John Carter flop to cost Walt Disney $200m

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Mercenary Keyboard Warrior

Soldato
Joined
4 Aug 2007
Posts
22,438
Location
Wilds of suffolk
Ive seen a few clips about this film and its not got any good reviews from what I can tell.
What got me most was this :

It is estimated that John Carter cost $250m to make and it is likely that Disney spent another $100m on marketing.

To me thats plain absurd. $100m on marketing! If thats not one of the big reasons so many get so annoyed with Hollywood I don't know what is.

Made me wonder, is that a typical amount they spend, or did they know it was a stinking pile of **** and to try to get audiences they cranked up the marketing to extreme level in the hope they could fool enough people to go watch it.
 
noooooo dont say its a flop.. I was looking forward to watching that... sigh... I hope its good... at least I'll have low expectations so it may still be ok!
 
That must be a massive disappointment for fans of the books, I know how relieved I was when LotR turned out OK and how annoying it was to see Star Wars being butchered.

I bet a few $K on acting lessons would save a lot of these hollywood abortions.
 
I really don't get marketing spending being so huge these days,

Trailer, youtube, 95% of people who would ever watch the film will see the trailer as thousands of websites link to the video.

Seriously, 20 years ago sure, magazine ad's, tv ad's, these days what percentage of people who go to the cinema don't have the internet? 99% of people who would see an add for the game on tv, or in a magazine will see the advert both, dozens of times and likely have already seen it on the internet.

Marketing is the biggest scam in the world these days.

Either way, film is said to be crap by the vast majority of people talking about it. Effects, no acting, crap script, stupid film, big budget. Works for some films, the daft people who usually fall for the "huge" budget braindead films tend to usually fall for ones with a huge name lead actor, going with a marginally known TV actor who has barely done anything else... and can't act, is a laughable decision for $250mil film.

You stick Denzel Washington on the trailers and as the lead actor on the posters for this film, people would go in droves no matter how crap it is, stick a guy that at best, no ones ever heard of or at worst, has actually seen on his show where he can't act at all, and no one wants to see it.
 
Last edited:
Its quite hard to muster any real sympathy for the film industry and their complaints about piracy when they insist on spending ridiculous sums of money on crap films and then turn round and whinge that they don't make enough money.

Tell you what, don't **** money up the wall and stop paying celebrities multi million pound deals for a few months work and then we can talk about piracy ruining the industry.
 
Tbf Hollywood accounting is something special though, isn't Harry Potter making a loss technically or something :p
 
Moses said:
Except someone needs to do something to look at a trailer on the internet. They have to follow links, or whatever.

If you have a chuffing HUGE billboard, or trailers in ad breaks, etc, people seeing them passively... they just see it whilst doing other stuff.

I'm pretty sure a multi-faceted advertising strategy is better than making a Youtube video, sitting back, and saying, "we've built it... THEY WILL COME!"
Click to expand...

Again, you can put up a image on thousands of websites, for the cost of almost nothing, that have the same effect. not exactly difficult, I've seen no billboards, no tv ad's for the film, yet I know what its about, who is in it and have seen the main poster that will have been used on billboards via "passively" seeing it on the internet.

TV ad's will also be easily the biggest cost with ad's being shown worldwide when again, a link to said video plastered all over the net, as it was anyway, achieves the same thing.

multi-faceted might work BETTER, but $100MILLION better? No, y a variety if billboard style images on ign/film sites, youtube trailer, etc, etc would capture 95% of the people who would see it on tv/around on billboards, but cost, probably $99million saved.
 
Can't help but think it's going to be another "it's good because the marketing says it's good" type of films

The Artist - won loads of awards and for what? I'd rather what Promethius than that lol

Yeah I know thats just me but how many of you actually saw the Artist? what a pointless film
 
Its not a terrible film. Poor acting from the main characters lets it down, but it has some pretty cool CGI, and the tall martians are pretty cool looking! :)

I will be honest I have seen a LOT worse.
 
i think it looks like fun. and hey, its the ancestor of sci-fi as we know it.

apparently bits are weird but its not getting universally panned. one to watch with some magic cigarettes i think :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom