Disney sells fairy tales and by their very nature, most Disney films will be big budget productions with expensive VFX. It's major 2012 productions are The Lone Ranger, which is budgeted at $215M ( down from $250M) and Maleficent which is likely also in the $200M range. The budgets per se aren't the problem, it's keeping them within the range that can be supported by projected revenues. The assumptions that go into estimating the revenues are the critical and volatile elements.
Hollywood flop sweat: What caused the latest box-office duds?
What do A-listers Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Michael Mann, David Milch and Andrew Stanton have in common as of late? If you said major Hollywood duds, you’ve been paying attention.
Disney on Monday said it expects to lose $200 million on Stanton’s “John Carter” — a huge disappointment from the wizard who co-wrote or directed an amazing string of Pixar hits, including the “Toy Story” films, “Wall-E” and “Finding Nemo.”
HBO canceled “Luck” last week after the death of three horses during production. Making matters worse, the costly racetrack drama by the veteran TV writer Milch (“NYPD Blue,” “Deadwood”) and filmmaker Mann (“Heat,” “The Insider”) wasn’t connecting with viewers, with recent episodes drawing 500,000 viewers, barely half of what HBO gets for its unsung “Eastbound & Down” comedy series.
This
follows the cancellation of Spielberg’s “Terra Nova,” the hugely
ambitious Fox TV dinosaur drama — its pilot alone cost $15 million —
that flamed out after one season, victim to flagging ratings. And who can forget Scorsese’s “Hugo,” the Oscar-nominated valentine to the early days of moviemaking that cost upward of $170 million to make, but made only $73 million in the U.S., and even less overseas?
Have all these guys been drinking from the same poisoned well? Or is there something in common about all these projects that explains why they went bust?
I was a huge fan of both “Hugo” and “Luck,” less so when it came to “John Carter” and “Terra Nova.” But regardless of my own critical take, it was pretty obvious all of the shows lacked a key ingredient: a rooting interest in the central characters. Whom did we really care about? Not Dustin Hoffman in “Luck,” who barely came into focus until way too late in the season. Not “John Carter’s” title character, whom Chicago Tribune critic Michael Phillips called “a flat, inexpressive protagonist played by a flat, inexpressive actor.” Not anyone in “Terra Nova,” which seemed engineered to please every possible demographic known to man. Not “Hugo’s” wide-eyed young boy, who was almost as inexpressive as John Carter.
The ideas at the heart of these stories skew old in an era when audiences skew young. For all its cutting-edge visual effects, “John Carter” was based on a century-old idea of adventure from Edgar Rice Burroughs. “Hugo” was set in 1930s Paris with a story that revolved around film pioneer Georges Méliès. Set at Santa Anita racetrack, “Luck” focused on a sport that has almost no resonance with anyone under 40 (and featured two marvelous actors, Hoffman and Nick Nolte, who are in their 70s).
“Terra Nova” had younger on-screen talent, but the New York Times’ Mike Hale accurately described the show as being “without doubt the squarest, most old-fashioned series to hit TV since, well, since Spielberg’s own ‘Falling Skies.’”
So why didn’t anyone stop these guys any sooner? It isn’t as if each project didn’t come with a host of bright, pulsing warning lights. Disney got its hands on “John Carter” only after Paramount bailed on the project, having seen a string of top filmmakers, including Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo del Toro and Jon Favreau, struggle unsuccessfully to crack the story. Producer Graham King had to finance “Hugo” on his own when studio after studio passed on splitting the cost. “Terra Nova” had all sorts of writing staff shakeups and production delays. And on “Luck,” Mann and Milch were so unwilling to compromise their visions that they ended up hatching a nonaggression pact, with Milch having total control over the scripts, Mann complete autonomy when it came to the filmmaking.
Stanton’s track record was unblemished by failure, but you can’t say the same thing about Scorsese, Spielberg, Mann or Milch — they’ve all had ups and downs when it comes to commercial success. Milch, for example, was coming off of an HBO series, “John From Cincinnati,” so convoluted that even many of his biggest fans chalked it off as a head-scratcher.
But if you’re a studio executive, it’s hard to turn down an opportunity to work with a gifted filmmaker with a closet full of Oscars and Emmys. As one talent agent put it: “When you spend most of your time making Adam Sandler movies or reality TV shows, do you really want to be the one who takes a pass when Spielberg or Scorsese walks in the door?”
Several insiders I spoke to argued that today’s studio and network chiefs are more confused than ever about what their audience wants, a lack of certainty that encourages them to look for answers — and cede control — to high-powered creative minds.
