I don't know how many of you have seen the trailers for this, but it looks amazing.
Some people are calling it a rip-off of Star Wars and other popular scifi epics (basing their opinions solely on the previews, of course), but the ironic thing about this is that the movie itself is based on a novel that was written about 100 years ago. In fact, many of those elements and themes didn't even exist before these books came out (written by the same guy who wrote Tarzan), which makes the original books quite innovative.
Despite these similar themes, however, there's a lot going on in the film/books that makes the story stand on its own. I really enjoyed the books, so I'm naturally excited about this.
From the reviews I've read so far, it seems like people are really enjoying it, but these are all advanced reviews and we won't know for sure how good it is until the day it gets released.
For those interested, here's a trailer. It's a shorter one than the others, but I think it's the best (and the song is pretty sweet).
Also, it's from the director of Wall-E and Finding Nemo, so there's two more reasons to watch it.
Anyone else going to see it?
Posted by ZachC (Member # 12709) on :
I have seen many reviews but I still have no idea what it is.
-First, is it set in the past, or the present, or the future, because the humans in the movie have a strange level of technology that doesn't make sense.
-Second, they look like they are in a desert which suggests maybe... the Middle East? But John Carter has all of the makings of a modern day american (accent, mannerisms, etc.). I'm no cine file, so maybe I am missing something, but this movie, to me, sounds like a bust. But then again, I could be proven totally wrong, so I will probably see the movie anyway Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
John Carter is an American Civil War soldier who ends up on Mars (okay, not quite Mars) and then stays there having adventures for reasons that it's better not to worry about too much.
I am so excited. There is probably nothing that I love more than epic historical sci-fi, so I really want this film to be amazing.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
It's been some years since I've read the book, but the trailers for this movie seem to have nothing in common with what I remember of it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Yeah. Just from the ads, John Carter doesn't strike me as the gallant Southern gentleman soldier from the books.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Yeah. Just from the ads, John Carter doesn't strike me as the gallant Southern gentleman soldier from the books.
I thought the same thing, but supposedly the ads don't do a good job of portraying certain aspects of the film as well as they should. From what I've read, the actor does a pretty good job. Still, I'm really hoping the southern gentleman characterization is in the film.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Some people are calling it a rip-off of Star Wars and other popular scifi epics (basing their opinions solely on the previews, of course), but the ironic thing about this is that the movie itself is based on a novel that was written about 100 years ago. In fact, many of those elements and themes didn't even exist before these books came out (written by the same guy who wrote Tarzan), which makes the original books quite innovative.
To the extent that John Carter is like Star Wars, or vice versa, it is not actually very innovative; Star Wars was based very strongly on old Norse sources, the Tattuinardøla Saga, or in English "Saga of the Tattooine Valley Dwellers". It is of course possible that Burroughs wasn't aware of this source, and reinvented the themes himself; but in the case of Lucas there can be no doubt that the adaptation was direct.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The books are nothing like Star Wars.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: The books are nothing like Star Wars.
Yeah, the comparisons are mostly to do with the movie (based mostly on the previews) and, more specifically, the Colosseum scene. I see more similarities between the books and something like Dune or something.
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
I was not even kind of interested in seeing this movie, though this thread gave me a sliver of hope that it won't totally suck. I know nothing of the book (in fact, I didn't know it existed until reading this thread), so my gut feeling about the movie is based entirely on the trailer - and I have not yet been impressed.
It's exactly as Jeff C. and others have mentioned in this thread - the SFX look straight out of Attack of the Clones, an experience I'm not terribly eager to repeat. Maybe the books are totally different, I wouldn't know. The trailers and promos have done nothing to convince me that the story is anything remotely approaching epic, or even moderately entertaining.
I probably won't see it, but it's interesting to learn that it's not (as) derivative (as I'd previously thought).
Posted by odouls268 (Member # 2145) on :
quote: Some people are calling it a rip-off of Star Wars
Looks more like a rip off of Eragon to me.
sad, such lack of originality.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:the SFX look straight out of Attack of the Clones, an experience I'm not terribly eager to repeat. Maybe the books are totally different, I wouldn't know
Yeah, the SFX in the books is completely rad.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
The 3D was what really blew me away about the novels.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
I just hated the headaches I got from reading in those glasses.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by SteveRogers: The 3D was what really blew me away about the novels.
