Talk:John Carter (film)

The Movie's Financial Impact for Disney

Hello, Krystaleen. You reverted an edit I made to this article on this movie's financial impact on Disney. The revert was on grounds that the information was "redundant and outdated". The source I used was the Financial Times of yesterday (!) and their assessment of Disney's second quarter results. I am not sure how this qualifies as outdated! The FT is arguably, with the Wall Street Journal, one of the two leading English financial dailies, and their assessment of the film's overall financial impact thus comes from a reputable source. The statement that you reverted back to reported that the film had done well in Russia -- but it is hard to imagine that this particular market is going to make much of a dent in the overall financial picture.

I realize that the film has its fans, but when it comes to its finances, the article should reflect the reporting of reliable third parties, and my edit did so. Nandt1 (talk) 17:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm with Krystaleen on this one; it was lazy journalism to claim that the film has lost $200m for Disney. It's "redundant and outdated" because it's a figure that was mentioned way back in March when Disney issued a profits warning shortly after the film's release. The same FT journalist covered this story back in March and he obviously hasn't bothered to refresh his information before writing this latest piece. With an unexpectedly high worldwide theatrical haul of $270m, it's difficult to justify describing the film as "one of the biggest flops ever released". Barry Wom (talk) 22:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes I've replied to this too on my talk page, but yes the Disney 200 million write down info is old so it's outdated. And it's redundant because it's already been mentioned in the article. All the other sources published later had determined that the loss would be significantly less than 200 million.Krystaleen (talk) 03:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Whatever the ultimate picture turns out to be, Disney has indeed taken a write down in its books. Given the objection here to the Financial Times as a source, I am proposing to give a direct quote from Disney's own statement on its second quarter results. For many observers, the financial impact is the movie's single most noteworthy aspect, and as such I feel there should be some pick up of this in the lede. And although I rather strongly feel, as explained earlier, that the Russian market has little relevance to anything, I am showing respect to other views by leaving that reference in the lede. I am hoping others will reciprocate in kind. Nandt1 (talk) 20:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Fine by me, but there was too much detail supplied in the lead which I've trimmed out. No need to supply the exact figures when they're listed later in the article. Barry Wom (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Please see separate section below -- there is a risk of giving a misleading picture. Nandt1 (talk) 11:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Russia, well the Russian market is not the only market the film succeeded in. It was a pretty big hit worldwide, but in Russia it managed to break the record or something like that. It was big worldwide, in fact the only country it was a flop in was US. Krystaleen (talk) 08:03, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

The film could have made far more money with just a slight change in the title. "John Carter OF MARS". The name John Carter meant nothing to most people.(90.164.52.212 (talk) 20:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC))

Recent edit confuses picture on Disney finances

The recent tidying-up edit by Barry Wom, while no doubt well-intentioned, has had the (almost certainly unintended) effect of changing the meaning of Disney's statement on the impact of JC on the firm's finances. Here is what Disney actually said:

Studio Entertainment revenues decreased 12% to $1.2 billion and segment operating income decreased $161 million to a loss of $84 million. The decline in operating income was primarily due to lower worldwide theatrical results reflecting the performance of John Carter in the current quarter along with the related film cost write-down.

Here is how the article reports this after Wom's edit:

On 8 May, 2012, the Walt Disney Company released a statement on its second quarter earnings which blamed the losses incurred by their Studio Entertainment division on the performance of John Carter

What's the problem? From Wom's text, one might likely conclude that Disney was blaming JC for [most or all] of the $84 million in losses. But from Disney's statement, it is most of the reversal of $161 million that JC is on the hook for not most of $84 mn. I'll try again to convey this in the main text. Nandt1 (talk) 22:07, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

"The Avengers" just broke the record for the time to earn it's first $1 billion. It very well could make more money than Avatar. This should cover any losses by JC and then some.108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC).

I disagree with putting the $100 million of advertising with the budget, as I don't believe it was part of the MOVIE budget, as the advertising was done by Walt Disney for the film, not the budget for the film...so it is confusing to think that the $100 million was part of the production budget. I believe it should go below the $250 million budget and be its own category — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.83.148.230 (talk) 04:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

References

Pixar involvement?

