Let's analyze John Carter

rayw.

Okay. Once again, I stand corrected.

Story is not just the words on a page; IT is the presentation of those words on the screen!

Let me try to put it this way, Princess didn't follow the "correct-by-ERB's" story (must of been rolling in his grave) -- The Princess rip-off, had John Carter as a American solder fighting in the Middle East... like I said, couldn't get past the first 20 minutes... and story for me -- is the believability of the story on the screen through acting, any and all effects, pace of story, direction, etc. of which the Princess rip-off had none!

Story is not just the words on a page. IT is the presentation of those words on the screen!

Oh well.
 
Saw John Carter last night at the Imax in Sheffield. Typical Disney film in my opinion. I wasn't blown away by the effects or the 3d. There were parts that I did like, especially the scenes shot in New York. I thought James Purefoy was wasted and Ciaran Hinds miscast. Those 2 actors were much more believable as Caesar and Anthony on the HBO Rome series.

The ships on mars looked good but the scenes from that and the personal transport he had trouble riding reminded me so much of bits from Return of the Jedi. When I saw they had a alien `dog` I thought for f`s sake but found it was quite amusing.

I`m glad they didnt cast Kiera Knightley as the princess like in some other Disney series otherwise I might have walked out.

The sound at the cinema was good though albeit it very loud. The trailer for The Hobbit looked good on the imax screen though.

It`s the first proper film I`ve seen on an imax. My only other experience is the space station on the imax at Kennedy space centre and that was brilliant.
 
I saw the cover of "Driven" with Stallone next to "Christine"
driven-sylvester-stallone-dvd-cover-art.jpg

0767827716_01_lzzzzzzz.jpg


Hollywood steals art and design too...

and for Stephenson movies, I'd like to see "Diamond Age" and "Zodiac" -- but "Snow Crash" would be really cool.
 
Carter has left the first run theaters. Will Carter make it's investors their money back? A profit? The final word will be DVD sales. Word of mouth. Home theater. Some movies have done very well in the final stage of distribution. Some have not.

Here is what DVD sales may look like for John Carter. Amazon is a great rule of thumb for sales:

http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-Four-Disc-Combo-Blu-ray/product-reviews/B005LAIH3G/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1

I wish they would make a sequel as they originally planned. Looks like it will not happen. Even though Carter has an extremely large fan base -- another expensive FIRE FLY to SERENITY fan based production.

Who knows... Star Trek anyone?
 
Aspiring Mogul said:
Disney's film chief has resigned over this. I'm sure more heads are going to roll.
Click to expand...
LMAO!
That sux2B him!
Dumb@ss et al.



rayw said:
http://www.variety.com/charts/film/domestic-film-box-office/weekly/?layout=b_o_layout&dept=Film

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
Production Budget: $250 million

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $68,207,830 25.9%
+ Foreign: $195,600,000 74.1%
= Worldwide: $263,807,830
Click to expand...
Lettuce see whattadifference a week makes...
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm

Pfft.

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $68,864,278 25.6%
+ Foreign: $200,600,000 74.4%
= Worldwide: $269,464,278


$5.6m!
Oooooo... ha :lol: ha :lol: ha :lol: ha :lol: ha!

Where's Elmo to tickle me.



Folks... the key to profitability is in managing your budget.
No matter your film project, the revenue is only kinda sorta somewhat guessable.
Your budget is the only thing you have absolute control over.
Keep it WELLLLLLLL under your estimated revenue.
Furthermore, there's a stronger factor of 10 correlation between $X spent on promotion than only a factor of 2 for the same amount spent on production value.
Spend accordingly.

Pfft.
LOL! :lol:
 
Ho-leee suck-fest, Batman!
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm


Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $69,107,068 25.6%
+ Foreign: $200,600,000 74.4%
= Worldwide: $269,707,068



$269,707,068 this last week
- $269,464,278 the prior week
= $242,790

That's $990 per theater x 244 theaters.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=johncarterofmars.htm
http://www.variety.com/charts/film/domestic-film-box-office/boxofficefilm/814955

Great. Now it's almost down to typical indie film theatrical distribution levels.

