John Carter has strong opening in China; weak weekend in the US; Global total now 179M

Other Stuff

John Carter grossed  $13.5 million in its second weekend for a 10-day domestic cume of $53.2 million while overseas, the Disney pic grossed $40.7 million.  The overseas figure includes a solid $10.4 million debut in China–for a foreign total of $126.1 million and worldwide cumulative total of $179.3 million after 10 days.

The full weekend chart:

1. 21 Jump Street – $35,000,000

2. Dr. Seuss The Lorax – $22,800,000

3. John Carter – $13,515,000

4. Project X – $4,005,000

5. A Thousand Words – $3,750,000

 

17 comments

  • Well I guess it shows you that whether or not Disney options for a sequel that at Least they will learn a lesson on how not to market a blockbuster so poorly. If they do decide to go forward with another one then I would not be surprised if they market it like crazy with toy lines, some tie ins among other things. At least the film will do okay if the international box office results have anything to say about it.

  • While I do love the movie, I had reservations about Disney being the company to do it for this reason, as well as the complications that have arisen in trying to market the film as a ‘Disney’ product. I think with 20-20 hindsight, the problems John Carter has endured are because of the corporate identity that Disney possesses…how do you market a pulp adventure and all that entails while the talent involved are mostly associated with children’s entertainment? The fact that the vast majority of those familiar with the property are baby boomers and older also doesn’t jive with the Disney brand. Factor in the Disney strategy of late n’ safe marketing, and in many ways you have the perfect storm. Mix into that all the other political crap about changing executives mid-production, and the apparent media pile-up that was established a year ago, and you wind up with this mess.

    That about says it all — and is fair to Disney while making them accountable. The Disney brand definitely created some cognitive dissonance, didn’t it? Every time I’d see the Disney logo come up on the trailer or TV spots, there would be a little psychological negative that would creep into my response. But I wasn’t really the target audience, or at least that’s what I would tell myself. Disney has their followers. They will turn them out…….I guess I was wrong about that, although they do seem to have turned them out overseas in reasonable numbers.

    Oh well — we’ll see.

  • Ah, but those were done in New Zealand using a lot of guerrilla film-making techniques employed by Peter Jackson. The same deal with District 9, which had AMAZING visual effects on par with John Carter, and cost $30 million to make. Wingnut Films and WETA are insulated from a lot of the Hollywood business model, and they’re able to achieve amazing things at a fraction of the cost. John Carter was made in the crucible of Hollywood, which entails a whole lot of extra and inflated costs. Location photography was done in the US, and stage work was done in London England, and there are lots of layers of rules, extra expenses, union contracts, and a whole other slew of factors that make budgets balloon. I imagine Stanton struggled with those realities, as Pixar is similar in its insulation from the standard Hollywood procedures.

  • I doubt Disney will release the rights to another studio to produce sequels. They still have a tight reign on film and merchandising rights to The Rocketeer (though the character was still controlled by the late Dave Stevens), and that movie was a box office disappointment over twenty years ago. Disney is a weird entity like that…once they have the rights to something, they don’t give them up.

    While I do love the movie, I had reservations about Disney being the company to do it for this reason, as well as the complications that have arisen in trying to market the film as a ‘Disney’ product. I think with 20-20 hindsight, the problems John Carter has endured are because of the corporate identity that Disney possesses…how do you market a pulp adventure and all that entails while the talent involved are mostly associated with children’s entertainment? The fact that the vast majority of those familiar with the property are baby boomers and older also doesn’t jive with the Disney brand. Factor in the Disney strategy of late n’ safe marketing, and in many ways you have the perfect storm. Mix into that all the other political crap about changing executives mid-production, and the apparent media pile-up that was established a year ago, and you wind up with this mess.

    The whole ‘what could have been’ stream of thought is painful to consider…I bet this would have been a very different film with a very different outcome had it been produced at Paramount. But that wasn’t meant to be, and we have wound up with a decent film that has been unceremoniously dumped onto the screens without any support. I bet the case of John Carter will be used as an example for how not to do business in film, and will go down in infamy among people who pay attention to the industry.

  • My theory is that if the film does okay and that if disney decides to greenlight a sequel they will probably have to lower the budget cost for a sequel just to be safe. However that does not neccesarely mean that the scope and the scale of the film will be cut down. I mean if you look at the lord of the rings films separately with the knowledge of the individual budget for each one they actually cost nearly 100 million to make when they actually look like as if the were made for 300 million or 200 million.

  • Couldn’t agree more. Here’s the trailer we made, which used some of the elements of the international trailer ….wish they’d used something like this.

  • the reason it didn’t make money in the USA in my opinion is because of the trailer. The trailer in the US was not that good it made the film seem too cheesy and not serious enough but the international trailer was really good and more serious. In the international trailer you get to see John in the old west which makes it look much more deep but in the US trailer it was just mars. like look at lorax I seen that movie and it was horrible the worst animated film I have probably ever seen yet the trailer made it look watchable and actually funny. The marketing is the biggest part their have been numerous films that were overrated yet people seen because of marketing or good trailer.

    their are probably other reason it didnt make money like people hating on the film on message boards across the internet before it even came out but I think the biggest reason is the trailer.

