Disney claims that John Carter is set to lose 200 million bucks.

[vrbtny]

Thanks to Axolotl for being on the ball and pointing out basic flaws in my logic. And bringing some extra stats to the party

Yep, you heard that right.

John Carter, the movie that has been in various stages of development for years, besed on a book written at that beginning of the 20th century, and released as a utterly uninspiring movie in the early 21st century, is set to be one of the biggest bombs in movie history.

And Disney Claims it is set to loose 200 million bucks on the movie.

How Disney arrived at this total is rather.... difficult to see. As post #2 states, the movie has already made 184 million dollars, 54 million of which in the US(thanks to user BringBackBuck for update). It had a budget of 250 million bucks.

And using basic maths, we can see that 250 - 180 does not = 200.

Even adding on Marketing and premotional costs, it's impressive how much Disney has added to the deficit.

Sources.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...h/2012/03/19/gIQABFclNS_story.html?tid=pm_pop

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/20/john-carter-lose-disney-200m?newsfeed=true

Honestly, given how uninspiring this movie was, I am not at all surprised.

What about you?

 

[Axolotl]

It had a budget of 250 million, and is expected to only make 50 million bucks. Thus, using simple maths, it has been stated that the film is set to loose 200 million bucks.

Uh, it's already made $180+ million so that's not accurate.

 

[vrbtny]

It had a budget of 250 million, and is expected to only make 50 million bucks. Thus, using simple maths, it has been stated that the film is set to loose 200 million bucks.

Uh, it's already made $180+ million so that's not accurate.

Curse these misleading Guardian headlines.

You make a good point. Which is really awkward for me... as I guess I got it wrong.

But it's really strange, as Disney released a great big statement saying "We lost 200 million" on John Carter, and yet, like you said, it made 184 mil(Although it only made 30 mil of that in the US) on a budget of 250mil.

I don't know why Disney released a big statement like that. Marketing or something?

....

I'll just go re-write OP now.

 

[BringBackBuck]

*lose.

Also, US takings = $53.2M not $30M. (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm)

 

[vrbtny]

*lose.

Also, US takings = $53.2M not $30M. (http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm)

Thanks. Was working from info given in Guardian link.

Must have been out of date.

 

[Marter]

Thanks. Was working from info given in Guardian link.

Must have been out of date.

It was using the first week statistics only.

OT: Yeah, I don't think it'll lose quite that much. It won't break even, but $200m is pushing it, Disney. It's not even like their marketing campaign has been massive; I've yet to even see a television spot for it.

 

[JoJo]

It doesn't help that the trailer is pretty poor, until I read up further about the subject on Wikipedia I had no idea who John Carter was or anything about the background of the film.

 

[Axolotl]

I don't know why Disney released a big statement like that. Marketing or something?

John Carter was green-lit a while ago as part of a big push by Disney to establish a big "boy franchise" to go with their princess line. Now since then there's been a reigime change, and the new management solved this problem via the unelegant method of simply buying a pre-existing boy targeted franchise (Marvel comics, which now I think about it leads to the insane senario where Mark Millar's work is being published by Disney).

Now if the old management's big budget Sci-Fi film fails while the new managements equivelent (Avengers) succeeds then it makes the new guys look good. It also means they can safely kill John Carter as a series meaning that it won't provide competition for their Marvel films.

 

[Rainmaker77]

The takings of a movie isn't the amount of money Disney get, it's the money the cinemas, distributors etc get. Disney will only get a percentage of the reported 'takings', this is why for a film to 'break even' the standard formula is it has to earn roughly twice what it cost.

 

[Ilikemilkshake]

Thanks. Was working from info given in Guardian link.

Must have been out of date.

It was using the first week statistics only.

OT: Yeah, I don't think it'll lose quite that much. It won't break even, but $200m is pushing it, Disney. It's not even like their marketing campaign has been massive; I've yet to even see a television spot for it.

The numbers reported on the news this morning was that they spent $100 million on marketing.
They could be wrong but i dont see why they would make up a number like that.

(also i'm in the UK and i've seen a number of trailers on tv)

 

[VonKlaw]

The $250 million figure only inclues how much the film cost to make, not the $100 million they spent on marketing. And Disney only get about half of that $180 million with cinemas taking the rest.

$250 + $100 = $350 - $90 = $210.

I believe that's how they got the $200 million figure.

