John Carter (2012)

[Dandontdare]

What's more baffling is that apparently something like a hundred million was spent on marketing, but where was the marketing? Where did all that money go?

As i mentioned a few pages back it was all over the video billboards in Manchester for ages. i don't think the problem was LACK of marketing, they just pissed all their ad budget away on the wrong things. The ads scertainly didn't make me want to watch the film - I was undecided, and if anything they put me off as it looked like a mindless action film with nothing but big expensive visuals and no substance.

Will they release jc on dvd or just call it a loss?

They HAVE to claw as muuch money back as possible, so I'd expect a heavilly promoted DVD release pre-Christmas.

Overall, I just think this was a misconceived project to spend so much money on in the first place. It was never going to have a huge appeal. The vast majority of people will never have heard of John Carter or Barsoom and be surprised that ERB wrote anything other than Tarzan. I'm a geek so I was peripherally aware of it, but even I have never been interested enough to actually read any of it.

Also, as people have pointed out, the name is just awful - why drop the 'of Mars' bit? Add an unknown star and a release date outside of the Xmas/Summer blockbuster seasons, and there just isn't anything there to attract the casual viewer.

[radiator]

why drop the 'of Mars' bit?

Because historically, every film - bar one I think - with 'Mars' in the title has crashed and burned at the box office  - not least Robert Zemeckis' recent Disney flop Mars Needs Moms.

There seemed to be a concerted effort to play down the sci-fi element of JC, as if Disney were scared that it would put people off. Baffling.

I do wonder if all this publicity surrounding the 'biggest flop ever' etc is going to lead to a surge in box office over the next week or two - people flocking to see it out of curiosity?

[Professor Bear]

There seemed to be a concerted effort to play down the sci-fi element of JC, as if Disney were scared that it would put people off. Baffling.

Sci-fi stuff doesn't test well with female audiences as a rule, hence it seemed to be trimmed out of the promo material (and title) of JC as much as possible and emphasis placed on sultry looks and a misplaced retooling of the main female character as an unlikeable sword-wielding boffin, which is really just a combination of traditionally male traits.  Not sure why they thought that would go down better with lasses.

Like many others, though, I am befuddled where all that cash went: JC is little more than a better-scripted SyFy movie and no way cgi is still that expensive considering what tv shows have been doing with peanuts.

[radiator]

Two lengthy, expensive reshoots I believe.

Apparently the directors inexperience ended up costing too - he's from an animation background and is used to being able to go back to the drawing board - much more expensive to do on a live action film.

[JOE SOAP]

"The nice thing about animation is, you can't put anything on the screen unless you plan it, so you become incredibly great planners. That's the weakest link in live action. It seems to attract more of a thinking of, 'Let's just fix it as we go.' It was fascinating. I kept trying to apply my Pixar over-plan it mentality so that you don't get any surprises and they would take a little of it, but you could see it just didn't fit well with people," he explained. " -Andrew Stanton

[strontium71]

The irony being now that all this talk of negativity and losses of millions might make people go and watch it to see what the fuss is about , and it goes on to make a profit 

[JOE SOAP]

I doubt it.

[Adrian Bamforth]

It's kind of different to hear so many people (no here, gut generally) complaining about a film being too wierd or unfamiliar, and didn't receive enough marketing when the opposite it usually the opposite it usually true; that franchises are built on top of a familiar brand (toy/game/superhero) and are hyped to the point of saturation. I'm usually impressed with the boldness of Pixar projects such as Wall-E, Up and Ratatouie, all quite dring in their subject matter when they could just as easily churn out proven kiddie fodder. The creatives are encouraged to go whith their whims and not worry about the commerciality. Similarly, though it seems odd now, the last film about pirates before the Carabean franchise was Cutthroat Island; there was little indication that piracy would be so popular. The fact this film has flopped so bad is arguably a sign of them doing something right and using their commercial successes to allow them to try offbeat material. They seem keen to find the next franchise soon though; Prince of Persia seemed to go largely unnoticed and The Sourceror's Apprentice barely appeared at all. Understandable, as soon as they see it failing they seem to withdraw the promotion to protect the brand.

However, I haven't seen John Carter yet on account of it being in 3D, so it it might just look like a big balance sheet once it gets rolling.

[JOE SOAP]

It's kind of different to hear so many people (no here, gut generally) complaining about a film being too wierd or unfamiliar

I haven't read anyone complaining that it's too weird, if anything it's not weird or different enough, it's rather pedestrian yet fun sometimes otherwise it's boring.

I'm usually impressed with the boldness of Pixar projects such as Wall-E, Up and Ratatouie, all quite dring in their subject matter when they could just as easily churn out proven kiddie fodder. The creatives are encouraged to go whith their whims and not worry about the commerciality.

However, I haven't seen John Carter yet on account of it being in 3D, so it it might just look like a big balance sheet once it gets rolling.

John Carter ain't a Pixar film, it's Disney -borrowing a Pixar director- who play a different ballgame.

[COMMANDO FORCES]

I didn't see it because I haven't got the time to get into fights at the pictures any more.
Saying that, one scene in the trailer screamed Star Wars at me and would have put me off anyway!

[Dandontdare]

I didn't see it because I haven't got the time to get into fights at the pictures any more.

so how many cinemas are you barred from in total?

[Adrian Bamforth]

I haven't read anyone complaining that it's too weird, if anything it's not weird or different enough, it's rather pedestrian yet fun sometimes otherwise it's boring.

I'm supposing that many people might have found the idea of an historical film with space travel quite quite confusing territory, hence them banning any mention of 'Mars' on the basis that we have to make a greater mental leap to imagine any life on Mars while knowing there is none; you have to put yourself in the frame of mind of the audience at the time it was written. Compared to this, regular sci-fi is hard not to feel an investment in, since it's about future possibilities.

[radiator]

John Carter ain't a Pixar film, it's Disney -borrowing a Pixar director- who play a different ballgame.

I could have been misinformed, but I heard that John Carter was basically Pixar's first live-action film in all but name - it is being marketed as a Disney film so as not to dilute the Pixar brand, which they only want to be associated with animation.

[Tiplodocus]

Annoyingly our local Odeon is now no loner showing it at the time we had planned for Tiny Tips' birthday bash so it's a longer hike to Braehead. Ho hum.

[Cthulouis]

Just seen this, and thought it was bloody brilliant. Loved the menacing ominous power of the baddies, the character inherent in all the Thargs, and the use of the blue blood at that critical moment. And Caesar and Mark-Antoine were brilliant supporting cast.