JacketFlap connects you to the work of more than 200,000 authors, illustrators, publishers and other creators of books for Children and Young Adults. The site is updated daily with information about every book, author, illustrator, and publisher in the children's / young adult book industry. Members include published authors and illustrators, librarians, agents, editors, publicists, booksellers, publishers and fans. Join now (it's free).
Login or Register for free to create your own customized page of blog posts from your favorite blogs. You can also add blogs by clicking the "Add to MyJacketFlap" links next to the blog name in each post.
Viewing: Blog Posts Tagged with: John Carter, Most Recent at Top [Help]
Results 1 - 14 of 14
How to use this Page
You are viewing the most recent posts tagged with the words: John Carter in the JacketFlap blog reader. What is a tag? Think of a tag as a keyword or category label. Tags can both help you find posts on JacketFlap.com as well as provide an easy way for you to "remember" and classify posts for later recall. Try adding a tag yourself by clicking "Add a tag" below a post's header. Scroll down through the list of Recent Posts in the left column and click on a post title that sounds interesting. You can view all posts from a specific blog by clicking the Blog name in the right column, or you can click a 'More Posts from this Blog' link in any individual post.
This morning at 6.31 am (British Summer Time), Johnny and Clara Mackintosh (and their Old English sheepdog, Bentley) made history: thanks to NASA and its Mars Curiosity rover, they became the first literary heroes to literally land on another world. And all broadcast live in Times Square – wow!
Johnny, Clara and Bentley, lowered to the Martian surface on the back of Curiosity (courtesy JPL)
The descent was scary (I wrote a piece about it for Bookzone4Boys) – even NASA had described it as “seven minutes of terror”. Eventually the Mars Science Laboratory landed by “skycrane” in Gale Crater, a perfect location to examine millions of years of Martian geology in one go. Onboard was a microchip onto which had been etched the names of some of the people of Earth, the very first ambassadors to land on another planet. And among those names were:
Johnny Mackintosh
Clara Mackintosh
Bentley Mackintosh
I confess I’m delighted to say “Keith Mansfield” was also included.
Some great fictional stories have been set on Mars, but the paper or celluloid that tells them remains firmly grounded here on our island Earth. John Carter may have disappointed in cinemas lately, but Edgar Rice Burroughs’ series of “Barsoom” books are classics. A film that brought the red planet properly to life saw the now-Governator of California star as Doug Quaid in Dutch director Paul Verhoeven’s 1990 masterpiece, Total Recall. Why anyone feels the need to remake a movie that was originally so stunning is a mystery, but I’ll reserve judgement until I’ve seen Len Wiseman’s remake.
As a child I grew up reading the late, great Ray Bradbury, whose thoughtful Martian Chronicles helped inspire the stories I’ve written. In the first two Johnny Mackintosh books there are mentions of Mars and Johnny and Clara always intend to go there, yet somehow they never quite get round to it. In Battle for Earth they finally make the trip (I won’t spoil it for future readers by saying whether or not they find Martians).
David Bowie famously sang “Is there life on Mars?” and in a fun Doctor Who tribute, Steven Moffat christened the first fictional human settlement “Bowie Base One”. I’ve written a few pieces on whether or not there’s life of some kind on the red planet over at my Keith Mansfield website.
We’ve always found Martian exploration difficult. On page 3 of Johnny Mackintosh: Battle for Earth we read:
“Johnny and Clara had been planing their first ever visit to Mars, with Johnny telling his sister about all the probes scientists had sent to the red planet, but which had mysteriously failed to arrive.”
and then, a little later on page 61:
“Early space probes had taken intriguing but inconclusive photographs of the Martian surface, showing what were called the Pyramids of Elysium, next to what appeared to be a gigantic human face gazing upward. Johnny had always meant to visit and see for himself. For his part, Alf was curious to hear about the probes that had gone missing, so Johnny repeated the conversation he’d had with Clara, in a little more detail. Given the great expense of space exploration, the failure rate for Mars was unusually high. It wasn’t only Beagle 2 that had bitten the dust as it neared the planet. Over the years, around half the missions launched had failed for one reason or another.”
Of course the “giant face” is no more than an optical illusion, but sometimes you can’t let details like that get in the way of a good story. I first came across the pyramids through Carl Sagan’s Cosmos and these don’t only feature in Johnny Mackintosh – Total Recall also centred around the mysterious “pyramid mine”.
