That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, the NY Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected from the overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest financial disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of "Carter's" fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business standpoint for a film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND to market. How can you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons who are more avid movie goers than older people, who tend to stay home.
This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today adopting a "point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a blank check based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." Disney apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton - that the result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which occurred after UA gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with the "The Deer Hunter" in 1978-79). While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production chiefs still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This is a country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the American-centric drive of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated audiences in the U.K., for example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in "Bridge Over the River Kwai," the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan," the casting of Steve McQueen and James Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even today, a U.S. film that does poorly here but makes up its investment overseas is considered a blemish to its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's "Waterworld," last year's "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the latter which nearly destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for U.S. films is not in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end, for all the clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen is still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One thing for sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's original plans to make two sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:55:41 -0400 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] True, "John Carter" is meaningless except to ERB fanboys, but Disney has had terrible luck with any movie with "Mars" in the title. Both last year's Mars Needs Moms and, from years ago, Misson to Mars were major flops. So Disney may be shying away from the whole Mars thing. And if they weren't before, they sure will now. Dave ----- Original Message ----- From: David Kusumoto To: [email protected] Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:39 AM Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent The sad thing is a film like "The Artist," which has done poor business in the U.S. despite winning the Oscar last month for Best Picture - is not considered a flop because it had a modest production budget. (BTW, if you haven't seen that film yet, hold your dollars; the film is being released on DVD next month.) But "John Carter," despite its merits, is headed toward becoming one of the biggest box office flops in Disney's history. Some say the film, which cost a whopping $250 million to make, may even lose this weekend's Friday through Sunday box office in the U.S. to "The Lorax." CinemaScore, the market research firm, says "John Carter's" demographic is running at 65 percent male, indicating the picture turns off women. The business projections for "John Carter" are so dire - that there's talk Disney may lose $100 million to $165 million on the picture. Audiences have no clue about much of this negative chatter of course, but some analysts say Disney made a huge marketing mistake with the film's title, which only resonates with Burroughs fans and to comic-book fanboys - by dumping its original working title, which was a more intriguing and mysterious, "John Carter on Mars" - and not just "John Carter." Los Angeles Times: http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story Entertainment Weekly: http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/10/box-office-john-carter/ Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:14:38 -0800 From: [email protected] Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] Very happy to hear these comments, as a long time Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. Always thought the Barsoom adventures would be fantastic on the big screen. Ari --- On Sun, 11/3/12, Richard Auras <[email protected]> wrote: From: Richard Auras <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent To: [email protected] Received: Sunday, 11 March, 2012, 3:14 AM Caught it last night myself and can echo your sentiments. Best movie I have seen in a while. From: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Sat, March 10, 2012 7:17:47 PM Subject: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent What an amazing science fiction movie...maybe one of the best for some time...highly recommended. Philipp Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
