|
Regarding the delay on the Barsoom books, I think part of this has to do with what has been a protectionist position of the IP by the Burroughs estate. While Tarzan was an iconic movie character mid-century, the Barsoom books didn't go movie during that period, for whatever reason. There have been a number of gaming treatments of the Barsoom creatures, including one that's available online of 3.0 d20 creatures by SKR, here, an old board game that I recently got a copy of, and an old miniatures wargaming Barsoom rules set (I used to have a copy, sold it during a gaming purge in the 80s, I think it was written in the 70s or early 80s).
Only the first 3 or 4 books are in the public domain (these are the ones on Gutenberg), having been written prior to 1922. There are others available online for readers in Australia, but are not legally available in the US; the later books enter the public domain in a few years (Burroughs died in 1950). The timing is now right to be establishing a franchise that could have the later book sequels coming out as they become available.
Does anyone know if Disney came to an arrangement with the Burroughs estate, or just went with the movie from the public domain standpoint?
Edit: ERB, Inc., the entity that is essentially the Burroughs estate, has been willing to go to the courts in protection of its IP, and even though the books are in the public domain, a number of key elements are still protected trademarks in some jurisdictions, including "John Carter" and "Barsoom." Most recently, they sued a comic book publisher in the UK, as described here, so I'm guessing that Disney did license the trademark to gain worldwide distribution rights, even if the trademark may have expired in other jurisdictions.
|
Surely one of the biggest factors delaying the filming of these books was the fact that they take place on an alien world, filled with multi-armed and multi-legged races and animals?
The technology to do it well hasn't existed for long, not if you don't want your green Martians to look like guys in cheap Halloween costumes with rubber arms flapping at their sides.
Tarzan? Get a buff guy in a loincloth, and throw in some zoo animals.
Barsoom? Hmmmm.
I thought it was fun, but I had three gripes that I feel so strongly about, they really ruined the rest of the experience for me.
Warning: MAJOR nerdrage follows!
1. Star: All the John Carter stories are character-driven, which means you need someone with the presence of Stallone or Schwartzenegger or Bronson or someone. The guy they got? I forgot his name already, and I would certainly be unable to pick him out of a lineup. He had no presence, failed to "own" the role, and remains a nobody. When your protagonist has such presence that the entire planet throws their swords at his feet, that calls for an A-list movie star -- or for someone with the charisma to instantly become one.
2. Religion: I strongly dislike the Therns' magic powers, not because they were absent in the books, but because of WHY they were absent in the books:
3. Women's Equality Thrown to the Dogs: Dejah Thoris is WAY more of a "real woman" in the book -- it takes a lot more than hauling a sword around to make a strong character.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
On points 2 and 3.
2.
3.
Aside, I wonder what they'd do with the villians of Llana of Gathol. :-)
Great movie, and my wife and I thoroughly enjoyed ourselves.
But there won't be another.
It's still in 3,749 theaters, just like opening week.
So unless you're in a really rural area, you'll be able to find it.
It might be on one screen to make room for the human wave going to see Hunger Games, but it'll be there.
Friday is usually the day they change movies. If they're claiming it's such a flop, they may want to cut their losses.
Well it was still number 3, so there are other movies they can drop. It was a flop from the studio's perspective because it looks like they are going to lose about 200 million on it. That doesn't mean that individual theaters aren't going to make money playing it still.
|
|
They aren't really going to lose 200 million on it. It is going to most likely break even, which means they will earn a profit on it (once you factor in hollywood accounting in and see that they've been charging themselves interest and management fees and added the costs of the other two failed attempts to make the movie in the 90s and doing other hinky stuff to inflate the expenses). It's almost made 200 million 13 days in. It's going like gangbusters outside of the US and will remain on screens there. Add in the DVD sales and tv rights etc...
What they are doing is 'declaring' a 200 million dollar write down for march which they are going to use to offset profits gained somewhere else. Basic tax planning, claim losses as soon as possible, report profits as late as possible. They have to pay taxes quarterly, so they are avoiding tax this quarter.
