John Carter of Mars
- Thread starter Batutta
- Start date
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
I agree that the foreign grosses are pretty good -- but I've seen a lot of hype about JC's performance overseas, as if it's some kind of silver lining. In reality, the film opened across the board in its first weekend overseas, and managed to score just a little higher than Prince of Persia would have grossed had POP been released day-and-date worldwide as well. The film's foreign gross is going to be heavily frontloaded compared to similar titles, and ultimately won't cume that much more.
-JMT
P.S. I know you weren't necessarily saying anything like that, but since the topic of foreign gross was brought up, figured I'd offer my thoughts on it.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Yeah, I guess the issue is that if it didn't cost so much damn money it wouldn't be perceived as such a failure. It looks like 21 Jump Street is going to have a similar opening weekend gross, but since it only cost 45 million, people are calling it a huge success...After thinking about the story more, I think the biggest misstep was changing it from a princess in peril storyline. The events of the story are meant to support that as the central thrust of the narrative. They changed that, but kept much of the events the same, which weakens the story's effectiveness. Would audiences be interested in seeing a princess in peril storyline these days? I don't know. But it would have been a stronger film. I think those stories can work without offending women. I know a lot of women who love The Princess Bride, and that's a perfect example of a helpless princess in peril storyline.
Eric Boellner
Well-known member
It would have worked for me, at least. :undecided
TheReverend
Well-known member
I had no idea that there were books that the movie came from. My honest opinion before reading this thread was that this movie was a convoluted mess. It felt like it was trying to have too much happen, too fast for you to feel it. And then someone at the top insisted on having soooo many cliche moments that literally make you want to punch a baby, as you can feel the filmmakers trying to manipulate your feelings.
After reading this thread, it makes ALOT more sense that they were trying to follow the books. That explains too much happening in too little time. But like a couple other big movies that "flopped" in recent memory (Robin Hood, Green Lantern), cutting the movie down and not allowing the "epic" movie to be 3hrs is what ruins them. When you want something as big as Lord Of The Rings, you have to give the movie the time to tell the story and breathe. "John Carter" has this exact problem in many scenes and transitions. I would guess that the higher-ups had this movie significantly cut down to be as close to the 2hr mark as possible. The John & Princess relationship felt rushed, the battle scenes felt sudden and with no crescendo of anticipation, many lines of dialogue were too straight forward and not conversation, too many story arcs (chief & his daughter, helium vs "the other city", the Therns master plot) felt short changed and left you wonder wth was going on and why.
This is alot of negative points, but needless to say, I was disappointed because I enjoyed the concept and could see such good potential but was forced to face palm MANY times during my screening. And for the record, it wasn't the "mars" factor that bothered me. Mars is fine, just explain it better and tell the story!
After reading this thread, it makes ALOT more sense that they were trying to follow the books. That explains too much happening in too little time. But like a couple other big movies that "flopped" in recent memory (Robin Hood, Green Lantern), cutting the movie down and not allowing the "epic" movie to be 3hrs is what ruins them. When you want something as big as Lord Of The Rings, you have to give the movie the time to tell the story and breathe. "John Carter" has this exact problem in many scenes and transitions. I would guess that the higher-ups had this movie significantly cut down to be as close to the 2hr mark as possible. The John & Princess relationship felt rushed, the battle scenes felt sudden and with no crescendo of anticipation, many lines of dialogue were too straight forward and not conversation, too many story arcs (chief & his daughter, helium vs "the other city", the Therns master plot) felt short changed and left you wonder wth was going on and why.
This is alot of negative points, but needless to say, I was disappointed because I enjoyed the concept and could see such good potential but was forced to face palm MANY times during my screening. And for the record, it wasn't the "mars" factor that bothered me. Mars is fine, just explain it better and tell the story!
Batutta
Major Contributor
You make alot of valid points Rev, except all the stuff that made this confusing was mostly stuff they added to the story of the first book, stuffing in characters from later books in the series and changing characters around and motivations. If they had kept to the simpler plot of the book, it wouldnt have felt as convoluted. Some stories are classics for a reason, and you change them at your peril.
TheReverend
Well-known member
Lol. They tried to add more than just one book to this movie? There's the fail right there. Like there isn't enough material in one book to fill a movie. Hollywood gets so caught up in fight scenes and "cool action" sequences. Look at the great action/adventure movies in the past; all of them have significant down time and poignant dialogue for the audience to connect to the hero and feel the tension. Even Avatar, which I wouldnt claim as being an all-time great, got this dead on. It's not rocket science to not make Michael Bay films...