I was under the impression that Pixar had nothing to do with the movie, but Metacritic lists it as a Pixar movie (http://www.metacritic.com/company/pixar-animation-studios). Any connections to Pixar that have been missed? DanielDPeterson + talk 23:54, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Just that the director is a Pixar employee, I think.--Krystaleen (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Plot length

Hi, an IP was recently adding excessive detail to the plot summary, which exceeded the 400-700 words per WP:FILMPLOT. However, since we should respect the relevant guideline, I have reverted it as I felt it was way too much detail. If that was a mistake, let me know here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:01, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Rotten Tomatoes

Why is there a reference to RT on practically every new movie that comes out? Personally, I see no reason to include information from a very little realible site that is based on the opinions of a certain kind of poeple. 84.210.44.152 (talk) 02:35, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Anyone can join Rotten Tomatoes. You might as well ask a hundred random people in the street.(90.164.52.212 (talk) 20:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC))

Source material for the film is from more than just the first book

I recently watched the film, and I recognized character and plot elements from more than one book. Matai Shang, the Therns, and the pilgrimage down the river Iss are drawn from the second and third novels of the series (The Gods of Mars and The Warlord of Mars). I realize that the film's own credits mention only A Princess of Mars as source material, but this is inaccurate. sprocketeer (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Film Locations

I recognized the distinct, unmistakable outline of Vasquez Rocks in one scene. Has that been documented elsewhere so it could be added to the article? -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

User:Davidkevin I just looked this up on the online permit system (OPS) for FilmLA. I used John Carter and all the AKA's for this movie and I also searched by the production companies. If they shot at Vasquez Rocks, they didn't pull a permit for it.Depauldem (talk) 20:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for the long delay, Depauldem, I've been away for a while -- the monopolization of certain articles by biased parties (not here, not by you) had made me want to leave, and have reduced my interest in contributing or using Wikipedia. Anyway, thank you very much for your effort in answering my question -- Davidkevin

Shang

How do we know that the Thern at the end whom JC kills is Matai Shang? -- Imladros (talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Off-topic chat

Extended content
Sequel? Are there any plans for a sequel? Timothy Horrigan (talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC) No. --‖ Ebyabe talk - General Health ‖ 03:20, 23 May 2015 (UTC) This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhDv2.0 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed: Therns' hesitation

It appears Therns and Matai Shang exhibit a lot of restraint about killing Carter. Is it the article's prose that gives such an impression, part of the film's plot, or the film's loophole? (It appears they could have killed him several times over but they simply don't.) 31.214.147.116 (talk) 23:32, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on John Carter (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080926063947/http://www.scifi.com:80/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=60551 to http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=60551

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Which figure should go in the budget field in the infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

{{Infobox film}} states "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (e.g. advertisements, commercials, posters) ... If there are conflicting estimates, do not cherry-pick; list each estimate either as an individual value or as a number range."

Film budgets are not usually released by film studios, but generally entertainment magazines and trade journals can obtain an approximate figure from industry insiders. The "budget" is usually taken to be the "negative cost" which is is generally defined as the costs incurred up to producing a negative, but will omit the distribution costs and profit participation for the stars. Sources will usually distinguish between the negative cost and the subsequent costs, such as Variety observing "the budget, which Disney quotes at around $250 million, with an additional $100 million to market the film worldwide". If different sources provide different figures then these figures are represented as a range.

What is not so clear is how to represent figures that incorporate a tax credit and it is this quandary that is the subject of several ongoing film related discussions at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film#Film_budget_representation_in_infobox. For example, in the case of John Carter Forbes obtained financial documents from the UK treasury which revealed "Total costs came to $306.6 million ... The financial statements reveal that the British tax authority handed Disney $42.9 million (£27.1 million) to make John Carter ... The tax payment to John Carter gave the picture a net budget of $263.7 million which is far more than estimates predicted." Disney is on record as stating the budget is "around $250 million".

