Disney Studios in serious financial trouble. - Page 2 - HobbyTalk
  
HobbyTalk Forum for Diecast Collectors, Modelers, Slot Cars, & Radio Control
Home Forums Photo Album RC TrackFinder Catalog Donation/HobbyTalk Supporter

Welcome to the HobbyTalk forums.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, view attachments, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. Forgotten your password? Click here!

NOTE: Once you register and are logged in this welcome section will no longer be visible.

Go Back   HobbyTalk > Models > SciFi & Fantasy Movie and TV Discussion
Register Classifieds Help/TOS Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #16  
Old 04-23-2012, 05:26 PM
Captain April's Avatar
Captain April Captain April is offline
Banned

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 3,969
When the budgets get as large as they're getting on these tent pole films, no one studio can pull 'em all together, so one studio takes the heavy lifting of actually making the movie, another handles the domestic distribution, another handles foreign distribution, and possibly a third gets the home video rights.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 04-23-2012, 07:39 PM
Bobj812 Bobj812 is offline
Member

My Photos
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Earth
Posts: 490
I didn't think Ross was the one that greenlit "John Carter"? It was too far along to stop by the time he was in place, something like that?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 04-23-2012, 08:48 PM
seaQuest's Avatar
seaQuest seaQuest is offline
Elder Statesman

My Photos
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Los Angeles, California
Posts: 1,714
I was wondering how Disney was going to handle Paramount after buying Marvel Comics. Does this go for Spider-Man at Sony?
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-24-2012, 01:14 AM
Captain April's Avatar
Captain April Captain April is offline
Banned

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Arvada, Colorado
Posts: 3,969
I'd say it's fair to hang Ross with the totally bolloxed up ad campaign for John Carter (the fact that two fanmade trailers on YouTube made the marketing geniuses at Disney look like a bunch of drooling morons who couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst in the Sahara is a prime example). The sheer budget made it an uphill climb to even break even at the box office, but to go out and talk down your own movie and all but guarantee a flop? The dumbass was practically begging to be fired.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-24-2012, 01:35 AM
BluntFronts BluntFronts is offline
HobbyTalk Pro

My Photos
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Southern Illinois
Posts: 2,135
How much do you think changing the name from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter cost them at the box office? I thought it was a pretty obvious mistake when I heard about before the film's release. Nearly everyone I know who saw it seemed to think it was "pretty good" (probably about a B to a B+ based on their tones of voice); it didn't come off as a "dud" to my friends.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:19 AM
sbaxter sbaxter is offline
Top Dog

My Photos
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 5,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain April View Post
When the budgets get as large as they're getting on these tent pole films, no one studio can pull 'em all together, so one studio takes the heavy lifting of actually making the movie, another handles the domestic distribution, another handles foreign distribution, and possibly a third gets the home video rights.
That can happen, but it isn't what happened here. Paramount had made a distribution deal with Marvel prior to the latter being bought by Disney. Disney made a deal to buy back those rights from Paramount, but part of that deal was that Paramount got a certain amount of money from two or three forthcoming films (which they had planned to distribute) and got their logo on the movie. Other than that, they aren't doing anything on Avengers.

Qapla'

SSB

Last edited by sbaxter; 04-24-2012 at 09:41 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 04-24-2012, 09:39 AM
sbaxter sbaxter is offline
Top Dog

My Photos
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Tallahassee, Florida
Posts: 5,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluntFronts View Post
How much do you think changing the name from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter cost them at the box office? I thought it was a pretty obvious mistake when I heard about before the film's release.
I think calling it John Carter of Mars would have probably hurt the film more, to be honest. It's a title that would mean something to a pretty limited number of people, unlike ERB's Tarzan. To other people, I think including "of Mars" in the name would have connotations of 1950s sci-fi, which seems pretty goofy to the average person. The difference, as I've written before, is that when the story was originally written Mars was almost a blank canvas with little more than a wash of color on it. Nowadays showing us the world pictured in the film (and the book) is like trying to convince me the Mona Lisa is a landscape -- or a road map. We know that isn't Mars.

Now, perhaps it might have helped to give it a different title altogether; I don't know and no one can really say. I have heard people say that a simple name like that is a stupid idea for a title to a movie and that a title has to be more descriptive ... to which I can only say that yes, it's too bad the makers of that flop Forrest Gump couldn't come up with a better title.

Qapla'

SSB
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 04-24-2012, 11:41 AM
Chrisisall's Avatar
Chrisisall Chrisisall is offline
Top Dog

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 5,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by BluntFronts View Post
Nearly everyone I know who saw it seemed to think it was "pretty good" (probably about a B to a B+ based on their tones of voice); it didn't come off as a "dud" to my friends.
I loved the flick, but objectively speaking, it was a 'pretty good' movie. Worth a viewing at the theatre.

