White Paper: The Case for John Carter Sequels

Other Stuff

The burst of activity at Comic Con by volunteers of the Back to Barsoom John Carter Sequel Facebook Group has attracted a certain amount of attention, but while there seems to a certain “we admire their pluck”,  many observers consider theirs to be a “hopeless” quest given the fact that Disney on March 19th labeled the film an epic failure by announcing its intention to take a $200M write-down based on its poor theatrical performance in the US and projected shortfall in income associated with that poor start.

The underlying reality is that the film underperformed in the US, helped considerably in this failure by an epic failure of marketing,  while doing reasonably well overseas, and has shown itself to be capable of attracting a highly motivated and loyal fan base. An argument can be made that if it were not for the high cost of production and other factors that caused the “John Carter is doomed” narrative to take root well before the film was released, the notion of sequels would be a matter for reasonable discussion and contemplation rather than “oh those poor dreamers”.

Well, this dreamer isn’t going down without a fight.  If the fans have the heart to keep lobbying, those fans among us who think we have enough industry knowledge and experience to make a business case for a sequel should try to do so.  So with that in mind — here’s a first salvo.  Click to see the PDF of the draft report which includes a complete financial model showing how and why completing the trilogy makes business sense, and how it might be presented to Disney with financing options that would lower Disney’s risk and increase the pressure to give serious consideration to a property that may have been prematurely left for dead.   I’m hoping that–in addition to the inevitable hoots of disdain and buckets of scorn–that there may be others out there who can join the conversation and help strengthen the argument.  Are there?

White Paper: The Case for John Carter Sequels
(Click to download or read below)
BACKGROUND

John Carter was released on March 9, 2012 in US and International markets and in spite of having the highest international (non-US) opening weekend of the year up to that date, was immediately declared an epic flop due to a weak US opening ($30.1M) and widespread criticism of the film’s budget, which as portrayed in the mainstream media had “ballooned” to $250M as a result of “costly reshoots” that were alleged to have come about as a result of the production chaos relating to the lack live action experience by the film’s director, Andrew Stanton, whose previous experience had been in animation (Finding Nemo and Wall-E in particular).  While it would later be determined that the film had been accomplished on budget and on schedule, the narrative of “out-of-control” Hollywood would dominate.  On March 19, 2012, Disney Studios Chairman Rich Ross announced that Disney would be taking a $200M write-down, representing the projected shortfall from John Carter not performing as had been hoped.  The announcement completed the storyline of epic failure, and John Carter became synonymous with epic Hollywood fails such as Mars Needs Moms, Cutthroat Island, Ishtar, Gigli, and Days of Heaven.

A Studio Marketing Failure, a Film Failure, or Both?

The John Carter marketing campaign by Disney Studios was widely criticized as one of the worst in Hollywood history.  While the creative content of any marketing campaign is subject to subjective interpretation — objective evidence of the marketing failure can be found in a number of statistics:

  • ·Tracking numbers for the entire campaign were “shockingly low”.
  • ·During the final two weeks prior to the release, tracking figures for awareness rose from the low 50 percentile to the mid sixty percentile, reflecting the impact of Disney’s campaign.  However, the tracking for “definitely interested” actually regressed in the final two weeks – meaning the net result of the Disney campaign was diminished interest, the opposite of the intended effect.
  • ·Meanwhile Fan-created marketing materials were received by fans with far greater enthusiasm than the studio created materials.  Fan trailers created by The John Carter Files achieved a like/dislike ratio of 90 likes for 1 dislike on Youtube, compared to 13/1 for the studio trailers, and the fan trailers were viewed online with a greater frequency in the final two weeks of the campaign than the official studio trailers.  These trailers suggest the path

The film itself received a mixed reaction from critics, achieving a 52% Rating on the popular film review aggregation site Rotten Tomatoes, and a 75% audience rating.  The film’s detractors point to these figures as evidence that the film itself is fatally flawed.  The film’s enthusiasts point to the fact that these figures are inline with any number of successful sci-fi/action/adventure franchises, which traditionally meet with less than a warm reception from critics, and the audience acceptance levels are within the range of audience figures for many multi-film franchises.

