Welcome to Theme Park Insider! Join the community or log in
Theme Park Insider
Facebook Twitter YouTube Email Newsletter

John Carter won me over

Walt Disney World: John Carter from Disney

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 9, 2012 at 7:57 PM
I know this is a park site...but John Carter is a Disney movie, so I figure it's somewhat appropriate. Went to see it tonight and it fell into the category of "boy, the critics are so jaded" for me. I loved this movie. Well-scripted, well-acted, well-scored, just a great movie. I was surprised to be honest. After reading some early reviews, I fully expected a totally derivative, snoozefest. Was so not the case. Yes, it doesn't really offer anything groundbreakingly new, but Avatar's success was based on ground-breaking "technology" and bored me as a story. This was the opposite. I cared for the characters, I was totally interested in what was happening, and came out happy.


Comments in chronological order. Most recent at the bottom. This discussion has been archived, and is not accepting additional responses.

From James Rao
Posted March 9, 2012 at 10:27 PM
While no where near as immersive or "pretty" as Avatar, John Carter was a very, very good film. If you like the sci-fi/fantasy setting you will definitely enjoy this movie.

Also, George Lucas take note: Gungans should have been like the cool Tharks in John Carter, not the dopey, mutated rabbit things they became.

From Andrew Mooney
Posted March 10, 2012 at 5:55 AM
I really don't understand why the critics dislike the film so much. Admittedly, I've not seen it, but everywhere I look (apart from Disney fansites) have given it mild reviews at best. Is it a way to crush "Pixar's first live action movie" which isn't made by Pixar? Is it to laugh at Disney for spending $250 million on (what reviewers call) an average movie? Or is it because, by staying relatively true to the books, John Carter looks like AVATAR and Star Wars, which took inspiration from Edgar Rice Borough's novels? The movie may not be amazing, again I've not seen it yet, but some reviews are calling it "a waste of 2 hours" and another wanted "Darth Vader to kill everyone" which I found harsh. Those quotes come from a local TV production in Scotland known as MovieJuice, so no references.

From Andy Milito
Posted March 10, 2012 at 7:21 AM
Dom said: "Rumours were going around a couple months ago saying that if the movie was sucessfull they would make a Tomorrowland ride at MK."

I love how you throw out all this information with no source whatsoever.

From Andrew Mooney
Posted March 10, 2012 at 7:42 AM
Dom, I don't know about a Tomorrowland ride, but Jim Hill said that Disney Entertainment were considering a show in Tomorrowland. He mentioned it in his Magic Kingdom walkthrough podcast at the 18 minute barrier. However, he mentioned that the show was to gain people's attention to see the movie in theatres so, with no John Carter show there presently, the performance looks to have been cancelled.

From James Rao
Posted March 10, 2012 at 7:45 AM
Andrew, regarding your question about why critics hate this film so much, one thing I have learned in this life is to never underestimate how badly people would like to see you fail.

For some reason, people love to knock others down as it often makes them feel better about themselves.

Sadly, it works the same way with film critics.

Go see John Carter: it is good fun for the whole family.

From Andrew Mooney
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:04 AM
Thanks James, I'll try and see it as soon as possible. Even in my relatively short time on Earth, I know what it's like for people wanting others to fail. I got a lot of hassle back in school for performing to my best and being able to outperform the rest of my year. I never imagined being titled Dux to be derogatory, but clearly I was wrong.

I really hope John Carter does well at the box office, and Andrew Stanton can continue creating wonderful stories, that can be loved for generations to come.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:07 AM
The vehemence of the negative criticisms tells me it's pointed criticism...they went in with an agenda and were never going to give the movie a chance. I think the sort of artsy elitism that's pervaded the Oscars in recent years has taken over the critics' circles too. This is an old-fashioned movie that's simply trying to entertain. But there's a depth to the main character I didn't expect. There's one scene in particular that hit my emotional core unexpectedly...those who've seen it probably know which one I'm referring to since it was powerfully put together.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:11 AM
Andy, I believe Dom sometimes feels that using the word "rumours"...British OR American spelling..allows him to toss off whatever idea he'd like to throw out.