Nowadays we know a huge amount about this near neighbour, not least because there are actually three satellites in permanent orbit around the red planet. In the 1970s we sent the twin Viking landers to search for life (you can see a third in the Smithsonain Air and Space Museum in Washington DC). These tantalized, but also frustrated. Given the track record of previous Mars missions, this one played it relatively safe so the spacecraft set down in what proved rather dull areas – and that’s where they remained. The great thing about Curiosity is that it’s mobile.
Mars rover family portrait showing Sojourner, one of Spirit/Opportunity and then Curiosity (courtesy NASA)
We’ve come a long way in a short space of time with Mars rovers. The first was Sojourner, a little add on to the Pathfinder mission that landed in 1997. It was the size of a remote-controlled child’s toy and could only travel a few metres from the main landing station, getting up close and personal with a few interesting nearby rocks. Sojourner started the ball rolling, and the momentum was magnificently maintained by another pair of twin landers, the Mars Exploration Rovers Spirit and Opportunity, which set down early in 2004.
Mars panorama using composite images from Opportunity, showing the rover’s own tyre tracks (courtesy NASA)
Larger, more independent and mobile, it was hoped these two would function for around 90 days. Spirit lasted fully five years, becoming immobile on 2009 and finally ceasing communication in 2010. Opportunity is still going! These two have shown that we are more than capable, not just of landing on Mars, but traversing its surface.
Curiosity being put through its paces on Earth (courtesy of JPL)
Curiosity is in a different league altogether. Weighing nearly a tonne, it’s around the size of a small car. It doesn’t move quite as fast, travelling at what’s almost literally a snail’s pace, but wherever it goes, Johnny, Clara and Bentley will go with it. I hope they and I are able to move across the surface of this faraway world for many years to come.
Disney’s John Carter, a live action film, was the first VFX movie to be directed like a keyframed feature animation. Animator Patrick Giusiano put this interesting video together, showing the process involved with animating his shots.
If you still haven’t had your fill of “Why John Carter Failed” articles, then don’t miss New York Magazine’s lengthy read “The Inside Story of How John Carter Was Doomed by Its First Trailer.” The piece goes to excruciating lengths to absolve Disney marketing of any wrongdoing over the film’s US box office performance, and lays the blame squarely at the feet of Andrew Stanton:
While this kind of implosion usually ends in a director simmering in rage at the studio marketing department that doomed his or her movie, Vulture has learned that it was in fact John Carter director Andrew Stanton — powerful enough from his Pixar hits that he could demand creative control over trailers — who commandeered the early campaign, overriding the Disney marketing execs who begged him to go in a different direction.
The article, juicy as it is, should be taken with a grain of salt. Much of the information in the article appears to be sourced from public statements by Stanton, and only one anonymous “Disney marketing insider” is identified as having been interviewed. There are factual errors too that made me question the piece’s accuracy—the writer claims that Disney marketing approached the New Yorker in September 2011 to profile Stanton, when in fact, if you read the New Yorker piece, the writer of that piece said he’d been working on it since April 2011. At best, NY Mag’s takedown offers one version of how the film’s marketing plan derailed. The real story is likely far more complex, and won’t be understood until some point in the future.
A more insightful piece is the aforementioned New Yorker profile of Andrew Stanton, which has finally been posted online. Unlike an earlier New Yorker piece about Pixar that left me unimpressed, this profile sheds much light on Stanton’s personality and his collaboration with the lauded Pixar “Braintrust.” In spite of the profile’s positive tone, Stanton comes off as overly self assertive and oblivious to the effect of his comments, like:
“We came on this movie so intimidated: ‘Wow, we’re at the adult table!’ Three months in, I said to my producers, ‘Is it just me, or do we actually know how to do this better than live-action crews do?’ The crew were shocked that they couldn’t overwhelm me, but at Pixar I got used to having to think about everyone else’s problems months before all their pieces would come together, and I learned that I’m just better at communicating and distilling than other people.”
As Ward Kimball’s biographer, I am obligated to share with you this post on Progress City, U. S. A. that talks about the time Ward oversaw the animation of John Carter of Mars as part of his TV special Mars and Beyond.