 

The Fan Movement

John Carter uniquely has spawned a highly motivated, organized, and committed fan base reminiscent of fan activism that ultimately led to studio reconsideration for TV series and films such as Star Trek and Firefly/Serenity.  The fan activists have organized on Facebook where as of this writing they have a membership of 10,500 after three months in existence.   The group is growing steadily at approximately 300 per week.  (For camparison, the Serenity/Firefly “Browncoats” fan group that successfully achieved studio reconsideration achieved a membership of 50,000 at its peak, after more than three years in existence.   The group actively maintains various blogsites, creates fan art, attends and promotes their cause at Conventions and Festivals such as Comic Con, and is engaged a variety of projects, including some with the Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc, designed to promote their cause.  It remains to be seen whether such fan activism will sustain itself, and whether it can materially affect the ultimate status of the film.  It is, however, having a gradual and measurable impact on the narrative about the film, transforming it from “dismal flop” to “plucky fans won’t give up” and eventually, if successful, “misunderstood classic” status for the film.

The fan activists believe it is significant that none of the “mega-flop” films with which John Carter was initially compared generated any equivalent fan movement.  Moreover, a film that John Carter is frequently compared to – Prince of Persia – produced no such fan movement.    The proponents of the fan movement argue that if sequels are undertaken, it is well established that thousands of motivated fans using the full power of social media can have a significant “influencer” effect that will be result in a vastly different narrative and “buzz” for sequels than was the case for the original film.

The Pre-Existing Fan Base

John Carter entered the global market with a very small pre-existing fan base, primarily made up of mostly aging fans of Edgar Rice Burroughs, the author of the underlying novels that are the basis for the film.  The novels were highly popular in the first half of the 20th century, and enjoyed a renaissance via Ace and  Ballantine paperbacks in the 1960’s through which they reached and were influential on the creative growth of, among others, James Cameron who drew heavily on the Burroughs canon for Avatar, George Lucas who drew heavily on it for the Star Wars Movies, and scientists Carl Sagan and Jane Goodall who were inspired by the books which propelled them into their science careers.  In spite of these celebrity fans and the fact tht the books had been influential on many other writers and film-makers, the bottom line going into the first film in the series was that the total committed fan base is unlikely to have exceeded 250,000 in the US, and an equal number overseas.

The pre-existing fan base for any sequels will be vastly different.  The following chart illustrates:

Audience approval ratings in the US were 75% on average.  The figure of 50% conversion is intended to be a conservative assumption of the number of theatre going audience members who could be judged to be “fans” prior to the commencement of the promotional campaign.  Thus the starting point for the promotional campaign for subsequent films is vastly different than for the initial movie.  It is also important to recognize that the figures that were achieved with the first movie – particularly the U.S. total of  7.8M theatrical viewers,  is a number that was achieved in spite of ineffective promotion.  It may reasonably be assumed that enough lessons were learned in the handling of the first films’ promotional campaign, that a second campaign would be more surefooted.

The Numbers

While John Carter did not perform well in the United States theatrically, it did achieve strong audience approval numbers in the 75% range and, moreover, ignited a core base of extremely motivated and active fans who represent a strong core base of “digital word of mouth” influencers going forward.   It also is doing relatively better in DVD/Blu-ray sales than a film with its theatrical gross figures typically does, and anecdotally based on comments and user reviews posted throughout the web, seems to have converted a substantial number of DVD/Blu-ray viewers of the first film into likely theatrical viewers for subsequent films.  Overseas, the film performed better theatrically and may be considered to have a more stable base.  The following model proceeds from the actual theatrical gross of the first film with conservative growth assumptions going forward through films two and three.  Please see the “notes” section after the financial table for discussions of assumptions and methodology.  It is not a “typical P and L” statement because such statements from studios are subject to manipulation that “buries” profits through intercompany charges, etc.  Rather, this is intended to offer a realistic appraisal of likely revenue streams and costs, without “Hollywood accounting” being used to obscure underlying results.

