AHC: Save "John Carter"

[krinsbez]

So, as you may know, the film John Carter was one of the worsts flops in history. From what I've been given to understand, this had as much or more to do with various production issues (The director never having worked in Live Action before, the same director believing the franchise had the cultural cachet it ought to, rather than the far lesser cachet it actually does, a power struggle amongst the Disney execs, ignorant reviewers decrying it as derivative of works inspired by the source material, etc.)

What would need to be different in order for more-or-less the same film to be released at more-or-less the same time, and not bomb miserably? And how could those differences be brought about?

 

[Emperor Norton I]

I don't know why people hate on the film. It was a good movie; better than Avatar.

John Carter suffered from abysmal, ABYSMAL advertisement. It wasn't advertised enough, and when it was, it was advertised as a dull, CGI scifi movie like a dozen other of the same type, which it wasn't. It was a movie with a very good spirit which they made no effort to show, with an interesting, epic world and setting they really made no effort to show off, with good characters. It's the studios fault.

EDIT: It didn't flop, though. It made it's money back and then some...just not that much of a then some. 280 million in returns with 250 mill in production. With expenditures besides that 250 million production, they probably broke even or took a beating, but not a bad one.

 

[Willmatron]

Better advertisements. set it as the original space adventure.

 

[Devolved]

So, as you may know, the film John Carter was one of the worsts flops in history. From what I've been given to understand, this had as much or more to do with various production issues (The director never having worked in Live Action before, the same director believing the franchise had the cultural cahet it ought to, rather than the far lesser cachet it actually does, a power struggle amongst the Disney execs, ignorant reviewers decrying it as derivative of works inspired by the source material, etc.)

What would need to be different in order for more-or-less the same film to be released at more-or-less the same time, and not bomb miserably? And how could those differences be brought about?

John Carter was not quite the biggest flop in history. The box office made it's original production cost although Hollywood accounting usually requires 2.5 times cost to be considered a financial success.

One problem with John Carter IMO was the marketing. It seemed to be unsure of its product and dropping the tag 'of Mars' was quite weak and timid. Also the trailers I saw made the movie look cheap instead of it being a very costly production.

Also the name John Carter, despite being a classic figure of fiction and known amongst the sci fi fantasy community, lacked the broader brand name recognition among the public to carry a movie title.

I am guessing most people would have just seen a poster with a man walking across a desert and the name John Carter above. John Carter is actually a dull name and the poster made him look like a lonely man in a post apocalyptic desert. Not something to catch the target audience.

When Lucas made Star Wars he didn't call the first movie Luke Skywalker. Similarly when Spielberg and Lucas created the Indiana Jones character they didn't call the first movie Indiana Jones. After the movie was successful and the name gained brand recognition they started to use the name in their titles. They also cast Harrison Ford who was already known from Star Wars.

Taylor Kitsch did an OK job in the role given but he was just too generic and anonymous to carry such an expensive film alone. The lead lady was also anonymous and it is doubtful anyone would recognize her if she walked down the street. Willem Defoe the most recognizeable face is hidden under CGI! The supporting cast (Mark Strong in particular) did a good job IMO but they were left with too high a burden of carrying anonymous leads who were too generic to be memorable.

Finally the motivation for the John Carter character was not engaging enough. After establishing him as a traumatized tired man who had enough of war he then flipped into a swashbuckling super hero just because some woman didn't want to get married.

I was left thinking 'why is this man helping this woman?' Especially when the woman had lied to him and only seemed to care about her own agenda.

Even if she's 'reasonably' attractive is that a good reason for a deep and thoughtful character such as the one they tried to establish in the early part of the movie to go around killing lots of people for her and risking the lives of his new found friends? The love interest didn't match his character and was not convincing IMO.

In the end there was not enough at stake for the audience to care.

 

[Expat]

I would agree on advertisements. It might not have broken the box office, but it would have done better if it hadn't been treated as a known commodity.

The *real* critics would have still had their opinions, but the "secondary" critics (bloggers looking for a rye story on the arrogance of Hollywood) would have been silenced.