This made me laugh out loud Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
I've been waiting for this movie since I was a kid! The books (I've read 'em all, multiple times) are great swashbuckling adventures, full of maidens in distress and dashing sword-wielding heroes and villains, told with excitement and flair. So I will definitely see this movie and, as with Lord of the Rings, forgive as much as possible, anything that doesn't line up with my vision of Barsoom (Mars). I have to say, though, that when I first saw the trailer, where John Carter wakes up on Mars my reaction was, "Wohh, the ochre sea bottoms!!" Looked great to me. The stories are imagined so vividly and the world- building is detailed and believable (within the constraints of science-fantasy) that when the first Mars lander sent back images from the surface of Mars in the 60s I was disappointed there were no fliers buzzing round in the skies, or Tharks on thoat-back galloping by, or at least some canals. The fact the stories were told 100 years ago means that pretty much all of the Star Wars type stuff is derivative of John Carter. Can't wait to see it!!
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
So far, so good. I've only seen positive reviews so far, and they've been saying about what I'd expect. I'm cautiously hopeful. I think a buddy and I are going to go see it in IMAX this weekend, so I can definitely let everyone know what I thought based on that experience afterward.
But I can say that my desire to see it has only increased exponentially as of late (particularly after beginning to read the novels on my Nook [for anyone wondering, I have an original Nook, so no 3D novels for me]).
Posted by Carrie (Member # 394) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:the SFX look straight out of Attack of the Clones, an experience I'm not terribly eager to repeat. Maybe the books are totally different, I wouldn't know
Yeah, the SFX in the books is completely rad.
Good to know. I'll keep that in mind should I ever feel like reading the books.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You should, it's worth the effort. There are also some unexpected benefits at times.
When Lucas changed the continuity of the original Star Wars by having Greedo shoot first, he had to come edit my copy of the book himself. Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I just bought the first five books on the Nook and collectively they were only 3 bucks. That's not a bad deal.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
I started reading them a while ago. I thought they were wonderful books, and I didn't want to put them down.
The movie looks like they are focusing more on the latter half of the first book than the first half.
That and it looks like they are using someone from a race introduced in the second book as the person pulling all of the strings from behind the scenes. Whatever. I'll watch it.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
http://www.youtube.com/johncarter : the first ten-minutes. Hafta assume Disney had it made in hopes of reviving Mystery Science Theater 2000... ...cuz it's too poorly done to be selected for MST3K
[ March 05, 2012, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
What makes you say that?
Posted by DSH (Member # 741) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jeff C.: I just bought the first five books on the Nook and collectively they were only 3 bucks. That's not a bad deal.
The novels are all in the public domain and available for free at places like Project Gutenberg Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I paid for a collection of them on the Nook also due mostly to the fact that user reviews seemed to imply the sponsored e-publication had actually been copy-edited prior to being uploaded unlike some of the free options also available on the Nook.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Is there any effort made to explain how air-breathing creatures could live on Mars, when we now know it's atmosphere is so thin it is the next thing to vacuum? I don't know if I can maintain a suspension of disbelief to that extent. They could suggest parallel worlds, where this is a Mars of a different universe.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Is there any effort made to explain how air-breathing creatures could live on Mars, when we now know it's atmosphere is so thin it is the next thing to vacuum? I don't know if I can maintain a suspension of disbelief to that extent. They could suggest parallel worlds, where this is a Mars of a different universe.
It isn't our Mars, it's a parallel dimension.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Same way they did on Malacandra, Ron. Posted by Annie (Member # 295) on :
Funny - Mars looks a lot like Southern Utah. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Annie: Funny - Mars looks a lot like Southern Utah.
It has since at least the 1920's. Only back then it was black and white.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
In the book one of the key plot points is that the atmosphere on Mars (and it IS our Mars, not a parallel universe - there's times when John Carter is back on earth that he gazes into the night sky at the red planet longing to be back with the incomparable Dejah Thoris - don't know what they've done for the movie though - and remember, the book was written exactly 100 years ago), anyway, the atmosphere is rapidly disappearing and life is made possible only by giant atmosphere plants (as in factories) which produce enough oxygen to sustain life - again, remember it's a science fantasy and it's 100 year old science, when canals were seriously believed to be visible on Mars taking water from the poles to the habitable areas. Suspension of disbelief, folks... the stories are worth it.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
I wrote up something on my blog about this, detailing the history that the film took to being made. It might be worth a look to those of you who are interested in history. I was surprised to learn that they've been trying to make a movie for almost as long as the books have been around. Very cool.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I just got back from seeing this and I thought it was fantastic. The story is a little cliche at parts, but the characters are likable and the action is superb. I really enjoyed the visual effects.
