So, in its opening weekend John Carter raked in approximately 30-million in North America and 70-million overseas. 100-million bucks in a single weekend! Not bad huh? Well, actually it is pretty bad if you’ve spent over 350-million on the production and marketing of a movie that’s not getting great word-of-mouth.
Taking into account the fact studios have to split ticket sales with theatres, John Carter will need to take in 600 to 700-million to turn a profit, and it looks like it’s not going to get anywhere close. Financial analysts are saying the movie could lose up to 165-million bucks. That would make John Carter the biggest money-flush in movie history — by kind of a wide margin.
What went wrong? A lot of the blame goes to director Andrew Stanton. Stanton, the writer of the Toy Story series and director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E, has made Disney obscene amounts of money in the past, but unfortunately he didn’t really adapt well to live action. Stanton insisted on an endless array of costly reshoots and tweaks, which you can do that when you’re just playing with CG models in a computer — not so much when you’re using real people. It wasn’t all Stanton’s fault though — blame must be shared by John Carter’s producers, who apparently didn’t have the balls to tell Stanton “Uh, that’s not really how we do things in live action” or “Stop spending so much money! For the love of God, stop spending all our money.”
Personally I’ve found the whole John Carter debacle somewhat baffling. I actually thought the movie looked pretty promising — that first Led Zeppelin accompanied trailer got me downright pumped. I was excited to see Disney drawing on classic Edgar Rice Burrows adventure stories for inspiration as opposed to video games or outdated Disneyland rides. Sure, Taylor Kitsch is a bit douchey, but otherwise I was on board. Somehow though, the movie became an online punching bag and laughing stock and I’m not really sure why. The stuff folks were making fun of was the exact same stuff they usually flock to see. Since when did Internet nerds start hating computer generated aliens and dudes with superpowers? Why is the cheesy-looking Avengers hotly anticipated while John Carter has been reduced to a meme?
Yesterday Dan did a post asking those who saw John Carter what they thought. I’m going to pose another question — for those who didn’t see the movie, why’d you stay home?
via LA Times & Yahoo Finance
![[avatar]](http://p.uproxxcdn.com/photo/3998/thumb)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/general-zod-man-of-steel-1-150x150.png)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/jonathan-rhys-meyers-shutterstock-resized-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadeuropareport-150x150.jpg)
![[image]](http://cdn.uproxx.com/wp-content/thumbnails/130/110/2013/05/gammasquadlegobatmanmovie-150x150.jpg)
1. Adopting Science-Fiction from 100 years ago is pointless. Sci-Fi only works when it pushes expectations of reality or progress. Asimov, Dick, etc. all still exist as great Sci-Fi because the concepts they dealt with are still far in the future or still being explored today. We know there are no human-like aliens living on Mars, so there is no subconscious wonder at the events.
It could work if it was done knowingly, or in self-parody. Doing a sci-fi epic consciously aware of how silly the early 20th century’s idea of sci-fi was would have been entertaining. Trying to sell it seriously just doesn’t work. It could also work as a lower-budget serious telling of events for a smaller audience who is familiar with the material.
2. The art design is terrible. Quite frankly, it looks like a pulp early 20th century adventure novel. Christ, the dude is dressed like fucking He-Man. Again, that’s fine if you want to appeal to a specific audience who is familiar with the original material. If you want to appeal to a larger audience, it needs to appeal to our modern tastes. It should not look like what was cool and exciting in 1917, it should look like what was cool and exciting in 2012.
3. Disney has no cred in the Hollywood Blockbuster business. Disney has attempted to make a massive blockbuster live-action franchise four times now. Three of them (Tron, Prince of Persia, and John Carter) have failed or been mediocre. The only real success is Pirates of the Caribbean. The only reason that movie succeeded was because it had two things going for it. A. a charismatic lead who could chew scenery like Kobayashi chews hotdogs. B. A storyline that manages to be sort of dark and adult while not challenging a light PG-13 rating.
I dunno, I like the art design. Star Wars and Indiana Jones seem to have done well with the whole faux-pulp thing. If anything I’d say it was a problem of not going far enough with it. For instance, Taylor Kitsch just looks like any random douchebag from 2012 to me — they needed someone with more of a classic Hollywood look.
Agree with the other two points though — especially #3. Disney’s name on a blockbuster action-adventure movie just kind of makes me groan these days.
I agree mostly with Axis, but I think #1 could be addressed as JC not only going to Mars but traveling in time. And a lower budget would have been WAY smarter.
However, the sad fact is, is if this movie was even marginally imaginative or good, the results are even more disastrous, because with Pirates and Transformers sequels being chugged out and studios leaning more and more on super-cheap “Found Footage” crap, a new, interesting property in Hollywood is about to become more scarce than ever.