The question being posed by this RFC is what should go in the infobox? These seem like the viable options to me:

1. $250 million (EDIT: the cost as stated by Disney and widely reported at the time)
2. $306.6 million (the total costs filed at HMRC)
3. $263.7 million (the net budget, which is derived by subtracting the tax credit)
4. $306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit) (the bit in brackets could actually go in brackets or as a footnote to avoid clutter)
5. $263.7 million ($306.6 million before tax credit)
6. $250–306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit)
7. $250–306.6 million (the highest and lowest figure available)

Even though the discussions are spread over quite few articles they seem to be going in circles and would benefit from community input, which is the reason for the RFC. I think this article is the best "test case" for the RFC since it has some fairly concrete numbers and uses explicit terminology in how those numbers are delivered, such as an official statement on the finance by Disney, and exact details of the tax filings at HMRC. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Survey

• Option 6: $250–306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit) I think this option would be most in keeping with Wikipedia's policies. Many of the arguments have boiled down to whether the tax credit should be factored into the budget or not, with one camp of editors arguing it represents the "total cost", with the opposing camp stating that the budget should represent the studio's net spend. I have come to the conclusion these are WP:Original research interpretations i.e. we are not accountants, and it is not for editors to determine how film studios budget their films. Presuming we can source these figures, the relevant piece of policy that applies here is WP:WEIGHT which states Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. In other words, we should include all valid representations of the budget that can be found in reliable sources. Looking through sources there seems to be a general trend these days to provide both sets of figures if the film receives a credit:
  • The Revenant: There’s a saying that you can’t put a price on greatness, but if you could, it might be around $165 million ... The final bill, once tax credits are counted, is estimated to be $135 million, multiple individuals told TheWrap.
  • The Dark Knight Rises: Financed and released by Warner Bros., with 25% of the budget covered by Legendary Pictures, "The Dark Knight Rises" cost between $250 million and $300 million to produce. However tax credits brought that total closer to $230 million, said people familiar with the movie's economics but not authorized to discuss them publicly.
  • Superman Returns: According to the studio, Superman Returns' price tag is $204 million. Without the Australian tax credits: about $223 million [1]. Quote by Bryan Singer: "My production budget on "Superman Returns" was $204 million" [2].
  • Fast & Furious 6: The latest in the series cost close to $200 million, according to a person close to the production. With the benefit of tax credits in the United Kingdom, where much of the movie was shot, the final budget was $160 million, said a Universal spokeswoman.
  • Godzilla: “Godzilla,” powered in part by strong Imax and 3-D screenings, cost a reported $195 million to make, with tax credits bringing the net cost closer to $160 million.

It seems to me that no single view takes precedence here. If publications such as The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal believe both figures are relevant when discussing the budget I don't think Wikipedia editors are in a position to be selective when it comes to which figures we use. I don't think Wikipedia policy permits us that prerogative. That fact that the pre-tax credit and the post-tax figures are recurring representations of the budget means that they are both valid representations of the budget. Betty Logan (talk) 00:49, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 2, or Options 2 and 3 – What we're dealing with here are three figures: the gross budget, the net budget, and the estimate given by Disney. Since the estimate given by Disney is not measuring up to the numbers reported by reliable, secondary sources, I would cross this off the list first. This number can be reported in the body of the article instead of the infobox. In my opinion, the gross budget is what holds the most significance here, as the cost to produce the film reported in this statistic is the least affected by location, tax credits, etc., making it the most helpful in my eyes. The net budget, on the other hand, can be a bit misleading when thinking about the overall picture of how a particular film stacks up against other films in terms of cost. If two films cost the same to produce, but one received a larger tax credit for example, then the figure may inappropriately imply that one of the films was significantly cheaper to produce. One possible solution to this is to split the budget parameter into two – gross and net – instead of stating a range. That would seem more clear/less cluttered with the ability to place refs immediately next to each number. If the decision is to only use one number, then I would prefer gross over net knowing that this is only the infobox, and that more details about the budget will appear in its respective section. If the decision is to only use one parameter, then the range would be the next best option, as indicated in Option 6. --GoneIn60 (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

