I'm a fan of the book series (read it in Jr. High) and quite enjoyed the movie, even though I didn't agree with some of the changes made for the movie. I understand the medium is different, but some parts just didn't jibe with the source material. Even if it *had* flowed seamlessly, it's a tough sell. I doubt there are enough people who know ERB wrote anything other than "Tarzan" to have made it successful.

Yup. Fully agree. It’s a top 10 movie for me. Watched it at least 5 times

I was also pleased with this movie, and upset that it didn't do well enough to launch a franchise as I really enjoyed the world building...

Such a shame it wasn't a hit. But if I remember rightly it went over budget and Disney refused to invest any more to market it right. When it was at cinemas I didn't even know it existed. Like I said its a shame because it's a really good movie

yes i watched in theaters and did like it i watch it every once a while.

it ruled.

A film being a flop doesn't mean it is bad. Some of the greatest classics in film history lost money on first release.

I agree

I loved that movie

Awesome flick

I enjoyed it, too.

Johnny Carter was great. I enjoyed it too

Titles can be important. Anyone who knows the comic it's based on might love the movie, but for everyone else, a movie titled "John Carter", "Mike Jones", or "David Smith" is just not a draw at all. I remember not caring about this movie because of the stupid title before all the negative reviews even came in. Had they just promoted it as "John Carter of Mars" it would have grabbed a lot more attention.

Yeah, fantasic movie

Great movie. Marketing and tittle killed it.

Liked it too.

I think bad marketing killed it.

It was garbage.

@@kevinwebster7868 You probably buy ever Call of Duty every year too huh.

@@kevinwebster7868 The Last Jedi was garbage; the premise didn't make any sense, even allowing the faux science fiction fantasy rules of the source material. The characters were weak and arbitrary; their motivations contrived and whimsical. The villains were the comic relief. The movie failed to relate to or connect to its setup (which had its own troubles) or inspire a resolution. Each act lacked any tension due to farsical scenarios, and resolved every situation with deus ex. The movie was pretty. The 13th Warrior was also pretty, and the complete oposite of everything that makes a garbage movie, like The Last Jedi. What you mean is The 13th Warrior is an amazing movie that you didn't like. You're welcome; now that you've benefited from my perspective, you're all set to have a great life! Enjoy your first good day -- no need to thank me, I'm so humble I already blocked you, I don't want to get a big head while you gush over me having set you straight.

A cost of $235, sales of $264. At least is made money in the end.

The budget for Water World ended up ballooning to a Billion.

Dude it made its budget back.

I think it was such a big thing but that was before movies started to increase money in it back up to the same levels

Yes. And what about Ishtar, and Heavens Gate? (44mil prod, 3.4 box). Maybe bombs for the time? Or how about doing %s, and/or adjust for inflation, for apple to apples compare?

Agree. We paid to see it and thoroughly enjoyed it.

Very bad timing with its release

I saw it the same day I saw hunger games as they released around the same time. Hunger games was first then I went to john carter and there is just no comparison between the two. John Carter was so very much better! I still have not seen the rest of the hunger games movies.

You did this one 11 months ago.

The suicide squad was phenomenal…& maybe didn’t bomb, but def didn’t meet expectations.

None of the movies cited in the video are good movies, noting that entertainment is totally subjective but none of these are going to gain cult status as Fight Club or Blade Runner.

@@andimatrus Didn't say 'great', just meant they weren't as bad as some people make them out to be. Subjectively, of course. And good catch on a couple more 'not bad' movies that didn't see success at the box office as well.

It's true there are tons of films that are steaming piles that do good at the box office AND get sequels. It's really a shame nowadays that certain aspects of critical thinking are replaced by a lemmings to the sea mentality and I do mean mental. When some people say this film is good or that film is GREAT I have to check and see if they put on their shoes and socks on in that exact order.

It is

I enjoyed it as well. Likeable "good guys", interesting enough story, good action. I would watch it a hundred times before watching Jupiter Ascending again.

That movie bombed so hard, that no more Dirk Pitt stories have tried to turned into movies.

I thought it was half-decent, maybe 6/10. Not brilliant but i wouldnt call it bad. I found plenty of movies that made a lot more way worse.

A Troll in Central Park - Not even 100k was grossed back when it released.