“If you look at these situations, especially the one at Disney with ‘John Carter,’ you see inexperienced executives who were afraid of the people who were working for them,” said TV and film producer Gavin Polone (“Curb Your Enthusiasm,” “Panic Room”).
Polone argued that executives with years of crisis management under their belts are more likely to make tough calls. He cited the example of “Moneyball,” which was just days away from going into production with Brad Pitt in the starring role and Steven Soderbergh at the helm when Sony studio chief Amy Pascal pulled the plug until she could hire a new director.
“There’s no way that was an easy decision, especially with a talented filmmaker and a major movie star involved,” said Polone. “But Amy clearly didn’t believe in the direction the film was going, so she put on the brakes and went in a different direction.”
Rich Ross, who ran the Disney Channel before taking charge at the studio less than two years ago, was new to the game of crossing swords with heavyweight talent, making it perhaps much harder to rein in a runaway film production. Of course, Graham King had made three previous movies with Scorsese yet still couldn’t stop him from going tens of millions of dollars over budget.
You could say this illustrates the oldest cliché in the book — no one knows anything. But it also demonstrates that betting on A-list showbiz talent doesn’t guarantee a better outcome than picking the favorite in the NCAA basketball tournament pool. Sometimes, even when you’re in the room with the most incandescent talent in the galaxy, you just have to say no.
--Patrick Goldstein
20 March 2012
Last updated at 10:10 ET
The Mars-based epic, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' galactic adventurer, has been panned by critics.
And that is despite being directed by Andrew Stanton, the CGI genius behind Oscar-winning movies Finding Nemo and Wall-E.
Admittedly, it was his first foray into live action but you might think that a big-name director would guarantee box office success.
But there is no sure-fire formula.
John Carter is not the only movie which has failed to live up to the hype in the history of cinema.
In fact, it is not even the only Mars-themed movie to have been cursed.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, last year's biggest box office flop was another Disney movie, Mars Needs Moms, which cost $150m to make and only took $39m at the box office.
Red Planet, starring Carrie-Anne Moss and Val Kilmer, was another science fiction film flop.
Released in 2000, it lost $82.4m worldwide, taking inflation into account.
Indeed, Disney may even have been aware of the curse - it deleted the words "Of Mars" from John Carter's original title, fearing it was box office poison.
But The House Of Mouse, as Disney is known by its staff, might have been considered brave for considering a movie based on Mars at all.
The studio has now been stung by Mars movies on four separate occassions - with John Carter, Mars Needs Moms and earlier box office flops Mission To Mars (2000) and My Favourite Martian (1999).
Setting aside sci-fi, even A-list stars cannot provide a cast-iron guarantee. Take Gigli in 2003.
It starred Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck - a couple at the time and dubbed Bennifer by the gossip columns.
But after earning $4 million in its opening weekend, it suffered a second weekend drop of over 80%. Gigli was withdrawn from cinemas after only three weeks, one of the shortest theatrical runs on record for a big Hollywood film.
He followed it up with post-apocalyptic movie The Postman - but instead of getting Costner back on track, it cost $80m to make but took just over $17m worldwide.
Even good reviews cannot ensure box office success.
Disney's 2002 science fiction version of Treasure Island - entitled Treasure Planet - was critically acclaimed, but the $180 million movie earned only $38 million at the US box office.
World record holder
Some flops have even put their studios out of business.
Take 2001's animated science fiction movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - a loss of nearly $82m was followed by the closure of Square Pictures the following year.
Movies that have suffered the ignominy of losing over $100m include comedy Town & Country in 2001, The 13th Warrior in 1999 and 2005's Sahara, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz.
In Sahara's case, its downfall was not poor box office receipts - it took $119m overall - but its huge budget of $241 million.
One of the worst box office flops was The Adventures of Pluto Nash in 2002, starring Eddie Murphy.
Panned by the critics, it took just $7.1 million but cost $120m to make.
Just ahead of it, The Alamo, starring Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton, lost $120m.
But topping them all is 1995's Cutthroat Island, which lost just under $147m, landing it a listing in the Guinness World Book of Records.
It starred Geena Davis as a pirate and was directed by her then husband, Renny Harlin.
John Carter looks set to break this record.
In an interview with Mark Lawson on Radio 4's Front Row earlier this month, Andrew Stanton said: "I've always worked with huge budgets, I mean the truth is, this is all I have ever known."
"Having said that, I've always ignored what the budget is. I've never felt any gain to be worrying about numbers." he added.
The pioneer of computer-generated animated films added that he was only interested in making a good film.
