This weekend, the animated motion-capture movie Mars Needs Moms opened at the box-office. And sank like a stone.
According to reports, Disney invested $150 million in the film (not including marketing) and saw only $6.9 million in ticket sales in the United States. The international news was even less encouraging with the film taking in $2.1 million in 14 countries.
The Hollywood Reporter indicates that dismal box-office receipts have made Moms one of the biggest bombs in history and it leaves the House of Mouse forced to write off a huge amount for the film.
How did it happen, you ask.
The Hollywood Reporter delves into that issue today. Here’s some of what they have to say:
Mars faced several obstacles, according to box office observers. For one, moviegoers don’t seem to like the motion-capture technology. Other times, it can work, such as in Avatar.
“The movie [Mars] looked downright creepy,” one observer notes. [Watch the trailer here.]
The title also was problematic, specifically, the use of the word “mom,” which might have been a turn-off for boys.
“The title shouldn’t have been Mars Needs Moms, but Boys Need Not Come,” one studio exec joked.
Those same boys might have instead opted to see Sony’s sci-fi action pic Battle: Los Angeles, according to another box office observer. Mars skewed slightly female.
You can read the full article and analysis on why the film bombed HERE.
A assure you, Disney probably made the 150 million in pre-sales of the merchandising. If they didn't have a break even point prior to the film's release, I'm sure they wouldn't have released it.
Of course, I can HOPE they actually lost money.... Can't I?
@Lejon, surely you don't think that an unimportant thing like losing money on subpar quality animated movies is going to make Disney actually THINK about what they're doing and make improvements, do you?
If you have Documentary Channel, or like to rent/buy movies at iTunes, check out a short docu called "Dream on Silly Dreamer", about the rise and all-too-quick crash and gutting of the Disney Feature Animation unit, mainly between 1988-2002. I've seen it a couple of times, and I swear there are sections in there that still make me get a little weepy.
Safe to say that even if the same suits aren't still calling the shots, the culture they left behind is, and is quite likely the reason there's no eager anticipation for Disney animated features anymore. I knew from the first ads for this that it wasn't a movie I was going to be inclined to see, even as a rental (unimpressive motion capture = why should I bother?)
1. Pixar.
2. The motion capture looked cheesy as compared to Avatar who perfected it.
3. Stupid premise.
4. People are opting to wait for it on DVD or HBO since it looks like a STDvD movie.
Maybe it's just me but doesn't this movie's premise seem very similar to "Santa Claus Conquers the Martians"?
1. hard to find in "not 3D" -> I don't care what the "statistics" say, I'm not taking my kids to a 3d movie -> there's no way they will keep the glasses on (plus the price point is bad). The only reason it looks like 3D is doing so well is because in most places there isn't a 2D choice, it's 3D or nothing.
2. Looked horrible from previews (when will Disney realize they need to go back to their roots and take TIME to develop a good movie instead of pumping out this crap). Their last good movie was Princess and the Frog as it was more about what Disney should be known for.
My question is, how did so many people working on this movie not think it was a stinker?
Pity. Breathed's "A Wish For Wings That Work" was made into a great cartoon, and while "Mars Needs Moms" isn't my favorite of his children's stories, I was excited when I chanced upon the ad at my local theater. I'll still go and see it, but then I'd attend a viewing of Breathed reading the ingredients label on a can of Spam.
OK, I have to say that I had no intention of seeing this movie, but my wife saw the ad, and being a mother she wanted to see the movie. So we loaded up the car with the kids and went to the movie.
I agree the motion capture could have been better; however, I was surprised at how good the story actually was. I can honestly say that I thought the movie was better then Rango which I was excited to see, and disapointed that it wasn't better.
The best gauge I have for kids movies, is my kids! During Rango, both kids were bored and my 3 year old daughter wanted to go potty like a million times, because she was bored. During Mars Needs Mom's, both of my kids sat and watched the entire movie and barely moved. Towards the end of the movie I noticed my seven year old son sitting on the edge of his seat, truly worried over the well being of the mother.
As a father, I recommend this movie for all the kids out there.
The rapping in the ad turned me off quickly& I go to animated films (but at later showing w fewer kids so I can hear the movie
I've pretty much come to loathe Hollywood's assertion that a movie that doesn't top the box office in its opening weekend is automatically a "bomb". Sometimes it takes a few weeks for a movie to attract a bigger audience by word of mouth.
That said, I hadn't planned to see Mars Needs Moms, because it's pretty clearly aimed at kids and I don't have any.
It's not considered a bomb because it didn't reach the top of the box office. It's considered a bomb because it cost $150 million to make, but only recouped about $7 million on the opening week-end (usually the strongest week-end for any movie opening).
It probably "bombed" mostly because from the previews it seriously just looks like a horrible, painful movie to sit through.