Egg Born Son
Veteran
I just saw this today and not having read the books, I really don't see what all the negative press is about. While I don't know if I'd say it is as great, I don't remember being this exhilerated since Empire or original Tron to be honest. I managed to avoid all the hype and went in with no expectations. My jaw was slack the whole time and I forgot to eat my popcorn. Entirely. I had a full box of popcorn and a warm coke at the end. It was as epic as star wars or indy.
While one of the big criticisms laid by the critics was of being derivative, the gimmicks were so innocent and naive it was patently obvious this story pre-dates them all (for whom further development of these ideas was required in order to make them their own). John Carter was totally its own movie, such a rare thing nowadays. Especially in fanboy films where the obligatory references to other movies come in thick and fast without a great deal of subtlety.
I think perhaps one of the biggest contributors to my experience was the 3D. I haven't seen Hugo yet but this will always be the first 3D movie for me. It is the first film I've seen that demonstrates an understanding of how to make 3D work for rather than against the film. The town scenes at the beginning of the film were incredible and set me up for the epic Mars scenes to come. And the set pieces for once didn't feel like the advertisement for the game. There were a couple of moments were the gorgeous CGI almost broke the spell (the uncanny effect in play) but the 3D didn't pull me out of it even once. All 3D movies I've seen so far have been made by directors stuck in the paradigm of 2D framing and editing, the experiences marred by an endless ordeal of trying to find the ever-shifting focal plane. This one nailed it.
I've read many reviews bemoaning an inability to understand what was going on for the first half of the film and lamenting the convoluted plot. Well it may deviate from the books to annoy a few people but unless it has been re-edited by the time I saw it, I didn't have the slightest trouble following the film. It was fairly stock standard adventure fair with all the conventional twists and turns occurring at their allotted points. I've read and watched fantasy and science fiction epics extensively but I really don't understand why the plot would be that hard to follow for the adventure noob. I didn't spot any plot holes or hanging threads on first viewing (maybe I'll spot some when I go back tomorrow) and thought the plot was relatively tight without any fat to trim, the pacing spot on and reveals well timed. Maybe if my experience was coloured by expectations put in place by reading the books it would have been harder to follow. Perhaps it contained visual elements too weird for those critics who have yet to exercise their imagination. Underneath the unusual eye-candy it was hardly riddled with complicated concepts.
I quite enjoyed all the performances and think the actors were well cast. I think the film benefitted enormously from its lack of star power (I didn't even know Willem Dafoe was in it until the credits). An epic movie can be diminished by stars. It somehow limits the imagination and keeps the camera in close. There were a couple of recognised faces, a few familiar that I couldn't place. But the film itself was allowed to be the star, the world of Barsoom and its wonders took centre stage. The restrained performances by all involved allowed the film to breathe. No-one demanded centre stage and all supported each other with measured performances.
My comments about critics here refer more to the reviewers in the media and papers who largely (and I think unfairly) seem to have panned this movie, notsomuch comments made by people here. My only addition to comments in this thread is that while I too have often wondered why the damsel in distress is so taboo these days, here it didn't bother me...again perhaps if I'd read the books (which I am tempted to do after seeing this film) I'd feel differently. I urge anyone undecided to go see it, if only to see that 3D can work in the right hands. I would love there to be a sequel to revisit the world of Barsoom and witness Carter's ongoing adventures but perhaps like Lynch's...sorry, Alan Smithee's 'Dune', it will be served better as a thrilling oddity. Although it is by it's very nature perfectly suited to a serial...
It is a shame that this movie has flopped. There were only 7 people at the screening at the imax theatre I attended and I think it is a failing of the marketing department and a critical reception by reviewers that largely missed the point (its not citizen kane). I hope Andrew Stanton is not tarred by this because I think he created a beautiful entertaining movie that could not live up to the wrong promises. It wasn't marketed on its merits, too much effort was put in to subverting concerns that may never have come up. I mean, do they really think that people were going to be confused about Mars being barren and lifeless in real life. It's a movie. It probably did cost too much to make, so the producers failed too.