It’s a matter of personal taste whether you prefer Ward Kimball’s vision of a thoat:
In a rare trifecta, animation artists ruled the top three spots at the box office this weekend. The number one spot, with an estimated $35 million, belonged to the TV adaptation of 21 Jump Street. It heralded the live-action feature directing debut of Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who were the co-creators of MTV/Teletoon’s Clone High and the directors of Sony’s Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs. Second place went to Illumination Entetainment’s The Lorax which earned an estimated $22.8M in its third weekend, pushing its total to a robus $158.4M. Rounding out the top three was Andrew Stanton’s John Carter, which dropped 55% from its first weekend to an estimated $13.5M. The Disney flop’s two-week total is $53.2M and is headed to a final domestic tally of $90-100M.
Disney’s John Carter, a live action film, was the first VFX movie to be directed like a keyframed feature animation. Animator Patrick Giusiano put this interesting video together, showing the process involved with animating his shots.
Arcade Fire soundtrack — check — but the remake by Peter Gabriel? “My body is a cage.” So this is a remake of AVATAR?
Yes it is! White man comes to savage land as savior and leads them against six-armed green guys and rescues atmosphere!
But — no Woola? A brief glimpse of Tars Tarkas. Incomplete grade.
Likes: Taylor Kitsch looks good. Lynn Colllins looks great as Dejah Thoris but she is wearing lots of clothes and the red Martians don’t look very red.
Unknown if like or unlike: Looks like Pixar is playing this very straight, which I guess you would have to. And considering that Avatar is the highest grossing movie ever — and was pretty much a rip-off of John Carter — its success made making this finally possible and so we have come full circle IP wise.
13 Comments on ALERT! ALERT!!!! John Carter of Mars trailer!, last added: 7/15/2011
Are they going to use the Pixar brand on this? I didn’t see it in the trailer or on the movie’s website.
comer para perder grasa said, on 7/14/2011 9:20:00 AM
Congratulations are best pixar
TengoPantalones said, on 7/14/2011 9:22:00 AM
Dominic West ftw
alistair robb said, on 7/14/2011 9:38:00 AM
*meh* can I say that?
Chaos McKenzie said, on 7/14/2011 10:51:00 AM
To alistair:
No, no you may not. Nothing but sighs and triumph, please and thank-you.
pulphope said, on 7/14/2011 11:35:00 AM
I think that was a brief glimpse of Sola not Tars. I’d have cast JC a little older and more rugged, with hair like Andrew Jackson rather than a guy from a grunge band circa 1992.
Pixar didn’t make this film, although it’s Andrew Stanton, it’s Disney– Pixar did some initial designs for the Martian lifeforms in the early stages. I believe that’s the extent of their involvement.
This is the only US film I am looking forward to seeing in the next 12 months.
AudioComics said, on 7/14/2011 3:15:00 PM
We’ve been waiting for this since Bob Clampett’s attempt to bring “Princess” to life in 1935. Sighs and triumph x 10; this is going to be freaking AMAZING.
Lance Roger Axt
The AudioComics Company
Joe Helfrich said, on 7/14/2011 7:24:00 PM
The Gabriel track is from his You Scratch My Back album from a few years ago, so it wasn’t recorded specifically for the movie. Might just be placeholder music.
Dave Miller-lad said, on 7/14/2011 7:35:00 PM
I still think Hugh Jackman is the best choice (currently)to play John Carter.
And as for the incomparable Dejah Thoris? That’s tough.
Demi Moore?
Dave Miller-lad said, on 7/14/2011 7:43:00 PM
And to play Tars Tarkas?
Jim Shooter :-)
Vincent Moore said, on 7/14/2011 8:40:00 PM
It looks like the studio is going with red henna like patterns to make up for the lack of red skin on the Martians. I could ignore this if the story works.
JM Ringuet said, on 7/15/2011 2:13:00 AM
Looks very nice and totally intriguing. But doesn’t look anything like John Carter to me… I was thinking more of an Indiana Jones type adventure movie, bright, sexy and violent. This looks gritty, dirty and full of pathos.
I really want to see how this is going to be received by people who don’t know anything about the books.
Stanton can definitely direct live action.
James Van Hise said, on 7/15/2011 8:31:00 AM
I guess I’m disappointed in this because I saw an inhouse 10 minute promo film made by Paramount when they had A Princess of Mars in pre-production. The film showed dozens of spectacular paintings of Barsoom, its cities, people and warcraft. There was even test CGI of the Tharks and a speech by Tars Tarkus, and it all put this trailer to shame. But Paramount’s contract on the material expired after several years and to renew it would have cost $2 million. When they offered ERB Inc 10% of that to renew it, ERB Inc refused and it ultimately was picked up by Disney (again) who had previously had the property and let it go.
