175 replies to this topic

[Johnny Henning]

Well... maybe this was sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Still, it doesn't mean the movie was bad - just that people aren't interested in seeing it.

I do wonder if it had been better promoted and got more audiences on the outset, what would the second weekend have been like?

[steveuk]

Well, the OCD fixation on tracking every dollar this movie is making this weekend shows the level of interest Nikki Finke has in cinema...Honestly, it's a good movie, I really enjoyed it and I'm pretty sure most people would if they gave it a chance

It's all about quality, rather than dollars and cents, isn't it?

It's not all about either, as has been noted in the past, it's called show business. Two words.

Finke isn't a critic, her website is about the business and always has been. I don't expect the Financial Times to devote many pages to reviewing restaurants, I expect them to tell me which food companies made a profit or loss last year.

And it's not like Disney don't care what it makes either. Dollars and cents matter when you spend $250m on something, or whatever it actually cost.

Lastly of course, not everyone likes the film. I didn't hate it, but it didn't impress me that much. Better than 'Cowboys and Aliens' or 'Prince of Persia' but it's not as effective as 'Avatar'.

Well... maybe this was sort of a self-fulfilling prophecy. Still, it doesn't mean the movie was bad - just that people aren't interested in seeing it.

I do wonder if it had been better promoted and got more audiences on the outset, what would the second weekend have been like?

The promotion has been lamentable, but it might pick up next weekend if enough of the people who see it, love it.

That's the key now.

[Johnny Henning]

Is it a loveable movie? Like do you think there will be people who think it's the best thing they've seen all year?

[Paul F]

Finke isn't a critic, her website is about the business and always has been. I don't expect the Financial Times to devote many pages to reviewing restaurants, I expect them to tell me which food companies made a profit or loss last year.

I agree, but she seems to be taking a weird amount of glee in seeing the movie fail.

Is it a loveable movie? Like do you think there will be people who think it's the best thing they've seen all year?

It's the first big movie of its type this year, so for people who like these sorts of movies (and I often do), maybe.

[David Chapman]

I enjoyed John Carter. Go for the dog, if nothing else.

[steveuk]

I agree, but she seems to be taking a weird amount of glee in seeing the movie fail.

Is it glee or is she just covering a big story? I'll have to take a another look at the reports.

Certainly there's been a rising tide of doubt about how the film's been marketed and I think its been justified.

It's the first big movie of its type this year, so for people who like these sorts of movies (and I often do), maybe.

This early in the year it hasn't had a lot of competition yet. Is it better than 'Ghost Rider 2'?

[Paul F]

Is it glee or is she just covering a big story? I'll have to take a another look at the reports.

Certainly there's been a rising tide of doubt about how the film's been marketed and I think its been justified.

An example from last night:

Priceless ‘John Carter’ Email From Disney

Disney sent a message to thousands of financial analysts and Wall Street types aimed at drawing their attention to about-to-bomb $250M-budget John Carter even though it’s looking like a $100 million writeoff. Talk about tone deaf. “The best part is the subject line of the email. Disney obviously hasn’t noticed that The Lorax came out last weekend.” Enjoy:

From: Walt Disney Pictures
Date: March 8, 2012 2:47:10 PM EST
Subject: See “The First Blockbuster of the Year” tomorrow: Get Tickets Today

It's not a very professional tone.

[steveuk]

An example from last night:

Priceless ‘John Carter’ Email From Disney

It's not a very professional tone.

No it's not, and this is therefore more than a little bit off too;

ll in, this could mean a $100M writeoff for the Walt Disney Co. Box office for this bomb is making rival studios just a little too gleeful considering that probably 1,000 of their Hollywood brethren were gainfully employed during a dismal economy. So if ever a movie needed an autopsy report, this is the one. My dissection will post this afternoon. Watch for it.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/john-carter-weak-500k-midnight-shows/#more-241821

[Chris D]

The promotion has been lamentable, but it might pick up next weekend if enough of the people who see it, love it.

That's the key now.

It's really going to have to get some good word of mouth quickly. Because The Hunger Games is going to most likely take over the Box Office in a couple of weeks. If John Carter can get some positive buzz before that, perhaps it can grab some spillover from sold out Hunger Games shows.

[John Mosby]

I don't think it's 'glee'

However after been largely talked down to by Andrew Stanton in front of my fellow journalists, for daring to ask a polite question about that lack of suitable promotion, I do feel a little validated that it's playing out exactly the way that several of us predicted. The way most people could have predicted

But I truly wish it wasn't, as the film deserves better. It's not a stinker - but the decisions made about its release are lamentable.