From James Rao
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:14 AM
Mark, I think I know the scene you are referencing... It occurs midway through the film and is a pivotal scene where Carter "buries his tragic past". Amazing film making. Director Andrew Stanton did a fine job with JOHN CARTER. Sadly, most folks won't give it a chance because, like Lemmings, they just follow someone else's lead.

I wonder if all the bad reviews are a backlash against Avatar? I think many critics are embarrassed by the fact that they were so wowed by the technical nature of Avatar that they pronounced it a classic against their better judgement (remember, ratings were AMAZING for Avatar when it came out). Now they can strike back against a similarly styled film. I hope I am wrong, but the logic fits.

From Anthony Murphy
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:50 AM
I think Disney might have a franchise on their hands if they play it right!

One thing I wished they did sooner was to kinda explain John Carter. I had to look it up and I thought it was an interesting concept: he was one of the first Science Fiction characters!

From Rob Pastor
Posted March 10, 2012 at 9:21 AM
Generally, in the present day film business, negative reviews have very little to do with the eventual box office attendance. The movie will rise or fall on whether people want to see it and how well the marketing people have done to promote the film. When the box office estimates come out on Sunday afternoon, you will have a good idea if the movie was a success or failure. Movie critics have much less influence than the general populace believes they do.

From Daniel Etcheberry
Posted March 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM
What about Universal's Dr. Seuss' Lorax? Is it good?

From James Rao
Posted March 10, 2012 at 9:46 AM
Rob, you generally know by Saturday morning how the movie will do. Estimates have John Carter at $27 - $29 million for the weekend, second to the Lorax at $40 mil. By all accounts, Carter is going to fail in the US. Overseas, it has had some success and will probably break even by the time all is said and done. Not good enough to warrant the sequel that I would love to see.

As for critics, I agree to an extent, however, when it comes to scifi movies that are badly marketed (like John Carter - who releases a "guy-film" during March Madness???) critic reviews can sway the masses off the fence and back to their homes. To be fair, though, the Metacritic rating on JC is in the mid 50's (out of 100) which is not horrible. Most reviews are saying the film is "okay". Most of the bad press stems from the price tag of the film, which makes no sense, because no matter how much a movie costs to make, the ticket price for you and me is the same.

To all this I would add: if you like sci-fantasy movies, with lots of action, effects, romance, and laughs, then go see John Carter, you won't be disappointed.

If you want to be disappointed, go see The Artist, then scratch your head and say, "What the heck was that all about!? Best picture? Really? WTH?!"

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 10, 2012 at 9:45 AM
As Rob implied above, it doesn't really matter if Lorax is good or not. It made $70m on opening weekend.

From Rob Pastor
Posted March 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM
James: Those U.S. numbers indicate that the movie will come in way under original projections. Disney will have to "hope" that the international box office pulls it out. Of course, dvd & cable sales usually help to lift a movie closer to the profit column and are usually larger than the film boxoffice.Downloading sales are very insignicant & still have not reached anywhere near expectations. General rule of thumb in the film business is that a movie has to double the film's production cost to make money(copy & screen costs, salesforce,advertising, marketing etc.). But your numbers indicate the movie will probably be a failure profit wise unless word of mouth is so strong that this attendance trend is reversed. But that rarely happens. I didn't really like the marketing that I saw for the movie. Someone not familiar with the material would have thought it to be a B sci-fi subject & film. The blame for this probably falls on the Disney film marketing division. Along with the Tron disaster this may result in a few marketing people being whacked.

From Giovanny Cruz
Posted March 10, 2012 at 10:25 AM
Movie crittics said that the lorax was good and in oppening weekend won like 70m so I guess later in the future the lorax can become an attraction at seeus land at IOA

From Rob Pastor
Posted March 10, 2012 at 10:44 AM
Giovanny: You're probably right on. A "very" successful Universal property (movie) and an already existing land to place an attraction. It's going to double or triple original attendance projections. And it's a perfect subject for dvd sales.Good logical thought process on that.