We don’t usually post trailers for live action films but have, when time to time, one is closely related to our field (Brad Bird’s Mission Impossible, Cameron’s Avatar and Disney’s The Muppets come to mind). Pixar’s Andrew Stanton (Finding Nemo, Wall-E) has been working on a live action adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ The Princess of Mars for the past few years, and the trailer has just been unveiled. There’s plenty of CG character animation involved (did Pixar animators do it?) and lots of action. The movie will be released in March – and I’m crossing my fingers for its success.
Fresh off his success with his self published SACRIFICE – already sold out and a second printing on the way — Sam Humphries has a gig writing JOHN CARTER: THE GODS OF MARS for Marvel, an all-ages five issue mini-series which is apparently based on the second Mars novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The art is by Ramon Perez, fresh off TALE OF SAND, his Jim Henson adaptation for Archaia. This is a team we can get behind! The cover is by Julian Totino Tedesco
“Gods of Mars is going to be a blast — tons of action and intrigue in a fantastic environment,” said Humphries. “From Landridge and Andrade to Edgar Rice Burroughs himself, there’s an impressive foundation of awesome John Carter stories to build on. Combined with Marvel having the most exciting comics going on right now, and most talented editors in the industry – I can’t wait to get myself to Mars.”
The book goes on sale in March.
1 Comments on Humphries and Perez on JOHN CARTER: THE GODS OF MARS, last added: 12/16/2011
Over at MTV News, sixteen upcoming movies were pitted against one another to determine the winner of the “MTV Movie Brawl 2012.” In the final round, almost four million votes were cast and Cosmopolis(a Don DeLillo adaptation starring Twilight actor Robert Pattinson) emerged victorious over The Hunger Games (starring Oscar-nominated actress Jennifer Lawrence).
In an interview with MTV, director David Cronenberg explained how he first learned about the brawl: “Cosmopolis, while I think in terms of what it is as cinema is pretty hefty, but in terms of budget and promotion, it’s an underdog compared to something like the Dark Knight franchise. I really didn’t think we would have much of a chance. That really got my attention.”
My friends told me about—onenightcupid.c/0/m—. She told me it is the best place to seek casual fun and short-term relationship. I have tried. It is fantastic! Tens of thousands pretty girls and cute guys are active there. You wanna get laid tonight? Come in and give it a shot, you will find someone you like there. Have fun! :-)
Scott Bieser said, on 2/5/2012 9:30:00 PM
The trailer looks awesome. Hope the actual movie lives up to the source material.
Rich said, on 2/6/2012 4:53:00 AM
I hope they promote the hell out of this flick. I was the only person at our Super Bowl party (of about 30) who had ever heard of John Carter at all, movie or otherwise. I was actually asked whether it is based on a graphic novel. Nobody knew it’s a 100 year old character from the same creator as Tarzan.
“It’s amazing that a movie that hasn’t been released yet is already being classified as a flop.”
That’s because most people can do basic math, when the word is out that the pic will need to do Avatar-like opening numbers just to break even on its bloated budget costs.
eallengd said, on 2/29/2012 5:14:00 PM
I remember seeing the preview for thr very first Star Wars and people laughed thru it. So I don’t make comments until the movie is released.
horatio weisfeld said, on 2/29/2012 5:17:00 PM
Didn’t they run the same “NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THIS” campaign with WALL-E?
KET said, on 2/29/2012 5:20:00 PM
“Didn’t they run the same “NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THIS” campaign with WALL-E?”
This is the first time I have even heard of such a fantasy. Pixar’s original trailer for that film played like a ‘greatest hits’ revue.
horatio weisfeld said, on 2/29/2012 5:37:00 PM
This is the first time I have even heard of such a fantasy. Pixar’s original trailer for that film played like a ‘greatest hits’ revue.
>>
Really…you don’t remember a whole lot of stories popping up in the film/fan press before Wall-E came out, all saying stuff like, “The company thinks nobody will want to see this because it too adult” and “They think it plays more like an ‘art film’ so they are real worried that nobody will want to see it” — Geez: you don’t remember a whole lot of that… was only 4 years ago?
horatio weisfeld said, on 2/29/2012 5:40:00 PM
That’s not to say that it might not actually be true this time :)
Brad said, on 2/29/2012 6:07:00 PM
I have a friend who is a film critic and he said the best litmus test as to what studios think of a film is how far in advance they show the film to critics. He saw Ghost Rider 2 a couple of weeks ago — the preview was the night before the movie opened.
