JOHN CARTER Has Earned It's Budget, Still Not Profitable But Trending In The Right Direction

JOHN CARTER Has Earned It's Budget, Still Not Profitable But Trending In The Right Direction

The reputable Forbes gives some optimism to all the John Carter faithful in it's latest report which says that the film will probably turn a profit....eventually.

BoxOfficeMojo reported recently that John Carter has earned $254.5 million at the box office. That's a smidgen over its $250 million dollar production budget but Forbes acknowledges that the cost of marketing has to be accounted for [it's rumored John Carter spent $100 million on marketing, giving it a cumulative budget of $350 million]. John Carter has earned a mere $66 million domestically but has earned $188 million internationally, with the film still to open in Japan later this month, several more millions are likely to be added to the film's gross.

Recently it was reported that John Carter would put Disney in the hole by $200 Million for their second fiscal quarter. The key part of that sentence being "second fiscal quarter". The film will surely go on to earn more money in Disney's third and fourth quarters and it's possible that the film could eventually turn a small profit. According to Amazon, pre-orders for the John Carter blu-ray are #1 in Science-Fiction, #2 in Action & Adventure and Fantasy and #13 overall. Forbes goes on to point out that Waterworld (1995), the film Hollywood will always view as a massive failure, with it's then colossal budget of $175 million and measly $88 million domestic earnings, actually earned $264 million when international and VHS and DVD sales figures are factored in. A similar fate could be in store for John Carter.

Running Time: 2 hours and 3 minutes
Release Date: 9 March 2012 (USA)
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action
Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Mark Strong, Ciarán Hinds, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Thomas Haden Church and Willem Dafoe
Directed By:Andrew Stanton
Written by: Andrew Stanton (screenplay), Mark Andrews (screenplay, )Michael Chabon (screenplay) and Edgar Rice Burroughs (story "A Princess of Mars")

John Carter is a 2012 Disney-made epic science fiction film featuring John Carter, the heroic protagonist of Edgar Rice Burroughs' 11-volume Barsoom series. The film marks the centennial of the character's first appearance in 1912.

Former Confederate captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) is mysteriously transported to Mars ("Barsoom") where he becomes part of a conflict between the various nations of the planet, whose leaders include Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). Carter takes it upon himself to save Barsoom and its people.

The film is the live-action debut of director/writer Andrew Stanton and is co-written by Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon. It is produced by Jim Morris, Colin Wilson, and Lindsey Collins, and scored by Michael Giacchino.

The film is being distributed by Walt Disney Pictures and will be released in the United States on March 9, 2012. Filming began in November 2009 and principal photography spanned from January 2010 to July 2010. This project marks the first time that Andrew Stanton has worked on a live-action film, as his previous work includes the Pixar animated films Finding Nemo and WALL-E. The film will be released in Digital 3D and IMAX 3D formats.

Posted By:
Mark Julian
Member Since 6/8/2011
Filed Under "John Carter of Mars" 4/3/2012 Source: Forbes
DISCLAIMER: is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]
1 2
goldenavenger77 - 4/3/2012, 11:28 AM
Good to hear.
TheAmazingSpiderMan47 - 4/3/2012, 11:29 AM
THIS IS MADNESS ... THIS IS an example of historical bias
2gold - 4/3/2012, 11:33 AM
Thank goodness for the international market.
ThaMessenger07 - 4/3/2012, 11:35 AM
Not like the Old Day hugh Gus? Like when you had to wait till they put it back in the Cinema! Or even further back, when you had to wait for an Apostle to come to town and read the Dead Scrolls to ya.....
drfate - 4/3/2012, 11:35 AM
gimme my damn John Carter 2! (and give it a cooler title next time, fa cryin' out loud)

