>The Hollywood Reporter estimated that the film cost $330 million to produce and market, and noted that the financial losses by Disney finished anywhere between $120 to $140 million.[60] According to them, Tomorrowland is the third big-budget original film of 2015 to underperform, following Jupiter Ascending and Seventh Son.[61]
>In the week following the John Carter's domestic release, movie industry analysts predicted that Disney would lose $100-to-150 million on the picture.[91]
>In September 2014, studio president Alan Bergman was asked at a conference if Disney had been able to partially recoup its losses on The Lone Ranger and John Carter through subsequent release windows or other monetization methods, and he responded: "I'm going to answer that question honestly and tell you no, it didn't get that much better. We did lose that much money on those movies."[78]
What is going wrong, /tv/? Those 4 flicks deserved better. While not perfect, they werefun(without being mindless) and clearly showed filmmakers with their own visions trying to do something different from capeshit, remakes and sequels. John Carter was without a doubt a much better and more original space opera blockbuster than TFA.
Do audiences just hate new things after having been brainwashed for so long? Or are studios self-sabotaging on purpose with awful marketing?
John Carter was one of those films that, if you'd seen it as a kid, you would've spent the next three years fanboying over.
>>64725995
Lone ranger was decent, just half an hour too long.
I liked John Carter. It was, as you day, fun.
Jupiter Ascending was complete and utter shit.
>>64726233
I agree with this.
The climax on the train was great, and I even liked some of Depp's performance.
>>64725995
The problem with Jupiter ascending was terrible editing choices.
The story is broken up too harshly and too many unfinished sideplots. They needed to either condense it and cut some of the side shit, or include bridging material which would have made the movie longer.
>>64725995
I enjoyed John Carter a lot and I don't really understand why it wasn't a success.
>>64725995
If you like Sci-fi, John Carter was a solid 7/10,8/10.
It was very well made, hell it was just as good as TFA in regards to a family friendly sic-fi flick. What went wrong?
>>64725995
None of them are sequels or adaptations of already suoer-popular books/comics. Moviegoers are pretty much as unadventurous as they've ever been. They need to KNOW they already like the movie before seeing it.
>>64726976
It was almost as if Disney were ashamed of it, like they weren't sure what to do with it.
>>64727052
>The film's perceived failure led to the resignation of Rich Ross, the head of Walt Disney Studios, even though Ross had arrived there from his earlier success at the Disney Channel with John Carter already in development.[95] Ross theoretically could have stopped production on John Carter as he did with a planned remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or minimized the budget as he did to The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp.[96] Instead, Stanton was given the production budget requested for John Carter, backed with an estimated $100 million marketing campaign that is typical for a tentpole movie but without significant merchandising or other ancillary tie-ins.[48] It was reported that Ross later sought to blame Pixar for John Carter, which prompted key Pixar executives to turn against Ross who already had alienated many within the studio.[97]
>>64727052
Hence the name.
Should have at least been John Carter Of Mars.
Tomorrowland's only redeeming quality was Athena.
>>64725995
>Do audiences just hate new things after having been brainwashed for so long?
Nobodies old enough to have watched Lone Ranger in reruns.
John Carter (the books) have been ripped off so much it's old hat now.
>3 out of 4 of them were Disney flops
>>64725995
the studios only have themselves to blame for seventh son, it finished shooting in like 2012 and they just fucked around with it for years
>Just call me Jupe
literally dialogue in that piece of shit movie. not even joking senpai
>>64726096
this tbhfam
it was pretty neat.
>>64727169
>>64727052
The erosion that lead to the title "John Carter" is pretty pathetic. They should have swung in the other direction, Lucas and Spielberg style, and called it "John Carter and the Princess of Mars"
>>64725995
People don't want original. They want the same old shit
>no Tron 3 because of Tomorrowland
Fucking Lindelof does it again. When is Hollywood going to blacklist this fucker?
>>64725995
I haven't seen any of these 4 movies because the trailers looked like shit desu.
>>64726976
>What went wrong?