"John Carter" is a STUPID title.
Gimme something old fashioned, like "John Carter and the Princess of Mars".
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 04-24-2012, 11:44 AM
Chrisisall's Avatar
Chrisisall Chrisisall is offline
Top Dog

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 5,763
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaxter View Post
it's too bad the makers of that flop Forrest Gump couldn't come up with a better title.
THAT title had two things going for it- it's a VERY unusual name, and, anyone who ever saw the movie "Legend" got a tickle in their subconscious by that name ("Can you be a child of the forest, and not know the Gump?").
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 04-24-2012, 03:20 PM
Carson Dyle's Avatar
Carson Dyle Carson Dyle is offline
Cautiously Optimistic

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 4,681
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbaxter View Post
I think calling it John Carter of Mars would have probably hurt the film more, to be honest.
There's no question about it.

Disney tested and re-tested a dozen or so variations of the MARS title (John Carter of Mars... John Carter and the Princess of Mars... John Carter: Warlord of Mars... etc.), and the results confirmed what both Disney Marketing and Andrew Stanton already suspected: Audiences unfamiliar with the source material (i.e. the vast majority of those tested) did not respond favorably to titles featuring the word MARS.

I'm not saying John Carter is a brilliant film title, but at least it's neutral (a la Jerry Maguire, Michael Clayton, Annie Hall, or any number of other character-based titles to successful feature films. I mean, "Dracula" was not exactly a household word in 1933, but a simple name-based title didn't hurt that film's prospects).

In any event, the decision to name the film John Carter ultimately rested with director Andrew Stanton.
__________________
Rob McFarlane
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 04-24-2012, 04:44 PM
SteveR SteveR is offline
HobbyTalk Pro

My Photos
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,413
... but was John Carter about the character or about the spectacle?
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:00 PM
jheilman jheilman is offline
HobbyTalk Pro

My Photos
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me there.
Posts: 3,563
I think the bottom line is, if the film had been stronger it would have drawn a bigger audience. And the blame for that goes deeper than the title. There are a lot of hits with odd titles. Didn't hamper the positive audience reception.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 04-24-2012, 05:24 PM
Warped9's Avatar
Warped9 Warped9 is offline
Banned

My Photos
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Ontario, Canada
Posts: 4,621
But the studio did NOTHING to properly promote this film. Disney is usually in your face when it comes to promoting their stuff, and there was next to nothing about this film. And what little their was was lacklustre. A good portion of the blame goes directly to them for dropping that ball.

It certainly looks like a lot more was done (or not done) to make sure the film bombed. And it didn't deserve to.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 04-24-2012, 06:07 PM
jheilman jheilman is offline
HobbyTalk Pro

My Photos
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me there.
Posts: 3,563
Sure, it's a lot of things. Not just a stinky title. Lackluster trailer, not enough push in places that I saw, failure to generate enough interest in the target audience - namely ME! I'll see this on DVD, but all the promo material I saw left me uninterested.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 04-24-2012, 08:58 PM
Chrisisall's Avatar
Chrisisall Chrisisall is offline
Top Dog

My Photos
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Western Mass
Posts: 5,763
The movie "Serenity" was a GREAT film, and it cost just 40 mill- it fell flat.
"John Carter" was a good film, costing upwards of 200 mil- it fell flatter.
"Avatar" was okay. It raked in the coin, pricey as it was.
"The Lorax" was, well, what it was, and it RULED.

Welcome to the 21st Century, hope you enjoy it.
Reply With Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Featured Sponsor
You Can Sponsor
A HobbyTalk Forum


HobbyTalk® Sponsors
Diecast
CScollectibles
Collectables Corner
DieCast Alley
Global Diecast Direct
Milezone
Mini-Motors Inc
Scoomer
The Toy Peddler
Toy Car Aution
Models
MegaHobby
Modeler’s Brand
ParaGrafix Modeling Systems
Radio Control
BeachRC.com
B-Fast RC
Dirt Cheap RC
Discount RC Tires
Irrgang Racing Service
Lefthander RC
MaxAmps.com
RCTV Live
SMC Racing
Speedzone
Thunder Racing
Tekin
Trend Times
TQ Racing
Windtunnel Racing
Slot Cars
AFX Racing
Scoomer
Slot Magazine
Sponsored Events

Become a
HobbyTalk® Supporter

Advertise on HobbyTalk®



Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:15 AM.
HobbyTalk® is a Registered Trademark of HobbyTalk Ltd.
All other logos and trademarks on this site are property of their respective owner.
Copyright (c) 1997-2012 HobbyTalk Ltd. No use without permission.