From Skipper Adam
Posted March 10, 2012 at 12:45 PM
I've heard great things from my friends from coast to coast. There is still a hope that John Carter may do well enough.

From James Rao
Posted March 10, 2012 at 1:28 PM
All good points Rob, and I am giving the film good word of mouth here, so now it is up to readers like you to respond and go see the flick!

From Rob Pastor
Posted March 10, 2012 at 2:07 PM
James: This might be one of those examples that using the social network (Facebook, Twitter etc.) helps a movie. Maybe the Disney & Sci-Fi fans should begin a massive network word of mouth campaign. Sure wouldn't hurt.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:32 PM
James, you hit it spot on. Nice job of describing it without giving it away. That one scene cemented my love for this movie.

Hopefully word-of-mouth will give this movie legs enough to make a profit.

Just curious about the decision to call it simply "John Carter". Why not sell the Mars part? It should have been called "John Carter of Mars". But as I type that it dawned on me Disney had a major failure last year with "Mars Needs Moms", so I guess "Mars" is a big boo boo word for Disney. Heck, call it "John Carter of Barsoom"!!

From Giovanny Cruz
Posted March 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM
If Disney decides to make an attraction out of Jonh Carter it should be a terminator style live and 3D at the same time.Other options a inddor coaster or a stunt show

From James Rao
Posted March 11, 2012 at 4:24 AM
Maybe it is the MARS link that kills movies. Never thought of that, Mark.

However, now that I think of it, Mars Needs Moms wasn't all that bad either. In fact, I kind of liked it. What's wrong with me?!?

From Matt Babiak
Posted March 11, 2012 at 5:45 AM
You liked Mars Needs Moms?!?
James says "What's wrong with me"
I respond "EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

From James Rao
Posted March 11, 2012 at 6:30 AM
I dunno, after hearing repeatedly that MOMS was the worst movie of all time, I suspect it would be almost impossible for me to not like the film, at least a little. When your expectations are set so low, it is easy for something to exceed them. Hey, MOMS was definitely a better flick than the Hurt Locker (ugh!), and that POS won Best Picture!

Incidentally, the book MARS NEEDS MOMS by Berkley Breathed (of Bloom County fame) was an outstanding kid's book. Probably not the best source for a major motion picture, but still excellent. And being a kid's book, Matt, it should be at your level of reading comprehension! ;) (That's a joke, don't get all pi$$ed!)

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 11, 2012 at 6:51 AM
Rao said: "Maybe it is the MARS link that kills movies. Never thought of that, Mark."

You may have something there.

Mars Attacks..not very successful
Invaders From Mars (remake)..ditto
Mission To Mars..same.

On the other hand, the old film (50's? 60s? I didn't look it up before posting) Mars needs Women was soooo low-budget it couldn't HELP but be successful!!

From Matt Babiak
Posted March 11, 2012 at 7:08 AM
Actually, James, I like to think of myself as a rather smart and mature 13 ;)

From James Trexen
Posted March 11, 2012 at 9:09 AM
Now I'm not a big box-office expert like some probably are, but from what I saw, not looking good for Carter in America. As of March 9, Johnny brought in 70 million worldwide as opposed to a weak 9 million domestic against a 250 million budget. Now, again, no box office expert, but it looks like Carter is not so popular here in America. It could change (remember How To Train Your Dragon?) but don't expect it to.

Now, since obviously France and others would rather see Carter, so they'd probably get it at their parks before (if) we do. Same reason with Duffy. If people don't want him here, they're not getting him here.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 11, 2012 at 9:31 AM
Well, funny enough, I just got done reading this week's Entertainment Weekly, where they blasted the movie of course, and they actually included a sidebar on the poor box office history of recent "Mars" movies. So I'm thinking the Disney heads were probably gun-shy about "Mars".

