John Carter . . . What happened?

[kcb1dizbksfan]

I hope this operating loss does not translate to another park admission price hike!

http://money.cnn.com/2012/03/20/news/companies/disney-john-carter/index.htm?hpt=hp_t3


DR NYKCB (Ken)

 

[WaltD4Me]

Who makes a movie out of a book called Princess of Mars and calls it John Carter? Princess of Mars sounds way more interesting. I don't know anyone who even knows what John Carter is about. Hopefully someone at Disney is
questioning the Rich Ross decision now and thinking booting out Dick Cook might not have been the smartest thing.

 

[AndyPok1]

Hopefully someone at Disney is
questioning the Rich Ross decision now and thinking booting out Dick Cook might not have been the smartest thing.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the John Carter project was greenlit under Dick Cook.

 

[rotlex]

What happened? They named it John Carter, LOL. Seriously. John Carter? Oohh, let me run right out and catch that one!

It does look pretty good I guess, but I'll probably pass on it until it's available for rental somewhere.

 

[lttlmc3]

What happened? They named it John Carter, LOL. Seriously. John Carter? Oohh, let me run right out and catch that one!

It does look pretty good I guess, but I'll probably pass on it until it's available for rental somewhere.

I totally agree with this. What a dumb name. It should have been a more epic name for an epic movie. And the TV trailers give no information about the story. They really should have redone those.

 

[ktlm]

It is a great movie! I absolutely LOVED it! So did DH. So did everyone around us. Everyone was leaving the theater talking about how great it was. We heard several kids asking to see it again.


The Disney marketing department who handled it REALLY blew it is what happened. I saw the movie last night after hearing from a friend it was great. I had ZERO desire to see it based on the trailer or the commercials for it. Looked like just a bunch of fighting to me. I had never even heard of John Carter until the trailer came out. I had no clue until after that, that the John Carter books (which began in 1917) were what inspired and led to Star Wars and Avatar- and although I'm not really a science fiction fan I did love those movies. You can really see in the movie where both Star Wars and Avatar ripped things off from the John Carter books. I thought the movie had a Star Wars feel although the story was completely different.

Not only did the marketing suck, but some brainiac decides to release it 2 weeks before The Hunger Games??? Hello- anyone with half a brain knows that whatever is in the IMAX theaters (which many theaters only have one IMAX screen) is going to be pulled out and replaced with the Hunger Games! Also Hunger Games is obviously going to be a Sci Fi blockbuster- people don't go to the movies as much and IMAX is expensive, so obviously alot of people will be saving their money waiting for that one. Even if the release date was planned before they knew the Hunger Games release date, they should have scrambled and changed it. I think that but for the Hunger Games, the word of mouth would have started to spread and it would have started picking up speed and making more money. On a Tuesday night, the IMAX theater we were in was at least 3/4 full.

The movie should be the blockbuster Disney thought it was going to be. Poor Disney- considering there are 10 or 11 books in the John Carter series and this was book 1, I'm sure they thought they were building a whole franchise. The marketing for the thing was terrible.

 

[JasonDVC]

The movie looks like Conan the Barbarian but they call it "John Carter"????? Whoever came up with the name of the movie should be fired immediately.

 

[apurplebrat]

It is a great movie! I absolutely LOVED it! So did DH. So did everyone around us. Everyone was leaving the theater talking about how great it was. We heard several kids asking to see it again.


The Disney marketing department who handled it REALLY blew it is what happened. I saw the movie last night after hearing from a friend it was great. I had ZERO desire to see it based on the trailer or the commercials for it. Looked like just a bunch of fighting to me. I had never even heard of John Carter until the trailer came out. I had no clue until after that, that the John Carter books (which began in 1917) were what inspired and led to Star Wars and Avatar- and although I'm not really a science fiction fan I did love those movies. You can really see in the movie where both Star Wars and Avatar ripped things off from the John Carter books. I thought the movie had a Star Wars feel although the story was completely different.

Not only did the marketing suck, but some brainiac decides to release it 2 weeks before The Hunger Games??? Hello- anyone with half a brain knows that whatever is in the IMAX theaters (which many theaters only have one IMAX screen) is going to be pulled out and replaced with the Hunger Games! Also Hunger Games is obviously going to be a Sci Fi blockbuster- people don't go to the movies as much and IMAX is expensive, so obviously alot of people will be saving their money waiting for that one. Even if the release date was planned before they knew the Hunger Games release date, they should have scrambled and changed it. I think that but for the Hunger Games, the word of mouth would have started to spread and it would have started picking up speed and making more money. On a Tuesday night, the IMAX theater we were in was at least 3/4 full.

The movie should be the blockbuster Disney thought it was going to be. Poor Disney- considering there are 10 or 11 books in the John Carter series and this was book 1, I'm sure they thought they were building a whole franchise. The marketing for the thing was terrible.