The title and marketing.
>>64727376
That movie was a comedic masterpiece
>I CREATE LIFE
>andidestroyit...
>>64727048
yep
>>64725995
The marketing for all of them was shit; Lone Ranger relied on people knowing the old ass tv show, John Carter dropped the "of Mars" which made it sound like a biopic or something that wasn't sci-fi/action movie, Tomorrowland had the most bafflingly unclear trailers outside of a french indie movie I've ever seen, and i didnt hear about Jupiter ascending until someone told me the movie had the line "Bees can sense royalty".
>>64727169
Disney was trying to avoid the "mars" curse.
>>64725995
John Carter is a totally fine movie.
People hate it because they're bandwagoners.
>>64727840
The most bullshit curse of all. Unless that "the" curse I've heard about is actually true, I'd just assumed it was a joke based on other stupid hollywood curses.
>>64725995
Lone Ranger was a fun movie
John Carter was terribly directed.
Jupiter Ascending was absolute trash, with about 5 interesting watchable minutes.
Didn't see Tomorrowland.
>>64727966
Mars Needs Moms had come out earlier (also Disney), so it makes sense to me.
>>64726799
Audiences probably though it was another generic scifi cgi fest. Also the name John Carter alone doesn't scream a blockbuster.
I haven't seen the movie yet but I know the artist Frank Frazetta had done some iconic paintings based on the book. Would you say the feel of movie was like this?
>>64725995
john carter was okay
don't know about tomorrowland
lone ranger and jupiter ascending were kinda shit
>>64728542
Not at all. I was hoping it was gonna be like that, but it looked like total shit, the production design was terrible
>>64725995
I genuinely thought Tomorrowland was in some way related to the music festival of the same name.
>>64725995
Saw the lone ranger today. i have no idea what they were thinking. the whole movie was boring and lacked style. nothing was funny, no memorable characters, nothing. i didn't even expect anything and i was still disappointed.
>>64728542
>>64728542
Not exactly but it pays tribute to them during the set pieces, I think. Frazetta's style is dark and aggressive. Princess is not as sexual, violence is toned down. Although it's still somewhat brutal for a Disney blockbuster, there's an arena fight that ends with a monster being gutted and Carter is covered in blood... it's something you'd see in an iconic Frazetta drawing... except it's played out comedically somehow.
Then there's one scene that's particularly memorable, which uses Frazetta-like iconography (Carter fighting off hundreds as a last stand sacrifice) but instead of focusing on the fight itself to make Carter looks badass, Stanton turns it into a sad and emotional character moment with thematic meaning and removes all sounds of slashing and gutting. What could have been a scene of brutal savagery is instead very poignant, completely silent except for an amazing Giacchino score.
You can tell the movie was done with passion.
>>64725995
>they were fun
putting spoilers doesn't make this statement anymore right, seriously fuck off
>>64727179
The tbqh pham and I ain't no pedo like the rest of /tv/
Lone Ranger and John Carter were both good.
Jupiter Ascending was shit.
Haven't seen Tomorrowland.
>>64725995
Jupiter Ascending is laughably awful. If it were made 70 years ago it would be the best Mystery Science Theater 3000 episode ever made. Not to say there weren't stunning visuals and some neat concepts but it was beyond dumb. The ending is possibly the stupidest ending I've ever seen in a movie.
John Carter was the only decent film out of the four.
Tomorrowland is a close second, but the weak second half is what kills the movie.
>>64725995
I liked John Carter
then again I liked Return of the Jedi and they're basically the same movie
>>64725995
The Lone Ranger and John Carter are decent, the other two deserved exactly what they got.
>>64725995
We've gotten used to the "epic" scifi visuals mate.
I walked out on Tommorowland. It was so unbelievably boring.
>>64732679
RIFFTRAX WHEN
>>64732679
>Mystery Science Theater 3000
Not a single one of those flicks were good, all of them were total garbage, mostly Jupiter Ascending, Tomorrowland at least had good ambition and a good point