Honestly, if they were to remake it I think they should lean more into the source material. Cause I think it'd work more as a like a retro scifi throwback then a modern sci-fi movie.

@@darkmyro Something like the Flash Gordon movie? Or more like the Indianna Jones franchise? If you want to go back to the "source" ERB wrote in the style of the time. As many words as possible in a short amount of time. Todays films tend to show as much as possible in as fewest frames possible. Blink and you miss it.

What a cool story/series by Burroughs. They could have made the movie a lot better using the source material better. Also the leading man um.. wasn't. Better casting would have helped there.

@@tag1462 like Indian Jones but more sci-fi with the cheese of flash gorden. Like the rocketeer, but more fantastical. I don't know much about John Carter of Mars, but what I do know is that it's a very pulpy sci-fi story of its time and I think that the movie would do better leaning into the sci-fi of its time rather than modern sci-fi. Sorta like how Mars attacks makes fun of 50s alien invasion movies. Like make it feel new, by embracing the some of the weirder pulpy elements and not just make it your average superhero adventure movie. I mean they don't have to embrace some of the less family friendly elements, but I think embracing the silly and absurd might help it stand out. That's one thing I feel like most people these don't get, a movie doesn't need logic, it just needs a logic you can follow. It's like the flux capacitor from back to the future, doc never really explains what it does, all you as the audience knows is doc created it and it makes time travel possible and it takes a lot of power to do it.

Honestly, i think John Carter is unfairly maligned. Is it a perfect movie? No! Was it given too big a budget, probably. But as an audience, i certainly don't hate it. They probably should have tried something a less ambitious first to see where it was actually at in its marketability. ERB's books are not nearly as house hold as like JRR Tolkien or JK Rowling. I think the public needed a more gradual re-introduction with those wonderful stories than a summer blockbuster film that assumes you are already invested in them.

It's one of the very few major productions to outright suck so much. Truly - usually a big feature has something going for it, costumes, something... CI rrrreeally sucks. It's a true stinker. It's a perfect exemplification of The First Ten Minutes. It's really that bad. I made it to fifteen minutes and knew it was absolutely dreadful.

and it pretty much put an end to big budget pirate movies until 'Pirates of the Carribean' came out- nobody wanted to touch period piece movies with ships, water, or pirates.

All of these entries are strictly based on the money lost at the time. Nothing is adjusted for inflation. Once you factor that in, Cutthroat Island lost $147.56 M in today's money. Defiantly a bigger flop that most of the movies in this list. For a video that claims to be about the biggest flops of all time, it is VERY lazy of the producers to not adjust for inflation and to go through the last 120 years of film making to find the real biggest flops in the history of film.

@@startiger2 i think its actually even more. Once marketing costs/theatre cuts are included its adjusted loss looks close to $175m. Only proves your point even more though. Id say of the biggest 10 adjusted losses (all $150m+) that and maybe 13th Warrior would be the only pre-2000 entries, as since the recession marketing costs have increased at a faster rate than inflation.

Thank God, I thought I was the only one. Love that movie. Just love the look and feel of the world it creates.

Like the Shawshank Redemption which sunk on release.. got a boost upon some oscar noms and a re-release.. did gangbusters on DVD release (in fact was usually part of a bolt-on in the UK as an incentive for people looking to buy the new wave of budget machines).. and is now considered probably more than a cult classic

What's the name of that road rage movie by Q.tanrantino

@@marleyjanim5033 Death Proof (2007)

I read all the books when I was a kid, and I really enjoyed the movie, too.

If they had not rewritten the story to remove everything that was so great about Burrough's original story, that movie would not have bombed.

Agreed 👍

John Carter would likely have done better if they kept the "Of Mars" on the title. Many people I talked to about the movie didn't realize it was Sci-fi.

@@shanerux8971 I agree. The irony being that they only dropped it when Mars Needs Moms tanked so hard.

Aside from inflation I think you're deducting total earnings revenue from budget and, sometimes, marketing costs. But a studio doesn't get all the money. Theaters get a cut too, 60% from US theaters, 20-30% from countries outside US, with China giving back around 10% (all figures need verification)

Any list that does not include Cutthroat Island, the flop which closed Carolco, seems to be wrong

Right. Waterworld would likely be up there, accounting for inflation.