JC, properly made and presented, could have opened up a whole new can of creativity to Hollywood, even if it was simply to mine older properties. However, it’s going to be relegated to the dustbin with “The Shadow” as something Hollywood fucksticks will claim could never work even though Lord of the Rings proved that properly done it CAN. But the most recent failure is the always the biggest. Enjoy the next few years of GI Joe/Fast & Furious/Battleship sequels. Everyone.
(Lost in the list of things that John Carter is in the process of killing: I guaran-damn-tee that the chance of seeing a proper Dune adaptation in our lifetimes is now up there with the Browns winning a Super Bowl.)
I don’t think the problem though is that Hollywood is taking from the same tired IP. I think the problem is that Hollywood is taking exclusively from other IP, period. When the solution to the stagnation of ideas is to go so far back that you are mining the silliest franchise of a dude who also wrote fucking Tarzan, you need to do something more than do the franchise justice.
I am still sad we never got to see what Robert Rodriguez would have done with the film. Especially considering the two biggest problems with it was being too expensive and too serious, something RR has never had a problem with.
With the dearth of original filmmakers who can think on a large scale, mining other IP is pretty much an accepted evil at this point since Hollywood isn’t going to risk things like Back to the Future or Raiders of the Lost Ark anymore unless there’s a familiar name for stupid executives to sell to stupid people.
The best original action/sci-fi/fantasy movies of the last few years really haven’t been blockbusters. The highest profiles I can think of are District 9 and maybe Chronicle, and while they were acclaimed, neither set the world on fire.
porky:
THANK YOU for mentioning “The Shadow”. There is NO REASON why it couldn’t be a fantastic movie. Shoot the damn thing in black and white. NO STARS – keep the costs down and the distractions. I’ve heard that Sam Raimi is clamoring to make it (years ago he had to settle with Darkman) – which is promising. He is one of us.
Sitting on the couch with my dog seemed preferable to going to the theater. Plus they don’t let him in, otherwise I’d be all over it.
I don’t think it looks terrible, I think the marketing is terrible.
But honestly, new “tentpole” features already have to have something in the bag for me. Avengers? Sure, I was a big comics nerd once. John Carter? “…I’ve heard of that. Burroughs, right?” Was the best I could muster.
Avengers looks cheesy, I’ll admit. But the whole Buffy TVS tv series was cheesy and I enjoyed it. Thus I have faith in Joss. The Thor flick was a little cheesy at times, but I enjoyed that too.
I should also say, there comes a time when nothing seems original in action films. When that happens, you just look for things you like.
I never liked Transformers thus I never went to the films. I didn’t read Twilight, Harry Potter was too “bandwagony”, and so on.
Also, I know I’ll see it on Cable or streaming eventually. No need to make an effort.
Honestly, it’s a problem of not being able to afford a ticket.
“Somehow though, the movie became an online punching bag and laughing stock and I’m not really sure why. The stuff folks were making fun of was the exact same stuff they usually flock to see. Since when did Internet nerds start hating computer generated aliens and dudes with superpowers? Why is the cheesy-looking Avengers hotly anticipated while John Carter has been reduced to a meme?”
This is probably why Internet nerds hated it. Because someone out there sincerely holds the belief that if you put CGI nerds and spaceships up on a screen, some nerd is going to pay $12 to see it and it’s just not the case. Just my opinion obviously, but I think net nerds would prefer (in this order):
1. An original story/concept
2. An adaptation with a good story and a refreshing take on the material
2. In lieu of a GOOD story, an adaptation that’s at least true to the crappy story of the source material
Resurrecting a really old sci-fi story and giving it the 2012 action-adventure treatment is actually a little insulting because it’s saying “fuck you, you’ll pay to see this because it’s got aliens and shit.” As another commenter said, resurrecting another century’s perspective on space and the future is ineffective because our perceptions are grounded in an entirely different reality.
Because it looked like the Star Wars prequels starring the crappy Gambit from Wolverine dressed like one of the extras from Beastmaster.
Man, I had forgotten about Taylor Kitsch as crappy Gambit.
Apparently he’s also in Battleship. Will the guy put his name in the record books by sinking two 200 million+ blockbusters in a single year?
I don’t get why averybody is making such a big deal out of this movie, we’ve got so many more just like this one, what becouse it was the most expensive one? John Carter for what I’ve seen, it doesn’t really look any different from battleship, pirates, etc. its all the same recycled BS over and over again.
The Avengers hype its mostly cos of wheedon, us nerds love wheedon and we are thinking its going to make another Serenity with the Avengers movie. Any other director would have made me think “meh”. Truth is I hope the avengers lives up to the hype but I don’t think its going to simple becouse of the material he has to work with.
Holy shit, Ax you slate the movie and then bring up how good it could have been under RR? Are you even serious with that shit?
