It was two weeks ago that "John Carter" [of Mars] came out and flopped pretty hard. So hard that it couldn't beat "The Lorax" for top spot at the box office. Not that 30 million is anything to sneeze at, except when with the cost of advertising and such your budget is a half billion dollars.
The New York Times had a pretty interesting article that listed the myriad problems with "John Carter." Foremost among them was they hired a writer-director in Andrew Stanton whose only other work were Pixar cartoons like "Wall-E" and "Finding Nemo." As the Times pointed out, the movie spent quite a bit of money when Stanton needed two reshoots of material. It's hard to stay under budget when you're essentially shooting the movie twice.
Not only did Stanton not have any experience with live action movies, neither did the new regime at Disney. The head honcho there had only been involved in TV and some others who greenlit this thing didn't have any useful experience in movies.
Making the situation worse was when Disney sensed the movie would tank, they pumped more money into the advertising, hoping to I guess brainwash people into seeing it. That didn't work either. In part because Disney gave Stanton a lot of say in how the advertising was done. Which seems like something you have a, you know, marketing department to handle.
A problem the Times didn't mention but occurred to me was: who the fuck was John Carter? I know a lot of hardcore sci-fi fans knew about these stories, but I didn't. I doubt a lot of the teenage crowd did either. Because really these stories date from what, the late 19th Century? Or early 20th Century? So it was popular (if it was ever truly popular) with your target audience's great-grandparents if not their great-great-grandparents. And sure some characters from back then like Sherlock Holmes and Dracula or Tarzan (from the same author) have endured over time, I don't think John Carter was in that same league. It's like how with superhero movies you have your pantheon names like Superman and Batman and Spider-Man and so forth and then you have the lesser ones like Green Lantern or the Flash who might have a decent fan base but aren't as culturally relevant and thus even if they do get a movie it doesn't exactly light the world on fire.
I think Spielbergo ran into the same problem last winter with that "Tintin" movie. I mean Tintin might be all the shit in Belgium and France, but how many American kids do you think knew who the hell he was? Before the movie came out if I'd done a Jay Leno street poll, how many people do you think would have known about him? Not me, that's for sure.
So there are a lot of lessons to be learned here. First, make sure to hire a director who knows what he's doing. It also helps if the studio knows what they're doing. It's like they say in writing: you should know your genre. Also, if you're a studio, don't invest $250-$500 million in a movie about a relatively obscure old-time/foreign character. You ain't going to see that money back except on a tax write-off.
BTW, something pretty sad is there's a group on Facebook for people demanding a sequel. There's over 4,000 people right now. Maybe if every one of them gave $75,000 to Disney then they'd be able to recoup their losses and make a sequel. But seriously, people, give me a break. Maybe it wasn't as much of a clunker as the numbers would indicate, but the quality of a film doesn't matter when it's going to lose hundreds of millions of dollars. And don't think another studio is going to pick up a toxic asset like that. So really, kids, let's try to live in the real world for just a sec, OK?
I had this moment of twighlight zoneiness this weekend when I saw tha there was a movie novelization of the movie - not the original novel, a new one based on the movie that was based on the novel. On top of that the screenwriter was Mike Chabon, I'm sure they could have talked him into writing the novel, at least then I would have been interested in it.
ReplyDeleteBut the original novels are around 100 years old. I listened to some geeks discuss the movie over the weekend and they pointed out how the first novel was the first thing Burroughs had written - Ever. Actually, that was according to Chabon.
I do think it's doing well internationally though. So theres that.
I wanna see it anyway.
ReplyDeleteMy two teenagers went to see it yesterday. I don't think they knew what it was about except that Disney made it and it was sci-fi. A friend told me he read it when he was younger, I didn't know it was even a book. Yes, their marketing was a flop. Great post.
ReplyDeleteEntertainment Weekly and The New Yorker both had a take on this, too. One thing they pointed out was the dismal advertising campaign, which failed to promote the story on any level -- including taking "Of Mars" out of the title, so that you have a title that sounds like a Denzel Washington drama.