Cutthroat Island and 13th Warrior would defo be up there, both lost around about $175m adjusted. Heaven’s Gate lost about $125m adjusted. Id say its between John Carter, Mortal Engines and Lone Ranger for #1. Looking at pre-release stats I think its probs LR, which appears to have lost almost $200m.

@@cney2125 Waterworld is an awkward one as it did actually cover its production/marketing costs, but back then theatres took quite a bit. Id say it originally lost about $40-60m, about $100m now. But it did later break even on VHS.

I did see the beginning of this movie on television and it was not good .

The Matrix 4 bombed? I didn’t know that. Anyway, considering how lazy and insipid it is it got exactly what it deserved then!

Any movie with hulk hogan

I think what killed the The Lone Ranger for a lot of audiences, was the run time, the fact it very quickly became 'the Tonto movie', and it took bloody forever for him to actually get around to Lone Rangering. I think many audiences saw it as another Pirates of the Old West, watching Johnny Depp do crazy shennanigans and fumble his way in and out of predicaments. I had a fun time with it, but then I knew what I was getting into beforehand-

I agree about John Carter and the 13th Warrior. I couldn't finish The Lone Ranger. I didn't see it in the theaters, but I rented it on Amazon Prime, and gave up halfway through the film I was so bored.

@@eclipsehorse8693 Johnny Depp really phoned it in big time with The Lone Ranger. It was simply too forgettable despite being entertaining.

Same. I didn’t see it until it was on streaming. I don’t go to the cinema anyway.

i thought it was actually quiet good

John Carter failed because the studio adapted the source material without realizing that modern audiences knew little to nothing about the book series.

I think it took forever to finally get out, it had a pretty troubled production schedule to begin with, and I think the 'monsters' in the end weren't what audiences expected. aside from Antonio Banderas, it don't have a very large noteable cast. The pacing was a bit on the slow side, and it suffered from NOT keeping the original title that MAY have helped it at the box office - so a variety of reasons

Technically, was in the black.

That is one of my favorite movies of all time!!

It recouped its production/ads budgets, but lost about $40m due to cuts theatres took back then. It broke even on VHS. So it lost money, but not this much. KC’s huge bomb was The Postman

@@mmsiphonevinyls1027 Lol I thought Postman was the better movie of the 2 tbh

@@walawala7985 its opinion of course, but The Postman got much worse reviews (8% vs 48% on RT).

ERB wrote amazing books. I thought the movie did the best they could with time constraints!

I mean, a movie doesn't have to be bad to be a flop. That's the really sad part

@@benmcfee totally agree, real shame

I wanted to like it but 13th Warrior just didnt click with me. Sahara and John Carter id give a marginal thumbs up, they werent masterpieces but had their strengths and were worth seeing.

I think you may be right on that.

Original title was John Carter of Mars, but the failure of Mars Needs Moms nixed any use of the word Mars by Disney!

@@caronstout354 Yes! It's one of the biggest showbiz ironies that their determination to not repeat the mistakes of the 2nd biggest flop, they helped create the 1st. Calling it "John Carter of Mars" might not have made it a hit, but it couldn't have hurt.

Ya I liked it too

I really enjoyed it too. The set and costume designs are excellent, it's well paced and the action is enjoyable.

I totally agree. I liked it alot

47 Ronin was what culturally-pandering Hollywood China-mania used to be in the 00's: Culturally-pandering Hollywood Tokyo-mania. (Maybe you've forgotten "Fast & Furious 3: Tokyo Drift"? The '98 Godzilla?)

Oh yeah, directed by her husband. Usually never a good sign

@@robotzombie9 Yeah Melissa McCarthy can vouch for that🤦🏽‍♂️🤭🤣🤣

@@N3m0_o... ha ha ha ha. Worst movie ever to watch, and also most insulting to a beloved franchise.

Yeah it was produced by Zemeckis, not directed. Still, Wells had a decent track record as i think he directed The Prince of Egypt?

This reboot of the Fantastic Four strayed so far from the source material, by having the main characters transported to another realm, where they get their powers, and having Reed working with the military, along with the team being classified as "Living Weapons", as well as turning Dr. Doom into an alien looking being, was enough to make it a massive bomb, that so damaged the Fantastic Four's history, to the point that we won't see the FF back on the big screen, for the next couple of years, until Marvel Studios can make a damn good FF film.