From James Rao
Posted March 11, 2012 at 12:01 PM
Good international debut for John Carter with $70.6M from 51 markets for $101.2M global take. Still needs a lot more to break even, but it does show Carter is going to go over better outside of the US. Also shows that releasing a guy centric film during March Madness is a choke.

From James Rao
Posted March 11, 2012 at 5:33 PM
It is all relative, Dom... if John Carter had cost $50M to make, $30M would have been a phenomenal weekend. Heck, Hurt Locker won best picture last year two years ago and made $12M total (because it was a piece of boring garbage), and The Artist (this year's winner) has only made $40M so far. So, $30M is a decent take, but not when the film cost upwards of $250M to make.

Still at $100M worldwide, John Carter has a chance to make decent bank if word of mouth from non-critics continues to be solid.

Go check it out, gang, I think you will be impressed.

One other note, to Rob's point about the questionable ability of critics to sway audiences: the Lorax is making crazy money and overall it has received worse reviews than John Carter (Metacritic for the Lorax is 47/100). Good thing they did not call it The Lorax of Mars, or something!

From Giovanny Cruz
Posted March 11, 2012 at 3:37 PM
I don't know what's hurt locker but the kings Speech won picture of the year last year at the oscars

From Caroline Davis
Posted March 11, 2012 at 3:57 PM
Hurt Locker was the year before King's Speech.

The trailer was pretty weak for John Carter, I was more inclined to see it before the trailer. There's quite a lot of big blockbusters this year, maybe it has just got lost the crowd. I know I'll probably see John Carter, but I will definitely see The Avengers, The Amazing Spiderman, Prometheus and The Dark Knight Rises.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 11, 2012 at 8:46 PM
Caroline, with those movies you've listed plus The Hobbit and MIB3 and I will add John Carter to that list, plus I'm sure a few others I'm forgetting, this is gearing up to be a potentially awesome year for movies...well, movies us average folk like. ;)

From James Rao
Posted March 11, 2012 at 9:32 PM
Avengers, Spider-Man, Brave, the Walking Dead just keeps getting better and better every week, and yes, oh yes, The Hobbit comes out in December.

The world may be going to the dogs, but it is going out in style!

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 12, 2012 at 4:12 AM
World's not going to the dogs, James..it's going to the walkers.

Incidentally, I don't think the show is getting better every week. They're doing some interesting things at the END of these episodes (like (spoiler alert!) killing off two major characters in two weeks.) But since they came back after the mid-season hiatus, I think overall they've been pretty lackluster. I think they're missing Frank Darabont's involvement. Still my favorite show, though, and I'm not ready to return to the Griffin residence.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 12, 2012 at 4:12 AM
Double post.

From James Rao
Posted March 12, 2012 at 9:07 AM
Honestly, other than some bad acting (Dale) I have liked most every episode. You're right, though, the endings of the last couple have been jaw droppers!

And every episode could use a bit more Darryl! #mancrush

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 12, 2012 at 1:03 PM
Yep, Daryl's become my favorite character too. And Dale got annoying, but I've always liked Jeffery DeMunn in other roles.

I'm waiting with baited breath for Daryl's big brother Merle to re-appear. I don't think he's dead, and I was hoping he'd turn out to part of Randall's pack.

I just found out this week's episode is the season finale. That went by WAAAYYYY to quick.

From James Rao
Posted March 12, 2012 at 1:19 PM
Yeah, six episodes at a time is way too few!

From Skipper Adam
Posted March 16, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Back to John Carter, I too was surprised with the movie. Much better than I expected and maybe my new favorite Disney sci-fy.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 16, 2012 at 11:29 AM
No way did I ever predict this thread would derail into Walking Dead!! HA! :P

From Tom Rigg
Posted March 18, 2012 at 1:06 PM
By the by, I was listening to SIR's Hollywood Babble-On with Kevin Smith and they reported that John Carter only made 500,000 at all of the midnight showings nation wide. That is truly foreboding....

From James Rao
Posted March 18, 2012 at 2:40 PM
John Carter has grossed about $180M worldwide in two weekends. It is unlikely it will recoup all of its reported $375M budget (including marketing), but it doesn't diminish the quality of the film. It does however, diminish my respect for the general populace who wouldn't know a good scifi flick if it came up and kicked 'em in the light saber!!!

From Andrew Mooney
Posted March 19, 2012 at 3:51 PM
Disney are predicting a $200 million loss on John Carter for this quarter. Forbes and other Wall Street vendors are reporting on this "flop" and Disney have supposedly stated that this is due to "poor global reaction to the film". It's saddening to see the film take such a large hit, but I'm fairly sure that Disney can recoup some money in DVD (and iTunes, Netflix etc) associated sales outwith the quarterly results.

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 19, 2012 at 5:26 PM
I hope it does, Andrew. As much as I loved the movie, even I coughed when I heard the total budget outlay for the movie...roughly $375 million...that includes marketing. Seems like an insane amount of money to invest in one movie. I see heads rolling for this one.

From N B
Posted March 19, 2012 at 7:06 PM
I will wait for Netflix... should be available in about 60 days.

From James Rao
Posted March 19, 2012 at 7:55 PM
Not sure on the size of TV you have, NB, but this film is one that benefits from a large theater screen... if you're interested in John Carter at all, go see it next week for $5 at the bargain matinee, you won't regret it.

Next up... WRATH OF THE TITANS!!!!

From Skipper Adam
Posted March 20, 2012 at 7:36 AM
I agree, NB, that John Carter deserves a chance on the big screen, even at a dollar theater, if you can get over the fact that it's Disney. I think that the money spent on the movie will be recovered with DVD/Bluray sales. Even if a Disney movie flops in theaters, it makes a ton on home sales (Brother Bear, Atlantis, Country Bears, etc). With this movie I learned the importance of a good campaign. I agree with others who think the critics saw the bad trailers and went in with a decided mind. Audience ratings have given the movie a B+, and that's what counts.

From Dominick D
Posted March 20, 2012 at 8:07 AM
There's really no movie I want to see until The Avengers is out, so conserdering I have a 60 inch 3D TV in my house should I rent John Carter?

From Tim Odom
Posted March 20, 2012 at 8:16 AM
John Carter, for lack of a better word, flopped. If I were to guess why, it would be a complete failure to market the movie properly. My fiance, who is geek enough to have a Jawa tatooed on her leg, saw the ads for John Carter and said that she did not have any desire to see it. If you can't get sci-fi fans to see your sci-fi movie, chances are there was a failure somewhere.

Now, this is a flop the size we have not seen in a bit. This is a pretty large and public flop, the last one of this magnitude I can remember is Batman & Robin (which was dreadful.) Will heads roll? Probably, but no one big that we would hear of (aka, some of the marketting folks and the like.) Andrew Stanton, the director, will have certain difficulties if he wishes to do another big budget movie, and Taylor Kitsch might have similar difficulties. That's what happens when people compare your movie with Ishtar.

Oh, and will we see a John Carter, uh, anything in Disney? Not a chance. They might try to sell merchandise for the cheap, but once that is gone, they will try to forget this. Again, once the comparisons to Ishtar come out, you just need to bury it and hope no one ever remembers.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 20, 2012 at 8:31 AM
The article I saw referenced not only Ishtar, but Heaven's Gate and Mars Needs Moms as well. I may be the only Bat-fan who actually LIKED Batman and Robin...I thought it was the second best of that initial Batman series, topped by the Keaton/Nicholson original.

From James Rao
Posted March 20, 2012 at 9:51 AM
I think timing was a big issue. You've got a "guy-flick" releasing at a time when all guys are watching March Madness. Had this film come out a month earlier or later, it might have had a better chance.

Regardless, John Carter is a good movie and, unlike Heaven's Gate, Ishtar, and even Mars Needs Moms (which I liked), will probably do very well when it releases to DVD next Tuesday. ;)

Mike, how 'bout that excellent Walking Dead finale???? I cannot wait until the fall!