It's no billion + box office return like a Pirates movie. Producing it at 250 million and somehow spending 100 million advertising it was also stupid. But it won't be the biggest flop ever.
What I wonder is who the hell releases a blockbuster in March? It may not be doing well compared to the $250 million to make it and $100 million to market it, but it still is the 22nd biggest opener in March. There aren't that many breakout hits in March unless they're highly anticipated. And, frankly, I was a bit incredulous at Disney making John Carter in the first place. It really didn't seem the type of film for them.
Wow. I'm so dumb. I just now realized that this year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of A Princess of Mars.
|
|
What I wonder is who the hell releases a blockbuster in March? It may not be doing well compared to the $250 million to make it and $100 million to market it, but it still is the 22nd biggest opener in March. There aren't that many breakout hits in March unless they're highly anticipated. And, frankly, I was a bit incredulous at Disney making John Carter in the first place. It really didn't seem the type of film for them.
Neither did Prince of Arabia: The Sands of Time, but they did that one too. I think they might have used some of the same music from that movie in John Carter, though. Or at least the same composer.
Wow. I'm so dumb. I just now realized that this year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of A Princess of Mars.
Didn't realize that either. I had told my wife that "the story itself must be at least 50 years old!"
... try more like 100 years!
|
It's no billion + box office return like a Pirates movie. Producing it at 250 million and somehow spending 100 million advertising it was also stupid. But it won't be the biggest flop ever.
Good post! I think you are right on target here. Disney is an inefficient over-bloated whale of a company. The fact they spent 100 million on one of the worst marketing campaigns in the history of movies is a clear testament of what a horribly inefficient company Disney has become. It is a good thing that they don't own "Kentucky Fried Chicken", they would likely market it as "Greasy Dead Birds."
I agree. Over time, Disney will likely break even or even make a little money on John Carter. It is way too good of a movie not to have major legs in DVD and TV rights; not to mention it is still in theaters. It is one of the best movies I have seen in a long time. I can't believe I am alone in this thought.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
RE: 'hollywood accounting'...
What they are doing is 'declaring' a 200 million dollar write down for march which they are going to use to offset profits gained somewhere else. Basic tax planning, claim losses as soon as possible, report profits as late as possible. They have to pay taxes quarterly, so they are avoiding tax this quarter.
I also say Hollywood Accounting is in play here.
While I (sort of) understand the financial gymnastics of these situations, I can't help being angered by it, since it results in a company bad-mouthing its own product.
At some point, this sort of defeatist talk influences the cinema-going public, who decide to see something else.
At what point does the short-term gain, of cooking the books, fail to offset the long-term damage to the film's reputation, and resultant lost ticket sales/DVDrentals/sales?
To what extent does it hinder investment in a sequel?
|
|
I'm tending to think that Disney making the announcement is related to being a publicly traded company. Getting the information out early relates to guiding analyst expectations and reducing the potential impact of shareholder-based lawsuits. It's fairly common practice.
Sales/Revenue forecasting is based in large part on the sales patterns of past products. They hit the market hard with marketing and theater roll out. They gave the product the best effort that they are going to, and it is fundamentally bad forecasting and financial practice to expect the product to vary from the curve; while not every movie has exactly the same sales curve, the math provides a reasonable set of expectations that has lead to the decision. I'm sure that they have good models for what even a short sales history translates into for forecasting purposes. The market doesn't like the product.
In short, they have a high expectation of the movie being a financial flop even on two weeks of sales data, likely supported by marketing surveys of early movie goers and demographics. They have good business reasons for getting that information into the hands of the public as soon as they know.
Whether it's a financial flop is a factor of both sales and expenses. I'm rather disappointed due to the fact that it will heavily influence the production of a sequel, but on the other hand, I appreciate that they put out $350M so that I could have a great time with my family. :)
|
You guys are all missing the fact that the distributor doesn't get all the ticket sales. Opening weekend they get only 60-70% of the ticket price, and it goes down from there. So that 30 million domestic and 100 million international, they're only likely to get 90 million or so of it.