Notes

  1. See “Estimated Pre-Existing Fan Base” Table for derivation of this figure.
  2. For JC1, figures are actuals as of July 2012 with small allowance for additional theatrical revenue from re-release and special releases of JC1 if the sequels are made. Total allowance for additional revenue is less than 1% of the total.  In fact, if the full trilogy is produced there is potential for substantially more theatrical income than is projected.
  3. A figure of 40% of Theatrical Gross is used to obtain Disney net. This is an average.  Studios typically earn in excess of 50% of Theatrical Gross in the US, and somewhat less overseas.  In China the US studio take is as low as 20%.  The figure of 40% is used as a conservative average for modeling purposes.
  4. US figures are actuals through July 15, 2012 plus projected.  The projected additional is conservative given the potential for substantial additional sales if sequels are made, increasing the likely revenue from various repackaged versions and Special Editions. Foreign figures are generally not yet available and thus these are estimates consistent with the US Theatrical vs DVD/Blu-Ray outcome, applied to the international market’s Theatrical vs DVD/Blu-ray.
  5. Studios typically earn 50% of Retail on DVD/Blu-ray. A more conservative figure of 40% has been used.
  6. Download/PPV are conservative figures derived from analysis of  Theatrical and Blu-Ray/DVD actuals to date with reasonable assumptions applied.  This is the fastest growth area of income and given this, we believe these assumptions are conservative.
  7. A figure of 40% net to Disney has been used for modeling purposes.
  8. Domestic TV is estimated licensing revenue for a film of this profile.  In this case, the only figure used is the licensing figure that Walt Disney Studios would receive from, for example, Disney owned ABC or Disney Channel.  It does not capture the advertising revenue that ABC or Disney Channel would earn, which would be substantially more but is not typically considered an income to Walt Disney Studios.
  9. Foreign TV is a prudent estimate of licensing revenue for a franchise of this profile.
  10. Merchandising and licensing is a simple conservative estimate.  For a popular franchise, this is a very low estimate.
  11. There is an assumption of Disney paying a 20% commission for licensing deals, which in most cases is an overstatement of cost.
  12. Library Value is the residual asset value of the film after exploitation and is placed at 15% of Revenue Earned.  This is the amount the studio could expect to earn if the franchise were to be sold, and/or a reasonable assumption for long term (more than 10 year) earnings.
  13. Disney is unique in that its movie IP is – as Disney officials frequently state – a “wave generator” for additional revenue throughout the Disney ecosystem.  This is a conservative assessment of the minimum value achieved for Disney through theme park and other mechanisms that would “catch the wave” of a successful franchise.
  14. Production investment for the first film is $250m as reported variously.  The assumption for subsequent films is that films 2 and 3 would be shot concurrently for a total combined budget of $350M, or $175m per film.  This assumes some economies are achieved by filming both concurrently, as well as economies achieved because designs and prototypes have all been set.  Finally there is an assumption that the film stories themselves will be crafted in such a way as to make this budget figure attainable.  This is the most aggressive assumption in the entire model, but it is believed that it is essential to meet these figures for production investment in order to reduce risk to acceptable levels for Disney.
  15. Marketing cost is maintained a level 100m per film.

Psychological Factors Inhibiting a Green Light for Sequels

While the foregoing business model shows the benefits of proceeding with sequels, what are the risks for Disney?  Clearly any motion picture undertaking carries risks. Sequels and franchises do not always perform as expected.  However, it is precisely because sequels and franchises are more reliable than new entries that studios have, for years, relied on them when possible.

In this case there are many factors, most of them psychological rather than economic, weighing against the likelihood of Disney undertaking a fully Disney-funded sequel. The company has already publicly labeled the film a failure; Disney CEO Robert Iger is on record as saying that he felt strongly in advance that the film would not perform and he seems unlikely to easily endorse the idea of sequels;  Disney now has Marvel to supply the elusive “boy franchise” films that Disney has lacked and sought unsuccessfully to produce on its own.

