John Carter flop to cost Walt Disney $200m

Not true Tommy, I actually look at most of the forums... xD and people probably perceive me as one of the more 'gders'...

The advertising cost doesn't surprise me... they haven't stopped showing adverts on it...

Also, more of a challenge, what's the last good Disney film? (That was actually made by Disney rather than one of the Studios it owns...)

kd
 
TommyV said:
why are people such nazis about what forum section threads are in, I bet a huge proportion of people in the GD, only look at the GD!
Click to expand...

I think there is some overzealous moderation with regards to correct forums (food threads in GD should often stay in GD IMO), but it's clear as night and day to me that film threads belong in the box office sub-forum.

Now run along before I send in the SS :p
 
Nitefly said:
I think there is some overzealous moderation with regards to correct forums (food threads in GD should often stay in GD IMO), but it's clear as night and day to me that film threads belong in the box office sub-forum.

Now run along before I send in the SS :p
Click to expand...

Pssst. You could have at least done it properly.... There's already a John Carter thread... Get it merged :p

kd
 
Nitefly said:
I think there is some overzealous moderation with regards to correct forums (food threads in GD should often stay in GD IMO), but it's clear as night and day to me that film threads belong in the box office sub-forum.

Now run along before I send in the SS :p
Click to expand...

What in the name of all that is overclocked, is SS?
 
The film's alright, has some great visual effects and solid acting (not sure that Taylor Kitch is the man to lead it, though). It should do as well as Transformers or the like, by rights, it's of the same ilk, target audience and caliber. However, the marketing on this movie was a complete shambles.
 
Moses said:
Haha, I realise IMDB ratings aren't a flawless guide to films... but it's a reasonable indicator, generally speaking. Something 7+ will probably be alright, whilst something that polls less than 4 is probably going to be quite bad - that's all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

This is widely true thought. I also use Rotten Tomatoes for reviews too.

Rotten Tomatoes gave it 51% Here

Neil79 said:
Please don't mention that **** :mad:

My point is about kermode any movie that's not english or contains a story about gay or lesbian rights and he is all over it i'm also surprised his co-presenter isn't stroking his leg while talking
Click to expand...

Hilarious, you clearly don't listen to his radio show. Like a lot of 'Hollywood' blockbusters they sacrifice story/acting/plot for set pieces. Inception is a good example of a 'Hollywood' blockbuster that didn't sacrifice the plot/acting or story, while I didn't think The Dark Knight was as good as the fan boys did, it's certainly not a bad film and again proves that 'hollywood' blockbusters can be intelligently written, well acted and good films.

Kermode's pretty well educated in films though, as are a lot of top film reviewers. It's not done very well on Rotten Tomatoes (which is a collection of film reviewers)


Nitefly said:
I think there is some overzealous moderation with regards to correct forums (food threads in GD should often stay in GD IMO), but it's clear as night and day to me that film threads belong in the box office sub-forum.

Now run along before I send in the SS :p
Click to expand...

Agree.

/on the film. It was hugely expensive and as a film it's a mess, it's all over the place and no amount of CGI / effects can make up for that.
 
Last edited:
I'm going to assume that SS stands to Sergeant Suck-a lot, which would make a lot of sense.

I'm only joking, but I still don't know what it means.
 
drunkenmaster said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have no idea what you're talking about.

Marketing people make sure that the product being sold is seen in as many places as possible. See when you say "all you need to do is put a picture online" well, what marketing people do is put it online then go about telling the entire world to go check out the picture. The vast majority of viral videos are marketed the same way.

And the genius of it is that the best viral marketing campaigns seem to come out of no where when in fact tons of people do the work behind the scenes.

How do I know this? I work with PR people on a daily basis. They work so hard and receive absolutely no recognition for what they do. Nor do they expect to get recognition, I hasten to add.

So the biggest portion of that money is spent not on the actual marketing materials, but on hiring the right people with the right resources to ensure whatever it is you're selling is marketed correctly.

Interestingly your entire post smacks of the attitude of a person who really isn't aware just how much marketing and advertising pervade our daily lives. Which is good in one way (it's working) but bad in another (just because you can't see it working doesn't mean that it isn't working).

Anyway, on the actual film itself...

Not only was $100m spent on marketing, but $100m on the wrong kind of marketing. The director had so much control over the film that he had them edit the trailers exactly as he wanted them.

Meaning that we got three different trailers which essentially showed three different films. Interest in the film actually started to decline as a result. A marketing company can only do so much, but when the person who has control over the film demands you keep changing it then that marketing campaign is destined to fail because you're confusing the public. That's basically what happened there.

Madness.

Good article on it here: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
 
I'd echo some of what Woody__ has said.

$100 million is a lot of money, but you need to remember that this is a big budget popcorn movie and that it's marketing budget is for the entire world on a near simultaneous release.

Just for reference, both Avatar and Transformers 3 had marketing budgets of $150 million.

That budget includes far more than what an earlier poster thinks. It's fees for numerous PR agencies around the world, wages, TV ads, Radio ads, Print ads, Cinema Trailers, Online ads, the Website, Advanced Preview Screenings, Promotional Tie-Ins, Merchandise, Star Guest Appearances etc...

You can't sell an entire film like this on the back of just a YouTube video and some online ads. You need to remember that just because this might be how you see something and consume it, doesn't mean it's the same for everybody else around the world.


I had a few friends and former colleagues working on John Carter, the production ran on for a lot longer than it was supposed to, which is quite telling, as it was likely recut a number of times. I myself had not even heard of the original books before, I don't appear to be the only one, so that hasn't done the film any favours either.
 
whitecrook said:
Disney hasn't produced anything good in years, maybe decades. (obviously not counting Pixar as 'Disney')
Click to expand...

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland and the Pirates of the Caribbean series are among the top grossing films in history. So it makes your above statement seem quite misinformed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom