The Times gives its autopsy report:
... [A]lthough there's plenty of blame to go around on both the creative and marketing sides, there's another factor: the source material itself. Disney could have made a better movie and sold it more persuasively to a skeptical public. But it was dealing with a stacked deck from the start.
"John Carter" is based primarily on "A Princess of Mars," the first in Edgar Rice Burroughs' early 20th century 11-volume series of Barsoom novels. It's a touchstone work of science fiction -- so touchstone that many viewers don't know what it is.
More to the point, it's an epic, which can be a tough sell no matter the studio or marketing strategy. ...
I've only seen the trailer and a five-minute clip for JC, so I'm not the best one to judge, but the environment for Carter seems to be all dry and desert-like.
You know, unappealing? Like Mars? (Avatar, by contrast, looked like it had been shot on Kauai.)
Further, we all know that no Mars feature has been boffo at the box office. Even Tim Burton couldn't pull it off. Even with Jack Nicholson doing his best Richard Nixon impression.
So if John Carter ends up being a write-off for the Mouse, it had plenty of omens and portents. (Maybe a $150 million budget would have helped get a different result?)
Add On: The New York Times weighs in with its morgue notes.
Posts
37 comments:
The film is quite good (as is the book). Marketing did a poor jop of making the public aware that this film is much better than Avatar (despite your feelings about the scenery).
This is a swashbuckling romance and Disney couldn't figure out how to make that clear to the public.
The good news is it seems to be doing very well overseas. Disney must have hired out the marketing work to an outside company overseas.
^^
Most reviewers seem to disagree with you...
More....
http://www.cnbc.com/id/46704405//
"Further, we all know that no Mars feature has been boffo at the box office."
Total Recall?
"^^
Most reviewers seem to disagree with you..."
So you're going to let reviewers sitting in their comfy paid-for seats dictate what you should watch?
And, if you weren't so biased to beging with, you'd notice that only half the reviewers found fault with it and their reviews were seriously flawed (typically), but most real people that saw it actually liked it.
Yeah, and no one goes to Westerns anymore - until they do.
Just drop the subject guys. Obviously those who love the film/books are crying and whining because the film failed.
Just drop the subject guys. Obviously those who love the film/books are crying and whining because the film failed.
No worries. Good films occasionally fail at the box office. Exhibit A: Iron Giant.
Most of the reviews I'm hearing from friends are passionately positive. All of them end with "You *HAVE* to go see this!".
Since I put more stock in reviews from people I know, I'd say this is one not to miss.
In matters of taste and art there can be no dispute, since it's subjective.
You love it, you love it. I liked the clip well enough ... but not enough to rush to the local AMC.
Even NASA canceled it's plans for a Mars projest. It's plain to all that the public is only interested in Mars if chocolate is involved.
Successful films that were set almost 100% in the desert:
"Lawrence of Arabia"
"The 10 Commandments"
"The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly"
"The Hurt Locker"
"Stargate"
"The Mummy"
etc.
I haven't seen "John Carter". I hear it's good. But the trailers stink. Nothing looks like something I haven't seen before. They didn't sell me on the images, the actors, or the story (if I wasn't familiar with the books, I would've had no idea what the tale was about).
I hope word of mouth pulls it out of it's $100mil opening weekend nose dive.
100Million opening weekend? Try 30.
**No worries. Good films occasionally fail at the box office. Exhibit A: Iron Giant.**
Exhibit B: Astro Boy.
"So you're going to let reviewers sitting in their comfy"
Yeah I guess I shouldn't listen to those reviewers I trust. Whom have saved my a lot of money and time over the years. I should just paint them all with a broad brush of corruption and ineptitude. Thank you, now I am wise to their tricks and won't be fooled again!!!
"Most of the reviews I'm hearing from friends are passionately positive"
That's interesting because most of my friends hated it. WTH am I going to do? I can't rely on biased critics or my looser friends. And obviously I missed something in the trailers. Should I just rely on these here blog comments and spend my hard earned money?
"there's another factor: the source material itself ...based primarily on "A Princess of Mars," the first in Edgar Rice Burroughs' early 20th century 11-volume series of Barsoom novels. "
That would be silly to suggest that the movie is failing because it's based on an "early 20th century" source .
How many times has the 19th century/early 20th century Sherlock Holmes been successfully rebooted ? (at least twice recently , in the two steampunk Guy Ritchie big-screen movies "Sherlock Holmes" and "A Game of Shadows" and the contemporary revisioning of Steven Moffat's and Mark Gatiss's "Sherlock" television series on BBC. )
The age of the material is probably not the problem .
And honestly I don't even know if there is a problem with John Carter. I still need to see it myself to make up my own mind. I've heard some good word of mouth about the movie from people who have seen it , but apparently the Conventional Wisdom™ in the press has now dubbed it a complete and utter failure and most people seem to have swallowed that hook, line , and sinker.
(However , the trailers were terrible. Did not make me want to see the movie. Heads should roll in the Disney marketing dept. )
Our old "friend" Nikki Finke started the ball rolling before the film even saw the light of day. From some of the comments she's mad about Stanton it appears she has an axe to grind against him and set out to try and control the narrative (as she likes to do) early on. Maybe it's her disdain for Pixar. Who knows.
Hollywood is so full of sheep (especially the critics) that they were quick to follow her down that path.
90% of the people I've talked to in the creative community liked the film. I'm going to give it a go this week.
...The TAG Blog. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
The problem is the film isn't very good. End of story. Not the worst kids film ever made, but far from the best. The bad marketing didn't help. But the blame rests squarely on the writers/director and Disney.
At a lavishly appointed villa in Tuscany, a gloating Robert Zemeckis goes: "YES!!!"
Why? He's still working with Disney.
If CNBC is correct in their statement that marketing was in a tug-of-war with Stanton over how to sell it, then marketing is simply not to blame. It means only two things -
(1) The studio didn't know why they were making the movie and had nothing substantial to offer marketing, and (2) the director couldn't explain in twenty words or less what the movie was about, and why 18-24 year olds would want to see it.
The rest is just a snowball of cash accelerating downhill.
Should I just rely on these here blog comments and spend my hard earned money?
You don't have to spend much to see it. See the cheaper 2D version for the best possible format, since it was not shot in 3D.
If you have a Costco membership, buy $15.99/pair AMC Gold Experience tickets to bring the price down to $8/ticket.
I loaded up on AMC tickets earlier this year when Costco had a sale on them for $11.99/pair, so I paid all of $6 to see JOHN CARTER for a late show on opening weekend.
It's a fun film, and it did an amazing job adapting the source material. I might go see it again next weekend.
I love how the movie's only been out what... 4 days now? and it's already a "flop" or a "failure".
Give the movie a freaking chance. Sometimes films make more money over time then on the "first weekend". And considering it's made $70 million total the first weekend (domestic and overseas), that's a pretty damn good opening.
John Carter, to me, is another Cars 2. It's a film certain people have hated from the day it was announced and WANT to see fail, and when it doesn't do absolutely HUGE Avatar numbers at the box office, they smugly cry "FLOP!".
Look, you slap $250 million down to make a film? It better be f'ing amazing. They set up the expectations, so they can take their hits like big boys.
>"John Carter, to me, is another Cars 2. It's a film certain people have hated from the day it was announced and WANT to see fail, and when it doesn't do absolutely HUGE Avatar numbers at the box office, they smugly cry "FLOP!".<"
Are these the same people who raved about Brad Bird's "Mission Impossible" film? Seriously, just asking. I'm wondering if you're implying that by being connected to Pixar, these folks want you to fail. If so, how did Bird escape this prejudice?
If so, how did Bird escape this prejudice?
Making nearly $700 million worldwide helps.
I hope JOHN CARTER ends up like HOW TO TRAIN YOUR DRAGON or TITANIC at the box office -- modest start but steady weekends.
jester says: Oh my god!
I'd could've have a V8!
*face palm*
There's no prejudice. The film is extremely mediocre, and the director seems to be extremely arrogant-especially when dealing with the press. It won't end up like those other films, because word of mouth on the film is lousy.
As far as Brad Bird goes, he's got far more experience in dealing with live action, feature animation, and television animation than the director of John Carter.
Steve Moore offers some good commentary on John Carter and the fear of "flops" (and oh how easy it is for everyone else to have perfect 20-20 vision in hindsight , but they're not the ones who took the risk, the film makers took the risk) -
http://flipanimation.blogspot.com/2012/03/flip-on-flops.html
Actually the smart people are predicting it will do okay and may even make money:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-disney-writedown-analyst-loss-300019?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
First, Disney has a habit of debiting their productions so heavily that they can never make money. Personally it's my belief this is on purpose. I don't know why or how but there was nothing 350 million about that film. Nothing.
Ok, that said, I loved it. I thought it was well done, fun and it got me involved. Not Star Wars but a decent film Some really good ideas.
So why did it fail ? To me ,Disney. Their live action rep is so bad that no one, but no one. I still see "Black Hole", "Newsies" and "Baby" when I hear the name Disney. Such a horrible films you have to take years to recover. John Carter will become a classic down the road because nothing failed here but company that sold it. Looking forward to the DVD.
Actually, the SMARTER people know John Carter is a horrible movie and will be a $200 million write off for Disney. In other words, a bomb. No sequels expected.
You silly kids these days with your words meaning the opposite of what they should mean. You're quite a musing in a very sad way.
I just want to tousle your silly little product filled hair
"So why did it fail ? To me ,Disney. Their live action rep is so bad that no one, but no one. I still see "Black Hole", "Newsies" and "Baby" bla bla bla bla....
I can't make sense of your inarticulate comment.
All I can say is that the word of mouth in this is bad! I heard the acting is terrible.
d
Hey Diablo, your friends are idiots. The acting is far from terrible. You need to get some new friends. You want to see bad acting go see any of the Star Wars film- especially the original. This is FAR superior to those classics
The only reason this is getting such a bad rep is because it cost so much and people are glad to finally have a chance to dump on something Pixar related.
The huge hit film (according to Finke this week) made the same money as JC last week, but she decided it was a flop before it opened and declared it that with the same BO. The people that should be concerned about the cost is Disney. Not her, not you and not me.
That's their problem
I don't know...51% on rotten tomatoes is not a good rating. I know the audience put it at 71%, but, I don't put that much weight to the audience's opinion.
As for the pricetag, I agree, it's irrelevant to the films quality. It's a knee jerk reaction to expect more when pricetags are high. I don't recall making any comments on that matter though!?. Neither did I say it was my friends who made the comments on the acting!! Those who made the comments where only aquaintances, and they were giving their honest opinions. No need for the ad hominems here! And, while the acting in Star Wars was bad, that's irrelevant as well. Textbook use of the red herring fallacy.
d.
Post a Comment