The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

by **KingPagla** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:21 pm

Doc Jon wrote:
I hope so, because it's a shame. Sadly, I think the budget was too much for an unproven concept, but the same could be said for Avatar.

It was a good movie and it's too bad it didn't find an audience.

Speaking of Avatar; I wonder If JC would have done better without the 3D release.
People are wise to how crappy the conversions are and shelling out the extra 3D ticket price money on an non-sequel, no star, movie may have been too much to ask.
Around here there just wasn't many screens showing 2D.
I ended up going to a morning / first showing were they would switch over to 3D for the rest of the day.

by **Doc Jon** » Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:54 pm

KingPagla wrote:Speaking of Avatar; I wonder If JC would have done better without the 3D release.
People are wise to how crappy the conversions are and shelling out the extra 3D ticket price money on an non-sequel, no star, movie may have been too much to ask.
Around here there just wasn't many screens showing 2D.
I ended up going to a morning / first showing were they would switch over to 3D for the rest of the day.

I was forced to watch it in 3D and it wasn't bad, but it wasn't worth it.

by **Log-Man** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:17 am

Doc Jon wrote:
Not many films lose 200 million...

That's only because they haven't reached those monster budgets until recently. It's funny, because I honestly don't know where the money went. I liked the movie, too, but I really don't know what the money was spent on, unless the 3D process costs $100 million these days.

by **Doc Jon** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:33 am

Log-Man wrote:
That's only because they haven't reached those monster budgets until recently. It's funny, because I honestly don't know where the money went. I liked the movie, too, but I really don't know what the money was spent on, unless the 3D process costs $100 million these days.

I don't know. Both the world of the 1800's and Mars looked pretty damn good. I felt that's where the money went and I thought they used it effectively. It's just too bad the marketing was abysmal.

by **Rockman** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:07 am

apparently Andrew Stanton was in charge of most of the early marketing.

by **Doc Jon** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:30 am

Rockman wrote:apparently Andrew Stanton was in charge of most of the early marketing.

Yikes.

by **eltopo** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:57 am

Doc Jon wrote:
Yikes.

indeed
well they're usually hiring at wal-mart

by **Doc Jon** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 8:59 am

eltopo wrote:indeed
well they're usually hiring at wal-mart

Like someone mentioned, he'll always have a place at Pixar. Such a shame though since I thought the movie was really good and probably one of the best sci-fi actioners in a while.

by **eltopo** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:05 am

Doc Jon wrote:
Like someone mentioned, he'll always have a place at Pixar. Such a shame though since I thought the movie was really good and probably one of the best sci-fi actioners in a while.

needed more C-tates

by **bkthomson** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 9:34 am

I'm betting it will have a stronger video sales to help make some money back. Also has it hit the international markets yet?

by **Doc Jon** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:37 am

bkthomson wrote:I'm betting it will have a stronger video sales to help make some money back. Also has it hit the international markets yet?

Yeah, and did decently on the international scene, but still not great.

by **Rockman** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:41 am

I think it is rare that DVD sales make up for a lackluster box office.

by **eltopo** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:44 am

Rockman wrote:I think it is rare that DVD sales make up for a lackluster box office.

well that's not true a lot of movies make money on DVD after poor box office (fight club,Scott Pilgrim etc),but thing is with JC it's so much money they lost I would think it would be next to impossible to do that well on the home market

by **Rockman** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:50 am

eltopo wrote:well that's not true a lot of movies make money on DVD after poor box office (fight club,Scott Pilgrim etc),but thing is with JC it's so much money they lost I would think it would be next to impossible to do that well on the home market

I always see this argument

"it will kill on dvd"

presented everytime a movie does poorly at the box office.

Sure it happens that it might sell okay, or in rare cases become huge on DVD and keep the franchise alive. But ultimately the people who didn't watch it in the theatre aren't going to pay twice the amount of a movie ticket to own it at home.

And I liked John Carter, but I doubt it will be huge on DVD. Disney DVDs/BluRays always seem to linger at the full price mark a lot longer than any other studio.

by **eltopo** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 11:04 am

Rockman wrote:
I always see this argument

"it will kill on dvd"

presented everytime a movie does poorly at the box office.

Sure it happens that it might sell okay, or in rare cases become huge on DVD and keep the franchise alive. But ultimately the people who didn't watch it in the theatre aren't going to pay twice the amount of a movie ticket to own it at home.

And I liked John Carter, but I doubt it will be huge on DVD. Disney DVDs/BluRays always seem to linger at the full price mark a lot longer than any other studio.

the it'll kill on dvd theory works when the movie cost like 50 mil made 30 in the box office then they don't have the much ground to cover