Disney says 'John Carter' to lose $200 million

MSN Entertainment ^ | March 19, 2012 | AP

[Vince Ferrer]

'John Carter' Fans Petition Disney For Sequel

[MIchaelTArchangel]

John Carter is as big a flop as Jimmy Carter.

[BO Stinkss]

I liked it

[glorgau]

I liked it too - even saw the 3D version.

[Norm Lenhart]

Clearly the solution is to PO more of their fanbase.

And people like me who haven’t spent a cent on a Disney product in years since they adopted an overtly liberal agenda in their productions? No point in trying to get us back I suppose since the lib market seems to be keeping them in record profits... (snicker).

Well, at least my DVDs of the ‘classics’ won’t wear out anytime soon.

[Vince Ferrer]

I haven't seen it. I read a long article about it before it came out, and the article was pretty accurate that it would lose this much money. The thrust of it was that the director was used to animation, and wasted tons of money doing reshoots. It was predicting corporate heads will roll over this.

[napscoordinator]

More movies like “The Lorax” please. What a great movie that was. I enjoyed it. My kids got a kick out of it. If they would make more movies like this than Hollywood would be making big bucks. It has made 150 million so far.

[SJSAMPLE]

Screw it.
I’ve got ALL the books, and they never get old.

[freedumb2003]

I had a feeling this movie didn’t reflect the sensibilities of the author.

I guess I was right.

The tepid, terrible marketing didn’t help much.

Jackson “got” LOTR...

If Disney wants to make some bucks, it is Cthulhu made right... (good luck!)

[Cicero]

This is the first I’ve heard about the movie. I haven’t read any Edgar Rice Burroughs for decades, but I think I read just about all of them when I was younger, including John Carter on Mars. And I still have them around somewhere, I think.

Looks like some liberal snit of a movie reviewer managed to kill an entertaining movie because it didn’t suit his ideology or something.

[PreciousLiberty]

I think this film was marketed very poorly. It also didn't help that no big-name star was involved.

I don't understand how it can be a $200 million loss when it cost $250 million to make, and has already made $53 million at the box office. That's not counting Blu-Ray/DVD/download sales which will be substantial.

I hope there's a sequel, I'm a big Edgar Rice Burroughs fan. :-)

[Trailerpark Badass]

It couldn’t be that people have finally gotten their fill of alien/zombie/comic book superhero movies?

[pabianice]

CGI can’t carry a lousy movie, guys.

[Williams]

I have a book by a naturalist, John Burroughs. I know I can look this up but is he Edgar Rice’s brother or maybe father? The book is Squirrels and Other Fur Bearers and I really love it. Found it in an antique book shop.

[truth_seeker]

“It couldn’t be that people have finally gotten their fill of alien/zombie/comic book superhero movies?”

Aren’t they loved by children from 4 to 44?

[Nachum]

I liked it too.

[vbmoneyspender]

It's actually made $180 million - See Link. I think part of the reason it didn't get favorable reviews is that the bad guys in the movie aren't corporate polluters like they are in Lorax.

[Gene Eric]

Maybe Disney will recover its losses with the series: “Good Christian Bitches”.

[Vince Ferrer]

As I understand it, the promotional costs and marketing is not included in the figure used for a movie’s cost, but it is substantial. For a block buster, it could be $50-100 million worldwide. For a blockbuster in the past, even printing out the films for distribution to thousands of theaters costs tens of millions. This is why there is a big push for digital download of movies. I don’t know how many theaters still use physical film.

[Jonty30]

I think it had the same problem as Hellboy II. It’s monsters were too wierd and weren’t recognizable by the audience, so the movie wasn’t relatable.