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM
James, although I liked the finale, I felt it was somewhat anti-climactic after (spoiler alert..stop reading if you TIVO'd the last three weeks..No, not you, James) the episode-ending deaths of two major characters the last two weeks. The hooded character who saved Andrea did provide me with a true WTF? moment. That said, I'm excited to see where they go from here...but October seems sooooo far away.

Incidentally, I expect that my recently acquired Walking Dead T-shirt will make its debut at Great Adventure on Opening Day, April 5. Although...maybe it would be appropriate when I go Easter Sunday three days later..you know, the whole "rising from the dead" thing.

Sorry to take this off topic. So, how 'bout that John Carter?

From Tim Odom
Posted March 20, 2012 at 10:15 AM
@Mike - You, sir, are the only person alive who liked Batman & Robin. Congrats! :)

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 20, 2012 at 10:34 AM
Derailing to Walking Dead again??? C'mon, James!! :D

Seriously though, so looking forward to both Wrath and Avengers and Batman and Spider-Man and MIB3 and The Hobbit...anything else? So wish Superman was coming out this year too!

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 20, 2012 at 10:45 AM
Yes, Tim, I guess I am. Most of our little group has passed on......:( or :)..I can't decide!!!

From James Rao
Posted March 20, 2012 at 11:14 AM
Mike, the t-shirt idea is a good one. I am trying to decide what I will wear to Silver Dollar City in mid-April. Thinking it will be my VOYAGE shirt if it can pull a tournament upset and win it all...

I felt the WD finale was a great action piece, but also provided something LOST never did: answers! We now have answers to most everything that was set up during the first two seasons and we are good to move on to new adventures. Really loved Rick taking a stand: "This isn’t a democracy anymore." Great ending. And yes, the new character introduced is intriguing as is the future setting in the prison. I cannot wait until October.

Back to the movies... lots of good ones forthcoming: Wrath, Avengers, Dark Shadows (#iheartjohnnydepp), Battleship, MIB 3, Prometheus, Brave, GI Joe 2, Spider-Man, Dark Knight Rises, Twilight BD pt 2 (#forthewife), Zach Snyder's Superman movie, and of course, the granddaddy of them all, The Hobbit. Gonna be an awesome year, and John Carter, for those bold enough to see it, was just the tip of the iceberg!

From joel l
Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM
battleship looks like a desprate atempt to make money

From James Rao
Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:51 PM
I thought all movies were a desperate attempt to make money?

From Tim Odom
Posted March 20, 2012 at 12:54 PM
If they don't say 'You sunk my battleship!' in Battleship, that film is dead to me. Extra points if Liam Neeson says it.

From James Rao
Posted March 20, 2012 at 1:54 PM
Agreed. Furthermore, they have to say "G-4, it's a hit!" first, then they they can say, "You sunk my battleship."

Just like Mission: Space and barf bags, you can't have one without the other.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted March 20, 2012 at 3:56 PM
I used to have a friend who set his ships diagonally on the board.

Incidentally, is Neeson actually in the movie? I didn't know that...

From Tim Odom
Posted March 21, 2012 at 6:05 AM
Yup, Battleship has the aforementioned Taylor Kitsch as well as Liam Neeson (and Alexander Skarsgård from True Blood.) My question, though, is how can humans win a game of Battleship against aliens when their ships are not in the water? CONUNDRUM!

From Dominick D
Posted March 21, 2012 at 9:12 AM
There's really only 3 movies I want to see this year:

THE AVENGERS
THE DARK KNIGHT RISES
THE AMAZING SPIDER-MAN

From James Rao
Posted March 21, 2012 at 1:55 PM
No HOBBIT? That's blasphemy, Dom, blasphemy! Off with your head!

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted March 21, 2012 at 2:16 PM
The Hobbit is the biggest of the lot, by crum! Come on, Dom, you know you want to see the Precious!! :D

From Andy Milito
Posted March 21, 2012 at 2:52 PM
I remember why Dom won't see it, he thinks Tolkein hates Christianity.

