Do we care?
On Thursday, Andrew Stanton refuted claims that his upcoming sci-fi opus John Carter went over budget. Following an article by Kim Masters that ran in the Jan. issue of THR's print magazine as well as online which stated his film’s initial $175 million price tag ballooned to a rumored $300 million, Stanton told reporters that those reports were "a complete and utter lie."
Of course, Disney hasn't released a budget for the picture, so who knows if John Carter of Mars is "over" or "under?"
And in the scheme of things, it doesn't matter a rap anyway. Studios cook production books as a matter of course, all the freaking time. They did it on pictures I worked on. They did it a half century ago. They will do it a half century from now.
The only thing that really matters is if the movie that hits theaters on March 9 makes money or not. If it's a smash hit, overruns will hardly matter. If it's a flop, the fact that Mr. Stanton came in "on budget" won't stand him in good stead.
At the end of the day, it's about the moolah. And how much of it flows into corporate coffers.
Posts
27 comments:
He doth protest too much. The film has "major flop" written all over it. If so, many heads will roll at Disney. As a stockholder, I'm furious they gave someone who's only directed one film by himself that kind of budget. Disney has every right to be afraid.
Not necessarily.
Kim Masters is a sleazy yellow journalist. If Andrew is saying she lied about the numbers to spice up her article then he's just setting the record straight, not "protesting too much" .
She's done hatchet jobs on people before , so I don't see why Andrew is presumed guilty on her say-so.
HA! good one. The film went way over budget due to a neophyte director being an arrogant, egotistical frap.
I've seen the film, have you? It's terrible. That doesn't mean it won't be a hit, though.
Kim Masters is one of the best, most well regarded, and most respected entertainment journalists in the business. Just because some pr hack would rather she not ask questions not on their agenda doesn't make her a "yellow" journalist. For that, see rupert murdoch.
Wow, you're still reading the TAG blog , Kim ?
Wow, the pessimistic and angry commenters who post on this blog make the Cartoon Brew commenters look highly optimistic and well tempered in comparison.
If the angry and bitter commenters on this blog are a shadow of what I'm going to be like twenty years from now and this is the kind of "support" they give to their PEERS... I'm not sure I want to be a part of the animation industry.
Angry and bitter! Our motto!
You don't like it, anon, get out NOW! Before it's too late!
Nothing communicates bleeding-edge cool like a trailer for John Carter that relies on that 1970s-era Led Zeppelin song, Kashmir.
Layer on that seen-it-all-before Star Wars look, and now I'm totally bored with it.
Whether the budget was $175mil or $300mil, it won't be stealing $12 out of my wallet.
I'm not saying you're bitter Steve (just in case you took my post the wrong way), but a lot of the commenters who post here are.
I don't know why. Bad experiences maybe that have made them jaded? Either way, there's no need for such negativity.
Luckily, listening to the TAG podcasts as well as podcasts like Speaking of Animation and Animation Podcast have proven that there ARE still animators out there who still act professional and have a positive outlook on the animation industry.
I think that attitude/worldview has definitely rubbed off on me (as well as my peers) so there is still hope yet.
Disney's gonna take an even bigger bath on this than it did for The Muppets. After which, Rich Ross will likely be shown the door...
I am the only human on earth who hated both Finding Nemo and WallE.
So I don't believe him when he calls JC's over budget a complete die.
Don't forget Tron, which struggled to make almost respectable numbers. And was a pile of trash.
The trailers for john carter really do look lame, though. I might catch it when it's on cable, but won't be seeing it in theaters. Especially since it wasn't SHOT in 3D. I hate post conversions.
To the anon who addressed the bitterness on this board. just to give you hope, they do not represent the attitude of the majority of the folks in the industry. Most of whom are passionate and optimistic. I't just fun to post stuff that one wouldn't have the balls to post with their real name attached or directly to the face of who they are posting about.
"Disney's gonna take an even bigger bath on this than it did for The Muppets. After which, Rich Ross will likely be shown the door... "
If that were true then it would be worth the $175 million or $300 million or whatever it is.
I'm not saying this will be a hit, but there was another bloated budgeted film everyone was talking about (pre-blog days) not so long ago. Even to the point where the studio put a new 'boss' in charge to take the heat when it went wrong.
This could very well surprise everyone and be this year's Titanic...
Wouldn't be the first time the geniuses on this blog were wrong. Come to think of it, has the predictions on this blog by the anonymous dweebs ever been right?
"Disney's gonna take an even bigger bath on this than it did for The Muppets. After which, Rich Ross will likely be shown the door... "
The Muppets is profitable, so that's a sucky comparison.
^Nope. Unfortunately it's completely valid.
^Yep. Here's what the site MovieAssassins had to say about it:
"We’re told the film is a box office hit and the Muppets (when dissing Fox News) are simply flexing their new celebrity status.
– Reality Check –
…
The film could really take a lesson from last Fall’s The Lion King 3-D. A film that actually is a box office hit off what is considered an old property. How old? Try 17 years."
http://moviecriticassassins.com/essays/sundance-the-muppets-and-the-oscars-get-reality-checks/
Don't believe everything the Disney spinners tell you. Duh.
Deadline reports that John Carter failed to appeal to female viewers.
As a woman, I won't let that stop me from seeing the film. I look forwards to seeing it this March.
I'm no particular fan of Rich Ross, but if he's fired for making this film, the "takeaway" that the studio will be to replace him with someone even less willing to make ambitious, risky films. Someone even less interesting than Rich Ross.
Check the numbers - Muppets is in the black dipshit.
Steve,
The animation and VFX for John Carter were done in England. Do you have any "insider" scoop as to why Stanton did not use Pixar? Is Pixar too booked-up, or are realism and plate integration beyond their talent pool?
Thanks.
Checked the numbers. The Muppets is in no way near profitable. It'll have to make at least $180 million just to break even.
The Lion King 3D kicked its butt. Take note, Disney: the public doesn't want puppet movies, it wants animation. Good animation, whether it's 2D or CGI. Get on it and hire more animators.
Do we care? Of course we care. When a movie goes over budget, that's when they try to squeeze blood out of postproduction. That means long, unpaid overtime.
And Pixar? Don't make me laugh. Those guys couldn't do real visual effects work if their livelihoods depended on it!
The problem JC has is the 'what is it' problem. For fanboys of science fiction and fantasy, and the fact that it influenced so many things after, it might make sense. But for everyone else, it just falls flat so far. What is it? Besides Gladiator-ish muscle man and giant Star Wars/Clash of Titans monster arena fights. Perhaps the marketing is missing the mark b/c the film is not clear about what it is. Not a good sign of things to come.
Saw the film the other night. Boy-- it's really bad. Indistinguishable from every other overproduced fx bore out in the last few years--except this one is also very amateurishly made. It really is hard to keep track of all the characters that look alike, but after a few minutes I just stopped caring. The fight scenes, in particular, are poorly staged. But it's the writing and acting that drag it down. Only saving grace is that I got free tickets.
"The animation and VFX for John Carter were done in England. Do you have any "insider" scoop as to why Stanton did not use Pixar? "
The film was a Union production. Pixar is Non-Union.
Post a Comment