John Carter

[ssampier]

I saw the movie in 3D. I didn't think the 3D added anything to it. I thought the white gorillas would appear huge; they were merely big. I also don't remember any of the other gimmicks like things flying at the screen.

Otherwise I enjoyed it. It's a fast and fun mostly. I thought the romance

Spoiler

and marriage

to Dejah Thoris was tacked on. But that's the problem of the source material, I think.

 

[fanboy2000]

That's because the movies aren't shot in 3D. They're converted after being shot in 2D. Learned my lesson on "Thor" -- not paying an extra three-fifty to have the movie look like crap ever again.

It wasn't shot in IMAX either. I got burned two ways. Oh well.

 

[El Mahdi]

3D is Dead.

It's now 4D or Nothing!

*(those aren't sunglasse, they're 4D glasses...)

 

[Umbran]

That's because the movies aren't shot in 3D. They're converted after being shot in 2D.

Even things that are shot natively in 3D, I don't think 3D makes them into a better movie. Simply put, 2D is sufficient for good storytelling, and the extra visual dimension doesn't add depth to characters

Theaters are kind of forcing the issue, at least where I live. I noted it earlier in the thread, but the 2D showings of John Carter were either 5:45 PM or 11 PM, with only 3D showings in the interim. It sucks because the extra money was a waste, but my options were limited.

My understanding of the phenomenon is this:

At the moment, 3D is the fashion. But, there are signs that it isn't a particularly lasting fashion - the effect has improved with technology, but not enough to make this THE WAY to make movies. So, the theaters and production companies must make what they can off the fashion while it persists.

 

[El Mahdi]

Yeah. I feel the same way about it. 2D movies converted to 3D are just horrible to me. And movies actually filmed in 3D just seem like a novelty only to me. I saw Avatar in 3D when it came out...and it was fun...but I've seen it multiple times since in plain old 2D and never once thought "this was so much better in 3D". It was a fun novelty the first time, but that's about as far as it goes for me.

 

[AdmundfortGeographer]

Loved it. The movie was one among the funnest pleasurable movies recently. The marketing could have been better done, but that's hindsight.

I'm totally buying this on Bluray with a digital copy. And I hope to heck there is enough to get a sequel.

 

[Klaus]

It's being panned (unfairly, I think) by the BBC now.

Came across this quote which puzzles me from yahoo, as with a cost of $250 million...

"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31," the company said in a statement"

I can't quite work out how 250 million - 184 million = 200 million.

But then again, I hear that many apparently successful movies have actually performed SO poorly that the actors on a percentage haven't seen any money, so what do I know

There are a few factors:

- You have to add marketing to the production costs. A modest estimate is in the ballpark of $350 million total.
- The studio rakes in about half the box office. So, it'd need to make something between $500 and $700 million to turn in a profit.
- When a studio smells a bomb, they funnel all losses from other movies into that one, and write it off as a single failure for their investors.

Also note that Disney announced the "flop" after only 11 days. John Carter has been the #1 movie worldwide for two weeks, and it hasn't even opened in Japan yet. It is the largest opening ever in Russia. It just opened in China, raking in great numbers.

Also telling is how Disney decided, about six months ago, not to license anything related to John Carter. No Lego, no toys, no action figures, backpacks, clothing, videogames, nada. That was one of the movie's hopes of turning in a profit. But everyone at Disney who greenlighted the movie is no longer there, so the movie had no one to champion it.

 

[Hand of Evil]

There are a few factors:

- You have to add marketing to the production costs. A modest estimate is in the ballpark of $350 million total.
- The studio rakes in about half the box office. So, it'd need to make something between $500 and $700 million to turn in a profit.
- When a studio smells a bomb, they funnel all losses from other movies into that one, and write it off as a single failure for their investors.

Also note that Disney announced the "flop" after only 11 days. John Carter has been the #1 movie worldwide for two weeks, and it hasn't even opened in Japan yet. It is the largest opening ever in Russia. It just opened in China, raking in great numbers.

Also telling is how Disney decided, about six months ago, not to license anything related to John Carter. No Lego, no toys, no action figures, backpacks, clothing, videogames, nada. That was one of the movie's hopes of turning in a profit. But everyone at Disney who greenlighted the movie is no longer there, so the movie had no one to champion it.

It's Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $62,407,212 26.6%
+ Foreign: $172,100,000 73.4%
----------------------------------
= Worldwide: $234,507,212

 

[Klaus]

It's Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $62,407,212 26.6%
+ Foreign: $172,100,000 73.4%
----------------------------------
= Worldwide: $234,507,212

JC's opening weekend worldwide was better than the Hunger Games! Imagine how much it could've done if Disney chose to market it right.

 

[Umbran]

JC's opening weekend worldwide was better than the Hunger Games!

No. HoE there gives *lifetime* numbers for John Carter, not opening weekend.

On its opening weekend, John Carter did $30 million domestic, and about $70 million foreign, for a total of about $100 million for the weekend.

Hunger Games did $155 million opening weekend, just in the domestic market.