My list is:
* Hunger Games (this Friday!)
* Avengers
* MIB3
* Prometheus
* Brave
* Amazing Spider-Man
* Dark Knight Rises
* Bourne Legacy
* Skyfall
* Hobbit

From Skipper Adam
Posted April 3, 2012 at 2:31 PM
Sooo...back to John Carter. It has finally grossed over 250 million, recouping the cost to make the film. Still earning money and yet to be released in Japan, it actually might make a profit when all said and done with DVD/Bluray. Disney took a huge risk and while it didn't earn big bucks, it produced a very awesome movie IMO.

From Rob Pastor
Posted April 3, 2012 at 3:05 PM
It still has to recoup screen, print, marketing, advertising costs etc. The real cost figure is above $350 million. $250 million was just production costs. And then when it goes into dvd production there are additional costs for licensing, production, sales force, advertising, marketing etc. that get added in again. So that $350 million theatrical cost will rise further.

From Mike Gallagher
Posted April 3, 2012 at 4:49 PM
I lerned from media professors in college that a movie has to earn 2.5 times its actual production budget just to break even. That's why movies like Airplane!, The Jerk, and Blair Witch Project rank among the most successful movies ever made.

From Rob Pastor
Posted April 3, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Yes Mike, the multiplier is generally in that vicinity.

From Dominick D
Posted April 3, 2012 at 6:48 PM
The reason I don't wanna see The Hobbit is because I'm not a LOTR fan. I have nothing against the creator, it's just that LOTR bores me to death. Also, Ted looks like a hilarious movie.

From James Trexen
Posted April 3, 2012 at 8:51 PM
Call me nuts, but I'm looking forward to seeing The Three Stooges. This will be nowhere near as brilliant as the original shorts, but I remember seeing them so long ago as a kid, so hopefully it'll be pretty nostalgic.

*Goes to sit in time out chair for derailing thread*

From Mike Gallagher
Posted April 4, 2012 at 4:23 AM
Dom, obviously I'm (much!) older than you. Be the ennui toward LOTR and its various permutations is something we share. I high school and college, I attempted..multiple times..to read The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Never was able to get past the first twenty pages or so.. Since I was "more mature" (HAH!!) when the LOTR movies came out, I gave them a shot. I literally fell asleep less than 20 minutes in.

I've got a full weekend coming up..GAdv Opening Day tomorrow, off Friday, dentist and Mets game Saturday, GAdv again on Easter. But I WOULD like to make time to see the Titanic 3D release. It's one of my fave movies as is, and I've been fascinated with the story since I was around Dom's age!

From Dominick D
Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:06 AM
James, The Three Stooges were at Six Flags on Sunday as SF is doing a promotion for the movie. However, the fact that the cast of Jersey Shore is in it is turning me off.

Mike, Titanic is a classic film, but I don't plan on seeing it in 3D, as post conversion really is crap.

From Skipper Adam
Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:28 AM
I love the story of Titanic, but not the movie. I don't think the 3D is worth it. However, I do like the release of movies in general. I'm curious to see if any other re-release will be as profitable as The Lion King.

From James Trexen
Posted April 4, 2012 at 9:42 AM
Dom, I won't argue with you about bringing in the "Jersey Snore" cast, but I'm all for watching Moe poke Snookie's eyes out.

From Andy Milito
Posted April 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM
These 3D re-releases are getting out of hand. Lion King seemed ok, but Beauty and the Beast? Titanic? Finding Nemo (coming later this year)? Not to mention SIX Star Wars movies, of which two are absolutely terrible.

From James Trexen
Posted April 4, 2012 at 2:58 PM
The only 3D re-release I'd actually consider seeing is Jurassic Park next year.

From N B
Posted April 5, 2012 at 3:56 AM
John Carter will be a Netflix rental....

From Andy Milito
Posted April 5, 2012 at 12:10 PM
Are they really doing Jurassic Park 3D?

