I wonder how much the negative buzz that preceded the film - turned out to be a
self-fulfilling prophecy for some. It seems the industry loves a loser as much
as it loves a winner. But there's no doubt that the women I know - had near
zero interest to see this picture. In the industry trades, I kept reading
about how the film ended up skewing toward older men, as in WAY older men, not
just simply "the over 25s." -d.
========================================
TUESDAY, MARCH 20, 2011
Disney's $200 Million Charge
'John Carter' Proves a Huge
Loss for Disney,
Spurs New Focus on Cutting Costs
By ERICA ORDEN FOR THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
Walt
Disney Co. expects to lose $200 million on its science-fiction epic "John
Carter," the company said on Monday, citing the costly movie's weak
box-office performance.
As a result, Disney added, its
movie studio is expected to report an operating loss of between $80 million and
$120 million for its fiscal second quarter, ending March 31. Disney won't
report its earnings for the quarter until May, and rarely offers such advance
financial guidance.
The studio recorded an operating
profit of $77 million during the same quarter last year—even though that period
included another big-budget flop, "Mars Needs Moms."
"John Carter," which cost
more than $250 million to make and an additional $100 million to market, has
been a box-office bomb, particularly in the U.S., where its cumulative domestic
earnings total $53.2 million during its first 10 days in theaters. The movie
has fared somewhat better abroad, grossing $130.8 million outside the U.S. and
Canada since its March 9 opening. But those results are disappointing for a
film that was one of the studio's most expensive in years.
"It certainly didn't meet the
expectations of what I wanted or what I needed," Disney Studios Chairman
Rich Ross said in an interview last week.
The film, about a Civil War veteran
transported to a planet populated by alien creatures called Tharks, came in
third in the weekend's box-office ticket sales results, behind rivals "21
Jump Street" and "Dr. Seuss' The Lorax."
In addition to its significant
expense, "John Carter" suffered from an array of handicaps, including
a lack of recognizable stars—the film featured actors Taylor Kitsch and Lynn
Collins, neither of whom are household names—and a marketing campaign that was
widely considered indecipherable and visually unappealing.
During Disney's recent shareholders
meeting, Chief Financial Officer Jay Rasulo brushed aside an inquiry about the
movie's results, saying that "it's very early to talk about the financial
impact of that film."
Partly in response to costly
projects such as "John Carter," Disney executives say they have taken
a tougher look at production budgets for its films, most notably for upcoming
release "The Lone Ranger," on which the studio halted production when
its projected costs had surpassed $260 million.
In a statement on Monday, the
company emphasized the prospects of its upcoming films. "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."
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.