On the positive side, Disney remains in a position where “appeasing Pixar” is a consideration, and while John Carter was not officially labeled a Pixar Production due to it having content that was not suitable for all ages, its core senior team of director Andrew Stanton,  producers Jim Morris and Lindsey Collins, and writer Mark Andrews are all key Pixar personnel and all of these individuals, plus Pixar’s John Lasseter, are proponents of the franchise and thus the “appease Pixar” component remains in play, albeit at a lower level than was the case when former Disney Studios Chairman Dick Cook approved the project.

Also positive is the fact that Disney Studios has a new Chairman in Alan Horn, a new head of marketing in Ricky Strauss, who are both knowledgeable that mis-handling of the property and campaign resulted in significant revenues being “left on the table”.  Since neither are blamed for the marketing debacle, they may reasonably be assumed to be at least somewhat more open-minded than would be the case of Rich Ross and MT Carney, for example, were still in place.

Nevertheless, there can be no doubt that the case for sequels for John Carter faces significant challenges in gaining support within Disney.

 

Are There Other Options For Financing and/or Distribution?

Because John Carter performed well overseas and in particular did well in two key, large foreign territories – Russia and China – and option to be considered is to arrange coproduction financing from those (or other) territories where the film did well.  Marvel, for example, (who provides its own production financing with Disney providing marketing services and advancing marketing costs) has entered into a co-production agreement with DMG Entertainment of Beijing for Iron Man 3.   The problem, or challenge with this notion, is that unlike Marvel who has its own studio and own producers who actively develop Marvel properties and seek out and arrange such scenarios, John Carter at present is wholly within Disney and has been shelved, so that it may be presumed that no pro-active efforts to create a financing solution that would make sequels more acceptable to Disney are being pursued.

What Can the Fans and/or Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. Do?

The fan base for John Carter includes a number of film professionals, including producers familiar with setting up financing and co-productions. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc, has a vested interest in seeing sequels come to fruition, either with Disney or through another studio after Disney’s license to the rights expires.  There is nothing stopping fans–particularly fans assisted by professional producers—and/or Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc., from reaching out to potential coproduction or financing partners and working proactively to present financing or co-production options to Disney.   If Disney’s production investment risk is lowered or even eliminated as with Marvel, it clearly becomes much easier for Disney to acquiesce to sequels.  Meanwhile the relatively strong performance in key territories makes the possibility of coproduction participation from those territories a realistic one.  But such co-production scenarios will be unlikely to materialize without pro-active effort from some quarter – and that quarter is unlikely to be Disney.

Should Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc, or independent producers identify potential co-production partners, and should Disney reject proposals to proceed under a coproduction scenario, the effort will not have been in vain since those same willing coproduction partners and/or financing resources would be “brought to the table” for discussions with other studios for further John Carter productions after the Disney license expires.  Moreover, such relationships could be leveraged favorably toward the production of other Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc properties, such as Carson of Venus, Pellucidar, etc.

Is This All A Pipe Dream, or Is It Real?

There can be no doubt that “never gonna happen” is a reaction that many will have, and is in fact an opinion that many already firmly hold.  It is obvious that no amount of analysis will cause all “experts” to change their mind and consider sequels for John Carter to be likely or even viable.  But, these proposals are emanating from fans of John Carter – a character who famously responds to adversity with: “We still live!”   Those who are committed to eventually seeing more John Carter in theaters have already had an impact on the narrative, and putting forward lucid proposals for how that might be achieved is simply part of the ongoing process that will continue, probably for many years.

17 comments

  • A few suggestions to strengthen the argument:

    The Pre-Existing Fan Base section discusses older ERB fans and popularity of JC in the 60s. The older fan base can be viewed as strength since Baby Boomers are still such a large group in US. Add Gen X fans that were kids in the 70s like Stanton and the group is larger. Is there any data that JC1 reached other groups like women or Gen Y? When JC1 was in the theatre I saw a lot of kids there with their Baby Boomer / Gen X parents who knew the material. I could hear parents explaining to their kids JC’s super strength from Mars low gravity.