I also liked the film (my take-away: Lucas would *kill* to have made the SW prequels this well.)

My biggest problem with the film itself was John Carter himself (though I feel a little bad for him now after he's been in the two worst films I've seen this year, Battleship and that awful Oliver Stone film, whatever-it's-called.)

If we could replace that actor (maybe Sawyer from LOST? At least he's southern) that would go a long way for me, personally.

The only other complaint I had was the diary structure of the film. It really deadened a lot of the action by having to rely on reaction shots of that Shia LeBoef stand-in. I bet if you could convince the director early on that people didn't care or know who Edgar Rice Burroughs was (on a large scale anyway) this would disappear, along with the terrible marketing campaign.

So my take:

1) Re-cast John Carter
2) Remove the diary flashback structure
3) Properly inform the public of why they want to see this movie.

Like most things in Hollywood this is easy to achieve. Even giving the director the flu for a week could be enough to change things.

 

[krinsbez]

Interestingly, it seems that there are plenty of reviews that liked Taylor Kitsch's performance, and there are plenty of reviews that liked Lynn Collins' performance, but no one seems to like both. I'm not sure why. Personally I liked both of them.

Regardless, given this trend I don't think replacing them would matter. I also can understand using no-names, since it is supposed to be the start of a franchise.

The only other complaint I had was the diary structure of the film. It really deadened a lot of the action by having to rely on reaction shots of that Shia LeBoef stand-in.

Eh? He's only at the beginning and at the end, what are you talking about?

John Carter was not quite the biggest flop in history.

No, but it has been presented as one of them. Even before the film came out.

Like I said, it does seem that there was a genuine intent among some Disney execs to see it fail, in order to justify removing the guy in charge. Or at least that's how I understand it.

So, we all agree on the advertising? So how would you suggest the advertising campaign should have gone?

IMO, the trailers should've been like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxeHQY1NuM or this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OzPVYy7LHIo

 

[Devolved]

Interestingly, it seems that there are plenty of reviews that liked Taylor Kitsch's performance, and there are plenty of reviews that liked Lynn Collins' performance, but no one seems to like both. I'm not sure why. Personally I liked both of them.

Regardless, given this trend I don't think replacing them would matter. I also can understand using no-names, since it is supposed to be the start of a franchise.


No, but it has been presented as one of them. Even before the film came out.

Like I said, it does seem that there was a genuine intent among some Disney execs to see it fail, in order to justify removing the guy in charge. Or at least that's how I understand it.

Trashing a 250 million dollar movie seems like a clumsy way to get rid of an exec. Why not pay a shemale prostitute a few thousand dollars to go to his hotel and take some pictures? What would they have done if John Carter had done a 'Spring Time for Hilter' and been a big success?

 

[Dave Howery]

I thought the movie was fine as is... didn't really need to change it. They might have done better to stick with the "A Princess of Mars" title though. And in the advertising, they might have noted that this was originally written by the author of Tarzan. They probably could have spent a LOT less on advertising if they'd done it more wisely...

 

[Devolved]

I thought the movie was fine as is... didn't really need to change it. They might have done better to stick with the "A Princess of Mars" title though. And in the advertising, they might have noted that this was originally written by the author of Tarzan. They probably could have spent a LOT less on advertising if they'd done it more wisely...

The Asylum production company made 'A Princess of Mars' in 2009 starring Antonio Sabato jr and a very old looking Tracey Lords as Dejah Thoris.

The movie cost about a million dollars and TBH isn't all that bad. In that movie the issue at stake was the atmospheric generator and the survival of the planet.

 

[Orry]

I do not remember any showings of the film in my area - nor much advertising of it.

Not sure I would have bothered going but it would have been nice to have the choice.

 

[Zacoftheaxes]

The advertising was bad, but I think the problem was Disney expected people to be aware of a hundred year old book.

My friend also ave a good point that if the stuck with John Carter of Mars the title would at least have drawn you in a bit more. For all you know John Carter is just a story about a long lost brother of Jimmy Carter.

 

[Plumber]

I don't know why people hate on the film. It was a good movie; better than Avatar.

That doesn't mean much.

