Disney expected to lose $200m in biggest flop of cinema history - Polidicks

[B]Walt Disney has said it expects to lose $200m (£126m) on its movie John Carter, making it one of the biggest flops in cinema history. [/B]The film, about a [B]military captain transported to Mars[/B], could result in an $80-120m loss for Disney's movie business during the current quarter.Disney shares were down almost 1% in early trading in New York. The firm is still likely to make a substantial quarterly profit, though, thanks to its TV businesses. It is estimated that John Carter [B]cost $250m to make and it is likely that Disney spent another $100m on marketing[/B].[URL="http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00pyvth"] Reviewing the film on BBC 5 Live[/URL], Mark Kermode said: "[B]The story telling is incomprehensible, the characterisation is ludicrous, the story is two and a quarter hours long and it's a boring, boring, boring two and a quarter hours long.[/B]"[B] The film's director, Pixar's Andrew Stanton, had previously had great success with films such as Finding Nemo and Wall-E. [/B]The John Carter film is based on a series of books written by the author of Tarzan, Edgar Rice Burroughs. The series began with A Princess of Mars in 1912 and ended with John Carter of Mars, published after the author's death in 1964. [B]The film has taken no more than $184m at box offices worldwide, with cinema owners receiving about half of that total. [/B]It is difficult to compare losses on films, as studios reveal little financial detail and allowances have to be made for inflation The Hollywood Reporter says that[B] last year's biggest flop was Mars Needs Moms, which cost $150m to make and only took $39m [/B]at the box office. Disney will be hoping for success from other big budget movies due for release later this year. The list includes The Avengers, due to be released in May, and Brave, set to be released by Disney Pixar in June. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rf55GTEZ_E[/media] [URL]http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200[/URL]

they will make it back in half a day

Not surprising, the movie looks like garbage in my opinion.

Watch it be the best movie to ever come out.

Note, both this and last years flops were based on Mars. Why can't we go to Jupiter? :<

Good, it looked stupid.

Personally, I think Disney should just stop live action overall. -Snip at this part, the guy playing the protagonist LOOKS like James Franko-

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;35221180]they will make it back in half a day[/QUOTE] deja vu...

It was... decent, I don't think it's deserving of being the biggest cinema flop ever

[QUOTE=Useful Dave;35221288] Why can't we go to Jupiter? :<[/QUOTE] we did and it blew up and became a star

Why they thought the plot was worth working for in the first place remains a mystery.

[QUOTE=smeismastger;35221426]Why they thought the plot was worth working for in the first place remains a mystery.[/QUOTE]Because Barsoom is one of the greatest series of novels in literary history. One so great, anything other than a direct adaptation is bound to fail.

[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;35221180]they will make it back in half a day[/QUOTE] I'm pretty sure the film has been out for a week. They've had a lot of days to make it back, I don't think it's happening.

They must be taking the Mickey.

[QUOTE=Darth Hater;35221463]I'm pretty sure the film has been out for a week. They've had a lot of days to make it back, I don't think it's happening.[/QUOTE] I ment all of Disney

Blue colored control ending, no wonder it's bad: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iFKQb.png[/IMG]

I'm sort of relieved by this. I saw the ads and thought to myself; "Well this looks like the dumbest shit ever, are they actually serious about this being a huge title? Or is it just me?".

[QUOTE=Swebonny;35221516]Blue colored control ending, no wonder it's bad: [IMG]http://i.imgur.com/iFKQb.png[/IMG][/QUOTE] DVD alternate endings has green and red endings.

The factor of money in vs money out is what makes this such a huge flop, otherwise the title would still be held by Uwe Boll or Tommy Wiseaou.

It was an average movie. Not spectacularly good, not spectacularly bad, just average. Which I guess is fitting, since wasn't the John Carter of Mars book series basically the progenitor of modern fantasy? [sp]or is MovieBob wrong again?[/sp]

The trailer really had me until 30 seconds in when that generic lady with the generic "fate"-speech started. I know this is based on a book, but I really don't think it was written this cheesy.

To be honest, I saw it, and I loved it. This is is the perfect example of marketing gone very, very wrong. It's based off the Princess of Mars novels, which are amazing, and I think the movie faithfully recreates it into something cool. It's just that it looks bad because, well, shitty marketing.

the trailer is horrible, just looks like a shit movie with too many effects

[QUOTE=Taiset;35221423]we did and it blew up and became a star[/QUOTE] [IMG]http://desmond.yfrog.com/Himg521/scaled.php?tn=0&server=521&filename=bji.png&xsize=480&ysize=480[/IMG] I knew I should've put the Leonov in my post. :v:

I hope they continue to make CGI / Animation movies instead of life action, unless it has a new and interesting concept like Pirates of the Carribean

There's a kid at my old school named John Carter, He was >200 pounds, sweaty, dumb as a brick, and had no friends. I guess you could describe him as floppy, too.

[QUOTE=Wealth + Taste;35221839]There's a kid at my old school named John Carter, He was >200 pounds, sweaty, dumb as a brick, and had no friends. I guess you could describe him as floppy, too.[/QUOTE] He could have been the star of the film, and it would have made Disney a fortune

Disney has really shit luck with movies that have the planet Mars in them.

When I saw the commercial on TV I instantly thought it was a mix between avatar and tarzan.

I've seen it, it was... enh. I hate to say it, but Avatar did the same thing better.