233
What Film Are You Surprised Didn't Get A Sequel?
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 10 Dec 2023
233 points (95.0% liked)
Ask Lemmy
27062 readers
2768 users here now
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Please don't post about US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
John Carter of Mars
If I remember correctly Disney lost a lot of money on that movie. I liked it though.
They did it to themselves by barely advertising and dropping the 'of Mars' from the title, both for stupid reasons.
It is explained in the link, but to summarize: The director wanted to name it John Carter of Mars because yes, that it would make more sense to name it after the main character for movie audiences. Then some dumbass Disney exec made them drop the 'of Mars' part because they didn't like the performance of other recent movies with 'Mars' in the name.
The reason dropping 'of Mars' was stupid is because it just made it someone's name which only works with a decent advertising campaign for a straightforward movie like John Wick.
When I hear John Carter I think accountant not martian revolutionary. So dumb.
Maybe they had to, given the barely passing resemblence to the source material.
If I recall correctly it was because of "Mars needs Moms" was such a dumpster fire they were afraid if would stain their movie if it has Mars in the name.
yeah, it was one of those movies that I think was ruined by the advertising. All the adverts at the time tried to make it seems like a star wars rip off, when it wasn't anything like star wars really.
John Carter inspired the inspirations for Star Wars, including Dune. Heck, if they had advertised it as the story that inspired [list of movies] it would have gone a long way in making it clear that it wasn't a ripoff.
Working out the numbers on IMDB, the estimated budget was $250,000,000. Gross worldwide: $284,139,100. Total from these numbers: $34,139,100.
The number(s) that are not represented, is how much Disney spent to market the movie. And since it was supposed to be their latest tentpole movie franchise, they must have spent the same amount they did on production (and perhaps more,) to market it. This means that Disney might have put $500 million or more into the whole project. Then they would have lost $215,860,900 or more.
I can see why it bombed. It’s one of the very few movies I ever turned off before it was over, and I watch a lot of movies. It was just so dull and had no soul. I could not bring myself to care about what was going on. Haven’t thought about it since, until this thread.