I think/hope that like many of the best and most enduring sci-fi/fantasy films it will outlive its box office failure. Star Wars is the exception not the rule. 2001, Dune, Blade Runner, Tron etc. Such films are often accompanied by poor marketing and distribution support but remembered long after the films that beat them out. Or maybe when I go and see it again tomorrow it will be rubbish. :tongue:
While one of the big criticisms laid by the critics was of being derivative, the gimmicks were so innocent and naive it was patently obvious this story pre-dates them all (for whom further development of these ideas was required in order to make them their own). John Carter was totally its own movie, such a rare thing nowadays. Especially in fanboy films where the obligatory references to other movies come in thick and fast without a great deal of subtlety.
I think perhaps one of the biggest contributors to my experience was the 3D. I haven't seen Hugo yet but this will always be the first 3D movie for me. It is the first film I've seen that demonstrates an understanding of how to make 3D work for rather than against the film. The town scenes at the beginning of the film were incredible and set me up for the epic Mars scenes to come. And the set pieces for once didn't feel like the advertisement for the game. There were a couple of moments were the gorgeous CGI almost broke the spell (the uncanny effect in play) but the 3D didn't pull me out of it even once. All 3D movies I've seen so far have been made by directors stuck in the paradigm of 2D framing and editing, the experiences marred by an endless ordeal of trying to find the ever-shifting focal plane. This one nailed it.
I've read many reviews bemoaning an inability to understand what was going on for the first half of the film and lamenting the convoluted plot. Well it may deviate from the books to annoy a few people but unless it has been re-edited by the time I saw it, I didn't have the slightest trouble following the film. It was fairly stock standard adventure fair with all the conventional twists and turns occurring at their allotted points. I've read and watched fantasy and science fiction epics extensively but I really don't understand why the plot would be that hard to follow for the adventure noob. I didn't spot any plot holes or hanging threads on first viewing (maybe I'll spot some when I go back tomorrow) and thought the plot was relatively tight without any fat to trim, the pacing spot on and reveals well timed. Maybe if my experience was coloured by expectations put in place by reading the books it would have been harder to follow. Perhaps it contained visual elements too weird for those critics who have yet to exercise their imagination. Underneath the unusual eye-candy it was hardly riddled with complicated concepts.
I quite enjoyed all the performances and think the actors were well cast. I think the film benefitted enormously from its lack of star power (I didn't even know Willem Dafoe was in it until the credits). An epic movie can be diminished by stars. It somehow limits the imagination and keeps the camera in close. There were a couple of recognised faces, a few familiar that I couldn't place. But the film itself was allowed to be the star, the world of Barsoom and its wonders took centre stage. The restrained performances by all involved allowed the film to breathe. No-one demanded centre stage and all supported each other with measured performances.
My comments about critics here refer more to the reviewers in the media and papers who largely (and I think unfairly) seem to have panned this movie, notsomuch comments made by people here. My only addition to comments in this thread is that while I too have often wondered why the damsel in distress is so taboo these days, here it didn't bother me...again perhaps if I'd read the books (which I am tempted to do after seeing this film) I'd feel differently. I urge anyone undecided to go see it, if only to see that 3D can work in the right hands. I would love there to be a sequel to revisit the world of Barsoom and witness Carter's ongoing adventures but perhaps like Lynch's...sorry, Alan Smithee's 'Dune', it will be served better as a thrilling oddity. Although it is by it's very nature perfectly suited to a serial...
It is a shame that this movie has flopped. There were only 7 people at the screening at the imax theatre I attended and I think it is a failing of the marketing department and a critical reception by reviewers that largely missed the point (its not citizen kane). I hope Andrew Stanton is not tarred by this because I think he created a beautiful entertaining movie that could not live up to the wrong promises. It wasn't marketed on its merits, too much effort was put in to subverting concerns that may never have come up. I mean, do they really think that people were going to be confused about Mars being barren and lifeless in real life. It's a movie. It probably did cost too much to make, so the producers failed too.
I think/hope that like many of the best and most enduring sci-fi/fantasy films it will outlive its box office failure. Star Wars is the exception not the rule. 2001, Dune, Blade Runner, Tron etc. Such films are often accompanied by poor marketing and distribution support but remembered long after the films that beat them out. Or maybe when I go and see it again tomorrow it will be rubbish. :tongue:
Captain Pierce
Veteran
To be fair, Reverend, we're not talking about "Lord of the Rings"-length epics here.