    The Numbers section shows JC1 has an $86.4M loss now. Is there any info that JC1 will continue to move towards breakeven over time? The Fan Base section discusses 7.8M US theatre viewers in spite of ineffective promotion. Use the same idea to say JC1 may reach breakeven or a much less damaging number than negative $200M in spite of ineffective promotion and no revenue from merchandising/licensing.

    The Psychological Factors Inhibiting… section and “appeasing Pixar”. Does Pixar want to continue to branch out with live action movies? JC 2&3 could be an opportunity for Disney to get their branding and promotion strategy in place for Pixar guys that want to do live action/adventure films. If not, they’ll just go elsewhere like Brad Bird. These guys don’t want the Disney banner on a PG13 adventure movie like JC1 that has nothing to do with Disney and the banner just confuses movie goers.

  • X-men: first class only made like 350 million on a 160 million budget and we are getting a sequel so the Dawn treader had to have made money. 350/160 = grossed 2.18 times its budget. 175 million budget per movie seems reasonable

  • Question regarding Narnia, which was a franchise continued by another studio: I heard the third one was considered a failure, but it had a 155M budget and a worldwide gross of 415M (104 domestic, 311 foreign), which doesn’t seem bad to me! Wouldn’t it be a counter-example since you plan a 405M worldwide gross with a 175M budget for John Carter 2? Even with conservative figures, its seems like the second one would at best only break even with this chart, or am I missing something?

    That’s why sequel threshold calculation is somewhat complicated and mysterious. For example, the second Narnia made 419m global on a budget of $225m and a sequel did happen. The cries of “fail” on the third were driven in particular by the weak domestic – only 104m, and the fact that it did $300++M overseas kind of got lost in the reporting.

    The chart I made tries to take into account everything that would go into a sequel calculation, including some things that are hard to quantify, like theme park flow-through income. I found an interview by former Disney Studio Chief Dick Cook where he talks about how hard that is to quantify, but how it definitely is a big part o the equation.

    The research I did shows that there is no “sequel-ready” film that made $400m and didn’t get a sequel. I might have missed one and if I did, someone will surely point it out to me. But I couldn’t find one.

  • “These trailers suggest the path”: the rest of the sentence is missing.

    Question regarding Narnia, which was a franchise continued by another studio: I heard the third one was considered a failure, but it had a 155M budget and a worldwide gross of 415M (104 domestic, 311 foreign), which doesn’t seem bad to me! Wouldn’t it be a counter-example since you plan a 405M worldwide gross with a 175M budget for John Carter 2? Even with conservative figures, its seems like the second one would at best only break even with this chart, or am I missing something?

  • I agree Dotar, you have got to take the risk right out of it for Disney to be really interested, so joint financing seems the way to go. Also Disney has done nothing to advance the franchise particularly with merchandising, where,if you figures are correct, they could have significantly enhanced returns on the movie and created demand for new sequels. All told this has been a major travesty in movie distribution by Disney.

  • Of the many missteps made by Disney, releasing JOHN CARTER under the “Disney” brand, rather than under “Touchstone,” for example, seems in hindsight one of the more obvious mistakes. Getting a reboot by a new studio (or studios) might be the best hope to get the John Carter Saga to continue on the big screen.

  • This is a great article.  I completely agree that more people would go to see a see sequel in the theater than the original movie because word is spreading about what these stories really are.   I can personally attest to being a part of the fan base that grew up after the movie was released.  In fact, I almost didn’t see the movie in the theater because I had no idea what it was.  I saw the trailer twice and had decided that it was just another special-effects-heavy film with a lot of  good-looking actors that I would just rent for a dollar later.  Someone who was familiar with the books told me what a unique and imaginative story it was which prompted me to go see it.  I loved it – then saw it three more times in 3D and pre-ordered the Blu-Ray.  After I told my friends and family about it, they all had the same experience.  They had no clue what this movie was, but then saw it and were dumb-founded by the fact that it received so many negative reviews.  They were all as frustrated as I was that plans for a sequel had been put on a seemingly permanent hold.  WHEN we get a sequel, there will be a lot more people in line than there were for the original film, thanks largely to the way the fans have taken it upon themselves to promote this film the way Disney should have in the first place.  I love that this article says that and so much more in such a well-informed and eloquent way. 

