Originally Posted by redhawk23
John Carter was not popular with wide audiences or critics and lost the studio millions of dollars but certainly grossed more than many well respected movies last year. It totally bombed when taken on its own standards, but according to your standards its a better film than well crafted, well reviewed films that had smaller releases.
Its a matter of living up to its own intents. A movie that is designed to appeal to as many people as possible making a lot of money is indeed a success, but its not necessarily any more successful than another film that also find its intended audience.
Again with the flawed thinking. John Carter lost money. It doesn't matter what it grossed at the box office because you have to subtract the cost of making the film, making prints, advertising and marketing etc. The film didn't make any money therefore it's not an example of what I'm talking about at all. It is however an example of how marketing and distributiuon aren't what makes a film a blockbuster, having a great film and knowing it before you start the advertising campain is what makes a film a blockbuster. John Carter just proves they're not always right.
Look ultimately film is a buisness. In buisness you can have a great product that only has a small market. As long as you understand this you can make that product and make a small amount of money and there is nothing wrong with that but nobody thinks that small little product that every one in it's tiny little market loves is a beter product than one with mass appeal. The exception to this is in art like film but even here the only ones who think their small art film is better than the one with mass appeal are the art film snobs.