John Carter press screening? TOMORROW.
Erik said, on 2/29/2012 6:56:00 PM
Never bet against Tim Riggins, fools.
horatio weisfeld said, on 2/29/2012 7:05:00 PM
They’ve done a good job. I really am rooting for the film.
When and if I see decent reviews or acceptable grosses I will feel a sense of relief.
horatio weisfeld said, on 2/29/2012 7:21:00 PM
A final memory / food for thought:
I remember reading an issue of Variety (back when it was all finger-dirtying B&W newsprint) and the cover story was about various tentpole movies revving up production for release the following summer.
At the head of the list: “PRINCESS OF MARS” directed by John McTiernan and starring Tom Selleck.
I think it was 1988 or 89?
Chris Hero said, on 2/29/2012 7:46:00 PM
I don’t care how this movie does. I think it looks enjoyable and I will go see it in the theater. I hope I have a good time. ^_^
CitizenCliff said, on 2/29/2012 11:00:00 PM
I just don’t get what all negativity is about — this movie looks amazing. There’s a whole crew of us in Red Bank who are counting the days until this film comes out.
KET said, on 3/1/2012 5:06:00 AM
“Really…you don’t remember a whole lot of stories popping up in the film/fan press before Wall-E came out, all saying stuff like…”
I said NO, and I mean NO. I never saw ANY of this stuff you are talking about. On the other hand, Disney ALREADY KNOWS that their marketing on JOHN CARTER has been a schizophrenic mess from the get-go, which is why some folks have already been fired. Also, it’s why they’re hastily scrambling to get the critics on board with a early press screening. However, it still won’t help when they’ve only got a two-week window before a real phenom like THE HUNGER GAMES sweeps in and takes all their business.
Hey, it’s all right for you to be emotionally invested in the JC material, but I’m talking about some hard reality in the numbers here. And more heads are going to roll at Disney for the JOHN CARTER debacle before this is over.
Nathan Aaron said, on 3/1/2012 5:52:00 AM
eallengd, I also remember thinking during the first Matrix trailer “Keanu Reeves?! This movie is doomed!” and had really low expectations going in to the theatre to see it. Obviously we all know how THAT worked out! :)
An animated film led the US box office for the second week in a row: Illumination Entertainment’s The Lorax dropped 44% from its first week for an estimated earning of $39.1 million. Its two-week total now stands at $122 million, making it the top grossing film of the year to date. It is currently pacing $3.5 million ahead of Illumination’s biggest hit Despicable Me, which went on to earn $251.5 million domestically.
This weekend also saw the debut of John Carter, the first live-action feature from Pixar director Andrew Stanton (WALL·E, Finding Nemo). The megabudget sci-fi film, with a reported production cost of $200-300 million and marketing costs of $100 million, was positioned as Disney’s next “tentpole” property, along the lines of the Pirates of the Carribean franchise. It opened weakly, as expected by most industry observers as well as the Disney studio itself, with an estimated $30.6 million, on a par with the opening for Disney’s Prince of Persia, which opened with $30.1 million. It trailed the debut of last year’s sci-fi Cowboys & Aliens which opened with $36.4 million. The film’s saving grace may be its overseas performance, where it has opened powerfully, especially in Russia, and has already racked up over $70 million.
One can’t even begin to imagine the pressure that Stanton is under, but he hasn’t been particularly graceful in dealing with the film’s critical reception. In interviews, Stanton has been defensive about the film’s budget, and over the weekend, he wrote an oddly worded tweet that blamed moviegoers as “jaded” if they didn’t enjoy his film:
Studio Ghibli’s The Secret World of Arrietty added an extra $402,000 boosting its US total to $17.6 million. It is the fourth highest-grossing anime film ever released in the US, behind only Pokemon: The First Movie, Pokemon: The Movie 2000, and Yu-Gi-Oh! The Movie.
Well, it’s official, JOHN CARTER is being labeled a disaster, a flop, an “Ishtar” and anything else that signifies profit-and-loss ratio infamy. The media decided a while ago that this movie was going to be a disaster for Disney, and after finishing #2 for the weekend with barely $30 million—despite making over $100 million worldwide—every ill omen has been seen as sagacious.