I saw it an liked it, a lot. Awesome visuals, good action, excellent characters, Deja Thoris was hot (but wearing entirely too many clothes), and the reunion of 4 "Rome" Cast members was cool (Caesar, Antony, Posca, and Attia)
|
|
I don't have the details on the split, Chernobyl, but I'm not missing the fact that ticket sale revenue doesn't equate to distributor revenue.
As for user reviewers liking the movie, the market is a combination of many factors. User reviews are generally higher than the journalist reviews because viewers self-select to see the movie in the first place. The timing sucks. The topic is of limited interest to the public. Few people are going. Those who are going like it.
And yet, the movie is looking like a financial failure. In other words, the decision to spend that much money to make and market the movie at this time was bad idea.
None of this takes away from the fact that I loved the movie. :)
The wife and I liked it.
Plus it is good to see caesar and mark antony made it to mars.
I was totally thinking the same exact thing!
I secretly wish it had been Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus.
The wife and I liked it.
Plus it is good to see caesar and mark antony made it to mars.
I was totally thinking the same exact thing!
I secretly wish it had been Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus.
Nah their fantasy Movie would be the Big Screen Version of the Turtledove 'Videssos Cycle'...as the 'real' Pullo and Vorenus feature in it strongly.
But I'd love to see Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson do something on the big screen together.
|
|
The wife and I liked it.
Plus it is good to see caesar and mark antony made it to mars.
I was totally thinking the same exact thing!
I secretly wish it had been Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus.
Nah their fantasy Movie would be the Big Screen Version of the Turtledove 'Videssos Cycle'...as the 'real' Pullo and Vorenus feature in it strongly.
But I'd love to see Kevin McKidd and Ray Stevenson do something on the big screen together.
I'd love to see the Videssos books translated to the big screen. That would be awesome.
The wife and I liked it.
Plus it is good to see caesar and mark antony made it to mars.
I was totally thinking the same exact thing!
I secretly wish it had been Titus Pullo and Lucius Vorenus.
Titus Pullo would destroy Barsoom.
Saw it today; that movie was sweet.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, Spanky! :)
the actor should have taken language lessons from the remake of True Grit. People had very formal ways of talking back then!
==Aelryinth
That would've been cool;
Yeah; I think I've heard it said that it needs a 500 or 600 million take to be profitable, so the odds are against it.
Still,.....Star Trek got canceled by NBC and that wasn't the end.
Loved this movie.
Thark slap. THIS forced meme HAS TO WORK.
Thars "Jethro" Tarkas.
Jethro Tulkas? They have a mean flute player!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hope for the future,
I was talking with some friends about John Carter and a (18 year old) friend of their son came in the living room and said "It sucked compared to the books."
I said, "Well it wasn't as good as the books but I liked- wait, you've read the books?"
He said, "Well I'd not heard of them until the movie came out, but I read them and they're awesome."
So at least it got one Millinial to read. :-)
Hopefully he was referring to the novels, as opposed to the comic books...
|
|
Yeah; I think I've heard it said that it needs a 500 or 600 million take to be profitable, so the odds are against it.
Still,.....Star Trek got canceled by NBC and that wasn't the end.
That is insane numbers. 600 million is more than the first Iron Man movie made worldwide. Talk about a set up for failure. George Lucas made Star Wars for 16 million in 1977 dollars, or less than 60 million in current dollars. Lucas knew he had to work on a tight budget at the time. Let's say that Disney is a 100% more inefficient compared to 1977 George Lucas. That would still be only around $120 million. But no! We are talking $250 million just to make it. That is over four times more inefficient in current dollars to what it cost to make Star Wars. Someone at Disney needs to be now working at Burger King and learning how to say "Would you like fries with that?"; and not making movies.
They marketing was horrible. There were no product ties ins. No toys in McDonald's Happy Meals (Studio execs are already working at Burger King.) No plushy Woola toy. Disney set this movie up for failure. Shame on them! This is not just a good movie, it is a great movie. I have already seen it twice, and want to go again.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
Yeah; I think I've heard it said that it needs a 500 or 600 million take to be profitable, so the odds are against it.