[Christian U]

Hey, I resemble that remark!

You do? In what way? Are you, too, weirdly aggressive?

[Will]

We saw it last night and really enjoyed it. Much more than we thought we would.

Enjoyed it waaaaay more than Avatar.

[jamon g]

it's getting between 2 and 3 out of 5 here on the movie review shows. the main complaint is the generic script that's been done to death by disney already.

[Johnny Henning]

I don't think it's 'glee'

However after been largely talked down to by Andrew Stanton in front of my fellow journalists, for daring to ask a polite question about that lack of suitable promotion, I do feel a little validated that it's playing out exactly the way that several of us predicted. The way most people could have predicted

But I truly wish it wasn't, as the film deserves better. It's not a stinker - but the decisions made about its release are lamentable.

Yeah, that's a tone I've gotten from your article (very good, btw) and a few others.

Really, what I thought I'd see more of was discussion of the relatively extensive reshoots that were reported last year. A friend mentioned that it seemed like Stanton applied the PIXAR philosophy to live action blockbuster filmmaking where they would scrap an entire act and redo it completely if the scenes didn't work and they found a better story for it. It's still really expensive in animation, but it must be ungodly costly when using live actors, locations and stages.

Those reports sorta started the negative press rolling, and back then you also got articles with headlines like "will John Carter be the first disastrous flop of 2012?" before there even really was any marketing being done on the movie. So, you had bad media management, bad marketing, and so-so reviews combining with a story that no one really heard of and, ironically, has already been seen more-or-less by EVERYBODY in other films like STAR WARS and AVATAR and a production that looked like it went way over-budget so that it would lose money if it didn't perform as well as a James Cameron blockbuster.

[Robert B]

I saw the Lorax and fell asleep. But it is a family film, and lots of places in the country are on school vacation.

Edited by Robert B, 11 March 2012 - 06:30 PM.

[Eduardo]

Saw it today, I enjoyed it. There was some things that I thought could have been better, but it was a fun movie.

[steveuk]

Andrew Stanton's 3D sci-fi epic John Carter hit $30.6 million in its North American debut thanks to an uptick on Saturday, while the film opened internationally to $70.6 million for a total $101.2 million.

Disney is under no illusions that it's out of the woods financially despite a slightly bettter-than-hoped for global performance. John Carter cost $250 million to produce plus a marketing spend that puts the total pricetag well north of $300 million and probably closer to $350 million.

At those levels, John Carter needs to earn as much as $600 million worldwide, an impossible benchmark to reach based on opening numbers. Box office observers are now comparing John Carter's potential to Disney's Prince of Persia, which earned $90.8 million domestically and $244 million internationally in 2010 (opinion is divided as to whether John Carter will do more than $200 million offshore).

In North America, John Carter was trounced by Universal and Illumination's Dr. Seuss' The Lorax, which earned a stellar $39.1 million in its second outing for a domestic cume of $122 million.

The good news for Disney was that John Carter received a B+ CinemaScore and was up 25 percent on Saturday, reflecting positive buzz. The film played best to older fanboys, but needed an equally strong showing from younger males. On Saturday, families turned out as well, making up 20 percent of the audience.

Nearly 60 percent of the audience was over the age of 25, according to exit polls conducted by Disney, while 64 percent of those buying tickets were males.

"While of course we appreciate the larger economics of the film, we're encouraged with how it's been received by audiences and hope to see that generate positive word of mouth," Disney executive vice president of worldwide distribution Dave Hollis said.

http://www.hollywood...ss-lorax-298377

[steveuk]

Some VFX articles;
http://www.fxguide.com/featured/a-world-away-john-carter/
http://www.cgsociety.org/index.php/CGSFeatures/CGSFeatureSpecial/john_carter

[Steve Sensible]

It's so glamorous working in the movies!

[jamon g]

latest newspaper review for Carter:

John Carter is one of those films that is so stultifying, so oppressive and so mysteriously and interminably long that I felt as if someone had dragged me into the kitchen of my local Greggs, and was baking my head into the centre of a colossal cube of white bread. As the film went on, the loaf around my skull grew to the size of a basketball, and then a coffee table, and then an Audi. The boring and badly acted sci-fi mashup continued inexorably, and the bready blandness pressed into my nostrils, eardrums, eye sockets and mouth. I wanted to cry for help, but in bread no one can hear you scream. Finally, I clawed the doughy, gooey, tasteless mass desperately away from my mouth and screeched: "Jesus, I'm watching a pointless film about a 1860s American civil war action hero on Mars, which the inhabitants apparently call Barsoom. I can't breathe."

I'm sure it's not that bad, but ouch!