And the hate is baffling. Although it has only 50% on Rotten Tomatoes, if you read the reviews, the good ones read about the same as the bad ones. Critics weren’t wildly enthusiastic about the movie, but it didn’t suck.
In fact, the word of mouth is good. People who went in with an open mind seem to have been entertained.
I saw JOHN CARTER Thursday at an IMAX 3D and I loved it. It was no THE DESCENDANTS, but it was a well-made yarn, filled with wonder. Yeah I said it. WONDER. The John Carter books are hardly the Lord of the Rings — I didn’t need every klunky archaic line used. And screenwriter Michael Chabon and Andrew Stanton knew that. So they weren’t afraid to tinker and modernize many things.
What they did keep intact was the unbridled imagination of the original, a vision unencumbered by anything that reeks of marketing or focus groups. Here is a passage from the second book, THE GODS OF MARS, that sums up everything I like about Barsoom:
Its hairless body was a strange and ghoulish blue, except for a broad band of white which encircled its protruding, single eye: an eye that was all dead white–pupil, iris, and ball.
Its nose was a ragged, inflamed, circular hole in the centre of its blank face; a hole that resembled more closely nothing that I could think of other than a fresh bullet wound which has not yet commenced to bleed.
Below this repulsive orifice the face was quite blank to the chin, for the thing had no mouth that I could discover.
The head, with the exception of the face, was covered by a tangled mass of jet-black hair some eight or ten inches in length. Each hair was about the bigness of a large angleworm, and as the thing moved the muscles of its scalp this awful head-covering seemed to writhe and wriggle and crawl about the fearsome face as though indeed each separate hair was endowed with independent life.
I mean COME ON, how can you not want to see that brought to life? The Carter books were so original when written…now, having been ripped off for a hundred years, they seem like pale imitations.
But then, this has been a story that people have been trying—and failing— to bring to the screen since at least 1936. Nearly 80 years. In that year, animator Bob Clampett worked on a proposed animated version for…Walt Disney.
As others have written here, had this film actually been made—instead of SNOW WHITE—what a different world we would live in. John Carter would have had to be an animated movie. What has stymied people for years was the technology to make it.
The more recent attempts at making a movie — from Robert Rodriguez, to Kerry Conlan to Jon Favreau and so on—all faltered for probably the same reasons the movie that did get made has been vilified: too weird and yet too
15 Comments on John Carter: flop or victim?, last added: 3/12/2012
“The media isn’t some organized collective working together; it’s a generic name for a large assortment of people trying to find interesting angles in any story.”
And as previously referred to, that large assortment is frequently caught up in a groupthink that dictates the sort of media coverage given to any event or occurance.
Mike
Ben Humeniuk said, on 3/12/2012 9:08:00 AM
Man, I think the sell-line could have been as easy as emphasizing “from the director that brought you Finding Nemo and Wall-E.” I think an audience can trust that the man who slam-dunked those two unusual premises could deliver on an old pulp adventure format.
And I agree with Simon– this is a film you can take your whole family to. Barely one iota of cursing, low gore (not counting the blue stuff), and aside from Dejah’s “too vulgar for my tastes” wedding gown, not even that much to worry about in the way of sex. Sons can learn to reject apathy and embrace a cause, and daughters can learn that being smart, tough, beautiful, and vulnerable can all be part of the same package.
Honestly, it’s a Pixar movie with real skin on it. I think it’s this year’s “Scott Pilgrim” in terms of under-ratedness. And that said, I’m hoping Bill’s prediction proves correct.
R. Maheras said, on 3/12/2012 9:34:00 AM
I saw it Friday in 3-D and enjoyed it enough that I’ll probably go see it somewhere else in 2-D.
I think Disney shot itself in the foot by naming it simply “John Carter” — which gives the casual filmgoer absolutely no idea what the film is about. I understand that after the debacle “Mars Needs Moms,” Disney executives were scared of any title with the word “Mars” in it — but that was a silly, irrational fear. I’d have titled it “Warlord of Mars” or somesuch.
As far as the dismissal by some here that the news media was not at all complicit in the weak opening of the film, all I can say is you’re kidding yourself. The media sharks were in a veritable feeding frenzy about “John Carter,” and if one was paying attention at all to film news and industry-related social media during the past three weeks, one could not help being tainted by all of the “warnings” — warnings which were almost entirely the fuel for the film’s strong negative buzz.
