PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
#301
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
So in this thread Dr DVD. says:
And you respond:
But in the Puss in Boots thread.....http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...8-10-30-a.html
William Fuld said:
To which you responded:
And then I decided to point out:
To which you replied:
So the whole point of all this cutting and pasting is to let you know; that YES, I go here as well.....
And you respond:
Are you sure about that? For example, I'll use his past ten films released to theaters.
The Rum Diary: $24 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: $1.1 billion worldwide
Rango: $246 million worldwide
The Tourist: $279 million worldwide
Alice in Wonderland: $1.1 billion worldwide
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: $62 million worldwide
Public Enemies: $215 million worldwide
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: $153 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End: $964 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: $1.1 billion worldwide
While three of those films were from an already established franchise, the only ones that could be considered financial disappointments would be that of The Rum Diary and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. One was sitting on a shelf for nearly three years before getting an impromptu wide release from a distributor who is barely a year old. The other didn't make it onto more than 700 screens in the United States, but probably made a profit for its investors as it cost under $30 million to make.
I would argue that Depp is still a draw, especially overseas where they love the man more than we do.
The Rum Diary: $24 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides: $1.1 billion worldwide
Rango: $246 million worldwide
The Tourist: $279 million worldwide
Alice in Wonderland: $1.1 billion worldwide
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: $62 million worldwide
Public Enemies: $215 million worldwide
Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street: $153 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End: $964 million worldwide
Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest: $1.1 billion worldwide
While three of those films were from an already established franchise, the only ones that could be considered financial disappointments would be that of The Rum Diary and The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus. One was sitting on a shelf for nearly three years before getting an impromptu wide release from a distributor who is barely a year old. The other didn't make it onto more than 700 screens in the United States, but probably made a profit for its investors as it cost under $30 million to make.
I would argue that Depp is still a draw, especially overseas where they love the man more than we do.
William Fuld said:
To which you responded:
Since the release of the original Pirates of the Caribbean...
Secret Window: $48 million domestic
Finding Neverland: $52 million domestic
The Libertine: $5 million domestic
Sweeney Todd: $52 million domestic
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: $8 million domestic
The Tourist: $68 million domestic
While some were modest successes and others were straight up financial disasters, Depp isn't known to be box office dynamite every time he releases a movie. With the exception of Secret Window, each of the films I mentioned did far superior overseas. I'd argue that Depp's films usually preform better overseas than in America.
Secret Window: $48 million domestic
Finding Neverland: $52 million domestic
The Libertine: $5 million domestic
Sweeney Todd: $52 million domestic
The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus: $8 million domestic
The Tourist: $68 million domestic
While some were modest successes and others were straight up financial disasters, Depp isn't known to be box office dynamite every time he releases a movie. With the exception of Secret Window, each of the films I mentioned did far superior overseas. I'd argue that Depp's films usually preform better overseas than in America.
To which you replied:
So the whole point of all this cutting and pasting is to let you know; that YES, I go here as well.....
#303
DVD Talk Legend
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
So in this thread Dr DVD. says:
And you respond:
But in the Puss in Boots thread.....http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...8-10-30-a.html
William Fuld said:
To which you responded:
And then I decided to point out:
To which you replied:
So the whole point of all this cutting and pasting is to let you know; that YES, I go here as well.....
And you respond:
But in the Puss in Boots thread.....http://forum.dvdtalk.com/movie-talk/...8-10-30-a.html
William Fuld said:
To which you responded:
And then I decided to point out:
To which you replied:
So the whole point of all this cutting and pasting is to let you know; that YES, I go here as well.....
#307
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Under a dead Ohio sky
Posts: 5,820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Yikes.
Disney's pricey investment suffered a 55% tumble to an estimated $13.5M giving the effects-driven 3D pic $53.2M after ten days. The drop was in line with past spring action vehicles like 300 (54%), 10,000 B.C. (53%), and Clash of the Titans (57%). Should Carter play out in a similar way it could end its domestic run a bit above the $80M mark which would be disappointing given the mammoth production cost of over $250M plus the lavish marketing push. Overseas, holdover markets saw significant declines as the weekend brought in an estimated $40.7M from 54 territories with bows in three new markets including China. That represented an overall drop of 42% from last weekend however holdover markets averaged larger declines than that. The Mars pic has now collected $126.1M internationally and $179.3M across the planet we refer to as Earth. Reaching a final global total of $375M will be very hard which is unfortunate for the studio since roughly that amount was spent to produce and market the film
#309
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Saw the movie on Fri with my son and his friend.
First, I enjoyed the movie. Loved John C growing up, so it was really cool to see him on the big screen, they could not have done a better job.
Tick me off that the theater was only showing it in 3D from day 1. I only wanted to see it in 2D, but I promised the kids we would see it and there was no turning back once we got to the theater.
Disney shot themselves in the foot for only having it in 3D in a lot of theaters, pushing something on people is not a way to make them adopt it. I may never go see another 3D movie ever as a vote against what movie chains/studios are doing.
