John Carter (Post-release)

[Monster Dave]

Re: John Carter

I saw last night on the news that Disney's loosing something like 200 million dollars on this flop...

That's one sad project...

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: John Carter

That's one sad project...

Well, it got made, and made pretty nicely IMHO, so I'M happy!

Don't cry for Disney- they'll break even in the end, at worst.
182 mill theatrically so far- they sell 10 mill copies on DVD & BR, and all is well.

Still... the cost of the flick was ridiculous IMO. Look at Serenity or Moon- great movies with smallish budgets (10 for Moon; 40 for Serenity). I love location shooting, but JC went too far, financially. Stanton's direction was good, but he was given too much leeway. Remember Star Wars? 10 mill (50 or so mill in today's dollars).

And $200 toilet seats on an aircraft carrier... ?

That's how it works. The artist (or toilet seat maker) just does what he does- the PRODUCERS enable the production & sales, or excesses therein.

JC may be the LAST location filmed SF movie ever made. A throwback. Possibly a conspiracy to produce 'the last real-looking SF/CGI-dependent movie' .
A brave move if so. Stanton risked a lot for this movie.
Oh well...

On to the cartoon world of the SF movie future!:thumbsup

Independent movies inevitably will rule.... shot on HD, CGI-ed by artists....distributed by dudes that intend to PAY said artists....
Big Hollywood bloated studio madness & nepotism will be history soon- just like location shooting...:cry

Rant over. When Is JC on DVD??????:cool

 

[Carson Dyle]

Re: John Carter

Don't cry for Disney indeed. A $200 mil write-off is nothing to sneeze at, but it's worth it to keep John Lasseter happy.

Think of it as an investment. John Carter is small potatoes; Disney's future with Pixar is the Wrath of God.

Big Hollywood bloated studio madness & nepotism will be history soon

"Big Hollywood bloated studio madness & nepotism" gave us some of the greatest works of art of the 20th century. It may not have been a perfect system, but it was a system, and when it worked it worked beautifully.

You win some, you lose some.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: John Carter

"Big Hollywood bloated studio madness & nepotism" gave us some of the greatest works of art of the 20th century. It may not have been a perfect system, but it was a system, and when it worked it worked beautifully.

Agreed.

 

[The Wook]

Re: John Carter

Studio exec casualty from John Carter epic fail.

Disney Studios Chairman Rich Ross Resigns - Yahoo! Movies

The Wook

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: John Carter

:facepalm:behave cry

 

[Wes R]

Re: John Carter

Hollywood should have never stopped using the studio system of the early 20th century, they seemed to have better quality control for the most part (still made stinkers of course) back then.

 

[nickytea]

Re: John Carter

Hollywood should have never stopped using the studio system of the early 20th century, they seemed to have better quality control for the most part (still made stinkers of course) back then.

99% of silent shorts are utter crap. Or was that not what you were talking about?

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: John Carter

Interesting reading this discussion on the film's poor marketing. To me, the trailer was no worse than Avatar's; in fact the two trailers were incredibly similar ( both were nevertheless bad enough to keep me out of the theatre). Seemed to me the film could've been relied upon to suck in a huge part of the Avatar audience. That it didn't happen may actually be down to the title. Even I, who have knowledge of Burroughs, thought they were asking for trouble by ditching 'Mars' from the title. I mean you're left with just a guy's name - how the heck do you get anyone interested in that? We geeks've heard of John Carter. But to the bloke in the street the film might as well be called Andrew Watson. And you go... whuh? Wha...?

 

[Nwerke]

Re: John Carter

Agreed! It's throwing away the "hooK" of the title, which works as well now as it did in Burroughs' time. "John Carter of Mars"; it's golden marketable incongruity like "A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court". What part of that did they forget?!

And that first teaser was rubbish. I was hyped for the film and eager to see the trailer.

My comment to my wife afterwards was 'well damn, they only went for telemovie production values. I thought this was supposed to be big-budget. Bastards'.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: John Carter

Yeah, and yet I'd heard somewhere they ditched the 'Mars' because they thought it sounded too corny, or that Mars was uncool according to market research or something... but blimey, at least it's a hook of some kind, as you said, and anything's gotta be better than an SF movie called Graham Phillips, lol....

 

[BAK55]

Re: John Carter

From all that I've read about this, it seems to me that they took the big risk of making this movie with all the money spent on it, only to take a very timid approach promoting this film.

"Mars" was dropped out of fear from the "Mars Needs Moms" disappointing boxoffice. So there was a want to distance any association from there.

They believed any mention of a Princess in the title would scare away the boys. (Did they forget "Princess Bride"?)

Nothing was mentioned about this coming from the mind that created "Tarzan".

Silly people.

 

[Carson Dyle]

Re: John Carter

The story here is not “Bad title killed movie’s chances at box office.”

As successful films like Barton Fink, Forrest Gump, Jerry Maguire, and Michael Clayton prove, there’s nothing inherently risky about naming a film after an unfamiliar protagonist.

The real story here is “studio gave complete creative control (including control of marketing) to Pixar-leveraged director who didn’t know what he was doing.”

Andrew Stanton is a brilliant animation director, but as a live-action director/ marketing head he got in WAY over his head.

If Disney can be faulted for anything it’s for cow-towing to an overindulgent filmmaker. MT Carny and Rich Ross have paid for that mistake with their jobs, which is as it should be. The real disaster here, for genre fans, is the extent to which the colossal failure of John Carter will inhibit the production of future literary-based sci-fi.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: John Carter

The real disaster here, for genre fans, is the extent to which the colossal failure of John Carter will inhibit the production of future literary-based sci-fi.

