This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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 The revert was on grounds that the information was "redundant and outdated".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 I am not sure how this qualifies as outdated!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)
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. [1]
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How do we know that the Thern at the end whom JC kills is Matai Shang? -- Imladros ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Sequel? Are there any plans for a sequel? Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
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%2FWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
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. [1]
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)
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
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
How do we know that the Thern at the end whom JC kills is Matai Shang? -- Imladros ( talk) 17:57, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
Sequel? Are there any plans for a sequel? Timothy Horrigan ( talk) 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
This article talk page is for discussing improvements to the article, not for general discussion of the topic. - SummerPhD v2.0 15:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC) |
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 21:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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)
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)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:56, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
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:
{{
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%2FWhen 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 22:24, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:26, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
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:
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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 07:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)
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)