But some at Disney were also at fault here — leaking out “concerns” regarding the film’s appeal to certain demographics, and leaking out concerns about the film’s ability to generate enough revenue to cover its costs. Here’s an idea for Disney and any other studio: If you’re worried that a film may not make X dollars in the box office, how about lowering the budget so that it has a reasonable chance at meeting expectations? “Green Lantern” is a great example. If that film about a second-tier (and arguable third-tier) DC character had only cost, say, $80 million to make, no one would have been grousing about a “poor box office showing.” Its $219 million world-wide box-office take would have been considered a hit.
About the merits of “John Carter,” the film, there’s a lot of truth to the tweet above stating that the film was better than the last four Star Wars films.
The good news for “John Carter” is that it took in a strong $70 million overseas, so it will not be the bomb so many in the media warned us of.
Chap said, on 3/12/2012 9:38:00 AM
Agree with MBunge!!
horatio weisfeld said, on 3/12/2012 10:01:00 AM
And as previously referred to, that large assortment is frequently caught up in a groupthink that dictates the sort of media coverage given to any event or occurance.
>>
A few years ago Bill Moyers had a PBS program where the producers of Oprah admitted, on camera, that they had stacked the show with experts claiming that Saddam had WOMD — because, as the Oprah producers stated, on camera, they believed if they did otherwise they might loose their jobs.
That is not “groupthink.”
Brian Hibbs said, on 3/12/2012 10:03:00 AM
Like I said last week, we need a Nerdtrevention on this one…!
-B
Regan Clem said, on 3/12/2012 10:10:00 AM
I woke up Friday and told the family we were going to see John Carter. My wife and five kids had no idea what the movie was. (Bad marketing – okay one of them is only four months old and couldn’t be expected to know). But we went anyway and had a great time. (Fun movie). Nobody, even my wife who isn’t into the geeky stuff like me, left disappointed.
Nate said, on 3/12/2012 10:23:00 AM
Add mine to the voices saying that this is a fun, enjoyable film with some great ideas on display.
I’ve no love for Disney, but I hate to see this film fail due to bad press and, as more than one person said above, “groupthink” on the part of journalists and reviewers.
The media does not need to be a cohesive, organized group to suffer from that. And it frequently does … I’m amazed at times how it almost seems like someone has set the “big story” for the week, and all the outlets follow along. The latest was the gas price “pain at the pump” story. Sure, it was a story, but it seems like coverage of it was out of control (until the next “big story of the week” came along).
Anyhow, I don’t recall if I ever read a John Carter book and I’ve never read the comics, so I didn’t go see it for that reason (even though I fall into the “old fart” group, i.e. “over 25″). But I like Flash Gordon- and Buck Rogers-type adventure, so I figured it might be fun. I did catch in in 2D. I sure enjoyed this one more than the preachier “Avatar!” And yeah, the last few Star Wars movies blew chunks compared with this!
As a result of seeing this, I now want to read the books, and I’ve got the Jesse Marsh comics compilation coming in the mail.
CitizenCliff said, on 3/12/2012 10:34:00 AM
This is Iron Giant on much larger scale — if your own studio isn’t behind you, how can your film succeed?
As with Iron Giant, the idiots at the studio didn’t know a classic when it was right in their hands.
Bill Cunningham said, on 3/12/2012 11:16:00 AM
As someone who’s published a volume of ERB’s works, I have to say right off that a) I am a fan of his work, and b) this was not the movie to launch a John Carter franchise…
While the press made up their mind long before actual screenings took place, this was due to the abysmal marketing job Disney attempted with this movie. This was their attempt to try and make something they didn’t quite understand into something they thought would appeal to a modern audience. They failed.
But beyond that, JOHN CARTER is a movie with characters we care very little about. Yes, there were moments, but I felt no connection to JC or Dejah the same way someone might have felt for the characters in the first HARRY POTTER movie (to use the novel series to movie analogy).
I also didn’t have the same sense of wonder and awe that is so present in the JC books. My feeling is the production design and the direction kept undercutting the visual stimulation we were supposed to feel. Many angles looking down just doesn’t give the actors, the scene and the set the importance they deserve. It actually minimized their importance…
A PRINCESS OF MARS was a novel of action, adventure and visual excitement woven together with characters we cared about. JOHN CARTER isn’t that – not by a long shot. It should have been at least as good as the first STAR WARS – I don’t think anyone can honestly say this movie reached anywhere near that height of excitement.