  • Looks like the book cover I was referring to was the 1917 frank schoonover original. I know it’s classic and truly appreciated when you meditate on the ERB heritage, but may not work to peak interest at the outset. Of course i cant speak for all teens, but just a suggestion. Michael Whelan could do the trick.

  • I ABSOLUTELY 100% agree regarding (4) in the above comments. Honestly I think the only reason why I even started to read this series when I was a teenager was specifically due to Michael Whelans book covers. They are so cool and MODERN. I think any rereleases of the books should be with his artwork and any attempt to grab teen and young adults attention should make sure to highlight it. The 1912 book cover by St. Something ( sorry I don’t recall his name) would most likely turn young ones off….

  • Just stumbled upon this site with looking up news about John Carter. Very impressed with the analysis of the box office performance. Dotar Sojat hit the nail on the head with this one. The current perception of it being a failure will prevent a sequel even if it were to crawl to profitability. I too am perplexed as to the performance of the film. I have followed progress on the film for the last ten years and was more than pleased with the final results. I even coerced a few family members to attend that had no interest and all of them LOVED the movie. People wanted this movie to fail for some reason(just read the deadline article for proof of that!)and are now delighting in writing articles about its demise. I am also a Green Lantern fan and was annoyed with how hostile critics were to that film, but understood it had a lot of flaws. That is not the case with John Carter, this movie is an exceptional piece of filmaking.

  • Hi Billy,
    Here are some attempts at answers.

    1. No, it won’t cover costs. The equation concerning real ultimate profitability is quite complicated because you have to factor in marketing costs; exhibitor’s share of theatrical gross; DVD/Blu-ray and all the other revenue streams; residual library value of the film, etc. But it’s clear now that best case global gross is probably around $350m which is respectable but not enough to be profitable.

    2. Strictly looking at the numbers, the film does not have to be absolutely profitable for a sequel to be warranted. The sequel calculation has to take into account the budget for sequels (lower the better); assumptions about better marketing for sequels (duh); and other factors. Unfortunately, one of the other factors is the psychology of all this. The team that green lit JC is gone; the new regime did little to make it a success but has little to cause them to want to dip their toe into the John Carter water again. I think it is very unlikely that Disney will do a sequel. The question is whether any other studio could be induced to pick up the franchise now that a baseline measurement of global appeal has been obtained. I would love to be in there pitching the idea of doing parts 2-3 in one shoot for a total of about the same as the first one cost. There might be some takers at that price point.

    3. Yes, it would be reasonable to assume that a sequel would do better than the original in this case.

    4. It seems to be working for kids who are at the age where their parents take them to the movies — but not for older tweens and teens. Disney’s marketing just didn’t resonate with them.

    I’ll be trying to put some more comprehensive/coherent thoughts together.

  • 1. Close. Gonna be close.
    2. Rumor is Stanton said 350m
    3. Y
    4. Do you have the M Whelan covers? That did it for me when I was their age.
    JCM is an origin story, setting up more fantastic creature scenes, battles, foes..
    Explaining the fact it took nearly 100 years to get to the big screen, and being the
    progenitor of all that came after. For guys action and Dejah, for girls T Kitsch and
    romance? Was the Harry Potter series of its day, next to Tarzan. There are so many points to make about this film/story. The books are barely 200 pages. Lots of concise
    descriptions and events there. A book report or lesson about what sci fi 1912 audiences like, vs today? Watching sword fantasy movies to contrast them to a modern
    fantasy? Understanding the suspension of disbelief? There is a great French article linked from here about the innocence required to enjoy pulpy fantasy. Came out on 14March. Michael Sellers aka Dotar Sojat has some great articles about ERB too.

    Back in the day we only had Harryhausen, SW, and Spielberg-now they have much more to compare and contrast. Its a more instantly cynical, devisive world than 30+ years ago. Your DVD comment may the last bastion of hope..

    Your befuddlement is shared by all of us fans. Prob, Stanton too. Keep word of mouth going. Fingers crossed.

  • Michael,
    I am sure someone can look ahead and figure out the projected earnings. I just don’t know what to believe. It just doesn’t make sense to me why it is not doing well in the US. Everyone I know who has seen it just talks about how great it is. I keep reading about how people go back and see it more than once. I have never seen a picture I wanted to see over and over again but I cannot wait to see it again.
    I know you must have done some figures what do you think?

    1) Will it make more than the 3 million to cover cost?

    2) How much do you think it has to make before the green light is given for the next picture?

    3) Isn’t it true that with DVD sales some movie build an audience that produces greater attendance for the sequel?

    4) Everyone that I have met that have seen it are adults. I work with High School and Middle School most of the time and I have promoted the film but no one is interested enough to see it. I’m befuddled. Any thoughts?

Leave a Reply