JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!!

Follow @empiremagazine

Forum Home

Register for Free!

Log In

Moderator Tickets

FAQ

Users Online

JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!!

Logged in as: Guest

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Movie Musings >> JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!!

Page: [1] 2 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 20/3/2012 8:49:41 PM

Sutty

Posts: 3541
Joined: 6/6/2006
From: the front row

It is a sad state of a affairs when a movie that makes $200 million in its first two weeks is considered a failure. Much like when Superman Returns ONLY made half a BILLION dollars at the box office, some so called experts said it was a flop. Absolute bollocks in my opinion. And it is a shame because what this attitude will eventualy foster is an outlook whereby unless a movie starts smashing records then it is a failure. Only movies such as Avatar, Titanic (both distinctly average flicks overall but found an audience - particularly Titanic - that could connect with them in very personal ways) and Lord of the Rings will be deemed successes. The more this happens the less likely that new up and coming directors will get their chance at the big movies, because unless it makes a billion bucks the head honcho's will get rid. Sadly, John Carter is unlikely to expand on its already found audience at the cinema and possibly wont be seen by many until dvd now.
There will come a time, and very soon, that only "event" movies or movies with gimmicks such as 3D will get mainstream releases. Middle budget movies will become obsolete, perhaps non existant, and with it originality and new ideas will die. Because lets face it... why take the chance?

_____________________________

"Lord, make me your instrument of peace. Where there is hatred, let me bring love.
Where there is darkness, light."

"When you're pushed, killin's as easy as breathin'"

Post #: 1

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 20/3/2012 9:35:52 PM

Super Hans

Posts: 2291
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: Watford

Where did you get those figures from? I noticed that on IMDB, it's reported as having made about $53 million in two weeks in the US and 2 million in a week here - couldn't see a worldwide figure though. Based on the US gross, it probably is a bit of a flop - didn't it cost $200m+ to make? I know the US box office isn't the be all and end all but it's a pretty good indication.

I'm not sure it's true that only the likes of Titanic, Avatar and LOTR are considered hits - not when bilge like Clash of the Titans makes less than $500m, is largely ridiculed yet is still considered enough of a hit to make a sequel.

EDIT:

Just seen the article on BBC saying it's on course to be the biggest flop of all time (clicky) - not sure that's just unrealistic box office expectations - more like making horrendously expensive shite (or at least, that's what the trailer looked like...) and it's costing them dearly.

< Message edited by Super Hans -- 20/3/2012 9:44:17 PM >

_____________________________

"Its staring at you in the face Mark, there's only one more sex to try..."

(in reply to Sutty)

Post #: 2

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 20/3/2012 9:41:44 PM

Cool Breeze

Posts: 1640
Joined: 9/11/2011
From: The Internet

Its a flop cos despite making 200 mill, it needs to make at least twice its production budget of 250 mill to start making profit.So far, that looks unlikely.

_____________________________

'' Sir Godfrey, on a mission, i AM expected to sacrifice myself ! ''

(in reply to Super Hans)

Post #: 3

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 10:42:40 AM

st3veebee

Posts: 2354
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive

Huge article in todays Metro about it being "the worst flop of all time". Apparently, with merchandising, the cost was something like 350+ million: and as we all know you apparently need twice that in box office just to break even. Boxofficemojo.com has a take of 180 million from the 19th. It will lose money....but worst flop ever??

I smelled a nosedive the second I saw the trailer a few months ago. Sad thing is, its really not bad at all. I honestly prefered it to Avatar, but that got its advertising right...

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to Cool Breeze)

Post #: 4

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 10:53:58 AM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18902
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

It cost at least 250 million before additional costs such as marketing.

It has made 200 million in two weeks (the two weeks when most films make their money back)

A percentage of this will go to cinemas - so while it has made 200 million, this does not mean that Disney have 200 million, and as the weeks go on, the percentage of the cinemas gross of the cinema profits increase so it will make even less for the studio week in and week out. I suspect the number of cinemas it will be screening in will be reduced dramatically when Hunger Games hits.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to st3veebee)

Post #: 5

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 10:55:00 AM

yazoo88

Posts: 30
Joined: 19/3/2012

It is a shame when a when a film is considered a 'flop' due to the money its makes and the number of people who saw it, rather than how well it was received and the number of people who saw it AND liked it!!

Having said that I personally didn't enjoy JC too much : (

(in reply to st3veebee)

Post #: 6

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 11:02:24 AM

shool

Posts: 9612
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

I'm still looking forward to seeing it on DVD.

It might yet become a DVD hit.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to yazoo88)

Post #: 7

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 11:20:22 AM

Olaf

Posts: 23364
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41�N 93�W

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to shool)

Post #: 8

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 11:38:39 AM

jackcarter

Posts: 1713
Joined: 12/1/2006

the knives are out for JC!

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 9

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 11:45:08 AM

The Hooded Man

Posts: 2721
Joined: 12/7/2006

Well if the title of this thread is anything to go by it isn't surprising. You'd expect it to make more than 200 measly dollars.

