetts Get Eaten by Big Ass Shark.”
I saw it three times. I’m waiting for it to come out on disc now.
In the last depression, people just had to come up with a nickle to see a movie and forget about their troubles. Take a date to a movie now, and your looking at over $50 bucks with popcorn, candy and drinks. How many times do you do that a year when you arn’t working?
I saw it and enjoyed it a lot. The title is what put people off. Most didn’t know what it was about. I plan to buy it on blue ray when it comes out.
Still, having read the John Carter books, I was looking forward to this one. I haven't seen it---the only movie I've seen in a theater in the last year was "Act of Valor"---but I do watch 2-3 movies a week on netflix, DirectTV, or whatever. ("Iron Lady" was a stunningly average movie to have such an astonishingly great performance by Meryl Streep). Anyway, I was waiting for "John Carter" to come out on home video.
THE audience for theatrical releases today is two groups: boys 16-24, and teenage girls. (It surprised me to learn that the #1 audience for horror/slasher movies is teenage girls!) "John Carter" was not, apparently, properly targeted to those groups, possibly because the lead actor was too old and/or not well known.
Thanks, I want to find it on Imax first. :’)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.