and THEN I wan't my damn Conan 2!! Mamoa was totally the best guy for the role and I wanna see him kick more ass!
ninjaturtle11 - 4/3/2012, 11:39 AM
it was horrible glad i didnt see it lol
Rothwilder - 4/3/2012, 11:42 AM
Lynn Collins has the perfect build for Wonder Woman. She was looking STRONG yet beautiful
Fabius - 4/3/2012, 11:43 AM
Disney can thanKs U to me, I saw this movie three times...So bit.
2gold - 4/3/2012, 11:44 AM
If Conan 2 happens, it better have a better script and a MUCH better director. That film was so poorly handled. Stephen Lang is a great actor but he was terrible in that. Momoa was great but half the time you could not figure out where the characters were in relation to each other or what was going on in the fight scenes. And that carriage chase scene where Conan would be even with a rider and then in the next shot, he's about 100 yards back out of NOWHERE. Both of these films suffered from director issues. Nipsel was just HORRIBLE as the director of Conan and Stanton was a little TOO in love with the character to realize he was screwing up the promotion.
BruceLeroy - 4/3/2012, 11:45 AM
GreyChaos13Zero - 4/3/2012, 11:47 AM
it still gots Blu-Ray/DVD sales coming at it also, great news?)
JackBauer - 4/3/2012, 12:02 PM
I'm glad they're being somewhat positive about the movie's earnings, but they also have to consider the theaters' piece of the pie.
headlopper - 4/3/2012, 12:09 PM
Movie is worthy. A solid bit of film-making with a classic story! I really enjoyed it! I hope it makes ga-zillions...
ralfinader - 4/3/2012, 12:16 PM
I'll buy it in DVD. Hard to believe they dropped that much in advertising and failed to get across the legacy of the movie they were trying to sell. Wonder what was different in the foriegn marketing to get such a better turnout.

Problem with the Conan movie was crap direction. Mamoa made a good Conan, but the lack of a good script, and good director weigh down Conan the longer it runs. As it stands, the beginning of that movie was good, then it falls apart, maybe something as simple as a more thorough editing session could have made the flow seem less amateurish. I own the damn thing and have yet to be able to sit through that flick. I expect another Conan movie eventually, just not a sequel to that last one.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 12:34 PM
50% of that $254 million earned at the box-office will be taken by the cinemas so JC has not yet broken-even for Disney. It will need to earn $700 million to break-even, still without any profit; Disney were hoping for a$8-900 million take-in.

That's why no one makes films that cost $350 million.
rsahadi - 4/3/2012, 12:34 PM
The movie hasn't even been out that long and hasn't even debuted everywhere. It just started showing in China and raked in several more million and it will be hitting Japan soon. The media saw the big price tag on this movie and wanted to strike it down way before it had a chance to succeed.
superotherside - 4/3/2012, 12:38 PM
Hope it makes a bit more than that, so that Disney will do a sequel! :) Crossed fingers!
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 12:39 PM
There's no chance of Disney ever making its money back on JC especially as the global economy continues to contract over the next decade or two and deflation really kicks in, there'll be less 'real' money in the system. It's not like back in the 80's as prices inflated and $25 million films made their money back over the course of time.
JohnnyKrypton - 4/3/2012, 12:40 PM
Well, it's already made more than Green Lantern...take that as you will...
headlopper - 4/3/2012, 1:01 PM
@INSTANTJUSTICE - Valid points, but there's one exception -actually TWO exceptions to a crappy economy:
Booze sales and box office ticket sales.

This statistic never changes...even during the Great Depression these two industries remained profitable.

It the 'escapism' factor.
Ancar - 4/3/2012, 1:11 PM
This movie will surprise yet, just wait and you will see. The international box office will break the count!!!
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:12 PM
It's a different situation now, people didn't spend $350 million dollars -or the equivalent- making films back then and we're heading into a longer depression so films that cost this much NOW, won't make their money back, especially when the studio that made it bad mouths it to save money on its price share.

Despite what the heading of this article says, it's wrong, JC has yet to earn its budget.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:13 PM
It's a downward spiral for JC, bad timing going into an economic slide.
GUNSMITH - 4/3/2012, 1:18 PM
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:20 PM

Unfortunately, or fortunately, JC can never make its budget back.

The film cost $350 million

Cinemas take 50% of box-office Earnings

Therefore JC needs to take in $700 million to break-even

No film that is termed a flop has ever cost or taken in that amount over the course of its shelf-life.

INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:25 PM
Even fIlms that do manage to break-even don't get sequels.

Tron -though not quite the success Disney expected- cost $170 million, it earned $400 million, it made a small profit therefore they may still go ahead with sequels, maybe, though they will be much smaller in budget if they do.
MarkJulian - 4/3/2012, 1:30 PM
@INSTANTJUSTICE Incorrect. Cinemas get a percentage of the films revenue after the second week of release.
95 - 4/3/2012, 1:35 PM
That poster is awesome. Who made it??