_____________________________

Counting the minutes until the over zealous mods lock this thread too.

(in reply to jackcarter)

Post #: 10

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 12:49:01 PM

Discodez

Posts: 777
Joined: 2/9/2010

I was surprised to see that Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds, especially when the trailers make it look like a second rate mixture of Avatar and Attack of the Clones.

(in reply to The Hooded Man)

Post #: 11

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:31:46 PM

spark1

Posts: 5790
Joined: 18/11/2006

doing twice your budget back domestically used to be the yardstick but few recent blockbusters actually do that.
most need overseas grosses to break even.

(in reply to Discodez)

Post #: 12

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:45:37 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7671
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

It hasn't though, last years Mars Needs Moms was a box office disaster easily on the scale of those two you mention!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 13

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:46:47 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7671
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

I was surprised to see that�Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds, especially when the trailers make it look like a second rate mixture of Avatar and Attack of the Clones.

You mean like Avatar? Sam Worthington was an unknown, Avatar is the most successful movie of ALL TIME

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to Discodez)

Post #: 14

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:49:55 PM

st3veebee

Posts: 2354
Joined: 3/9/2006
From: 9303 Lyon Drive

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

I was surprised to see that Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds, especially when the trailers make it look like a second rate mixture of Avatar and Attack of the Clones.

You mean like Avatar? Sam Worthington was an unknown, Avatar is the most successful movie of ALL TIME

True, but Avatar had James Cameron above it: the helmer of the other biggest film of all time

.

Tayloer Kitsch is also a boatload better than Sam Worthington. Not saying much I guess...

_____________________________

Latest Films:

Two days in New York: 4/5

Prometheus: 3.5/5

Abe Lincoln: VH 3/5

Twin Peaks: FWWM 3.5/5

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 15

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:54:51 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7671
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

I was surprised to see that�Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds, especially when the trailers make it look like a second rate mixture of Avatar and Attack of the Clones.

You mean like Avatar? Sam Worthington was an unknown, Avatar is the most successful movie of ALL TIME

True, but Avatar had James Cameron above it: the helmer of the other biggest film of all time .

Tayloer Kitsch is also a boatload better than Sam Worthington. Not saying much I guess...

Yes but you were referring to the actor, as you said

"I was surprised to see that Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds"

I think the day of the big draw star is no more, unknowns can do very well in big films as people seem more interested in the movie than the star these days.

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to st3veebee)

Post #: 16

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 1:55:38 PM

DONOVAN KURTWOOD

Posts: 7671
Joined: 6/10/2005
From: PLANET G

and yes, Taylor Kitsch is way better than Worthington!

_____________________________

Pack your bags, we're going on a guilt trip!

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 17

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 2:54:07 PM

Olaf

Posts: 23364
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41�N 93�W

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

It hasn't though, last years Mars Needs Moms was a box office disaster easily on the scale of those two you mention!

This is true, but expensive animated movies just aren't the same. I just need the occasional bloated hubristic space opera box-office flop in my life, and John Carter fits that bill.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 18

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 2:59:49 PM

Discodez

Posts: 777
Joined: 2/9/2010

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: st3veebee

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Discodez

I was surprised to see that Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds, especially when the trailers make it look like a second rate mixture of Avatar and Attack of the Clones.

You mean like Avatar? Sam Worthington was an unknown, Avatar is the most successful movie of ALL TIME

True, but Avatar had James Cameron above it: the helmer of the other biggest film of all time .

Tayloer Kitsch is also a boatload better than Sam Worthington. Not saying much I guess...

Yes but you were referring to the actor, as you said

"I was surprised to see that Disney spent so much money on a film and then put a newcomer in the tiltle role. Surely a film of this size needed a big name above the title to help pull in the crowds"

I think the day of the big draw star is no more, unknowns can do very well in big films as people seem more interested in the movie than the star these days.

Actually it was me that mentioned the star, and I stand by the point.

As Steve pointed out Avatar (and the other comaprison I mentioned, attack of the clones) had a massive directorial legacy on which to promote, therefore they could afford to have an unkown in the pivotal/starring roles. Those films also had stellar supporting casts, unlike John Carter whose biggest name I can see is Willem Defoe and all he's done is provide a voice. Avatar and AOTC also had years of promotion and anitcipation ahead of the release, something John Carter never had, with no legacy on which to draw (either for the film itself or it's source material really) and with trailers and a lacklustre promotion that make it look a bit like a lame ripoff, it was always going to struggle without a major name above the title.

(in reply to DONOVAN KURTWOOD)

Post #: 19

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:05:38 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18902
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

This is truely our Chronicles of Riddick.

Wait...

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 20

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:11:33 PM

directorscut

Posts: 9864
Joined: 30/9/2005

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

It hasn't though, last years Mars Needs Moms was a box office disaster easily on the scale of those two you mention!

This is true, but expensive animated movies just aren't the same. I just need the occasional bloated hubristic space opera box-office flop in my life, and John Carter fits that bill.

