So can someone please take it off this list List of biggest box-office bombs - Wikipedia until its theatrical run is finished.
No movie should be on that list until its theatrical run is finished.
Why not put the Hunger games down there-its budget was around $100 million and it has only made $68 million so far!
I have been following the news on John Carter. All the news agencies are just loving running box office flop - John Carter stories. But it has made 180 million in 2 weeks. That is huge. The only thing making it a flop is the huge Production Budget. I do not think marketing should be included in that total. If we are conservative we can say it cost around 200 million and has so far made $180 million. It will not make a huge profit , but I think it will break even overall.
There’s no reason it shouldn’t be there at the rate it’s going.
Keep in mind that about half of a movie’s box office gross goes to the theater, not the studio. If John Carter cost $200 million to make and it’s bought in $180 million at the box office, the studio isn’t about to break even- it’s $110 million in the red. Since the movie has been out for a few weeks now, ticket sales are slowing down and I assume the studio has a fair idea of how much more they will make during the rest of its theatrical run.
Walt Disney Co. just took a $200 million writedown on John Carter for the first quarter. That doesn’t include whatever box office money they’ll get in the second quarter and then from DVD sales, but obviously they are not expecting a whole lot. It’s a big loss no matter what you do with the numbers.
This becomes true as the movie continues to play, but is not even close for the first week.
On opening weekend, the split is more like 90/10 in favor of the studio. During the early run of a movie, the only profit the theater is making is from overpriced popcorn and soda.
Disney themselves are reporting it as a huge flop, and expect to lose $200 million on it. Bear in mind, cinemas have reduced the number of screens it’s showing on now based on the business it’s been doing, so it’s too late to really turn it around much.
And after my mortgage payment, I don’t think I should have to include electricity, water and gas in my monthly budget, but sadly I did indeed have to pay those, as they are called expenditures.
Marketing can easily eat up a film budget and profits. Without it, you wouldn’t get bodies in the theater.
The actual cost of just film production doesn’t come anywhere near covering the cost of breaking even on a film. As another example, there is the cost of printing all those films for every screen in every multiplex (last I remember, it costs about $10,000+ per copy of each film!) Multiply that by 4,000 screens! Don’t forget to add shipping costs for those copies as well.
This is why a film that “only cost” $100 million can be a financial flop if it brings in $100 million. By the time the accounts include all of those extras, the actual price of getting that film out there probably doubled to $200 million, and that is just to break even.
The movie was very expensive to make, and once you added marketing to the costs (even ignoring Hollywood accounting), it’s not likely to make back its costs. It will be a flop (though probably undeservedly so).
However, it’s not worst flop of all times. Last I looked, Disney studios is still in business, whereas Cutthroat Island caused its entire studio (Carolco) to go out of business.l
No, it’s still true. A friend of mine is a manager at Harkin’s. The split is almost exactly 90/10, actually. But when they pay a quarter per popcorn (including price of the bag) but make like six bucks per popcorn, they get that money back pretty easily.
Oops, I stand corrected - just Googled and found this link.
Guess it has gotten much cheaper than back when I worked at the studio. (According to this article, $1500 to $2000 per print.)
Sorry for the misinformation!
Maybe he did. It’s not listed on the Wikipedia page any more.
Just for fun, since all these numbers are going to change.
Hunger Games is listed as $214 million worldwide. John Carter is now at $234 million after three weeks.
The rules of thumb is grosses need to be 2.5 times production budget including marketing for breakeven. It’s a totally silly way to look at it because it ignores the huge money that comes from what are called downstream revenues - DVDs, cable, network, soundtracks, etc. But silly or not, it’s applied consistently. That means Hunger Games needs $875 million worldwide ($250M production + $100M marketing times 2.5). That would be 25th all time. Hunger Games needs only $445 million ($78M production + $100M marketing times 2.5). Which of these is more likely?
John Carter is a gigantic, legendary bomb. I don’t see how you can argue otherwise.
Some contradiction between them. But they seem to arrive at the same net figures.
Some of the articles I’ve seen saying that Disney is going to take a $200M bath on this film seem to citing a Disney insider.
Such a negative spin coming from inside a studio means one thing: Whoever greenlit this dud is in trouble and the people looking to take his/her place are putting out negative publicity in order to speed the inevitable firing. There may be some overstating of the losses for political reasons, but since Disney doesn’t really seem to be denying it (and denying something that is true gets them in trouble with stockholders), it’s probably true.