Still,.....Star Trek got canceled by NBC and that wasn't the end.
That is insane numbers. 600 million is more than the first Iron Man movie made worldwide. Talk about a set up for failure. George Lucas made Star Wars for 16 million in 1977 dollars, or less than 60 million in current dollars. Lucas knew he had to work on a tight budget at the time. Let's say that Disney is a 100% more inefficient compared to 1977 George Lucas. That would still be only around $120 million. But no! We are talking $250 million just to make it. That is over four times more inefficient in current dollars to what it cost to make Star Wars. Someone at Disney needs to be now working at Burger King and learning how to say "Would you like fries with that?"; and not making movies.
They marketing was horrible. There were no product ties ins. No toys in McDonald's Happy Meals (Studio execs are already working at Burger King.) No plushy Woola toy. Disney set this movie up for failure. Shame on them! This is not just a good movie, it is a great movie. I have already seen it twice, and want to go again.
Later,
Mazra
YUP!
NOT to mention Peter Jackson made all 3 LotR movies for $300 million. Now had he done it in the states it would have cost him $900 million. Even at that LotR made more than that.
It also did not help with poor media reviews. Reviewers spanked it hard. But those who see it like it, love it or enjoy it. No one hates it... accept reviewers who try to compare it to SW and Avatar
Yup Epic Failure on Disneys/Pixars part.
How much they spent is ridiculous. I mean the prequels cost around $120 million each and they were almost all computer generated as well. Why was Carter so much more expensive?
But those who see it like it, love it or enjoy it. No one hates it... accept reviewers who try to compare it to SW and Avatar
Outright false. I hated it because of the lost potential, in casting a lead who couldn't carry the role (and to a lesser extent because it sets back women's lib >100 years, by removing the impressive personal ethics that Dejah Thoris displays in the books). My wife disliked it because she forgot what it was about approximately 10 minutes after leaving the theatre.
HINT: Try something like "everyone I've talked to about it who has seen it said they enjoyed it." That would convey your opinion in (presumably) factually-correct terms.
I saw it during its second weekend, and I really liked it. I mean yeah, blah blah plot holes, and blah blah changes to the mythos, but it was a pretty solid film adaptation of a beloved century-old classic sci-fi. At any rate, the best I think Hollywood is capable of getting made in today's film market.
One part reminded me of an old SNL bit.
Heh heh...
Dudleymeister:
How much they spent is ridiculous. I mean the prequels cost around $120 million each and they were almost all computer generated as well. Why was Carter so much more expensive?
Yeah; I think it was said that the movie went over budget a bit.....the CG, though, came off really well for me. It had a subtle feel to it, even though the movie was just sooooooooo CG heavy.
I had an eyecandy bliss out.
How much they spent is ridiculous. I mean the prequels cost around $120 million each and they were almost all computer generated as well. Why was Carter so much more expensive?Yeah; I think it was said that the movie went over budget a bit.....the CG, though, came off really well for me. It had a subtle feel to it, even though the movie was just sooooooooo CG heavy.
I had an eyecandy bliss out.
I wonder how much of the expense was the needless 3D transfer. That's what killed Green Lantern. Well, other than not being that great. But as I recall, GL cost $100M to make, then they spent another $100M to do the 3D conversion. I don't care to pay extra to see a converted movie, and I know there are others who feel the same. If they'd left it unconverted and showed it on as many screens, the proportion of cost/gross would be far less intimidating.
It's kind of sad to me that they're throwing those numbers around and calling it a failure. If Disney wants to give me the $43.7M that _John Carter_ grossed, they could write the whole thing off and be done with it, and we'd all be happier for it. But the movie will make another $80M overseas before it closes, then with DVD and other revenues, they'll probably end up making a $50M profit on the property over the next 2 years. On a failure that won't see a sequel. If you made $25M a year for the next 2 years, wouldn't you say that you'd been pretty successful?
Quit crying, Disney.