John Carter [of Mars] (2012)

[Andrew F]

But considering that evey Mars based film of the last 20 years has been a financial disaster (Mars Attacks!, Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars, Red Planet, Mars needs Moms etc) I can understand why they'd be reluctant to promote it as such.

That's typical Hollywood studio thinking though - 'Mars doesn't sell'. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the real problem is in them being either poor films, or decent films that weren't well promoted.

[MLP*]

That's typical Hollywood studio thinking though - 'Mars doesn't sell'. It doesn't seem to occur to them that the real problem is in them being either poor films, or decent films that weren't well promoted.

I could also have been Cowboys and Aliens dying on its arse last year.
Another film mixing Wild West and Sci-Fi might have been considered a no-no hence the rather generic title and marketing ?

[Andrew F]

I could also have been Cowboys and Aliens dying on its arse last year.

Did it, though? I know it 'underperformed', but I was under the impression it didn't do too badly, box office wise.

[Multiple Frood]

Did it, though? I know it 'underperformed', but I was under the impression it didn't do too badly, box office wise.

Cost $163 million, made (worldwide) $174 million.

Major flop.

[Andrew F]

So something that almost made back its budget is a major flop now? What about the things that barely make a tenth of their budget? Catastrophic flop?

[Julian K]

So something that almost made back its budget is a major flop now?

Yes - I think a rule-of-thumb is that movies have to make twice their budget back to stand much chance of breaking even (to cover cost of prints, promotions, advertising, etc).

[Andrew F]

Staggering when you think about it - you've got to wonder why on earth studios seem so happy to spend these kinds of figures on films when it's such an uphill struggle to recoup their investment. Especially when things have such a relatively short shelf-life these days, at least theatrically.

[Robb]

So something that almost made back its budget is a major flop now? What about the things that barely make a tenth of their budget? Catastrophic flop?

The distributor takes between 50-55% of the box office take with the exhibitors the rest. Studios keep the exact details - which in any case vary from film to film - top secret so the industry rule of thumb is use 50% as an average. So your $160 million movie actually needs to gross in the region of $320 million just to cover its production cost. That figure doesn't include the print and advertising costs which come on top and can range from $10-15 million for a small, modestly budgeted studio pic to $50 million and upwards for a summer blockbuster. The sums involved are hair-raising.

[Ross Gowland]

Staggering when you think about it - you've got to wonder why on earth studios seem so happy to spend these kinds of figures on films when it's such an uphill struggle to recoup their investment. Especially when things have such a relatively short shelf-life these days, at least theatrically.

The key word there is theatrically. By the time Cowboys & Aliens and the like have been put on BD and DVD, then sold to cable, satellite and terrestrial channels, they pretty much always turn a profit. And don't forget blockbusters often come with tie-in deals with Burger King or Pepsi.

It may take a year or two, but John Carter will turn a profit one day.

[club jake]

Saw it last night in 2D, as it was filmed, doubt 3D would have added much (please let me know if it did). I really enjoyed this. Not perfect by any means and not the story I saw in my head when I first read the book in my teens but still better than many blockbusters (Transformers sequels etc). Tired of the negative kicking it is getting and glad more people/reviews are coming out saying godd things about it. I really hope it does well enough for a sequel but have a horrible feeling it is going to be a one-off ala Golden Compass.

Big problem for me is that it needed to be more visceral but I guess the Disney influence reduced that a lot. Thank goodness for one battle that does get down and dirty. almost certainly going to see this again. Good to see that the local Vue wil be adding more 2D shows from Friday including a post 9pm show. The 7.30 I went to yesterday had maybe a dozen people in, which was a shame.

[MLP*]

Saw it last night in 2D, as it was filmed, doubt 3D would have added much (please let me know if it did).

It didn't.

Big problem for me is that it needed to be more visceral but I guess the Disney influence reduced that a lot.

The 12A certificate certainly seemed harsh. No-one dropped the F bomb for a start.

[loxley108]

I saw it tonight and thoroughly enjoyed it. Enjoyed spending time in that would - it was immersive and could easily have watched more. Agree about the Disney influence though. Saw it in IMAX 3D which was actually a good experience (apart from the cost). The 3D didn't add much but at least it didn't take anything away, like normal 3D does with the colour loss and darkness etc.

Sat near the back and thought the IMAX screen was great and sound added a lot. Good experience all round.

Cheers

[greencat]

The House of Mouse will be licking its wounds today to the tune of $200m:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200

[Fresno Bob]

But the Hollywood Reporter says that last year's biggest flop was Mars needs Moms, which cost $150m to make and only took $39m at the box office.

I think that's the last film associated with Mars we'll see in a very long time

[davethedalek]

It's fairly unusual for a studio to openly admit that a film is a catastrophe, isn't it? I wonder how many of the profits from Brave and The Avengers will vanish down that accounting black hole.

Anyway, they got £7 from me last night.

A very dull film. I suppose I have to follow what everyone else has asked - how on earth did they spend over $250m on this? Yesterday, I saw the new trailers for Prometheus and Snow White and the Huntsman which were apparently filmed for somewhere between $100m-$150m. And they put everything on the screen. It's a shame to harp on about the budget but in the case of John Carter it's wholly baffling.

As for the film, I found the leads unengaging, the action scenes poorly executed and the storyline both simplistic and annoyingly obscure at the same time. When James Purefoy and the comedy dog from Willo the Wisp steal the show, you know you've got real problems. I was just startled by how unimaginative the whole thing was - the music was uninspired, the lack of effort in redressing Utah as Barsoom was surprising and the design work was pedestrian. It's not a really bad film - it's no Jonah Hex - but it is a great wasted opportunity and that makes it an irritating film.