"Since the estimate given by Disney is not measuring up to the numbers reported by reliable, secondary sources, I would cross this off the list first" – The $250 million figure is the more commonly reported figure. This is the figure most sources have gone with i.e. Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, The Los Angeles Times, Box Office Mojo, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. In that respect the "weight" of souces in fact overwhelmingly favors the $250 million figure, so how do you reconcile leaving out the most common figure with WP:WEIGHT? I also dispute that it doesn't match up with the other two figures: the budget was submitted to HMRC in sterling, and the rebate was in sterling, so the dollar equivalent at the time of the rebate does not neceassarily match up to the dollar value at the time the money was spent. Taking account of currency fluctations those Forbes figures could easily fluctuate 10% either way, so on that basis I would say the $250 million figure is essentially the same figure as the $263.7 million figure. Betty Logan (talk) 13:42, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I didn't look into which sources were reporting what data. I was only looking at your description above that the $250 million was "stated by Disney". If an overwhelming number of sources are reporting this figure more than any other figure, then it will definitely carry more weight than I originally gave it. However, correct me if I'm wrong, but in general, primary source data that is simply restated in other sources may not necessarily make those sources "secondary". It's their analysis and interpretation of that data that we consider secondary context. So in this case, it would seem the $250 million figure is still only being provided by a primary source. If I'm right, then we need to strongly consider the other numbers involved, since they are being provided through a secondary source. I understand your point about currency fluctuation, but without a source that clarifies that for us, we'd be verging on WP:OR to support the claim that the $263.7 million figure is essentially the same as the one Disney reported. I'm just thinking out loud trying to get a better understanding of the controversy and not really challenging anything at the moment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:55, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across as bitey. Yes, I didn't clarify the context of the figureas well as I could have. Betty Logan (talk) 23:16, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't take it that way at all. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 6 or Option 7 – Now that I have a better understanding, it appears that options 6 and 7 provide the best solution at this time. Since it's still not clear (to me, anyway) about which set of numbers are more prevalent in reliable sources, stating a range seems like a good compromise for now. The idea of splitting the budget field into two separate gross/net fields is more of a cosmetic suggestion and isn't something that necessarily needs to be decided here, but if anyone wants to pursue that at a later time, I'd be willing to support it. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Option 6: $250–306.6 million ($263.7 million after tax credit)This seems to be the best to me, as it aims to satisfy all parties. Otherwise, I do like option 7 as well. Depauldem (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Option 7 Only because it's less clutter than Option 6. But otherwise, Option 6 is the next best IMHO. FilmGuy4444 (talk) 21:52, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 6-ish Just follow the cites. Here some report $250M and some report $263.7M so show the range reported with cites, it's just reporting what is out there and not doing a cherry pick. But see the discussion at Template InfoBox TALK, which mentions The Numbers (website) as well -- and that site that reports the John Carter budget at 275 Million. Markbassett (talk) 14:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The 275 figure would be covered by the 250-306 range anyway, but I think that your example does illustrate why a range would be best: unless we have a very good categorical reason that a figure is definitely wrong, then we should not be cherry-picking figures. Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option newly being discussed at Infobox-template RfC in which to avoid apples-to-oranges range comparisons and be completely clear and specific we have two lines for budget: gross and net (retaining the plain budget for when gross or net is not specified). Also note there a sockpuppet investigation has began regarding FilmGuy4444. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Carter (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090418054131/http://www.sugarbombs.com:80/kavalier/?p=166 to http://www.sugarbombs.com/kavalier/?p=166
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-box-office-russia-298092
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/03/china-weekly-box-office-0312-0318-john.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/04/china-weekly-box-office-0409-0415.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-disney-writedown-analyst-loss-300019
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120522224918/http://thewaltdisneycompany.com:80/sites/default/files/reports/q2-fy12-earnings.pdf to http://thewaltdisneycompany.com/sites/default/files/reports/q2-fy12-earnings.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on John Carter (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120406220538/http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2012/03/01/war-lords/ to http://www.icgmagazine.com/wordpress/2012/03/01/war-lords/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704205908/http://7films.me.uk/news/7-john-carter-moments-qa-star-taylor-kitsch/ to http://7films.me.uk/news/7-john-carter-moments-qa-star-taylor-kitsch/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121025001614/http://news.moviefone.com/2012/03/07/andrew-stanton-john-carter_n_1327070.html to http://news.moviefone.com/2012/03/07/andrew-stanton-john-carter_n_1327070.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120329132639/http://www.tracksounds.com/reviews/john_carter_michael_giacchino.htm to http://www.tracksounds.com/reviews/john_carter_michael_giacchino.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100311172122/http://kusc.podbean.com/2010/02/25/2010-oscar-best-score-nominee-michael-giacchino-up to http://kusc.podbean.com/2010/02/25/2010-oscar-best-score-nominee-michael-giacchino-up/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.deadline.com/interstitial/?ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.deadline.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fdisney-shifts-release-dates-on-john-carter-of-mars-and-frankenweenie%2F
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120728023706/http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2012/07/willem-dafoe-disappointed-that-john-carter-sequel-scrapped.html to http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/2012/07/willem-dafoe-disappointed-that-john-carter-sequel-scrapped.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Carter (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120306100547/http://www.disney.fr/john-carter/ to http://www.disney.fr/john-carter/
• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/67vC3iUVi?url=http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/04/china-weekly-box-office-0409-0415.html to http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/04/china-weekly-box-office-0409-0415.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Carter (film). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://www.webcitation.org/66tECoBqM?url=http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/03/china-weekly-box-office-0312-0318-john.html to http://www.boxofficefollower.net/2012/03/china-weekly-box-office-0312-0318-john.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130619212715/http://universalmediausa.com/john-carter-and-the-gods-of-hollywood/ to http://universalmediausa.com/john-carter-and-the-gods-of-hollywood/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Biggest bomb of all time