Everyone at the Walt Disney Company, studio chief Rich Ross most of all, had been braced for bad news around “John Carter.”
But few of those observing the company were expecting the swift doomsday sentence handed out by Disney on Monday, that the science fiction tale would lose $200 million, making it one of the biggest financial flops in movie history.
Two hundred million? That is a breathtaking sum, a humdinger, a gobsmacker.
I can’t think of a similar announcement for a single movie in recent history. In fact, most studios try to bury losses for individual pictures in their financial statements. And they always argue that long-tail revenue streams mitigate a weak box office.
Not on this one.
The fact that Disney, the most tightly wound movie studio in the industry, publicly announced the loss within 10 days of the film's opening means that it wants to soften the blow on Wall Street that will surely be coming.
This also means that our estimates of a $250 million budget and $100 million in marketing probably undershot the true number by quite a bit.
Since the movie already has taken in almost $200 million globally, not an insignificant sum, and there will still be revenue rolling in for months from ancillary, this means that costs must have run far higher than publicly stated.
There will be fallout. Ross is unlikely to be in danger of losing his job as chairman of the movie studio.
But there is no doubt that it ratchets up the pressure on his tenure as movie chief.
Ross, an affable guy with Goofy-like smile, has so far not been able to claim any major victories under his leadership. Last year, he had to live with the flop “Mars Needs Moms,” while the massive success of “Pirates” redounded to Jerry Bruckheimer and the franchise he built.
Studio executives are quick to point out that “John Carter” originated under former studio chief Dick Cook. But they can’t ignore the fact that marketing for the film was handled by the current regime.
That’s a big Achilles heel. Arguably Ross’ most important decision since taking over the studio two years ago was hiring a marketing president. Hollywood outsider MT Carney, was his out-of-the-box choice for marketing chief, and she is now out of the job.
That choice never took root in Hollywood, Carney suffered from a whisper campaign over her abilities that made her damaged goods from Day One, and Ross badly handled her departure, shopping the job out from under her – a story that we broke here at TheWrap.
It wasn’t easy to find a replacement. He finally went with Ricky Strauss, a competent executive who has not had a marketing role at a major studio in years and then was handed the challenge of “John Carter.”
Not a day at the beach for anyone involved.
One bright spot: Ross can claim to have distributed and marketed “The Help,” an Oscar favorite and box office hit. But I’m going to guess that our commenters are going to say this was a DreamWorks success, not Disney’s.
So from here on in, the scrutiny will be laser focused on Ross and whether he can lead the studio where it needs to go.
Disney’s statement on Monday focused on the future.
"As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of 'The Avengers' and 'Brave,' which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company,” Disney said.
For Rich Ross’s sake, they better hope so.
A brief history of big screen flops
John Carter stars Taylor Kitsch, from US drama Friday Night Lights
Fantasy
film John Carter is on course to be the biggest movie flop of all time -
but which films have met a similar fate in recent years?
Disney admits it expects to lose $200m (£126m) on the science fiction film.The Mars-based epic, based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' galactic adventurer, has been panned by critics.
And that is despite being directed by Andrew Stanton, the CGI genius behind Oscar-winning movies Finding Nemo and Wall-E.
Admittedly, it was his first foray into live action but you might think that a big-name director would guarantee box office success.
But there is no sure-fire formula.
John Carter is not the only movie which has failed to live up to the hype in the history of cinema.
In fact, it is not even the only Mars-themed movie to have been cursed.
According to the Hollywood Reporter, last year's biggest box office flop was another Disney movie, Mars Needs Moms, which cost $150m to make and only took $39m at the box office.
Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck were an A-list Hollywood couple
Released in 2000, it lost $82.4m worldwide, taking inflation into account.
Indeed, Disney may even have been aware of the curse - it deleted the words "Of Mars" from John Carter's original title, fearing it was box office poison.
But The House Of Mouse, as Disney is known by its staff, might have been considered brave for considering a movie based on Mars at all.
The studio has now been stung by Mars movies on four separate occassions - with John Carter, Mars Needs Moms and earlier box office flops Mission To Mars (2000) and My Favourite Martian (1999).
Setting aside sci-fi, even A-list stars cannot provide a cast-iron guarantee. Take Gigli in 2003.
It starred Jennifer Lopez and Ben Affleck - a couple at the time and dubbed Bennifer by the gossip columns.
But after earning $4 million in its opening weekend, it suffered a second weekend drop of over 80%. Gigli was withdrawn from cinemas after only three weeks, one of the shortest theatrical runs on record for a big Hollywood film.