My hardcover copy of "Fellowship of the Ring is 400 pages and change; the paperback of "Princess of Mars" I just found on an Amazon search is 144. So there's room... 
Just starting on PoM (through Project Gutenberg on my iPod Touch), so I don't know much yet about what was added where.
GaryinCalifornia
Veteran
Everyone has different opinions... watching the trailer to 21 Jump Street... thought... I'll pass not my cup of tea... guess I'll help Disney out when the DVD is released of JCofM...
whattheydontsay
New member
I caught this movie last week and it's definitely pretty. Beyond that it's such an old story, and an archetype that's been copied so many times, that we've all watched every other iteration of it by now. They finally got around to telling a story we've all known for a hundred years. There's that... and the green aliens... both result in an indifferent audience. Still a worthwhile watch just for the bookends and visual effects.
snowleopard
Well-known member
Didn't see it. Might on Cable/DVD. Looked like The Golden Compass 2. An arguably saturated genre, bland title (wasn't John Carter Noah Wylie on ER?) and confusing, lots of CGI. Doesn't look bad, but nothing interesting, to me anyway.
Depending on how Disney spins this, unless they revise their $200m loss proclamation, this will reign as the largest box office flop ever. (Currently held by Cutthroat Island at $147m, inflation adjusted).
Depending on how Disney spins this, unless they revise their $200m loss proclamation, this will reign as the largest box office flop ever. (Currently held by Cutthroat Island at $147m, inflation adjusted).
Batutta
Major Contributor
Well after this film's 200 million dollar loss, the head of the studio resigned. I think it will be a long time before we see anything related to Mars onscreen again.
http://business.financialpost.com/2...ief-resigns-after-us200m-loss-on-john-carter/
http://business.financialpost.com/2...ief-resigns-after-us200m-loss-on-john-carter/
snowleopard
Well-known member
I'm not shocked. If the projected numbers hold, it will be the biggest box office flop ever, at least in terms of adjusted net loss.
Batutta
Major Contributor
Wow. In stores less then 3 months after theatrical release. Gotta be some kind of record for such a high profile release.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/John-Carter-Blu-ray/35763/#Review
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/John-Carter-Blu-ray/35763/#Review
Worst marketing campaign I've ever seen for a such a high-profile release. The trailers were confusing and lacked any emotional hooks whatsoever. They didn't even really show that much action; mostly half-naked people in dramatic poses across a world that looks like it could be earth, even though it's supposed to be another planet... a fact the trailers seem to try to hide.
If you saw the trailers and weren't already familiar with the source material, you would have to go look up the source material in order to figure out what you'd just witnessed... if the trailers even left you interested enough to do so.
The movie was decent enough, though overstuffed with storyline elements that felt like they were shoehorned into the story by a committee, resulting in the film feeling rushed. The camera never dwelled on the characters long enough for you to develop an emotional connection to them.
And I am not too sure about the leading-man potential of Taylor Kitsch. He has a strange and raspy voice, and he kind of comes across as weirdo at times.
If you saw the trailers and weren't already familiar with the source material, you would have to go look up the source material in order to figure out what you'd just witnessed... if the trailers even left you interested enough to do so.
The movie was decent enough, though overstuffed with storyline elements that felt like they were shoehorned into the story by a committee, resulting in the film feeling rushed. The camera never dwelled on the characters long enough for you to develop an emotional connection to them.
And I am not too sure about the leading-man potential of Taylor Kitsch. He has a strange and raspy voice, and he kind of comes across as weirdo at times.
Last edited:
Jawa Ex Machina
Veteran
Three months is standard over here (Sweden), and the window is shrinking because only the cinema owners want it. The distributors and filmmakers all want to be able to release on several platforms immediately.
I saw a debate on this at the Stockholm festival two in december 2009 with parties from all places in filmmaking and distribution took part. Back then the window was four months, now it's three.
It'll disappear eventually.
I don't think there was a big enough audience to spend $250M on it. A lot of sci-fi and comics have gone mainstream, but ERB is still the stuff of introverted 8th graders. Magnificent though the stories may be, that's where it still lives.
My wife fell asleep. I don't really blame her. If I didn't know the source material, I might have, too.
I don't think this means "Mars" is box office poison, though.
My wife fell asleep. I don't really blame her. If I didn't know the source material, I might have, too.
I don't think this means "Mars" is box office poison, though.