I can understand how some people might find it too similar to other franchises, but it's really not. The story is its own creation, and it is very clear that the director was a fan of the novels. They recreated Barsoom for the first time on the silver screen and it looks and feels more real than any movie I've seen in the past year.
A few scenes are a little cheesy, but I honestly didn't care. It was a very good movie and it reminded me of my childhood.
I really hope it gets the sequels it deserves.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
Looking forward to seeing it!
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I don't know how likely a sequel is when it's bombing this hard at present.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: I don't know how likely a sequel is when it's bombing this hard at present.
You never know. Green Lantern was a huge stinker and it still managed to produce some profit and now they want to make a follow-up. If JC ends up making some money, it might spawn more films.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The whole family loved it. Better than the "Prequels". Up there with Dune and the Original Trilogy as some of the best space opera to hit the silver screen. And one of the best sci-fi movies in years.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I actually enjoyed it a great deal. Excellent design, better acting than I honestly expected, great music.
It's also fun to reflect on story elements that clearly inspired other books and movies.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
SPOILERS AHEAD
The best part of the film, in my opinion, was the epic battle scene near the middle of the movie where JC is mowing down the tribes people. The inter-splicing of his old memories of burying his wife and child and seeing his emotions play out as he fights was really well done. The ending was also fantastic. Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I have not seen the movie yet. Nor, I am a little chagrined to say, have I ever read the Barsoom novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. I think I will remedy this after seeing the movie.
It is perhaps fitting that Disney studios produced this live-action movie. They considered making an animated version back in the 1980's but finally decided the project was too much for them. So they produced Snow White instead, as the first animated feature-length movie. Probably Disney still owns the rights to the Barsoom-John Carter fiction of Edgar Rice Burroughs, so no one else would have the legal right to make the movie. Certainly Disney is the only movie-maker big enough to take on the risk of producing such a movie with a $250 million budget.
If the movie does succeed, however, we could look forward to sequels, since this movie was based on Burrough's novel, A Princess of Mars, and there were two more Barsoom novels in the series, plus a number of additional stories.
It is interesting that Burroughs' A Princess of Mars was written 100 years ago. It is said to be the source for many of the ideas later used by Ray Bradbury, Robert Heinlein, Arthur C. Clarke, and of course George Lucas and James Cameron. It may be hard to remember that John Carter was actually first. The more I learn about this movie, the more intrigued I am to see it, at least in part because the novels it is based on are so integral to the history of science fiction (though of course theoretically you could go back to Homer's Illiad and Odysee.)
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I'm hoping to see this film after work sometime next week. I'm really looking forward to it.
I really hope this does really well, at least internationally (that's where my ticket money comes in) because apart from this series, I'd love for big screen epic sci-fi to come back in a huge way, since I dream that someone will take Dune and give it this kind of big screen treatment. The mini-series was okay (the film was bizarre if you hadn't read the books, and not great even if you had, IMO, as much as I love Patrick Stewart), but considering the quality of CGI these days, it seems to me that someone could make an amazing trilogy of 'Dune' up to 'Children of Dune', if the money was spent on it.
Plus, that way I'd get movies for both my 'intro to real sci-fi aged ten' books in the next few years. The other was 'Ender's Game'.
ETA: From E.
quote: Despite grossing $30.6 million domestically, a terrible start for a movie advertised as the first blockbuster of the year, much less one of the most expensive films of all-time, John Carter ended up with $101 million weekend thanks to solid debuts in Russia, Asia and other overseas markets...
"Labeling [John Carter] as a financial disaster at this point doesn't really make sense," BoxOffice.com editor Phil Contrino said Sunday via email. "It's not going to be a huge blockbuster at home, but it's on pace to make up for that disappointment by doing well abroad."
So international money counts on this.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
I actually saw this movie last night in an IMAX theater, and I can honestly say that, after having read a number of positive reviews, I don't understand what the complaints about the movie were really based upon. I thought it was a very well made movie. I didn't notice any issues with the writing or visual effects unlike what a lot of reviews pointed out. I didn't think it was boring or long-winded. It was an enjoyable science fiction movie.
Edit: I'm really hoping, if they can get the same creative team on board, they produce a sequel. I'd much rather see another movie set in this universe than another god forsaken Pirates of the Caribbean movie.
Posted by Puffy Treat (Member # 7210) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is perhaps fitting that Disney studios produced this live-action movie. They considered making an animated version back in the 1980's but finally decided the project was too much for them. So they produced Snow White instead, as the first animated feature-length movie.
