Disney admits defeat after 'John Carter' loses $200 million
International can't save Andrew Stanton's live action debut
LOS ANGELES (AP) — "John Carter" is now officially a flop of galactic proportions.
The Walt Disney Co. said Monday that it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March.
That'll cause Disney's movie studio to post a loss of $80 million to $120 million for the quarter.
The movie, about a Civil War veteran who is transplanted to Mars, has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide.
But its production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with an estimated $100 million more spent on marketing.
Copyright 2012 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Related Events
-
movies
News From Our Partners
-
Ranking the Blockbusters with Summer Movie Scorecard 2013
RT on DVD & Blu-Ray: The Last Stand and Side Effects
Box Office Guru Wrapup: Star Trek Softer Than Expected at #1
-
'Star Trek Into Darkness' Takes Box-Office Crown With $84 Million
'Arrested Development' Gang: Where Are They Now?
'Star Trek Into Darkness': What's Next For J.J. Abrams And The Cast?
-
The Telefile - Veep: The Episode's Best Insults
The Telefile - Saturday Night Live: Straight Outta 8H
The Telefile - Game of Thrones: Our Weekly Westeros Scorecard
-
What to Watch Tonight: The Season Finales of Rectify and Hawaii Five-0 and the Series Premieres of The Goodwin Games and Motive
Mad Men "The Crash" Review: Uppers Give You Wings!
News Briefs: CBS Is Pulling Mike & Molly's Season Finale Due to a Tornado Storyline
-
Hear This: With “Deceptacon,” Le Tigre captured the sound of youth in a song
Watch This: Walter Hill’s The Driver is all about work done well
Scenic Routes: A quiet scene from The Matrix demonstrates how to make exposition compelling
-
Joe Satran: Who's Winning The 'Game Of Thrones'?
Andrew Jenks: Where Guns Are as Common as Cell Phones
Renee Graziano: Look Before You Love
-
'Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters': Jeremy Renner Never Read the Script Before Signing On
'Angry Birds' Movie Flies Forward
Jennifer Lawrence as Mystique: First Look at the Actress in 'X-Men: Days of Future Past'
-
Ultra Music Festival Dates Announced, Tickets Go on Sale May 21
Girls' Generation's Jessica Poses With Purses in Vogue Girl [Pics]
Austin Mahone vs. Jonas Brothers – Pop Clash
Comments
Option 1
Comment instantly as a guest GuestOption 2
Option 3
Login or create a HitFix account Login Signuptamagura
March 19, 2012 at 5:32PM EST Reply to CommentIn my opinion, movie studios have no idea when to release films. 'John Carter' is a film that should have been released during a schoolbreak or summer vacation. Romantic and 'Girlie' films would be better served around Valentine's day or some other suitable date. Sometimes, it is a 'no brainer'.
moddy ..or how to name movies. You'd have to be versed in steampunk for "John Carter" to grab your attention in the movie listings.
March 19, 2012 at 5:45PM ESTToo bad, I dragged my family to see John Carter and in the end they loved it. It's worth seeing.
GuanoLad
March 19, 2012 at 6:11PM EST Reply to CommentI can't believe what $100 million in marketing dollars gets you. Because that's where it all fell crashing down.
katie71483
March 19, 2012 at 6:42PM EST Reply to Comment$100mil on marketing? and the marketing was absolutely dreadful. A shame. I enjoyed John Carter a lot - and I only went because I loved Taylor Kitsch in Friday Night Lights. I have to say that I thought it odd that a movie with such a massive budget was released at what is usually a slow movie going time. And, as much as I enjoyed it, I wondered where all the money went.
Ricardo
March 19, 2012 at 6:44PM EST Reply to CommentThey should fire the marketing team. It's not the movie's fault.
SamuelM
March 19, 2012 at 6:50PM EST Reply to CommentI note a few people already have said what i was going to: $100mil for THAT marketing campaign? If they want to blame anyone for this failure, it's the marketers.
It's a real shame, too, because though the film itself is flawed, it's a million times better than the generic Pirates/Transformers movies that manage to rake in the GDP of a small nation.
We need to see more original ambitious works like John Carter, and this financial failure stops studios from even trying to make them. I hope Disney stick with it despite its losses.
Arrow
March 19, 2012 at 7:17PM EST Reply to CommentTo the people blaming the marketers, I'd normally agree with you but according to reports, director Andrew Stanton has a lot to do with what went wrong in that department. Apparently he really thought John Carter was a brand popular enough to sell itself. Really, if you think about it, hom much better was the marketing for the Hunger Games?