@@johnosbourn4312 , I would forgive the deviations from the source material, if it were a good story. Sadly, the end result was not good.

The original Fantastic Four was as good as it got.

Agreed, this list isn't comparing apples with apples, and has a huge recency bias. A million dollars today is nothing like a million dollars 30-40 years ago. Also, the cost of a ticket is like 10 times more than it was then

@@stephenpalmer9375 totally agree on the recency bias. Seems WhatCulture is a little lazy. Cheers....

The memory of it went back to Gaea.

That movie gave me nightmares for ages as a kid 🤣. Dragging my poor mum to the cinema to watch it. I think most of that budget was spent on creating human like hair movement

@@TheHistoryPrincess 🤣🤣🤣

@@TheHistoryPrincess Marketing costs is usually about the same amount as the budget. The odd part is people who notice the production budget and the amount made in the box office literally believe 100% of the money at the box office pays off the entire production budget and it is all profit afterwards. They have no idea theaters take a certain percentage and especially don't seem to know marketing costs is even a thing.

CG got a 10/10. 2s and 3s for the other qualities.

Its partly because, even adjusted for inflation, marketing costs have skyrocketed the last 20 years. Id say of the 10 biggest losses adjusted for inflation, the only pre-2000 films are Cutthroat Island and maybe 13th Warrior.

The Pirates of the Caribbean franchise made $4.5 billion worldwide. Disney thought that the same director, writer, main actor and producer would recreate that miracle...

They really must have gone nuts on overspending, and it's not even clear on what. And the movie we got was actually a budgetary compromise. The original plan was for the bad guys to be werewolves. It's a lousy movie overall, but I do recommend the last 20 minutes or so, with the train chase. It's one of the most fun action set pieces in recent memory.

@@suedenim yep, the only thing wrong is I found they played the theme music too long in that scene

Once all costs are covered it needed about $500m just to break even. Like John Carter, it was too big a gamble. I guess as people have said, they just thought using Depp and the filmmakers from Pirates meant another hit.

Well theres those rumours that Disney didnt market it well enough almost on purpose, basically willing to let it tank so sequels wouldnt clash with Star Wars, as by then theyd begun talks to buy Lucasfilm.

Bound was good. Speed Racer is excellent. V for Vendetta is excellent. The Matrix was brilliant (the two sequels were better than average, and are always worth multiple viewings). Personally I loved Jupiter Ascending, despite it starring two of the worst actors in Hollywood. I agree that they were better Directors when they were men!

I think they're extremely talented, but weird (and I mean this in the best way). The Matrix being a huge hit was a lucky fluke, because it's a weird movie too, but clicked with a mass audience at just the right time. They're still weird, and the halo of the Matrix keeps them from having to make blander studio-friendly films. But when you come right down to it, they should be beloved makers of low to mid budget cult hits, not failed makers of would-be studio tentpoles.

I agree with your comment except I question how talented they are, especially after their latest Matrix film, which is total trash. It’s such an incredibly lazy film. Look at how meta we are!

@@garyphisher7375 I haven’t seen Bound but V for Vendetta, Speed Racer and the Matrix sequels are all trash. Speed Racer is especially atrocious. The Wachowskis really are one hit wonders.

Bound is a great film noir. Original too.

Pluto Nash sounds pretty good on paper - "Eddie Murphy is Lando Calrissian." Doesn't that sound like it would be fun?

@@dinogoldie9716 casting women instead of men means men suck or something idk

@@dinogoldie9716 are you serious?

@@eq1373 Director Paul Feig said that the film had to contend with the tense political climate of 2016, among other things.

Disney shot themselves in the foot, marketing it badly despite it already being risky. Cant help but believe the rumour that they let it tank so sequels couldnt compete with Star Wars, as theyd begun talks with Lucasfilm.

Don't be shy.. give them a try 😂

I'm actually shocked. If you decide to change that accomplishment. A few aren't absolute rubbish. However be careful.

Depp is extremely overrated.

The main issues with JC were its bad marketing by Disney (trailers/title change etc), lack of star power and just being too big an investment to ever have a chance.

Not if I had a parachute.

I really enjoyed it even though it flopped. The set and costume design was excellent and I liked the myth building and action sequences.

It was a fantastic movie, people just don't give them a chance or know the history behind them.