ReplyDeleteWhat EW also pointed out, though, is that you ONLY hear about advertising costs for a bomb. Avatar, for example, spent $500 million -- at least $270,000,000 of which was global marketing.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/business/media/09avatar.html?pagewanted=all
Assuming Avatar spent $270 million in advertising, but took in $2,800,000,000 (which it did), then it got $10 in ticket sales for every $1 spent on advertising. Not bad.
But John Carter spent $120 million on marketing:
http://www.thewrap.com/movies/article/disneys-250m-john-carter-gamble-cosmic-bomb-or-otherworldly-hit-33532?page=0,0
and has taken in $53,000,000 so far (in 10 days).
That's a return (in 10 days) of $0.44 on the dollar for marketing.
But that's not the whole story: John Carter is number 1 overseas (although it's falling), and has grossed $179,000,000 worldwide so far (counting US). It's done 2x as well overseas as at home. So it's earned $1.49 for every dollar spent on advertising, total.
The big lesson is that American entertainment writers decide a story and then promote it. From the lead news story on John Carter:
"At No. 3, Disney's costly science-fiction dud "John Carter" dropped sharply in its second weekend. The Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptation took in $13.5 million, down 55 percent from its anemic opening weekend and lifting its domestic total to a measly $53.2 million."
John Carter, in 10 days, remember, has made back 42% of its total cost including marketing.
It's also getting 71% approval ratings from Rotten Tomato audiences, and averages a 6 out of 10 from critics on that site.
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_carter/
So what's with calling it a dud? Critics say it's slightly above averages. There's a 7 in 10 chance you'll like it if you go see it, and it's averaging $17,000,000 per day in worldwide box office.
It could have been done better, I suppose, but I think the problem is that Disney set this up as a "Must Make $100,000,000 in the first 24 hours" and primed the press for failure.
I think with modern box office economics you have to make a big splash on your first week or two of release, before everyone gravitates to the next big new thing, which this week will be "The Hunger Games." It might have made 42% of its costs back so far, but it's all diminishing returns from here. The only hope is that it could make it up on DVD sales.
DeleteAlso they were probably hoping for this as a "tentpole" picture, one that could birth a couple of sequels with accompanying toy sales and all that stuff. The first one being a monetary loser makes that far less likely.
I thought John Carter was Noah Wyle's character on 'ER.'
ReplyDeleteI'm going to bare my jugular so rip it out slowly, Grumpy, but Mrs. C. and I saw John Carter over the weekend and it exceeded our expectations. Sure, it wasn't ground breaking like the Matrix and derivative of lots of other Sci-Fi, but we didn't think it was horrible. It gave me a nostalgic feeling for B movies I enjoyed as a kid, like Jason and the Argonauts.
ReplyDeleteI'm not judging whether it's a bad or good film. I haven't seen it. A movie can be a flop and still be good just as many terrible movies do well at the box office. Me and the New York Times were simply talking in economic terms.
DeleteI didn't know who John Carter was...I thought the movie sounded kind of ridiculous. Had no idea it was a "thing." LOL!
ReplyDeleteJohn Carter will not get a sequel unless it makes 750 million. Honestly, the movie wasn't good. I don't care if it ever gets a sequel. All that Mars stuff is kinda stupid with walking cities, etc. Why have a city walk? It seems like a waste of energy.
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised you didn't just say meh. You are the bigger man (figuratively).
DeleteAnyway, I remember in a Star Wars book where a city was mounted on the backs of AT-ATs so that it could stay ahead of the planet's burning hot suns. Though my sisters went one better and had a whole planet that could zoom away if there were trouble.
I just have one thing to say:
ReplyDeleteA sequel to Green Lantern got a green light (heh), and it sucked rotten eggs. It bombed AND it was terrible. But Warner Brothers is making another one.
So don't count out a sequel.