National Treasure did well for them, it had a $100m budget
But yeah for the most part all their attempts at a big budget action movie not starring Johnny Depp have all tanked
Wkd Box Office Est. 039-1112 - Lorax punches Carter in his waxed & oiled thorax
- Thread starter xaosslug
- Start date
- Status
National Treasure did well for them, it had a $100m budget
But yeah for the most part all their attempts at a big budget action movie not starring Johnny Depp have all tanked
TheKaeptain
Banned
The Avengers isn't going to bomb.
TheKaeptain
Banned
It's called being a high school senior. Lol
cr_blah_blah
Member
Young, dumb, and full of bad taste.
the movie is fairly good, a 7/10, if I was to give it a score. It's pretty to look at, funny and has good action scenes. The plot is rather forgettable.
Hero_of_the_Day
Member
Yeah, not a chance of it. And it will surely be better than Captain America and Thor, which did pretty alright last summer.
Narnia, Armageddon, National Treasure.
Pie and Beans
Look for me on the local news, I'll be the guy arrested for trying to burn down a Nintendo exec's house.
Wonder if we'll ever learn what the budget for John Carter really was in the end. It fascinates me more than most other films of its ilk because it just looks so bad (visually), and also its obviously far over the still quoted $250 million.
VistraNorrez
Member
I thought it visually looked way better in the theater than any trailer I saw. And I see no reason to think it exceeded the 250 million number quoted.
Yeah the finished movie looks great. Trailers really misrepresent it.
sixteen-bit
Member
John Bomba.
Dat budget, holy shit
Dat budget, holy shit
Oh no it doesn't. It looks great and I get the price tag if they actually built some of the sets too.
From a consumer standpoint, the cost of the movie really doesn't matter. The movie is easily on par &/or exceeds most tent pole movies released in summer and Xmas time.
VistraNorrez
Member
The worst part of the trailers is how the dialogue is actually different or edited in such a way to feel clunkier and more generic than anything in Star Wars. The marketing did a wonderful job of removing any personality the movie had.
poor Eddie
uhm... why? like he cares, haha. he probably got at least $20m.
FUCK YOU, EDDIE!
The reviews aren't oberwhelmingly horrible like the whacky ones for Speed Racer.
However it's predictable and has the misfortune of copying the movies that copied it. The main character is a weakness. However production wise it's as good or better than many movies. It definitely doesn't reflect poor direction.
If you actually want to see a good adventure movie worse ones have been made.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Because everybody loves a bomb. When a few start the negative train chugging, most critics don't want to put their credibility on the line by backing the loser in the school.
John Carter was a great popcorn movie. I'm going to see it again.
Armageddon, like a lot of their more adult action films, were released under Touchstone branding. Pirates of the Caribbean was the first PG-13 movie Disney put out under their own name. But I did forget about National Treasure. The second one did fairly well, I wonder why they haven't gone forward with a third one already.
I was really surprised why they went with the "We did not cause this, but on this night, we will finish it" for marketing when it was "Tharks did not cause this..." blah blah. I guess to cut down on the science-fiction aspect as much as possible. I wonder what would happen if studios actually embraced science-fiction in their marketing and pushed it.
He's a great actor, really. He's just uncomfortable with say, lots of dialogue. He doesn't really do that in JC anyway.
Jason's Ultimatum
Member
Poor Eddie? He don't give a fuck. He gots his monies.
You know what's funny, according to the New York Times Stanton himself was behind the editing of all the trailers(he insisted that Kashmir was used in trailer 2, for example) and even selection of posters and billboards. I fear we may have been lambasting Disney's marketing team for no reason.
Is that really true though? Outside of Fright Night Lights, has he ever done anything decent? Sure he was only one bad aspect of the atrocity that is X-Men Origins: Wolverine. But he was absolutely forgettable in that piece of shit The Covenant and he's nothing special in John Carter. Plus everything I've seen of him in Battleship makes it look like he's shit too. He doesn't have the charisma to be a leading actor, even if he wasn't that bad in John Carter.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
You know what's funny, according to the New York Times Stanton himself was behind the editing of all the trailers(he insisted that Kashmir was used in trailer 2, for example) and even selection of posters and billboards. I fear we may have been lambasting Disney's marketing team for no reason.
Nah. It was still Disney's marketing team that settled on calling it JOHN CARTER.
Yeah, pretty much. He doesn't bother showing up to the premieres for these movies.
Plus they were stupid enough to be OK with the director doing their job. In any event, it's already known that Disney marketing sucks/sucked (The Avengers trailer looks good- almost stuffed) by how they market their other movies.
SonicMegaDrive
Member
Oh i dunno, they did that Goofy movie a while back and it performed a lot better than they expected.
I think a hand-drawn Mickey Mouse movie would make a lot of money. Maybe not a billion, but it would do well.
They should just bring back shorts before the Disney family movies. Works for PIXAR.
Diatribe1974
Member
Just got back from helping Lorax make even more money. Thursday, I'll help John Carter make some money.
There's a direct quote of him where he explicitly says he changed the name to John Carter of Mars, and then he suggests he was also responsible for the final name.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Link?
Messofanego
Banned
Bu bu he said "people don't like sci fi"!
I think Stanton is to blame for most of it, not Disney especially if he had control of the trailers and posters.
speculawyer
Member
Mars is the death planet for Disney.
speculawyer
Member
What a shit time for movies. They are all bombs except a small independent movie that got 61%. Wow.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Oh I remember reading that. To me it came across as him changing it to John Carter of Mars, then Disney coming to him with the stats based on that title and asking him to change it.
Expendable.
Member
That's a very silly assumption. Look at the reviews, they are right down the middle. Personally, I only heard mostly great reactions then was somewhat shocked to learn how mediocre the film was.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I'm very interested to see how much B.O it takes.
Perhaps re-securing that #1 USA spot, huahaha.
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
I'm talking about most critics. Not the major online web blogs like AICN, Collider, /Film or even the prestigious Film Stage which actually seem to be in touch with what is going on with these movies.
I'm talking about the Newspaper reviewers and casual movie blogs who are similarly accounted for on sites like Rotten Tomatoes.
Finally someone is going to save us from these 3D converted films that are nothing but cash-ins.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
No worries, I'm sure even if it turned out like Ep 1 people would find a positive way to spin stuff like the 3D effect being too subtle or basic at times. ;P
SCULLIBUNDO
Banned
Just because ILM cheaped out on Phantom Menace conversion/it was handled shoddily. Cameron doesn't settle for shit. All reports out of the Titanic 3D showings have been insanely positive on the 3D. The result of almost two years and a huge amount of artists working on the film carefully with the right minds calling the shots.
Even the trailer for Phantom Menace 3D looked like absolute shit.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
I'd hardly call the effort that was put in as cheap or shoddy - a year and a half plus and a huge amount of artists were on Ep 1 as well, and there was also the same initial "reports of initial feedback have been positive" bits to boot, and John Knoll is definitely still of "a right mind" in terms of calling shots.
But we get it, you and several others didn't care for the conversion. But there were also several who was fine with it. I'm just saying if Titanic ends up with a similar outcome, it would likely still get a generally more positive reception simply due to the original source material. How could it not?
- Status