If you add that his way of working, which works well in animation but made the film too expensive to produce in live-action, and you end up with a guy that must feel pretty small in his shoes today.
SamuelM That's interesting if true. I'm not sure why he would've thought that. I hadn't heard of it until I heard the movie was coming. Plenty of people I know hadn't heard of it even then.
March 19, 2012 at 9:33PM ESTJedyKnight
March 19, 2012 at 7:17PM EST Reply to Commentit's a real shame, because is indeed a good sci-fi adventure movie, im sure in a couple of years it will be a classic to rent/buy (download or whatever it is we do in the coming future) and in TV reruns.. it is a true-blue family fun movie... alas, i guess the odds of having sequels made are slim to none. :(
goodhorse
March 19, 2012 at 7:31PM EST Reply to CommentI think John Carter was great and deserved to succeed.
Having said that, how can *any* film be allowed to cost $250m? And how can *any* studio then throw another $100m on marketing?
and having spent $100m on marketing, how can *any* campaign come off so ineffectually? They should have given every audience member $2 each to buy a Coke... would've been money better spent.
JJ1
March 19, 2012 at 7:52PM EST Reply to CommentDoes that basically mean that with a 250 mill budget, it would have to make 500 mill to make a profit. And box office predicts that it'll ultimately make 300 mill worldwide ... therefore, the 200 mill loss?
aaron_roberts
March 19, 2012 at 7:57PM EST Reply to CommentAccording to Boxofficemojo, only 199 movies have ever made more than $350,000,000 worldwide. And the VAST majority of them had a brand far stronger than John Carter. The marketing for this film was pretty weak, but the issue at hand is really saturation. Too many of these comic book/action films are competing for the same audience in such a tight time frame. That audience may be big, but they still make choices on what to see (i.e.. spend money on).
Jenny
March 19, 2012 at 7:57PM EST Reply to CommentThis was not only a financial nightmare - it was a creative nightmare. Many fanboys (and girls) dreams for a great "John Carter" movie were crushed by Disney. Here is a hilarious review by a drunken Finnish film critic who loved the books as a boy growing up in Finland (and, yes, his dreams for this one was crushed by Hollywood).
http://mankabros.com/blogs/btp/2012/03/09/john-carter-review/
Playhouse
March 20, 2012 at 5:00PM EST Reply to CommentI would love to get clarification on the assertion of that New Yorker article that Stanton was so hands on and controlling of the marketing campaign. This campaign is one of the prime examples of how marketing can make or destroy a film and I'd to think it was all sunk by the man who made the film.
Sam
March 21, 2012 at 2:04AM EST Reply to CommentYup, this article covered it as well (http://thecelebritycafe.com/feature/2012/03/john-carter-200-million-flop). Disney is really taking on the wrong image here. It's trying to promote to boys, but it's going about it the wrong way. Oh well, I can't wait for Brave to come out!
Ken
March 21, 2012 at 9:08PM EST Reply to CommentHow about putting together something that is new and fresh. Have you seen what is out there? cpoies of remakes, sequeles and the like. It's getting boring, really. I read these comments and, come on people, do you really like the cheap attempts to remake a movie that was done twenty years ago or how many "Rockies" can we go through?
I've quit going to movies and gone back to reading non fiction. It's more refreshing.
Grifter After reading your comment, I did a quick search and the only time anything pertaining the "Barsoom Novels" got a movie adaptation was in 2009, a direct-to-video movie by The Asylum, named The Princess of Mars, starring Traci Lords.
March 22, 2012 at 2:08AM ESTSo, I have to laugh at your comment, because where it comes to this particular movie, and what people are commenting, you are not just wrong, but out of your depth.
It's basically the first "honest" adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels.
It's not a remake or a sequel or a prequel, or anything of that sort.
Clearly non-fiction isn't doing much for you, since you're making your own fiction here.
Grifter By "only time" I mean before the current John Carter movie.
March 22, 2012 at 2:11AM ESTBest to be clear when it comes to people that are clearly confused.
jack
March 22, 2012 at 9:01AM EST Reply to CommentPart of this debacle comes across to me as an example of how many people in the entertainment industry can't tell the difference between what they like vs. what the outside world likes or even knows about. There is such a staggeringly high level of subjective projecting going on, to the point of what seems like dementia.