I agree with Bill. Saw the movie Sunday in Imax 3D. The 3D added nothing to the film. Not a bad movie, but not a great movie either. As some others have stated, it did sort of remind me of the “Flash Gordon” movie from the 80’s only not as campy. I guess my biggest complaint is that the movie had no style. It looked like every other sci-fi movie of the past decade. I think everyone involved needs to go back and take another look at “Citizen Kane” for a refresher course in how to make a film.
Chris Hero said, on 3/12/2012 2:17:00 PM
@horatio weisfeld and @mbunge
If you guys honestly think reporters are getting together and conspiring to create stories to make people believe false things…you have been reading too many comic books. ^_^
The media has only one bias: laziness. Most reporters are just like people at any job. They’ll copy anything that seems to be working and no one’s going to risk looking foolish by saying the emperor has no clothes. Further, it was the White House that was the source of the store Iraq had WMDs. The White House…*the* primary source for news. You can hardly fault people covering international news for believing the White House. What were the reporters going to do? Fly to Iraq and look around for themselves? Up until that point, the idea of the White House open face lying to justify a unilateral attack on a country wasn’t conceivable.
The media doesn’t have a horse in the race with what movie makes money and which doesn’t. Quite frankly, the story of an extremely expensive movie looking to bomb is as old as movies. Titanic had similar stories written about it before it opened and look how that turned out.
You guys crack me up – The big, bad media wants to destroy this movie!
Chris Hero said, on 3/12/2012 2:23:00 PM
BTW – Isn’t it possible, just maybe, that most people didn’t want to see John Carter or Scott Pilgrim or whatever?
No one has any interest in very accurate 70’s spy movies based on acclaimed books, so why would they want to run out and see a sci-fi movie about a guy fighting on Mars?
And I say this as someone who wants to see the movie. But stop blaming everyone in sight when movies you like don’t rock the world. Niche genre stories are niche for a reason.
MBunge said, on 3/12/2012 2:27:00 PM
“The big, bad media wants to destroy this movie!”
It’s easy to always be right when you just make up both sides of the argument in your head. Nobody is saying there was some conspiracy out to destroy John Carter. We’re really just expanding on your point of media laziness. They looked at the huge budget and Disney’s poor marketing and decided the movie was going to bomb long before it came out, which became the lazy template for every single story about the film.
Are they going to use the Pixar brand on this? I didn’t see it in the trailer or on the movie’s website.
Congratulations are best pixar
Dominic West ftw
*meh* can I say that?
To alistair:
No, no you may not. Nothing but sighs and triumph, please and thank-you.
I think that was a brief glimpse of Sola not Tars. I’d have cast JC a little older and more rugged, with hair like Andrew Jackson rather than a guy from a grunge band circa 1992.
Pixar didn’t make this film, although it’s Andrew Stanton, it’s Disney– Pixar did some initial designs for the Martian lifeforms in the early stages. I believe that’s the extent of their involvement.
This is the only US film I am looking forward to seeing in the next 12 months.
We’ve been waiting for this since Bob Clampett’s attempt to bring “Princess” to life in 1935. Sighs and triumph x 10; this is going to be freaking AMAZING.
Lance Roger Axt
The AudioComics Company
The Gabriel track is from his You Scratch My Back album from a few years ago, so it wasn’t recorded specifically for the movie. Might just be placeholder music.
I still think Hugh Jackman is the best choice (currently)to play John Carter.
And as for the incomparable Dejah Thoris? That’s tough.
Demi Moore?
And to play Tars Tarkas?
Jim Shooter :-)
It looks like the studio is going with red henna like patterns to make up for the lack of red skin on the Martians. I could ignore this if the story works.
Looks very nice and totally intriguing. But doesn’t look anything like John Carter to me… I was thinking more of an Indiana Jones type adventure movie, bright, sexy and violent. This looks gritty, dirty and full of pathos.
I really want to see how this is going to be received by people who don’t know anything about the books.
Stanton can definitely direct live action.
I guess I’m disappointed in this because I saw an inhouse 10 minute promo film made by Paramount when they had A Princess of Mars in pre-production. The film showed dozens of spectacular paintings of Barsoom, its cities, people and warcraft. There was even test CGI of the Tharks and a speech by Tars Tarkus, and it all put this trailer to shame. But Paramount’s contract on the material expired after several years and to renew it would have cost $2 million. When they offered ERB Inc 10% of that to renew it, ERB Inc refused and it ultimately was picked up by Disney (again) who had previously had the property and let it go.