‘John Carter’ Debacle: Inside the Fallout for Disney
The post-mortems have started for John Carter. Here is Kim Masters’ take from THR:
Now that John Carter has landed with a resounding thud, Hollywood is trying to decipher whether Disney will conclude that it needs to change the guard or at least tweak its strategy when it comes to homegrown live-action films.
— —
Ross’ makeover has yet to produce strong results. Although Ross’ predecessor, Dick Cook, put Carter into production at a budget just under $200 million, the head of a rival studio says Ross bears responsibility for the ultimate, significantly higher cost as well as the weak opening ($30.2 million domestically plus $69.1 million worldwide) because he oversaw the production and marketing. Disney’s only other in-house live-action movie for the year is The Odd Life of Timothy Green, a small film with Jennifer Garner and Joel Edgerton that’s set for release in August. “They’ve greenlighted one movie [for 2012],” says this competitor. “How is that possible?”
— —
But even if Carter inflicts no lasting damage, several executives say Disney cannot afford to let live-action production languish. For one thing, says a competitor, the film studio does not have enough movies flowing through its pipeline to justify its overhead (4,000 employees, including Pixar and animation). Another top exec says the shortfall creates longer-term problems. “The movie business is a brand-building business,” he says. “They need fresh intellectual property to help drive the machine, and that comes primarily from the movie business.”
Another says Disney’s top executives — including Iger — are paying a price for their inexperience in movies and for focusing too heavily on brands and products. “If the first thing discussed in a meeting is merchandise and sequels, you’re probably going to lose money because you’re not talking about the movie,” he says. As to how Disney will react to its issues in live action, industry observers are split. Some believe Iger might be forced to make a management change in the wake of Carter, after some interval. (“You don’t do it so close to the event,” says one. “It’s too obvious.”) Some sources also say that the influential John Lasseter, head of Pixar and chief of Disney animation, has expressed concern to Iger about the lack of experience at the studio. (A rep says Lasseter “remains supportive of the team at Disney.”)
As always with Hollywood stories, some of the most interesting aspects are well below the surface. Such as here:
* Disney greenlighted one movie in a whole year?
* Let live-action production “languish”? No can do. Every instinct of a studio exec may be to play it safe and say “no.” However studios have fixed costs and significant overheads. At some point when it comes to making movies, they have to say “yes.” Otherwise they have no product. And if they have no product, then they can’t feed their distribution network. And if they can’t feed their distribution network, then they can’t make money.
* If it’s true the current regime is focused on “brand-building,” “merchandise,” and “sequels,” and the idea of actual movies is a secondary consideration, should they even be called a ‘movie studio’ anymore?
Compare to Warner Bros. which last year bought 14 spec scripts and you see an entirely different model when it comes to making movies.
Re John Carter: It’s crossed the $100M mark internationally. And there’s now a Facebook page asking for a sequel to the movie. The film needs to do around $600M in box office to qualify as a success. Doubtful it will get there.
For more of the THR article, go here.
UPDATE: In comments, Gabe posted this link from Emily Blake who does a great job critiquing the marketing campaign for the movie. A great read.
Comment Archive