Now, what kind of movie could we shoot that we could hope to be seen in a couple hundred theaters pulling in a few hundred dollars each night?

Although laughable when The 'Wood does it, it's not so easy when we try it with our microbudget features.

Hmm... how to pull off a $$ successful stunt... ? Hmm... ?
 
Last edited:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs

WEEK EIGHT!!!!
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=main&id=johncarterofmars.htm​

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $69,219,949 25.7%
+ Foreign: $200,600,000 74.3%
= Worldwide: $269,819,949


$269,819,949 this last week
- $269,707,068 the prior week
= $112,881
:lol:




"What?! What's that?! I couldn't hear you over my gigglin' an' laughin'.
What? You want some salt in your wound?
Okay. Fine. Hereyougo... "

http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=avengers11.htm
Marvel's The Avengers

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: n/a 0.0%
+ Foreign: $260,500,000 100.0%
= Worldwide: $260,500,000

"What?! Whassat... ?
No "Domestic" figures yet?
Um... yeah.
Can't get nothin' by you, Snoop.
No box office yet from the States."
 
Last edited:
beating-dead-horse.gif


Just because... I dunno. :lol:


John Carter
May 4–6, Domestic Gross-to-Date: $70,760,807, Week #9
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=johncarterofmars.htm

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $70,760,807 26.1%
+ Foreign: $200,600,000 73.9%
= Worldwide: $271,360,807




Marvel's The Avengers
May 4–6, Domestic Gross-to-Date: $207,438,708. Week #1
http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?page=weekend&id=avengers11.htm

Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $244,014,897 32.8%
+ Foreign: $500,100,000 67.2%
= Worldwide: $744,114,897


2wm3x36.gif
 
I almost feel bad for them. I mean, everyone I talked to really enjoyed it, and had it been released in a different year (with better marketing) it could have done pretty okay. But on the other hand, it's hard to feel too sympathetic towards Disney these days!

Interesting note: bit of a bump this past weekend; put in more theaters and did relatively well. http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/?yr=2012&wknd=18&p=.htm Avengers related? I mean, if Avengers is sold out, and you still want to see something, that's not a bad second choice.
 
http://www.filmjunk.com/2012/05/14/how-drive-in-theatres-are-saving-disneys-john-carter/
And it appears to be the case, though not how I imagined it. Makes a lot of sense. Disney saying "you want to show Avengers at your drive-in? Sure, but you'll have to show John Carter too!" Not very dignified for John Carter, but at this point, any money in the bank is welcome. Also, I bet that would make an awesome double feature!

Meanwhile, Avengers has passed 1 billion worldwide. Already. In two weeks the domestic totals are very close to Hunger Games and the last Harry Potter. That's kinda crazy!
 
Great. A two-fer.

The Avengers: Budget $220,000,000
khloe-kardashian-loses-20-pounds.jpg
John Carter: Budget $250,000,000



:lol: "Studios have not disclosed how they divide up drive-in revenue, but John Carter made an estimated $1.5 million last weekend, which was an insane 1223.8% increase from the week before.

John Carter has now grossed $272 million worldwide on a production budget of $250 million. That would seem to indicate that Disney is close to saving face on the film, although marketing costs and other fees are probably still killing them."
 
Last edited:
I thought it was because everyone knows ; Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor…
John Carter??? Is he Jimmy Carter's brother??? Huh???
"Hey Kids, you want to see THE AVENGERS or this movie named after some John guy with the last name Carter?"

In my humble opinion the reason is so obvious. ;)

Murdock said:
IMO it was the way they marketed the film.

Also, the leading man has a weak face.
Click to expand...
 
finderskeepers said:
I thought it was because everyone knows ; Iron Man, Hulk, Captain America, Thor…
John Carter??? Is he Jimmy Carter's brother??? Huh???
"Hey Kids, you want to see THE AVENGERS or this movie named after some John guy with the last name Carter?"

In my humble opinion the reason is so obvious. ;)
Click to expand...
Eh, not so fast.