Kevin Costner had an exemplary
movie record in the early 1990s - he won Oscars for best picture and
best director with Dances With Wolves and went on to star in hits such
as JFK, The Bodyguard and Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves.
But his 1995 film Waterworld is probably one of the most renowned flops in cinema history.He followed it up with post-apocalyptic movie The Postman - but instead of getting Costner back on track, it cost $80m to make but took just over $17m worldwide.
Even good reviews cannot ensure box office success.
Disney's 2002 science fiction version of Treasure Island - entitled Treasure Planet - was critically acclaimed, but the $180 million movie earned only $38 million at the US box office.
World record holder
Some flops have even put their studios out of business.
Take 2001's animated science fiction movie Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within - a loss of nearly $82m was followed by the closure of Square Pictures the following year.
Movies that have suffered the ignominy of losing over $100m include comedy Town & Country in 2001, The 13th Warrior in 1999 and 2005's Sahara, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz.
In Sahara's case, its downfall was not poor box office receipts - it took $119m overall - but its huge budget of $241 million.
One of the worst box office flops was The Adventures of Pluto Nash in 2002, starring Eddie Murphy.
Sahara did Penelope Cruz's film career no harm
Just ahead of it, The Alamo, starring Dennis Quaid and Billy Bob Thornton, lost $120m.
But topping them all is 1995's Cutthroat Island, which lost just under $147m, landing it a listing in the Guinness World Book of Records.
It starred Geena Davis as a pirate and was directed by her then husband, Renny Harlin.
John Carter looks set to break this record.
In an interview with Mark Lawson on Radio 4's Front Row earlier this month, Andrew Stanton said: "I've always worked with huge budgets, I mean the truth is, this is all I have ever known."
"Having said that, I've always ignored what the budget is. I've never felt any gain to be worrying about numbers." he added.
The pioneer of computer-generated animated films added that he was only interested in making a good film.
Everyone at the Walt Disney Company, studio chief Rich Ross most of all, had been braced for bad news around “John Carter.”
But few of those observing the company were expecting the swift doomsday sentence handed out by Disney on Monday, that the science fiction tale would lose $200 million, making it one of the biggest financial flops in movie history.
Two hundred million? That is a breathtaking sum, a humdinger, a gobsmacker.
I can’t think of a similar announcement for a single movie in recent history. In fact, most studios try to bury losses for individual pictures in their financial statements. And they always argue that long-tail revenue streams mitigate a weak box office.
Not on this one.
The fact that Disney, the most tightly wound movie studio in the industry, publicly announced the loss within 10 days of the film's opening means that it wants to soften the blow on Wall Street that will surely be coming.
This also means that our estimates of a $250 million budget and $100 million in marketing probably undershot the true number by quite a bit.
Since the movie already has taken in almost $200 million globally, not an insignificant sum, and there will still be revenue rolling in for months from ancillary, this means that costs must have run far higher than publicly stated.
There will be fallout. Ross is unlikely to be in danger of losing his job as chairman of the movie studio.
But there is no doubt that it ratchets up the pressure on his tenure as movie chief.
Ross, an affable guy with Goofy-like smile, has so far not been able to claim any major victories under his leadership. Last year, he had to live with the flop “Mars Needs Moms,” while the massive success of “Pirates” redounded to Jerry Bruckheimer and the franchise he built.
Studio executives are quick to point out that “John Carter” originated under former studio chief Dick Cook. But they can’t ignore the fact that marketing for the film was handled by the current regime.
That’s a big Achilles heel. Arguably Ross’ most important decision since taking over the studio two years ago was hiring a marketing president. Hollywood outsider MT Carney, was his out-of-the-box choice for marketing chief, and she is now out of the job.
That choice never took root in Hollywood, Carney suffered from a whisper campaign over her abilities that made her damaged goods from Day One, and Ross badly handled her departure, shopping the job out from under her – a story that we broke here at TheWrap.
It wasn’t easy to find a replacement. He finally went with Ricky Strauss, a competent executive who has not had a marketing role at a major studio in years and then was handed the challenge of “John Carter.”
Not a day at the beach for anyone involved.
One bright spot: Ross can claim to have distributed and marketed “The Help,” an Oscar favorite and box office hit. But I’m going to guess that our commenters are going to say this was a DreamWorks success, not Disney’s.
So from here on in, the scrutiny will be laser focused on Ross and whether he can lead the studio where it needs to go.
Disney’s statement on Monday focused on the future.
"As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of 'The Avengers' and 'Brave,' which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company,” Disney said.
For Rich Ross’s sake, they better hope so.