  • Pascalahad wrote:

    Frankly, with the stench of failure attached to John Carter, I have a hard time picturing another studio picking up the rights for the sequels, let alone order a reboot. What would be the extra cost for this studio, would they have to recreate all the digital assets from scratch? An unknown part of the equation is Andrew Stanton himself, who doesn’t seem at first glance an artist eager to compromise. Could he achieve his vision with a lesser budget?

    That “stench of failure” is the biggest problem because the actual hardcore business case is not nearly as difficult to make as the “overcome the stench of failure” psychological case is. Time is an important component, though. Over time all the hard work of the volunteers, the fans, the bloggers, the commenters, the users who write reviews on IMDB and Amazon ….. all of that taken together may eventually remove that stench. But it’s a problem.

    As for Andrew — he absolutely had no inclination to compromise on budget but that was then, before he’d tasted “failure”. There would be a sweet redemption in getting a sequel made, so he might be more flexible. Some reductions would happen naturally anyway — prototypes set, two films at once. So much of the budget for JC was just a number grind — this many effects workers and companies working for this many months on this many shots, etc — with more animation shots than either Wall-E or Finding Nemo had. By simply reducing the number of those shots (more humans/humanoid action, less Thark action, which tends to happen anyway in the books), and possibly aiming for a 100 minute movie instead of 123 minutes, the reductions might happen relatively painlessly for Stanton. But this is a big stumbling block, I agree.

  • Steve Davidson wrote

    Please, Please, PUH-LEASE do this. Pretty please issue this white paper that attacks the marketing department that obviously won whatever political fight may have been going on behind the scenes at Disney. Please.

    Sarcasm noted but if you’re point is this is hopeless because the architects of the marketing blunders are still in place, you’re wrong. The marketing battle that set the campaign was won by MT Carney who took over in April 2010 and departed in December 2011 (she left for New York at Christmas and never came back — her firing was announced on January 8.) She was the one who changed the title to John Carter and all the major campaign themes and materials were developed under her direct supervision. Her number 2, Ayaz Asad, is still in position — but he only got his position in October 2011 when most of the marketing was set and there was little he could do. Ricky Strauss, MT Carney’s replacement, is still in position — but took his position on January 22, too late to do much. Rich Ross had little to do with the campaign but did make key decisions such as no merchandising, no cross promotions, no licensing — and he is gone too. So no — the marketing team responsible for the debacle is no longer in charge.

  • Very lucid and well-thought out proposals as a means to an end. Doubtful Disney will bite, but hopefully another studio will bravely take a crack at sequel(s) in the not-too-distant future. Regardless, an eloquent white paper espousing a noble cause…

  • Impressive work!

    Does the image of Disney count in the equation? It must have been tarnished by the way the release of John Carter was treated at the upper levels. Even if the senior staff has changed, they might still have to answer to that. Greenlighting the sequel(s) could be a way to redeem the company’s image in the eyes of the general moviegoing public. Sure, they have Marvel, but the success of these movies is attributed to Marvel Studios, not Disney. Pixar has also this image of being its own studio.

    Frankly, with the stench of failure attached to John Carter, I have a hard time picturing another studio picking up the rights for the sequels, let alone order a reboot. What would be the extra cost for this studio, would they have to recreate all the digital assets from scratch?

    An unknown part of the equation is Andrew Stanton himself, who doesn’t seem at first glance an artist eager to compromise. Could he achieve his vision with a lesser budget?

  • Please, Please, PUH-LEASE do this. Pretty please issue this white paper that attacks the marketing department that obviously won whatever political fight may have been going on behind the scenes at Disney. Please.

  • What a fantastic and well put together article which truly strikes both sides of the coin. The biggest thing fans can currently due to is to keep the vision alive, much like Firefly which really gained popularity, once it was released on DVD. Now, with Blu-ray, DVD, iTunes, and Netflix as sources of enjoying JC, there is no excuse to have a larger part of the audience become familiar with the brand.

