Rotten Tomatoes gives John Carter 47% fresh but the audience rate it at 72%.
John Carter (of Mars)
Rich Ross Chairman of Disney corp has resigned because of the poor performance of John Carter.
I recently read that John Carter made back its production expense.
It's expected to lose Disney ~$200 million, probably more when advertising is factored in, making it one of the biggest flops in cinema history.
"It's expected to lose Disney ~$200 million, "
I just don't understand that a'tall.
It's not great cinema, but it's a darn good movie.
It's got ... a heroic man who gets the girl, a space princess who can hold her own, flying battle cruisers, four-armed lizard barbarians, dueling city-states.
The hero even gets a (Barsoomian) dog for a best pal.
Now they'll never make another.
I don't get that: The movie cost about $250 million to make, which means they intended to make half a billion on it, with an obvious eye towards a long-term franchise. If your receipts aren't double your production costs, you're losing money. Anything over double is profit. Initially it was a Pixar film, but it got moved off their slate, allegedly because of their fear of 'brand confusion' but possibly because they just felt it was gonna' bomb.
So if they thought it was gonna' bomb, why not ankle the production? It happens all the time.
And if they didn't think it was gonna' bomb, why didn't they promote it better? The failure here, I think, was promotion. Just putting "Of Mars" in the title gets interest, but they deliberately left it out. There weren't a lot of commercials, and most of them gave no sense of what the movie was about. I mean, if cheezy Adam Sandler movies and random sitcoms get billboard adds around the country, why didn't a quarter-billion dollar investment rate more than a cursory advertising campaign?
You could have put out "Star Wars VII: This One Doesn't Suck" and it would have bombed with a promotional campaign as bad as the one for J.C.
Studio executives, whether in film or television, are retarded. None of them deserve to be where they are, because they don't understand the product they're selling. There are precious few exceptions to this rule, two obvious ones being Michael Eisner and Brandon Tartikoff.
As an example, I cite Mork & Mindy. It was a fabulous hit. Gerry Marshall made all the right moves, and the first season blew up. Then, in an effort to fix what was not only not broken, but functioning at peak efficiency, the network came in and demanded many changes that Gerry Marshall thought, rightly so, were absurd. They wanted characters fired, new characters brought in, and most aggresiously, they wanted to move it opposite Archie Bunker. All big mistakes, and the rating dropped into the basement for season 2. They tried to put everything back the way it was, but Mork couldn't recover. A successful series sabotaged by executives meddling where they don't belong. These people are idiots.