I agree! Loved the movie! The marketing was horrible, Disney really blew it on this one

 

[auroralark]

I read it was originally titled John Carter of Mars but they took out the part about Mars after Mars Needs Moms tanked. The critical reviews I saw were all bad. I agree that it wasn't marketed well and the title stinks.

 

[PHILCT]

I never knew that the movie was based on a very famous sci fi book until I saw the movie and did some research on it.

I am guessing they were trying to market it to more audiences with the rename.

I saw this movie in Real 3D, and for me it gave the movie a darker, not brighter look, and I am not really sure 3D is needed to enjoy this movie.

I wonder if the IMAX 3D version was better visually? I didn't want the excessive sound that my theatre does with the IMAX.

I thought it was a "okay" movie, but maybe a good movie to rent eventually for those who have not seen it yet. The movie ended up taking on losses for the Disney Corporation.

No disrespect to anyone else who really loved the film, films are always subject to the individual tastes and expectations.

Phil

 

[T Morrows Child]

An even bigger problem was that they originally announced it as Pixar's first live action film, but dropped that some time back. But, if you stay for the credits, it's loaded with Pixar execs and artists, along with a thanks/dedication to Steve Jobs.

It was a terrific film, and the Pixar name might have brought more people in to see it.

Dropping the "of Mars" from the original film title seems like a knee jerk reaction to how poorly "Mars Needs Moms" did. Bad decision, I think.

I agree that the trailers didn't really convey the feeling or story in the movie. It looked like it lacked story, which is far from the truth.

 

[GaSleepingBeautyFan]

I've read the books years ago and even then didn't have any interest in seeing the movie.

When I saw how poorly Disney marketed it, I really decided to save my money. My husband wants to see it so we'll probably rent it eventually.

 

[ktlm]

The movie looks like Conan the Barbarian

And therein lies the problem! It is so not Conan... but the marketing people made it look like that is all it was. Conan is nothing but a revenge movie. It is about the fighting. Plus Conan loves its blood and gore, and while there is a lot of war, fighting and killing in John Carter- there is very little blood or gore with it- like Star Wars where you see everyone fall, but no one seems to actually bleed. This movie does have alot of fighting, but it isn't about the fighting. This one actually has a story that someone like me who doesn't care for movies that are all fighting or war or action- and who hates bloody gorey stuff- can get into. It is about a Man who has lost his way (mentally messed up by his U.S. Civil War experience) finding himself again. It is about a Princess trying to find a way to save her people (Gee, I wonder where the Star Wars books writers got the Princess Leia character? ). and inspiring/teaching him to be himself again.

I saw this movie in Real 3D, and for me it gave the movie a darker, not brighter look, and I am not really sure 3D is needed to enjoy this movie.

I wonder if the IMAX 3D version was better visually? I didn't want the excessive sound that my theatre does with the IMAX.

Phil, I thought the movie was gorgeous in IMAX 3D and was definitely worth the money. If I had to chose between regular 3D and 2D, I think I would pick 2D. I don't think it really had 3D effects worth the extra money over 2D. . I do think it is worth a view on the big screen because unless you have a really big TV, I think it will lose something in the rental. I think it is kind of like seeing Star Wars or Avatar on the small screen-the movies are still entertaining, but you lose some of what made them visually special. (No disrespect taken- I'm sure someone will take issue with the fact I really dislike the Conan movies! - Yes even Arnold.).


Can you tell I really liked this movie? I'm now debating whether I want to actually read the other 9 or 10 John Carter books... because obviously I don't think we will be seeing the sequels Disney undoubtedly thought it would be able to do with the character. GAsleepingbeautyfan, from what you remember are they worth the read? I was a little concerned about whether I would have trouble getting into the writing style of books written in 1917 and 1918.

 

[jcarwash]

Director Andrew Stanton has been active on Twitter (@andrewstanton) taking questions of all kinds, including dispelling myths about the movie, such as:

1. It was never intended to be a live-acton Pixar movie; it was always planned as a Disney movie.

2. Why "of Mars" was dropped from the working title "John Carter of Mars." His answers were "Once you see the movie you'll understand." (Marketing may have been involved, but Stanton is explaining the title change as an artistic decision.)

This article rounds up some of the answers he's given:
http://pixartimes.com/2012/01/20/director-andrew-stanton-dispels-john-carter-myths/

 

[sayhello]

It is about a Princess trying to find a way to save her people (Gee, I wonder where the Star Wars books writers got the Princess Leia character? ).

Um, that would be George Lucas himself, who wrote the original story. He fully admits to having "borrowed" stuff from all sorts of sci-fi he read as a kid. For example, there is a HUGE amount of Tatooine that is taken from Herbert's Dune books. We'd never have had Star Wars if it wasn't for the classic sci-fi writers and movie-makers.