""The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is a short story by Washington Irving contained in his collection The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent., written while he was living in Birmingham, England, and first published in 1820." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Sleepy_Hollow

"Frankenstein... first edition was published anonymously in London in 1818. Shelley's name appears on the second edition, published in France in 1823." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein

"Dracula is an 1897 novel by Irish author Bram Stoker." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula

"The 1897 novel Dracula drew on earlier mythologies of werewolves and similar legendary demons and "was to voice the anxieties of an age", and the "fears of late Victorian patriarchy".The first feature film to use an anthropomorphic werewolf was Werewolf of London in 1935." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfman#In_fiction


And if you wanna go a liiiiiitle farther back... there's plenty of Biblical stories.


And if you wanna go reeeealy farther back there's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prehistoric_fantasy_films



In other words, the date or age of the source material doesn't matter so much as the telling of the story.
And JC (of Mars, not of Nazareth) was not well told - or marketed, IMHO. ;)




finderskeepers said:
I wasn't talking about the "AGE" of the source material...
Of course NOBODY knew Luke Skywalker before Star Wars ;)
Click to expand...
Understood.
And exactly.

http://abovethelineproducer.blogspot.com/2011/12/hollywood-profits-quantitative-drivers.html
"Cost-Revenue association indicates that marketing costs are much more strongly associated with revenue streams: 10% change in production cost (say better quality) results in 2% revenue change, while 10% increase in marketing budget results in 10% increase in cumulative box-office revenue."
 
Last edited:
I wasn't talking about the "AGE" of the source material. Only if the average 15 year old audience member would recognize the characters in the movie. The age of the material doesn't matter only "branding"

However, there are a lot of branded characters that did do as well at the box office as expected in the past.

So I see your point. Better marketing would have helped!

Of course NOBODY knew Luke Skywalker before Star Wars ;)

rayw said:
Eh, not so fast.

""The Legend of Sleepy Hollow" is a short story by Washington Irving contained in his collection The Sketch Book of Geoffrey Crayon, Gent., written while he was living in Birmingham, England, and first published in 1820." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Sleepy_Hollow

"Frankenstein... first edition was published anonymously in London in 1818. Shelley's name appears on the second edition, published in France in 1823." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankenstein

"Dracula is an 1897 novel by Irish author Bram Stoker." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dracula

"The 1897 novel Dracula drew on earlier mythologies of werewolves and similar legendary demons and "was to voice the anxieties of an age", and the "fears of late Victorian patriarchy".The first feature film to use an anthropomorphic werewolf was Werewolf of London in 1935." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfman#In_fiction


And if you wanna go a liiiiiitle farther back... there's plenty of Biblical stories.


And if you wanna go reeeealy farther back there's...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Prehistoric_fantasy_films



In other words, the date or age of the source material doesn't matter so much as the telling of the story.
And JC (of Mars, not of Nazareth) was not well told - or marketed, IMHO. ;)
Click to expand...
 
It sucked. There wasn't a single thing even remotely interesting about this film. It's like they left half the film out. There is no possibly, this is the worst movie Disney has EVER made. Itliterally wen't down in history as the movie that should have never been made. What a waste.
 
I don't think it helped the source material being so old that we've seen this type of story so many times before (after, whatever). The big lure to sci-fi/fantasy is the mystery of something possibly new. CARTER lacks that, unless you count that slug-dog thing. :lol:

Admittedly, I cut JOHN CARTER a lot of slack, based on how old the source material is (coming way before most sci-fi), so I still enjoyed it.
 
Last edited:
I liked it and thought that they heavily mis-marketed it. They sold it as a battles in space type of film... but it had more in common with old epic adventure dramas structure wise. The pacing was off, possibly by forcing the big effects sequences into the film to make the trailer. I felt it would have been better served being billed as a political drama in space... or focussing on John Carter as a wild west type of explorer/adventurer who is mysteriously thrown into space.

I haven't read the book, and knew nothing other than what the trailers showed me. I liked the story shown in the film much more than the one they promised me in the trailer. If they had cut out the 30 minutes of gratuitous, out-of-place battle sequences, it would have been a much tighter and more compelling story. The marketing department killed this movie, not the movie itself. Those big sequences weren't necessary and were most likely done to give the marketing folks something to work with since they don't seem to be able to put together interesting trailers anymore without showing alot of destruction and explosions (which I love -- but aren't the only reason I go to the movies).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top