There go my hopes for a movie of The Forever War...:cry

 

[Carson Dyle]

Re: John Carter

BTW, if there's an overlooked marketing hook here it's the fact that Andrew Stanton is one of the principle creative visionaries behind one of the most financially and artistically successful film studios in history, aka Pixar.

Former Disney marketing chief MT Carny begged Stanton to leverage his Pixar pedigree in the marketing for John Carter. He refused, and it's a mistake he now deeply regrets having made.

 

[Alan Cross]

Re: John Carter

The story here is not “Bad title killed movie’s chances at box office.”

The real story here is “studio gave complete creative control (including control of marketing) to Pixar-leveraged director who didn’t know what he was doing.”

Andrew Stanton is a brilliant animation director, but as a live-action director/ marketing head he got in WAY over his head.

Did you see the movie? Because I gotta disagree about Stanton being in over his head. The movie's fine. I think it's well directed. In fact there are components to the film that are great: The detail in costume design, vehicle design, etc., is REALLY good. The acting is just okay. But it's far from embarrassing.

My point is that it's NOT a disaster in terms of the execution; in the writing or directing. It's a decent movie. I think Andrew Stanton knew what he was doing while he was MAKING the movie...

If I blame Andrew Stanton for anything, it's this:

I fault the idea of MAKING JC to begin with. The often-repeated point about the "best parts" of JC having already been strip-mined by Lucas, Cameron, etc. That's a valid point. But hey, when you love your source material and you've got the power to get it made...

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: John Carter

The story here is not “Bad title killed movie’s chances at box office.”

As successful films like Barton Fink, Forrest Gump, Jerry Maguire, and Michael Clayton prove, there’s nothing inherently risky about naming a film after an unfamiliar protagonist.

I'll give you the last two, but the first two don't count; they're too weird and intriguing-sounding.

 

[Chrisisall]

Re: John Carter

I fault the idea of MAKING JC to begin with. The often-repeated point about the "best parts" of JC having already been strip-mined by Lucas, Cameron, etc. That's a valid point.

This was a movie I've been waiting for since I discovered JC in Marvel Comics in the late 70's. I feel the end result is different enough than anything else I've seen to warrant its being made.
My thing is that I would have scaled it down & done more with characterization. Serenity was made for 40 mill- no way should this flick have gone over 100 IMO.
That said, I CAN'T WAIT to own JC on DVD!!!

 

[Nwerke]

Re: John Carter

they ditched the 'Mars' because they thought it sounded too corny, or that Mars was uncool according to market research or something...

It's considered box office poison. Well, fine...rehabilitate it! :behave

took the big risk of making this movie with all the money spent on it, only to take a very timid approach promoting this film.

Not so much timid, from the sound of it, more overconfident or just simply mistaken. The whole thing was based on some unfounded preconceptions on the part of the director.

The story here is not “Bad title killed movie’s chances at box office.”

I wouldn't argue that. I would argue "Bad title didn't help".

The real story here is “studio gave complete creative control (including control of marketing) to Pixar-leveraged director who didn’t know what he was doing.”

As Alan points out, that's not strictly fair either. Stanton shouldn't, clearly, have been given carte blanche on everything, despite his track record, but the quality of the actual film-making wasn't catastrophic. The scheduling of completion for crucial trailer-friendly shots was catastrophic, indirectly.

MT Carny and Rich Ross have paid for that mistake with their jobs, which is as it should be.

Seems harsh on Carny. I'm only going by that one article but she didn't green light the project, and you pointed out she begged Stanton to take her advice to no avail.

Having failed she also very sensibly quit well before this debacle unfolded. Stanton reportedly reduced her to tears on more than one occasion - a Scotswoman with an advertising industry background. I don't think too much blame can fairly attach, if the facts as reported are accurate?

The real disaster here, for genre fans, is the extent to which the colossal failure of John Carter will inhibit the production of future literary-based sci-fi.

Yeah.

 

[Colin Droidmilk]

Re: John Carter

I would like to hear from those who did not go see the movie and get their perspectives on why this movie didn't interest them. Being one who hasn't seen this movie and still has little to no desire in seeing at all, I guess I'll start.

• Another story about a white man being put on an alien world where he changes the course of it's history.
• John Carter himself. Something about him just didn't sit right with me when I saw him in the trailers. I know that's vague, I just felt no real interest in spending 2+ hours rooting for him.
• Female lead obviously the damsel and the hero's prize in the end.
• Hey Disney, if you're going to throw 300+ million into this movie, have the decency to stick to it's original title, John Carter of Mars. Not saying it would have earned you more money, but leaving Mars out certainly didn't get you much either.

That's what I got out of the marketing at least.

The trailer put me off for these reasons:

1. Yet more potentially great cg battles rendered unwatchable by ludicrously overblown cartoon-like camera motion and object motion.

2. Naff dialogue. Eg. the line, 'we didn't cause this but we're gonna end it', and the Ramboid nature of its delivery (though this could be forgiven if it's in the Burroughs, which I highly doubt).

3. The usual schlocky weight problems in a ton of the cg creatures. I'm sick to death of all this sub-Jurassic Park creature animation. If animation standards from 20 years back cannot be met, then the scene should not be filmed, or at least planned in such a way as not to overburden animators. I'd rather look at one superb creature for two minutes every 15 minutes, than 25 dodgy ones present throughout the entire running time. If that means a project like JC cannot be filmed, then so be it.

4. Everyone should've been naked, like in the original Burroughs texts. God knows it's been a while since we had a good bit of SF porn. Here was the perfect opportunity - blown. Hell, the movie would then at least have staked out some other ground than that trampled to death by the prequels, Avatar, LOTR etc., which by all accounts is something it desperately needed to do.