 

[Emperor Norton I]

That doesn't mean much.

I'll grant you that. But I said it because people compared it to Avatar when reviewing it.

 

[NKVD]

Having it made by a company other than Disney might help.

 

[John Farson]

The advertising was bad, but I think the problem was Disney expected people to be aware of a hundred year old book.

My friend also ave a good point that if the stuck with John Carter of Mars the title would at least have drawn you in a bit more. For all you know John Carter is just a story about a long lost brother of Jimmy Carter.

John Carter of Mars, the long lost brother of Jimmy Carter of Georgia.
Also includes Billy Carter of Libya.​

​

 

[thekingsguard]

First, as other people mentioned, it wasn't a total flop, though it did take one hell of a beating - it recouped its budget, largely thanks to the fact it had little to no advertsing. Biggest bomb of the year belongs to Battleship, which after advertsing and marketing tie ins, lost somewhere above a $100 million, and would have lost more if it weren't for the overseas box office.

As for John Carter, there are two crucial steps:

1) cast someone else as John Carter. Taylor Kitch was an abysmal pick, and even before this year, where the flopping of John Carter, Battleship and Savages, his biggest role was Snakes on a Plane - not the guy you want to headline a movie, let alone a tentpole blockbuster.

I'd recommend Brad Pitt - big name, great actor, and its familiar territory. If you want a smaller name, go for someone really obscure - someone mentioned the guy who played Sawyer on Lost, and that would be a good fit.

2) Keep the name John Carter of Mars for the title. I know why they dropped it (in the last 20 years or so, only one movie about Mars was a box office success, and that was Total Recall - a number of Mars movies were studio destroyers, like Ghosts of Mars or Mars needs Moms). It would work much better here, as it would help sell the concept and reel in people.

3) Market it more! Aside from even a rudimentary advertising campaign, which it didn't get in OTL, maybe a brief animated tie-in on Disney Channel, to help reel in more veiwers. One mistake a lot of blockbusters have made recently is they spend $200 million on a movie concept outside of the popular conciousness. This tanked Battleship, John Carter, Green Lantern, and crippled Tron Legacy among others. Odds are good, had the Tron Uprising and Green Lantern animated series come out before the movies, it would have greatly effected the fates of those movies - why not John Carter.

4) Avoid some of the rudimentary productiuon issues that plagued it.

Even OTL, I loved John Carter - do this and you have a movie a lot of other people would like too.

 

[Super Missile]

Something I personally found very annoying was that it was really more complicated than it should be. Mars was suddenly some unpronounceable name, not to mention that all these different people and tribes should get their own forgettable storyline. Star Wars and Indiana Jones felt a bit more like just carefree, excellent entertainment, this one seemed very artificial to me.

 

[krinsbez]

Something I personally found very annoying was that it was really more complicated than it should be. Mars was suddenly some unpronounceable name, not to mention that all these different people and tribes should get their own forgettable storyline. Star Wars and Indiana Jones felt a bit more like just carefree, excellent entertainment, this one seemed very artificial to me.

I...I'm having trouble responding to this in a way that isn't a flame.

Could someone else try to articulate how wrongheaded this idea is?

 

[David S Poepoe]

Something I personally found very annoying was that it was really more complicated than it should be. Mars was suddenly some unpronounceable name, not to mention that all these different people and tribes should get their own forgettable storyline. Star Wars and Indiana Jones felt a bit more like just carefree, excellent entertainment, this one seemed very artificial to me.

Why would anyone living on Barsoom call themselves a 'Martian'?

I loved this movie. As pointed out Disney completely dropped the ball on advertising and marketing the movie. They certainly shouldn't have changed the title from 'John Carter of Mars', but they let themselves be swayed by their focus groups etc.

I am also part of a small percentage of science fiction readers that actually read this book and the accompanying other stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs in the 1980s. I've been waiting for years for this story to come to the big screen.

There has been some suggestions that Stanton should have left off the exposition at the beginning and left the audience encounter Barsoom at the same time Carter does. I think thats a valid point and has much to recommend it.

 

[Super Missile]

Let's agree to disagree. I really didn't like this film.