First, I enjoyed the movie. Loved John C growing up, so it was really cool to see him on the big screen, they could not have done a better job.
Tick me off that the theater was only showing it in 3D from day 1. I only wanted to see it in 2D, but I promised the kids we would see it and there was no turning back once we got to the theater.
Disney shot themselves in the foot for only having it in 3D in a lot of theaters, pushing something on people is not a way to make them adopt it. I may never go see another 3D movie ever as a vote against what movie chains/studios are doing.
#311
DVD Talk Godfather
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
I think those numbers are about accurate for this, but honestly i'd still like to see them make more to see where it goes (as someone unfamiliar with the books).
#312
Moderator
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Saw the movie on Fri with my son and his friend.
First, I enjoyed the movie. Loved John C growing up, so it was really cool to see him on the big screen, they could not have done a better job.
Tick me off that the theater was only showing it in 3D from day 1. I only wanted to see it in 2D, but I promised the kids we would see it and there was no turning back once we got to the theater.
Disney shot themselves in the foot for only having it in 3D in a lot of theaters, pushing something on people is not a way to make them adopt it. I may never go see another 3D movie ever as a vote against what movie chains/studios are doing.
First, I enjoyed the movie. Loved John C growing up, so it was really cool to see him on the big screen, they could not have done a better job.
Tick me off that the theater was only showing it in 3D from day 1. I only wanted to see it in 2D, but I promised the kids we would see it and there was no turning back once we got to the theater.
Disney shot themselves in the foot for only having it in 3D in a lot of theaters, pushing something on people is not a way to make them adopt it. I may never go see another 3D movie ever as a vote against what movie chains/studios are doing.
#313
DVD Talk Limited Edition
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
I agree, on the whole it was entertaining, but not great. There were a lot of things at the beginning of the movie that really did not make sense, but once it got into a swing it was fun. What was the finished budget for this? 250 or 300 (as according to the Numbers)? Where did all that budget go to? SFX?
I liked it enough that I would go to see more but then I also liked Golden Compass. Instead we get Twilight and Hunger Games.
#314
DVD Talk Special Edition
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: St. Louis
Posts: 1,054
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Statement from Disney:
“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. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
“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. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
#315
DVD Talk Hero
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
That means "no sequel", right?
#316
Moderator
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Statement from Disney:
“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. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
“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. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company.”
#319
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Formerly known as "Solid Snake PAC"/Denton, Tx
Posts: 39,239
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
4 Posts
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/SDjAClXBx1o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
#321
DVD Talk Hero
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
I love that movies have two threads even though they're a two-hour commitment, but the video game forum constantly battles itself over spoilers because they refuse to do the same.
#323
DVD Talk Legend
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Interesting article about why John Carter flopped and Hunger Games hit it big. http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/opinio...iref=obnetwork
#324
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Eh. My simple analysis is that this movie was just plain boring. Uninteresting characters, a lead actor who was obviously struggling to carry the movie. Horrible production design. It's like they took the worst parts of Krull and every other bad sci-fi movie that came out in the 80s, put it in a blender and threw it up on the screen. About 8 people walked out in the showing I went to, and I fell asleep several times during the movie.
#325
DVD Talk Legend
Re: PIXAR: John Carter of Mars Trilogy
Apples and oranges.
The Hunger Games was published less than four years ago and the book is still popular with teenagers, their parents and even adults. It's fresh enough for a film to come out and annihilate the box office because it has interest from everyone; similar to when Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released to theaters in 2001. Lionsgate was smart and struck when the iron was hot. Lionsgate also knows how to properly budget a film too. The film was made for under $90 million and cost under $45 million to print and advertise. With Lionsgate also controlling a good chunk of the film's foreign rights, I'd be surprised if they haven't broken even yet.
John Carter is based off a property more than 100 years old which most don't talk about. Disney allowed Andrew Stanton to spend over $250 million to get the film made and an additional $100 million for the film's prints and advertising budget; which most could agree that it's the most atrocious ad campaigns in quite a while for a film. While I thought the film was great, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.
The Hunger Games was published less than four years ago and the book is still popular with teenagers, their parents and even adults. It's fresh enough for a film to come out and annihilate the box office because it has interest from everyone; similar to when Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone was released to theaters in 2001. Lionsgate was smart and struck when the iron was hot. Lionsgate also knows how to properly budget a film too. The film was made for under $90 million and cost under $45 million to print and advertise. With Lionsgate also controlling a good chunk of the film's foreign rights, I'd be surprised if they haven't broken even yet.
John Carter is based off a property more than 100 years old which most don't talk about. Disney allowed Andrew Stanton to spend over $250 million to get the film made and an additional $100 million for the film's prints and advertising budget; which most could agree that it's the most atrocious ad campaigns in quite a while for a film. While I thought the film was great, the writing has been on the wall for quite some time.