MarkJulian - 4/3/2012, 1:41 PM
@INSTANTJUSTICE Also, films make revenue from Video/DVD rental, Video/DVD retail (or sell-through), Pay per View Television, Subscription or Pay Television and Free Television. So if you want to be as thorough as you're trying to be present all the facts. What you're doing is called Hollywood Accounting and is a method studios use to keep from paying royalties to involved parties.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:41 PM

I'm not incorrect, I just haven't gone into the details of the first week. You didn't give any percentages which really matters when its in the 50s and 60s.

In the first week studios take 65%-80% of profits, after that it can then go down to 50%-60% split with the cinemas. If the film is a huge success in the first week the studio will continue to take 80% for another few weeks before it goes down.

In the case of 'flops' like John Carter a 50/50 split occurs as soon as possible so the cinemas can be encouraged to keep the film in the cinema, this is the case with JC.
INSTANTJUSTICE - 4/3/2012, 1:43 PM

Doesn't matter John Carter ain't gonna make $700 million, to break-even, via an accumulation of box-office, PPV or Blu-Ray sales either.
REDSTORM - 4/3/2012, 1:45 PM
There's a typo in the title. "It's" means "it is". "Its" shows possession.
BmanHall - 4/3/2012, 1:48 PM
@ ninjaturtle11: You didn't see it, yet you know it was horrible...
TheMyth - 4/3/2012, 1:55 PM
ninjaturtle11, then how do you know it was horrible? [frick]in' dumbass people...

Ralfinader, I'd say it did so well in foreign markets because they actually still read books and appreciate classics in other countries. Here in America, sorry to say, most people under the age of 20 are just stupid as [frick] and self absorbed. I was in class last week and this girl in my class didn't know people washed dishes by hand... she grew up thinking everyone in the world has a dish-washing machine. Young Americans are just mind-numbingly dumb I've discovered in my return to University at age 30. This is what I attribute to the lack of appreciation for original ideas, and the lack of original thought in general.

My God! 100 mil in marketing! Where the [frick] did it go! I think they're trying to commit fraud personally, and should be made to eat their loss for such piss poor marketing and for bad-mouthing it while it was still in its opening week.
thunderforce - 4/3/2012, 2:00 PM
Fantastic movie . As far as Sci-Fi fantasy swashbuckling adventure it is right up there with Star Wars and Avatar , and as the years go by it will only be loved more and more and eventually it will get the accolades it deserves and maybe even a sequel or two .
vtopa - 4/3/2012, 2:24 PM
Such a shame that a bunch of haters trashed this flick as a flop before it was even through its first week-end. Pathetic really. I'm glad its going to make money and I hope it continues to do so such that the nay-sayers eat a healthy portion of crow.
batfan175 - 4/3/2012, 2:42 PM
To be a profit it still needs to make 500 million overall, which it most likely won't. Sorry, but underperforming by 250 million is not a success and it's gonna be a good example for films that had too much money and not enough imagination and know-how behind them. maybe studios will think twice next time before giving such a huge budget to such a dull film. Think of all the independenta films that could've been made with 250 million dollars...sad day for cinema.
TheMyth - 4/3/2012, 3:20 PM
batfan, you're shitting me right? Independent films blow. Most of them have the worst acting ever done and most of the directors are hipster wannabe's who think their talent is too 'leet for mainstream audiences. Anyone with any sense of taste in movies probably can't count out enough decent indie flics to cover both hands. I doubt you've even seen this movie but whatever, you wouldn't be the first tool to state an opinion on something you know nothing about.

Independent films... pffft
CPBuff22 - 4/3/2012, 3:56 PM
Alright, now lets get this released on dvd & blu-ray so Disney can see some profit. I am amazed they broke even being they have been giving away four free tickets to Disney Movie Reward members.
Kyos - 4/3/2012, 3:59 PM
"Who on earth did they pay 100 million in marketing to? That was the worst marketed movie ever."


Really liked the movie, I'll definitely get the blu-ray.
1 2

Please log in to post comments.

Don't have an account?
Please Register.