Home

[dagobert]

Have you ever heared of that movie? I didn't until today when I read in a German movie magazin that Disney released the first trailer:

[youtube:2oinck3a]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yBFUAW6jC_M[/youtube:2oinck3a]

The movie is produced by Robert Zemeckis and his studio ImageMovers Digital.

I think the trailer doesn't look bad.

[pussinboots]

I really can't believe what Robert Zemeckis has become. Did he suffer some sort of brain damage yet to be detected? Has the limitless potential of modern technology pushed him over the edge? How could the man who brought us Who Framed Roger Rabbit and Death Becomes Her have turned into Hollywood's version of Thomas Kinkade.

Thank goodness Disney is shutting down his studio after this.

[dagobert]

Didn't he make Back to the Future as well. I wonder if he will ever make real life movies again. His last movies were all made with motion capture. Maybe he is afraid to work in a real setting?  :lol:

[lil-shawn]

Why Disney's 'Mars Needs Moms' Bombed

Robert Zemeckis' motion-capture animated film cost
$150 million to produce but earned only $6.9 million
in its debut at the domestic box office.

In the weeks leading up to the release of Mars Needs Moms, Disney knew interest in the film was tepid at best. But no one was prepared for such a disastrous box office wipeout.

From a financial standpoint, Mars could be one of the biggest write-offs in modern Hollywood history.

The motion-capture animated film cost $150 million to produce but earned only $6.9 million in its debut at the domestic box office, the 12th worst opening of all time for a movie released in more than 3,000 theaters and one of the lowest openings for a major 3D release.

The price tag doesn't include a hefty marketing spend. All told, Disney has likely invested $200 million or more in the motion capture pic, made by Robert Zemeckis' now-shuttered ImageMovers Digital.

"The right audience came, but not in the numbers we needed," Disney president of worldwide distribution Chuck Viane said. "I'm disappointed for the filmmakers. They spent at least two years of their lives making a terrific movie that people won't see."

The chances of recovery are slim.

Many times, a movie performing poorly in the U.S. can make up ground at the international box office. Mars, however, did just as badly in its overseas debut, grossing a paltry $2.1 million from 14 countries (about 25% of all territories).

Domestically, it wouldn't be a surprise if Mars topped out at $25 million. Summit Entertainment's Astro Boy, opening to $6.7 million in 2009, cumed $19.6 million, while Fox's Aliens in the Attic opened to $8 million, also in 2009, and cumed $25.2 million. (For a Disney toon to perform as badly as a Summit title is a tough pill to swallow.)

"How do you throw a party and no one comes? This is outright rejection," one veteran studio distribution chief says.

Full Artikel here: //http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/why-disneys-mars-needs-moms-167551

[peep]

I'm not too surprised to be honest. But it's weird, when Disney films fail they usually do quite well in Europe but I hardly saw a marketing campaign in the UK for the film and I think that could be the reason for why it failed here too. If they spent a huge amount on marketing it must have been all for the US because I really did see nothing in comparison to their other releases.

The film itself is ok, still not the biggest fan of the mo-cap's animation style but yeah, very average.