For some studios, the $200 million loss projected from the movie John Carter might signal the end or at least a massive shakeup. Though the expensive, special-effects-laden movie may go down as the biggest single flop for Walt Disney Co. (NYSE: DIS), some analysts expect the company to take its lumps without too much fuss -- from a certain context.
The $200 million loss would translate into an operating loss of $80 million to $120 million for the studio for the quarter that will end March 31. This is in spite of the $184 million of revenue the movie has generated since its March 9 premiere.
The movie is based on the science fiction writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs and was directed by Finding Nemo director Andrew Stanton. Despite that pedigree, John Carter has not brought in the crowds it needs to turn a profit, given its production costs (which some reports put at more than $250 million) and marketing campaign.
Michael Corty, an analyst with Morningstar, said that even though the news is unfortunate, the diversity of Disney’s operations helps to mitigate some of the pain. “Movies have become a small part of the overall cash flow for the company.” Cable television networks such as ESPN and sales at amusement parks generate nearly three-quarters of Disney’s revenue.
Though the tremendous loss is making headlines, it has not changed his valuation of the company. Corty considered Disney a buy when its shares traded in the low $30s. “Now it is up to [about] $45, which is close to what I think it’s worth.”
Regardless of its heavy use of computer-generated effects, John Carter was outside Disney’s usual fare, he said. “The trend for Disney has been to go with animated and brand-building films. Obviously, this wasn’t one of those.” In recent years, Disney has been known more for movies such WALL-E or Cars from its Pixar Animation Studios. “The core competitive advantage for Disney films is through its animated features.”
John Carter might drive Disney to become choosier about spending money on non-animated movies. “I think this will make them more cautious on those films, but I don’t think it will necessarily hurt them.”
With the increased financial risk in the market, studios in general are being more selective about how many movies they produce annually, he said. And poorly performing movies cannot expect to recoup their losses through DVD and Blu-ray sales, as they might have in previous years. “People still buy DVDs, but it has to be a really popular film. In the past, a movie would still sell a couple of million DVDs.”
Though John Carter dampened its quarter, Disney has given no indication of retreat from the live-action market. It plans to distribute the superhero team-up movie The Avengers (due in May) and other features from Marvel Studios.
That does not mean the House That Mickey Built is nonchalant about losing money at the box office. “The goal for all studios is to come up with hit movies you can create a franchise with,” Corty said.
Odds are John Carter is not going to be one of them.
I had seen a lot of adds for John Carter, but non of them really gave me any insight into what the movie was about. I wonder if others felt the same way. if so that might have been what lead to its low sales.
I guess many of us couldn't figure out what this movie is about. It may be a good movie, but the advertising was absolutely awful. Instead of firing someone, maybe Disney should learn a lesson from this.
I could not agree more, if the advertising had been able to make me relate to the story and given me an idea of what the plot was then I might have gone to see it, and so would a lot of others.
It is difficult to engage today's audience with a much older science fiction story that is not widely known.
Disney attempted to connect this movie, at least in spirit, to money makers such as Avatar and the Star Wars franchise. The ads called Burroughs's story the inspiration for such later works . . . but never really let you in on what's at stake for the characters.
I have not seen the John Carter movie but a copy of The Martian Tales Trilogy, the first three books of this series, resides on my bookshelf. The original story was first published 100 years ago.
I imagine the movie studio banked heavily on the notion that there is a wealth of material to build a new movie franchise around but unfortunately John Carter does not have the same name recognition as say . . . The Lord of the Rings.
And mixed reviews for a movie with a huge budget tells the audience that this was a bloated, unsatisfying effort.
I realize that the name of the movie was based on a pre-existing fictional character but all I can think of when I hear the name John Carter is Noah Wylie's young doctor character from ER! I know that brands me firmly in the demographic that the movie was NOT trying to attract, but I still think it's a crummy title.
Snakes on a Plane was a world-class horrendous movie but its name immediately elevated it to cult status and it didn't matter. Then it became cult-bad.
Movie marketing is an overlooked art form. To @Tenacious's point, there are so many narcissistic actors/directors/producers that sometimes the marketers don't get the last word. This'll teach 'em!
Sometimes movies get made without any coherent regard for the source material.
For example, the writers who handled the script for the movie Starship Troopers, another big budget flop, did not know the story was supposed to be based on the book by Robert Heinlein. Apparently the movie's director got bored with the book after the first chapters, stopped reading, and then got "creative".
Some studios buy the rights to existing material just so they can use the names for completely unrelated projects they already had underway.
They slap on a brand name and figure people will want to see it anyway.