Sayhello

 

[T Morrows Child]

Director Andrew Stanton has been active on Twitter (@andrewstanton) taking questions of all kinds, including dispelling myths about the movie, such as:

1. It was never intended to be a live-acton Pixar movie; it was always planned as a Disney movie.

2. Why "of Mars" was dropped from the working title "John Carter of Mars." His answers were "Once you see the movie you'll understand." (Marketing may have been involved, but Stanton is explaining the title change as an artistic decision.)

This article rounds up some of the answers he's given:
http://pixartimes.com/2012/01/20/director-andrew-stanton-dispels-john-carter-myths/

Perhaps, although it would be hard to separate the truth from "spin." It is easy to see how folks would assume that with Stanton being attached to the film early on. Most articles in 2008 and 2009 describe it as "Pixar's John Carter." It was certainly easy to be misinformed at that early date.

It'll be a tough writeoff, but the stock doesn't seem to have been punished yet. Probably after the quarterly, though, eh?

Thanks for relaying this.

 

[Halloweenqueen]

You don't take a famous classic sci-fi book series and change the name! It's like changing Harry Potter to "Home with the Dursleys".

 

[ktlm]

Um, that would be George Lucas himself, who wrote the original story. He fully admits to having "borrowed" stuff from all sorts of sci-fi he read as a kid. For example, there is a HUGE amount of Tatooine that is taken from Herbert's Dune books. We'd never have had Star Wars if it wasn't for the classic sci-fi writers and movie-makers.

Sayhello

Actually George Lucas AND his ghostwriter, Alan Dean Foster. George Lucas and James Cameron have both admitted that that their creations were influenced heavily by the John Carter books (as well as other stuff and particularly Dune). Lucas has stated that the John Carter series was a "major influence" on Star Wars. For Example, Star Wars has Banthas, John Carter has Banths. Star Wars has the Sith, evil Jedi, while the John Carter books have the Sith, but they are evil insects. Supposedly some of the later paintings of Princess Dejah's "outfits" are where George came up with the ideas for Princess Leia's famous "space bikini" outfit. Also Lucas took his ideas for Jabba's desert skiff from the flying platforms of the John Carter books. Also, Lucas used the character of John Carter himself, as the inspirtation for the character and personality of Hans Solo, my favorite Star Wars character. Also, it has been documented that Frank Herbert loved the John Carter books when he was young and that they were a direct influence on his creation of Dune. John Carter is basically the Grandfather of modern day science fiction, or at least some of its most famous books and movies.

Ugh- I'm starting to sound like a science fiction fan! I really didn't know any of this stuff before I got interested in figuring out who the heck John Carter was and why Disney thought naming a movie with such a plain ordinary name was a good idea. I did some research and found all the stuff. Honestly, I think the movie is worth a see just for seeing where all the ideas for the later stuff came from (of course just as the John Carter books inspired Star Wars, Dune and Avatar, I have to think that those movies themselves had influence on the movie makers of the current John Carter movie)

After seeing the movie, I do understand what Stanton meant in No. 2.

 

[T Morrows Child]

After seeing the movie, I do understand what Stanton meant in No. 2.

Well, it certainly works well. It gave us a moment to cheer about!

 

[doconeill]

About the only reason I can think of for dropping "of Mars" from Stanton's point of view was that they didn't want to spoil what I think was a rather minor thing - what he is referred to in the movie until the end.

But it also removed anything from the title that gave it meaning. "John Carter of Mars" would have at least given some sort of clue that it was a science fiction epic, and for those familiar with the works, that it was based on ERB's Barsoom novels. Instead, it was just "John Carter". It could have been about Noah Wyle's character from ER for all the title gave. Marquee signs I saw gave no sense of what it was about. An older gentleman at the theater was looking at the marquee and said, "John Carter...what's that?" - a week after release.

"A Princess of Mars" probably wouldn't have been the greatest title either, so they originally intended to go with "John Carter of Mars" in an attempt to establish the franchise. But from what I understand some marketing nitwit looked back and saw Disney's track record for movies with "Mars" in the title, and said "We can't use that! It will flop!" Well, it did, without Mars in the title.

The trailers didn't help at all, at least early on. They showed essentially the aforementioned "Conan the Barbarian" scenes, without anything about a story, and then just called it "John Carter". They tried to correct that too late.

This was the last movie greenlit under Cook's regime as well. There's been a lot of speculation that Ross would have killed it if he could have, but the bets had already been made. But whether he was responsible for the lack of good marketing or not, I don't know.

It's really too bad. It's not a great movie, but it was good. I did a review of it:
Review: John Carter – give it a chance

It had the potential to have been a good epic story with sequels, but I also don't think they could sustain that big of a budget either.