Zvig47 has repeatedly added what appears to be a non-neutral claim, by claiming the film is the "biggest bomb of alltime". This claim is not corroborated by the sources in this article. As note "j" in the article observes, there are different estimates relating to how much money John Carter lost. What is known is that Disney took a writedown of $200 million; if this did indeed represent the sum that Disney lost, then this would qualify it the biggest bomb of all-time. However, a writedown does not necessarily represent the true loss of the film; a writedown caps the loss, but a film still continues earning money beyond the financial quarter the writedown occurs in. A writedown is a common practice in business, where losses are confined to a profitable month so as to not damage share price. The Numbers estimates that the absolute loss on John Carter was $112 million, and if this is the case then it is quite far from being the "biggest bomb of all-time".

Furthermore, Zvig47 seems to be relying on the link to List of biggest box-office bombs. Apart from the fact that other Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, this list itself does not cororborate the claim: John Carter is represented by a loss range ($112–200 million, or $143–255 million adjusted for inflation), and approximately 30 other films potentially fall in the middle of this range. Therefore the wording "one of the biggest box office bombs in history" is more appropriate here, and consistent with the sources in the article. Betty Logan (talk) 10:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for repeatedly reverting this ... perhaps we should add an inline comment to this effect?

I have also suspected, and your elucidation of the issue above supports this, what I've heard rumored around the edges: that by itself John Carter didn't lose as much money as Disney says, in fact it may even have done well enough to justify a sequel (something that has happened a lot in the last decade because of accounting ... once you reuse the sets/costumes/props/CGI in a second film you can immediately assign half those costs from the first film to the second film, which may by itself be enough to make the first film show a profit on paper regardless of its actual box office. If not, well, make a third movie if the second movie's numbers look like you can justify it).

But, this theory goes, Mars Needs Moms had actually lost more money than Disney wanted to admit (or realized) at the time (as the analysis at The Numbers suggests), and someone at the studio may have decided to take advantage of the already-bad press and fumbling marketing the movie was getting to position John Carter to appear to have been an even bigger failure so that a bigger writedown could be made and thus offset the too-small writedown on MnM.

I am in the process of reading Michael Sellers's John Carter And the Gods of Hollywood, and he seems to be on to this from what I've read so far (noting, for instance, that even a year before its intended release the movie's marketing was practically invisible, like creating the Facebook page for the movie but not posting anything to it, at a time when that should have been going on like once a week, at least). Since I am hoping long-range to bring this article to GA and maybe FA status, I will of course be finishing it and adding anything relevant. Daniel Case (talk) 18:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

It was produced during a transitional time for Disney. They were attempting to create super-franchises in a similar vein to Pirates of the Caribbean, and as a result mis-managed both this and The Lone Ranger. Those two films would be expensive today, never mind 10–15 years ago; Disney thought they could buy an audience. They should have started out with budgets half the size and got the scripts right and built the audience up. It was an expensive lesson for them.

I think note "j" is sufficient, but perhaps it should be incorporated into the lead as well, since that it where the problems are occurring. Technically an article shouldn't have to repeat references and notes in the lead, but unfortunately many editors don't both to check the sourced commentary in the body text before altering the lead. If that doesn't work then perhaps a hidden comment can be added too. Betty Logan (talk) 21:07, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think an inline comment would be best for now.

I don't see the writedown theory as necessarily being incompatible with your broader point ... the picture had enough known issues, quite a few of them self-created on Disney's part (the leadership and marketing changes first among them), that Disney knew no one would ask questions about whether they had written down the movie too much. Daniel Case (talk) 01:50, 9 July 2023 (UTC)