Villain: So you see, we're near-immortal space vampires! Protagonist: Wow, you're...evil. That was it, that was the kill shot right there. I didn't dislike the film, it's just...stupid, really. The example suffices - lazy, lazy writing. If you liked it, fine (Pearl Harbor and The Deerhunter aside). Do you really want to watch it again, though?

@@JESL_TheOnlyOne True, it reminded me a lot of Soylent Green when the plot point was refreshing. Unfortunately, like a Shyamalan movie, you expect a "shocking" twist (own Jupiter Ascending but watch only maybe ½ of the movie)

Other than The Matrix, the Wachowskis have never had a profitable film. Bound? Cost 4.5, made 3.8. Cloud Atlas had a worldwide gross of 128 against a budget of 100, but P&A would have put that in the red, as well. Speed Racer, 120 on the budget, grossed 93 worldwide, add in P&A and you're looking at nine red numbers on the bottom line. And thanks to Resurrections, which was too meta for its own good, the future prospects for The Matrix aren't even certain at this point.

@@ToABrighterFuture Ressurections felt like WB was kissing its own a** while trying too hard to subvert expectations. Even though their projects were _unique_ (?) in their own right, you can see a Wachowski movie from a mile away (bullet-time events, philosophical nonsense, CGI overuse, odd camera angles, jarring color schemes, overly grand plots) but the W siblings direct action creatively (maybe the only plus in their movies). All that aside, they do have a knack for creating cult-classic duds that'll only confuse viewers who kind of expect something less wonky & on-the-nose meta. Expected more from Ressurections, got a direct to DVD experience. Aka, a big "meh"

yeah, I only watched john carter recently, due to lockdown boredom, and I was pleasantly surprised it was far better than I thought it would be, I've heard many say it's the title that they messed up by not adding the 'of mars', which does seem to make sense.

FYI, Burroughs first book was "Under the Moons of Mars" written in 1911 for a pulp magazine, book title "A Princess of Mars", movie title "John Carter". Burroughs second book, finished February 1912, was "The Outlaw of Torn", an adventure set in medieval England. Burroughs third book, finished May 1912, was "Tarzan of the Apes". Burroughs fourth book, finished October 1912, was "The Gods of Mars", the sequel to "A Princess of Mars"

Thanks for clearing that up for me. I wrote what I thought I knew. Just the same, between each book the writing got better

@@thomasgalloway6862 I agree with you.

@@TheGreg6466 when first announced it was originally set to have the “of mars” in its title. It was widely reported they dropped it when Mars Needs Moms bombed so drastically

God, 'Tomorrowland'- wow... pitch one movie and make a completely different one, and don't tell anyone until it's finished. 'Tomorrowland' started out strong, but it just fell apart in the third act and lost audiences...

@@eclipsehorse8693 yeah i agree the plot getting a bit muddled and tonally inconsistent is what flawed Tomorrowland, as it had a brilliant premise. Similar issue to John Carter IMO.

John Carter the movie is laughable garbage.

I really enjoyed John Carter

I thought its tone/pacing was somewhat uneven, but it was still quite entertaining and visually very creative. Id give it a marginal thumbs up.

I don't do the "Of All Time!" with you and your husband but I always stay for the uplifting comments, regardless of what he may of said about my mom.

You're in the wrong century.

Like they killed Treasure Planet :(

@@DenSvartaStjarnan TP came at the wrong time. It bombed for the same reason Atlantis only just broke even and Home on The Range and Dreamworks’ Sinbad tanked; traditional animation’s popularity was at an all time low from 2002-08. Pity as while TP isnt perfect, IMO its by far the best of those i mentioned.

And yes i cant help but believe those rumours about Disney being willing to let JC tank so sequels wouldnt compete with Star Wars. Plus their CEO by its release wasnt the CEO who originally greenlit it, so wasnt fully behind it.

@@mmsiphonevinyls1027 I saw both "Treasure Planet" and "Home on the Range" in theaters as a kid. Plus, I have "Atlantis: The Lost Empire" on VHS, if anyone is interested.

How to Kill Space Opera in Three Easy Steps

@@JESL_TheOnlyOne Indeed. It looked absolutely spectacular, but it had less depth than a puddle in a heatwave.

Tell that to the public who roasted Disney for the casting.