Green Lantern and Hugo both bombed harder than Cutthroat Island.

_____________________________

Member of the TMNT 1000 Club.

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 21

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:23:36 PM

porntrooper

Posts: 2497
Joined: 6/9/2006
From: Sheffield

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

It hasn't though, last years Mars Needs Moms was a box office disaster easily on the scale of those two you mention!

This is true, but expensive animated movies just aren't the same. I just need the occasional bloated hubristic space opera box-office flop in my life, and John Carter fits that bill.

Green Lantern and Hugo both bombed harder than Cutthroat Island.

Didn't Tintin also bomb pretty hard?? ANyone wanna confirm, I cant be arsed to go to Box Office Mojo for the stats.....

_____________________________

"I've got an idea for a special infiltration technique. It involves draining a man of his blood and replacing it with Tizer."

(in reply to directorscut)

Post #: 22

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:26:58 PM

shool

Posts: 9612
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

Personally I'm quite amused by this. What with all mediocre blockbusters always breaking even on DVD/merchandise etc, it's been a long time since a good old-fashioned Cutthroat Island/Battlefield Earth style disaster. If studios keep allowing ludicrous budgets (did they really expect to make $500-700m on this film??) then it'll require bombs like this to make them reconsider, really.

It hasn't though, last years Mars Needs Moms was a box office disaster easily on the scale of those two you mention!

This is true, but expensive animated movies just aren't the same. I just need the occasional bloated hubristic space opera box-office flop in my life, and John Carter fits that bill.

Green Lantern and Hugo both bombed harder than Cutthroat Island.

Didn't Tintin also bomb pretty hard?? ANyone wanna confirm, I cant be arsed to go to Box Office Mojo for the stats.....

$373 mil

No idea what it cost though.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 23

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:28:26 PM

Mojo

Posts: 6044
Joined: 30/9/2005
From: The CIC, next to the old man.

Domestically Tintin made under 80 million but worldwide it nearly made 400 million. With a budget of $135 million I don't think it was a flop (although I really don't know much about how it all works), just not as succesful as hoped.

Edit: Not sure what the marketing budget was, but considering Tintin was fairly unknown in the States I'd wager they spend quite a bit on it.

< Message edited by Mojo -- 21/3/2012 3:29:56 PM >

_____________________________

Let's shove a stick up that wolf's ass.

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 24

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:33:46 PM

Olaf

Posts: 23364
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41�N 93�W

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

This is truely our Chronicles of Riddick.

Wait...

That was eight years ago. You old son.

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to Rgirvan44)

Post #: 25

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:35:27 PM

shool

Posts: 9612
Joined: 24/3/2006
From: In The Pipe, Five by Five.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Olaf

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

This is truely our Chronicles of Riddick.

Wait...

That was eight years ago. You old son.

8 years ago I was still older than you are now Olaf.

_____________________________

Invisio Text for Spoilers
[ color=#F1F1F1 ] Spoiler text [ /color ] , remove spaces between square brackets

"No one knows what it means, but it's provocative... It gets the people going!"

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 26

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:37:59 PM

Olaf

Posts: 23364
Joined: 26/2/2007
From: 41�N 93�W

Don't worry, the passage of time is inexorable. I may laugh now, but you'll be able to laugh when I'm a humbled old man.*

(*you'll probably be too old to laugh, mind.)

_____________________________

I tried to groan, Help! Help! But the tone that came out was that of polite conversation.

Empire Top 100 Albums Poll 2013: CLICK HERE

(in reply to shool)

Post #: 27

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:44:18 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18902
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

Of course CoR IS getting a sequel. So screw the ha8ters.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to Olaf)

Post #: 28

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:50:04 PM

Spaldron

Posts: 10487
Joined: 6/10/2006
From: Chair

quote:

ORIGINAL: porntrooper

quote:

ORIGINAL: directorscut

Green Lantern and Hugo both bombed harder than Cutthroat Island.

Didn't Tintin also bomb pretty hard?? ANyone wanna confirm, I cant be arsed to go to Box Office Mojo for the stats.....

I think the difference is in public perception, Hugo and Tintin were both great films, received well critically with well respected directors behind them. JC wasn't so people feel justified when they sharpen their knives.

_____________________________

And I heard a voice in the midst of the four beasts
And I looked and behold, a pale horse
And his name that sat on him was Death
And Hell followed with him.

(in reply to porntrooper)

Post #: 29

RE: JC rakes in $200 in first 2 weeks? Flop!! - 21/3/2012 3:57:31 PM

Rgirvan44

Posts: 18902
Joined: 10/3/2006
From: Punishment Park

Tintin was designed with an international box office in mind - in a reversal of the usual way things are done - the US box office was the bonus.

Hugo was a flop, but likely one of those movies that will be loved by future generations. It has a value as a catalogue title.

_____________________________

It is a far, far better thing that I do, than I have ever done; it is a far, far better rest that I go to, than I have ever known.

(in reply to Spaldron)

Post #: 30