Starship Troopers was a box-office bust, perhaps, but it is now a cult classic and has spawned direct-to-DVD sequels. The first is disgusting and idiotic but extremely entertaining if you're into that...and stars a young-adult Neil Patrick Harris. From what I've heard about the director, he might have gotten bored by the book, but he also had political disagreement with his original subject material. The book's author leaned toward the right, even fascism, while the movie is a send-up of the neo-fascist society that exists on the futuristic earth.
If Disney had included Mars in the title, it would at least have given me a clue. "John Carter" is so bland it could be about any man in any century doing almost anything.
"Some studios buy the rights to existing material just so they can use the names for completely unrelated projects they already had underway.
They slap on a brand name and figure people will want to see it anyway."
I completely agree with what you said. While it's not as prevalent as it may seem (just my opinion...an opinion borne out of desperation haha), there are a lot of cases of movies taking the source material and just going crazy. Look at the horrible movies that are based on video games (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Doom...I need to stop listing these kinds of movies for fear of becoming ill haha)...
Do you guys have some other good examples of movies that absolutely destroyed the source material?
The updated version of "The Day the Earth Stood Still," wasn't released - it escaped.
Nice f/x , big names like keanu reeves. But the film was dreadful. Several times I remarked I was watching a totally different film with a classic title stamped on to attract viewers.
"I guess many of us couldn't figure out what this movie is about. It may be a good movie, but the advertising was absolutely awful. "
@tokyo, you raise a great point (as usual). It seems to me that part of the problem with this movie is that Disney wasn't sure who it is meant for. The movie carries a PG13 rating (which seems weird given that it's Disney) so they're already removing the vast majority of moviegoers that make up their demographic (namely families with small children).
I have no idea what so ever about who John Cater is, then again I'm not in the US so I have not seen any of the advertisements. Was it released around the world? I've seen many of the other films released such as Tin Tin, Smurfs and Alice in Wonderland. There were many advertisements for those films and we already knew the characters.
The marketing budget must have been huge - I even saw ads on city buses - yet it was only 2nd place on it's opening weekend. So the whole ad campaign missed the mark somehow.
And the movie itself has, at best, mixed reviews. So it didn't bring in the word-of-mouth traffic.
Just saw the trailer on youtube. It looks like a mixer of "Indiana Jones" and "Star War", no like a traditional animation movies. It does not fit small kids' taste, which favors movies like "car" or "Kungfu Panda".
My college-age son will see any action movie, no matter how bad the reviews are! So, he went to see John Carter and thought it was...drumroll...the turkey of the century! It's rare when he can't find anything redeeming about a movie but this one was apparently pretty darned awful...derivative...long...and worst of all--ho hum special effects.
I wouldn't worry too much about Disney though. I think they'll make up the revenue in global markets although it may take a while!
It is impossible for movie studio to have each major release a blockbuster. If John Carter doesn't do well here, it is hard to say it will do well in global market. This dud will have a short term impact on Disney stock. In the long term, it is not a big issue. I am still long on Disney
This is a case of a narcissistic producer/director indulging his own fantasy at the expense of any realistic return on investment. Really a big waste of money!
You just told my feelings about this movie. Why did it name it like that? Could they come a more interesting name for that movie. Not it will change my feelings too much though.
As others have pointed out, it makes absolutely no sense why Disney would go with such a vanilla title. John Carter sounds like a coming of age drama that takes place in the 50s, not some intergalactic heroic romp.
Having said all that, I came across a really cool youtube clip about Disney's first portrayal of the universe portrayed in John Carter. It's a bit lengthy, but it's a fun watch
"With the increased financial risk in the market, studios in general are being more selective about how many movies they produce annually, he said. And poorly performing movies cannot expect to recoup their losses through DVD and Blu-ray sales, as they might have in previous years. 'People still buy DVDs, but it has to be a really popular film. In the past, a movie would still sell a couple of million DVDs.'"
I found the above quote from the article to be very curious. If we're talking about strict DVD sales, then this makes sense, but otherwise I'm a little confused. Movie sales are movie sales. When you purchase the movie through your PS3, On Demand, iTunes, etc. that money is all filtering into the studio.
This is the whole reason that movies went from seeing DVD release a year or so after theatrical release to about 3 months (max). Studios know that most of the money is in the merchandise and home video market.
The blogs and comments posted on Investor Uprising do not reflect the views of Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, or its sponsors. Investor Uprising, PRNewswire, and its sponsors do not assume responsibility for any comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
To save this item to your list of favorite Investor Uprising content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
If you found this interesting or useful, please use the links to the services below to share it with other readers. You will need a free account with each service to share an item via that service.
Tweet This