 

[Hoplon]

yeah, the marketing/distribution/etc costs are already in that 250 million price tag.

It's the usual accounting rubbish that allows them to make all the money back but pay no tax since it isn't "profit" That's the reason the price tag keeps going up, the apparent "losses" keep going up yet some how they manage to keep on making the films at this astronomical cost but not going under.

 

[SweetLiquidSnake]

Movies like John Carter fail because people keep trying to make movies that are so big and elaborate and epic they end up collapsing and imploding into themselves.

Look at Priest, Suckerpunch, Season of the Witch, Legion, the Immortals. All had these big elaborates stories with too many characters and forces and battles and all this infused shit, and every single one tanked. Hollywood keeps adding multiple parts to every movie and they can't co-exist.

Why did 300 do so well? Spartans vs. Persians. Thats it. You were introduced to a few of the main spartans and persians and thats it. Why did Priest fail miserably? Because it was demons vs. vampires vs. priests vs. cowboys. vs. zombies vs. NAMBLA vs. the chinese vs. the graduating class of 1986 vs. My uncle vs.....

Even Twilight got it right in that aspect. Werewolves vs. Vampires. The end.

 

[ShindoL Shill]

So, did they spend another few dozen million dollars on other stuff and just not tell people?
Or are they going to throw the money it makes out of Zeppelins?

Anyway, way to support your film, guys.

 

[HardkorSB]

It's been out only 10 days and it made 180 million $, it's doing OK.
It still has another 2 months in the cinemas (at least until "The Avengers" will come out) so I think it will make about 400 million $ (give or take 30), 500 is an absolute maximum.

The only way they could lose money is if the rights for distribution outside the US have been sold to someone else. That's what they did with "The Golden Compass" because they were hoping for domestic success and minor worldwide ticket sales. It was the other way around.
The same thing is happening with "John Carter". It's doing OK in the US but it's making way more in the rest of the world.

 

[aba1]

It had a budget of 250 million, and is expected to only make 50 million bucks. Thus, using simple maths, it has been stated that the film is set to loose 200 million bucks.

Uh, it's already made $180+ million so that's not accurate.

Curse these misleading Guardian headlines.

You make a good point. Which is really awkward for me... as I guess I got it wrong.

But it's really strange, as Disney released a great big statement saying "We lost 200 million" on John Carter, and yet, like you said, it made 184 mil(Although it only made 30 mil of that in the US) on a budget of 250mil.

I don't know why Disney released a big statement like that. Marketing or something?

....

I'll just go re-write OP now.

They are likely making it sound like they are exaggerating losing a lot of money so that people who are on the fence about seeing it will feel more pressure to support the film and go see it at least this is what I suspect.

 

[aba1]

Movies like John Carter fail because people keep trying to make movies that are so big and elaborate and epic they end up collapsing and imploding into themselves.

Look at Priest, Suckerpunch, Season of the Witch, Legion, the Immortals. All had these big elaborates stories with too many characters and forces and battles and all this infused shit, and every single one tanked. Hollywood keeps adding multiple parts to every movie and they can't co-exist.

Why did 300 do so well? Spartans vs. Persians. Thats it. You were introduced to a few of the main spartans and persians and thats it. Why did Priest fail miserably? Because it was demons vs. vampires vs. priests vs. cowboys. vs. zombies vs. NAMBLA vs. the chinese vs. the graduating class of 1986 vs. My uncle vs.....

Even Twilight got it right in that aspect. Werewolves vs. Vampires. The end.

I sort of agree with you but I think that they want to satisfy everyone with every movie and end up alienating everyone. If they were able to get for a little bit bigger of a budget on a lot of films and concentrate on what is better for the plot by adding maybe a extra 30 min - 60 min to a movie. They could get people in a place where they are more invested in the plot which is what makes the movie good. The thing is the companies always want as big of market as possible which is where they start adding filler to the movie to shoe horn love interests or a extra fight just to try and grab that extra audience but all it does is waste time that could be used make the movie stronger and more coherent thus backfiring on the whole point of adding the filler to begin with.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Maybe it'll be one of those movies that'll make up for its loses in DVD/Blu-ray sales.

I know I'll be checking it out when it's released in stores.

 

[SonOfVoorhees]

Maybe they lost £200 million because they saw that the movie should have made $200million that it has already. As long as they break even they shouldnt worry. Although the movie was a confusing mess though....hate stupid sci fi names for stuff.