I didn’t see it because I almost never go to the movies. If I was more of a moviegoer, then I probably would’ve seen it, but only because I watched that 10-minute clip you guys posted last week. The TV ads made it look completely devoid of anything interesting. And without any cognizance of the 19th-century setting, John Carter looks like some douchey guitarist for a garage band. Also “JOHN CARTER” is not an attention-grabbing title. The latter might’ve contributed to the masses’ decision not to go see it, plus the fact that it’s based on a relatively obscure IP (one that I’d never heard of, anyway). But I don’t really know. Those masses are a mystifying bunch, at times.
I saw it and it was totally enjoyable. Personally, I really wanted this to succeed because the John Carter franchise (books, comics, etc) is really interesting and is not just a rehash of what we’ve seen. I thought the movie was an excellent adaptation of the sci-fi that basically “started it all”. No one even wants to give it a chance because of their perceptions and general hipster fad of hating anything that sniffs of big money. “I didn’t see it but I hate it nonetheless because I’m a cool hipster internet nerd.” Rock on, America.
Amen. Pixar’s involvement should have given anyone hope, but it became all about the budget and the shitty marketing and Disney and then the cool kids smelled blood in the water. Hipster feeding frenzy.
My reason for staying home is very simple: 3D. I can’t fucking wait for this shit to go away. Even if I’m watching a 2-D version, the stuff coming at the screen is extremely annoying.
Agree about 3-D. I complained to our theater manager about how much I hate 3D, and they have started showing all 3-D movies in 2-D at some showings, which is how I saw, and loved, John Carter.
3D, definitely. Here where I live you can’t find a theatre to watch it in 2D. You’re forced to pay a more expensive ticket to get nausea. I went to the only theatre in my city (Milan, Italy) where I could watch it 2D.
I did go see this movie Monday. I looked at a lot of info before going. I saw on comments and forums many people saying they liked it and critics blasting it. I said to my son, I can’t figure out if this movie is supposed to be good or not. Let’s just go and see it to make up our own minds. We both really enjoyed it. It is a good film with a lot of heart. At the end of the day, you should make up your own mind and not listen to a bunch of dorks on the internet that hadn’t even seen the film.
A lot of people are throwing around words like “cliche” and “unoriginal” and they forget that many of the tropes and conventions that are now commonplace were in fact INVENTED in John Carter. It’s not just science fiction, but also fantasy and even the modern concept of superheroes owe their very birth to the concepts introduced in “A Princess of Mars.” The iconic scene of Superman catching Lois Lane as she falls to certain doom is in fact lifted wholesale from a John Carter novel. I don’t expect everyone to read a 100 year old novel, but given the age of the work I think we should be willing to give it the benefit of the doubt before we complain that a movie based on that book has the audacity to use the tools that book invented.
Great post. I don’t buy that you can’t make a hundred-year old science fiction novel into a movie, especially when it was actually reads like a fantasy adventure. There’s a difference between hard science fiction and soft science fiction, and Edgar Rice Burroughs clearly did not approach his story like Clark, Vinge, and Benford approached theirs. I think the answer for why this flopped was really the advertisement. The move is based on an iconic novel that the newer generation of science fiction readers would have at least looked into and maybe built interest if Disney had thought to angle the marketing in that way.
JOHN CARTER as a movie is not a “Flop” but Disney’s Marketing department certainly is.
Unlike most of the negative commenters (possibly ALL) I have actually seen the movie. It first and formost is a fun film with a very enjoyable story with interesting and beleivable characters in an unbelievable setting. Except that while watching the movie YOU DO BELIEVE …IT! The Martians, especially the CGI Tharks and White Apes are the best creations you are likely to see this or any past year. And the 3D is exteremely enveloping (not in your face, but very solid, with out any “cardboard cutout” look, especially the CGI creatures, which was crutical to the story.
Confused Marketing starting with the misguided title are inexcusable! This movie plays like INDIANA JONES in space. John Carter and the Princess of Mars, followed by John Carter and the Gods of Mars would have been the sequel I hope to see….
Too bad so many uninformed commentors, may cause this movie only to be seen by many on the “Small Screen” since it so richly fullfills the real MOVIE THEATRE EXPERIENCE!
The opening line of the movie goes something like, “You may think that Mars is a dead and barren world…BUT YOU ARE WRONG” As far as my experience watching JOHN CARTER, I agree…. You are wrong if you don’t see this movie (because of uninformed commenters who speak without seeing the movie).
Easy answers: never heard of it and terrible advertising. Title, too. Not a thing about it seems gripping, they tried too hard to make it look like “Avatar: Now in a Desert!”
Read all of the books (and the Venus series and the Moon series) and have waited 50 years to see it realized on the big screen. I saw it last weekend. Had to search for a theater showing it in 2D, but it was worth it to see the movie without the annoying 3D effects. This film is a whole lot of fun and it is true to the spirit of the books. I definitely will see it again.