BOX OFFICE: JOHN CARTER Passes $30M Domestically; Takes $70M Internationally

The only shock for me is t how many critics piled on th scandal bandwagon rather than giving this movie a proper review. It didn't fit completely into either the drama or sci-fi categories, so I can see why some people may not have liked it, but it was a well-made and entertaining film. I'm glad audiences came out for it, especially over seas. Biggest problem was Disney's abysmal marketing campaign. They really muffed it.

Hopefully with decent legs it'll end close to 300mil worldwide. Yeah it seems like a long shot but movies of this scale usually end with close to 3x's their opening weekend. Good word of mouth may help despite the critics being split down the middle.

Then hopefully dvd and home video will put it over the top. I'm an eternal optimist, maybe a sequel isn't so far fetched

C'mon Josh, why are you hatin'?!!!

I really wanted this movie to do well. Im heading to see it tonight at 7:00 and i cant wait. It appears this film is getting good reviews, im suprised its doing bad at the box office. I dont think its so much of the style of the film. I think that its the lack of star power. Kitch is a talent actor and i had hoped after his role of Gambit in Wolverine he wouldve broke out. but sadly he didnt. Now if this had an A list actor like Damon, DiCaprio, Cruise or hell even Zac Efron it wld have probably doubled its revenue.

The problem is, is that most news sources quote the same reviews. So 1 or 2 bad reviews gets quoted by a few dozen high circulation media sources and the movies f*cked. People need to do more searching nowadays to find the critic they most agree with and only listen to them. I personally could give a shit what anyone says about anything. It's that persons OPINION whether it's good or bad and I like to form my own opinion, not sheep around for others.

I don't think mentioning the fact that it's based on a 100 year old book would have made any difference at all. Bringing up the fact that it was directed by the guy who made Wall-E and Finding Nemo would have been a big help in generating interest though. However, regardless of whether you liked the movie or not, it's hard to imagine where exactly that $250M went (visual effects I guess). If Disney had kept a tighter reign on Stanton's spending, this would have been a decent enough opening. I also thinking keeping the "...Of Mars" suffix would have been a good idea.

Jesus, it's only 10:45 am pst on Sunday of the opening weekend. You know how many people wait until week 2 or 3 to see these kinds of movies to avoid the crowded theatre seats? 100 mill worldwide in 2 days seems just fine to me. By the time a sequel is even possible it will have made plenty of money after theatre run, DVD/Blu-Ray sales, merchandising, etc.

Seriously tho, society nowadays is in such a rush that they take the first two days of sales numbers and throw it under the bus. It's pathetic. Let it run it's coarse, then say if it flopped.

batlizard11: Of course those points would matter. Finding Nemo and Wall-E were huge money makers and I think if they mentioned that the story was 100 years old, it would ease of the Star Wars and Avatar comparisons. And the fact that the film has no big name stars is another reason for the bad box office

It wasn't marketed weak, it was marketed poorly. The ads were usually "This is a man. CGI creature. CGI CGI CGI. Title". With an unestablished property with no awareness to the general public, they needed a trailer that built him up more and gave you a reason to want to go. They didn't do any of that.

You can campaign the living hell out of a movie, if you don't give people a reason to care they are not going to care. Disney seems under the illusion that the word DISNEY alone will sell a movie and it does for animation. For live action? It doesn't, hasn't in a long time.

@2gold Disney hasnt sold live action in a LONG time? UUhh how about the BILLION dollar franchise known as Pirates of the Caribbean, or the acid trip-on-heroin blockbuster Alice in Wonderland (I know it was heavy CGI but still)

I would have titled the film John Carter and the Princess of Mars or just John Carter of Mars

They say you can't judge a book by it's cover. In this case, they were wrong. The title itself as well as an unknown lead, at least to the general public, is a tough sell regardless of budget spent or studio backing it. Talk about a major gamble/fail! Overall, this was a great movie and one I would like to see again (and that's very rare); it was at least better than or equal to 'Avatar'. Most people I've talked to about it didn't even know the movie was out or little about it. Dropping "of Mars" in it's title head and just going with 'John Carter', a name that does not have a reputation that preceeds it, was a major mistake, imo. I'm willing to bet that 70% of the movie going public never head of his name before. Sucks because I really liked this movie.

MINOR SPOILERS: I compare this to Prince of Persia and Tron Legacy where there was a very dedicated core audience for the film, but the general audience was given no incentive/ inspiration to see the film in any of the marketing material. I enjoyed the fan made trailer that Andrew Stanton approved explaining what was happening on the planet. I feel bad because those people will think this movie is copying off of sci-fi films when this is actually the original inspiration. They invested $250 million dollars into a film that is not a popular "current" book series, no real star power, and failed to mention the fact that the director previously did two of the most successful Pixar films of all time. I would bet $100 million in box office receipts that if Disney used a concept that this was the first live action film released from the director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E under the PIXAR banner, they would have gotten to the masses much easier. I saw in a last ditch effort they put in TV spots from the studio that brought you Pirates of The Carribean and Alice In Wonderland, however both revolved over star power and the works of their previous forms in media. I found the score to be terrible, and the marketing showed the natives to be a clumsy and stupid as the gungans. A general message of a man who has lost everything on the planet earth will travel to an unknown world where a battle that has been raging for a thousand years. They showed a lot but never explained any of it in the trailers, even something as simple as him saying our ships sail on the sea, not the sky would have allowed people to relate much more to the film. I would hope Disney pays whoever did the marketing for avatar cause it's nearly the same movie in every respect, but Disney just never realized what they had.

This was a great movie, me and all my friends
thoroughly enjoyed it, but the showing i went to was just a little bit past half full. Hopefully word of mouth on how good this movie is helps it.

@NiteSoul69 - Word of mouth is important.
Let's start right here. Well said BTW.:)

It doesn't shock me it's making more than expected, it is a damn good movie. I forget, or maybe remembering wrong but I believe the title "John Carter Of Mars" comes on the screen after the final scene, when it's earned. Stanton did a great job IMO.

My Big Fat Greek Wedding opening weekend barely cleared 3million and it went on to make 240million.

I never got why they cut all the nineteenth century stuff out of the trailers.