  • After reading the file, its certainly very similar to discussions I’ve seen before, but definitely seems to me to be good business sense. Add to it the full power of Marvel (whose comic line has previously had experience with the character and continues to now) and Pixar as well as lower budgets for the next two films by producing them together and its a win for the fans, the fans to come, for Disney, and for Andrew Stanton, cast and crew.

  • A nice analysis. VERY PROFESSIONAL.
    I have always been in favor or two more sequels and was absolutely devastated when Disney cut the film’s throat and announced the $200 M loss 11 days into the release.
    Are you in contact with anyone at Disney or ERBs, Inc? Or, are you just floating this in the hopes someone with “influence” will see this and pass it on to be used as a basis for their own Go, No-Go, analysis?
    It appears the sequel fans were well received at Comic-Con. Hard to believe Disney ignored this marketing avenue.
    When does the license to Disney expire? I would still love to see Barsoom at Disney World. Hope they’re not too short sighted. What’s Peter Jackson doing?
    Ken

  • MCR — nothing wrong with your comments. They’re helpful.

    First the real problem with this proposal is this:Forget Disney. In fact if I may be somewhat rude F— Disney. They were the ones who allowed this to happen in the first place-from the lousy ad campaign to not reining in the budget and allowing Mr. Stanton to run riot because-as you say in your report they were too busy “appeasing Pixar.” What you should be doing is-and I’m just saying this-rewrite this as a proposal to another studio. Point up Disney’s flaws with how the handled this movie, both production wise and with the marketing.

    It can be both. I think there is an obligation to lobby Disney first but that doesn’t preclude taking it elsewhere. Also — it sort of covers this in the section about finding a coproduction partner or partners to co-finance, a la what Marvel is doing with DMG in China for Iron Man 3. It points out that if Disney passes, this effort will in effect “tee it up” for another studio. So I’m pretty much with you — I’m just not prepared to ignore Disney from the start. It’s a process.

    Also-and this won’t be welcomed-propose a cap on the budget. A studio-even Disney-will be leary about allowing Stanton to make another film that doesn’t have Pixar on the logo or making another John Carter film at the same cost. If you’re determined to have him involved (and maybe a back up plan of pitching this to another director would be most welcomed) he will have to agree to not go overboard budget wise or attempting again to use the Pixar Method since it didn’t work.

    I did. See the financials and the notes to the financials. Two films, shot concurrently, budget capped at 175m each. This is the most aggressive assumption in the model, but a necessary one.

  • Well I’ll try to avoid heaping “buckets of scorn,” but it won’t be easy.

    First the real problem with this proposal is this:Forget Disney. In fact if I may be somewhat rude F— Disney. They were the ones who allowed this to happen in the first place-from the lousy ad campaign to not reining in the budget and allowing Mr. Stanton to run riot because-as you say in your report they were too busy “appeasing Pixar.”

    What you should be doing is-and I’m just saying this-rewrite this as a proposal to another studio. Point up Disney’s flaws with how the handled this movie, both production wise and with the marketing. Play up how much of a devoted fan base this movie has. It is interesting how you bring up Firefly and Serenity. Fox produced the Firefly TV series but it was Universal who took the gamble on the movie. (Even though I would be careful in mentioning this since while Serenity has a fan base-including this contrarian troll-it was still not a huge box office winner. Studios like to hear about movies that make money, so be careful).

    Also-and this won’t be welcomed-propose a cap on the budget. A studio-even Disney-will be leary about allowing Stanton to make another film that doesn’t have Pixar on the logo or making another John Carter film at the same cost. If you’re determined to have him involved (and maybe a back up plan of pitching this to another director would be most welcomed) he will have to agree to not go overboard budget wise or attempting again to use the Pixar Method since it didn’t work. Spielberg had to promise that Raiders of the Lost Ark would come in on time and budget after 1941 failed and in fact he came in under on both. Use that to persuade a studio that it will not become another runaway production.

    Finally have a back up plan. It may be that a reboot with different people will be the only way another John Carter film will get made. Or even pitch one of the other books in the series as a possible project.

    OK I’ll wait the usual chewing out but there you go.

Leave a Reply