From James Trexen
Posted April 5, 2012 at 1:47 PM
That's the plan for next July.

http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Jurassic-Park-3D-Coming-Theaters-July-2013-30004.html

From Dominick D
Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:31 PM
If done right, JP in 3D would be cool.

From Skipper Adam
Posted April 5, 2012 at 2:40 PM
The risk with converting old live action movies into 3D is it highlights how old CG might look. I love JP, but on the big screen in 3D I'm sure the dinos might start looking tacky...

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted April 5, 2012 at 4:51 PM
Seeing T-Rex barreling down on the jeep in 3D would be pretty nifty.

From Andy Milito
Posted April 6, 2012 at 2:25 PM
Why are all these 3D re-releases necessary though?

From Dominick D
Posted April 6, 2012 at 3:14 PM
Andy says: Why are all these 3D re-releases necessary though?

I Respond: One Word: MONEY!

From Giovanny Cruz
Posted April 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Movies I want to see this year
1.the avengers
2.battleship
3.brave
4.the dark night rises
5.the amazing spider man

From Andy Milito
Posted April 7, 2012 at 6:35 AM
I sure hope that list is not in order...even if it was, Battleship should be nowhere on there!

From Giovanny Cruz
Posted April 7, 2012 at 7:54 AM
Now I'm gona put them in order
1.the avengers
2.the amazing spider man
3.the dark night rises
4.brave
5.battleship
The hunger games would be on 3 but I already saw it

From Andy Milito
Posted April 7, 2012 at 3:45 PM
Dark Knight Rises at 3rd? I am disappointed. My top 5 looks like this:

1. The Dark Knight Rises
2. The Avengers
3. The Amazing Spider-Man
4. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey
5. Men in Black 3

From Mark Fairleigh
Posted April 7, 2012 at 4:07 PM
Mine:

1. Avengers
2. The Hobbit
3. Dark Knight Rises
4. MIB3
5. Amazing Spider-Man (this would normally rank higher, but it gets minus points for being another origin movie)

From Dominick D
Posted April 7, 2012 at 8:13 PM
My top 5:

1. The Avengers
2. The Dark Knight Rises
3. The Amazing Spiderman (gonna be so much better than Rami's false orgin story)
4. Brave
5. MIB3

From James Rao
Posted April 8, 2012 at 4:42 AM
As of 4/2, John Carter has made about $255M worldwide. Sadly, a final cume of about $260M seems likely. About $115m loss based on the total cost that has been released to the public. Sadly, we won't be seeing a theatrical sequel...ever. Big loss to genre fans, if you ask me.

Incidentally, The Cabin in the Woods has moved up on my list as a must see now that I know Joss Whedon and Drew Goddard are involved. The only downside is that the film is being released by Lionsgate and other than Crash, Rambo, and The Forbidden Kingdom, nothing good has ever come from Lionsgate. *Sigh*

From Dominick D
Posted April 8, 2012 at 4:10 PM
James, Cabin in the Woods is already a 95% fresh on RT, and I think people who saw The Hunger Games are gonna be mad you didn't put it there. :P

96th post.


UPDATE: We can still talk through editing posts ;)

From James Rao
Posted April 8, 2012 at 6:47 AM
Sorry, but I never heard anything about the Hunger Games until it came out and made a ton of money. I will check it out on Netflix.

From James Trexen
Posted April 8, 2012 at 10:31 AM
Let's hit 100 and close this thread because like the public, our interest in John Carter quickly faded in favor of other movies.

From James Rao
Posted April 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Mine didn't.

From James Rao
Posted April 8, 2012 at 11:28 AM
Later!

This discussion has been archived, and is not accepting additional responses.

Planning a trip to Orlando?

Walt Disney World

Insider's Pick: Get all the best advice from ThemeParkInsider.com in one convenient book! Theme Park Insider Orlando 2014 offers you the insight, background, and how-to skills that will help you enjoy Walt Disney World and Universal Orlando like, well, a theme park insider. Save yourself time and money by learning how to visit the Orlando-area theme parks the insiders' way.

Get it! In paperback | For Kindle | For iBooks