Then it'll start makin' money.

To the movie's credit, it did have a heck of a lot of (CG) animation.jazzflower92 wrote:I mean what would have happened if Disney made this movie an animated movie instead of live action.
That makes no sense. There have been so many space movies, and "rules" like "the planet is barren" have been "broken" in the past. Whatever. :/The article that Milo posted wrote:One industry veteran said the fundamental problem with "John Carter" had less to do with budget than with cognitive dissonance: The action plays out on Mars (known as Barsoom in the books and the film), a planet that contemporary audiences know is barren and uninhabited. That creates a formidable, elephant-in-the-room challenge for the movie's marketers.
"You're not able to sell that," noted the industry insider, who asked not to be quoted commenting on someone else's film.
ABC News wrote:"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.
That's their OWN fault.DisneyAnimation88 wrote:http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wir ... 2ednNVKRko
ABC News wrote:"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.
I would say that it's quite unlikely. It's not like in the 30s and 40s when the Disney company was only a small-ish independent production company with a fairly narrow output and no other means of supporting themselves but with only one animated feature a year at most and a couple of shorts thrown in for good measure. Not only is Disney today a film studio, but the owner of one of the big American TV networks (ABC) and the operator of the most profitable and popular theme parks in the world. Moreover, there is a constant slew of successful merchandise, plus a highly self-sustaining back catalogue of films that will sell millions every time they are released on DVD or Blu-Ray. If anything, the failure of John Carter should probably serve as a sign to get rid of the current marketing team and to stop making every film a blockbuster gamble-type film. Hopefully we'll also soon go back to having film posters read "Walt Disney Pictures Presents/Disney Presents/Disney's" as opposed to the generic, brand-like "Disney" label, but something tells me to not count on it.Julian Carter wrote:What are the odds of The Walt Disney Company going bankrupt?
Let's not forget Treasure Planet in 2002. Was it three days with that film?kbehm29 wrote:The article I read on Yahoo this morning made me sick. Why would Disney declare their own movie a 'flop' 10 days after it comes out? This is Prince Caspian all over again.
While I agree that films shouldn't be written off within five seconds of their opening, didn't Pirates of the Caribbean make over $300 million at the US box office alone?Maerj wrote:I hope that Disney recalls that Pirates of the Carribean wasn't the world's biggest hit when it came out either. It was big on home video then the sequel went on to make over a billion dollars worldwide.
None.Julian Carter wrote:What are the odds of The Walt Disney Company going bankrupt?
The movie opened to a strong box office result, this after everybody had written it off as a very likely flop before it was even released, mostly due the bad record of pirate movies, and the box office failures of Disney's movies based on their park rides. Pirates of the Caribbean: The Curse of the Black Pearl became the 4th highest grossing movie of 2003, why on Earth do you think it has three sequels?Maerj wrote:I hope that Disney recalls that Pirates of the Carribean wasn't the world's biggest hit when it came out either. It was big on home video then the sequel went on to make over a billion dollars worldwide.
All things considered, it has to make between $500 million worlwide to break even, $600 million to be considered profitable.blackcauldron85 wrote: Worldwide, JC has made $181,639,194 so far. So, I mean, Disney just needs to give it time...especially with DVD/Blu-ray, it will hit the $350 million mark to cover its expenses.