You've mixed it up a bit. Disney did option the property in the 80s (as part of the trend of space opera films inspired by the success of Star Wars inspired), but the animated version to which you refer was considered by Bob Clampett back in the 1930s. He was not affiliated with Disney but with MGM. (Snow White was released in 1937, not the 80s.)
Disney's 80s version was going to be live action, but ultimately the studio felt the FX demands were too great.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Puffy Treat:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: It is perhaps fitting that Disney studios produced this live-action movie. They considered making an animated version back in the 1980's but finally decided the project was too much for them. So they produced Snow White instead, as the first animated feature-length movie.
You've mixed it up a bit. Disney did option the property in the 80s (as part of the trend of space opera films inspired by the success of Star Wars inspired), but the animated version to which you refer was considered by Bob Clampett back in the 1930s. He was not affiliated with Disney but with MGM. (Snow White was released in 1937, not the 80s.)
Disney's 80s version was going to be live action, but ultimately the studio felt the FX demands were too great.
The news about the foreign ticket sales are very encouraging. I'm a little more optimistic Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Thanks for the corrections on the details about by whom and when John Carter might have been produced. Here's what I read (at that same link Jeff C. provided):
quote:According to some experts, if Clampett had been successful, there’s a very good chance that John Carter’s story would have preceded Snow White and the Seven Dwarves as the very first full-length American animated movie.
....
This series was so popular that there was even a movement in the early 80′s by Walt Disney Pictures to develop it. This version of the series would, oddly enough, star Tom Cruise, and it would be Disney’s answer to Star Wars and Conan. Apparently, though, the deal fell through when the filmmakers realized it would be next to impossible to recreate Barsoom as it was in the books, and because the current state of special effects just wasn’t good enough.
Also, after checking some libraries, I find that there were more than three Barsoom novels--there were about nine.
[ March 11, 2012, 09:53 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
The Golden Compass was also a bust domestic with strong overseas revenue. Didn't help much.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Saw the movie on Saturday with the hubby. I enjoyed it quite a bit. I must have read at least the first book waaaaay back in the day sometime because I recognized all of the names and the baby hatchery. I did think that John Carter could just just a bit too high and too far for the amount of gravity on Mars. I mean, look at the jumps the men on the Moon took. Granted, the men on the Moon had heavy suits on, but still, the Moon has less gravity than Mars and they couldn't jump nearly as far or high as John Carter could. Other than this, no complaints!
I'm really interested in how they did the Tharks (spelling?). I thought they were quite well done.
Posted by Sala (Member # 8980) on :
Oh, okay, I guess I did have *one* complaint. I didn't think that the guy who played John Carter was a very good actor. Seemed fairly wooden. Looked nice, though a bit more tan would have better suited my tastes. <blush>
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I agree and have talked about how initial domestic box office take versus the stated production costs of a movie are often extraordinarily distant and irrelevant from the actual costs of a movie versus the profitability of an enterprise or a movie franchise, yet they still seem to be the arbitrary goalposts by which a movie is judged to be a hit or a flop, and the strongest pull towards (or away from) the production of a sequel.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Why is this movie rated PG13, anyway? Episode II was more violent, and there was nothing else objectionable. Was there? I took my little kids.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
It was probably made PG-13 for the violence and the skimpy outfits.
I went with my fiance and we loved it. Tons of fun.
I also got a kick out of Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy being put together again after playing Caesar and Marc Antony on HBO's ROME.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
It's PG-13 because of the "blood", the violence, and the language (they cuss a number of times).
I was talking about this movie to people at work today and a lot of them are not going to see it. They think since it was made by Disney that it's not going to be very good, or they have no idea what it is. It's silly ignorance, but it seems like that's how it will be for general audiences. Most people won't go watch it because they expect something else. It's a shame, really.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
I don't remember any real cussing. They cite it as "intense sequences of violence and action". Again, I don't see how John Carter warrants a PG13, if Episode II was rated PG.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Aros: I don't remember any real cussing. They cite it as "intense sequences of violence and action". Again, I don't see how John Carter warrants a PG13, if Episode II was rated PG.
It's because there's less bleeding when you get cut by a lightsaber.
And Obi-wan doesn't say 'hell' or 'damn'.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
What I remember reading is that the Moon has approximately one-sixth of Earth's gravity, and Mars has about one-third of Earth's gravity. Unencumbered by a heavy space suit, a man who can jump four feet straight up should be able to jump 12 feet straight up on Mars.
The official, verified long distance jump is currently 8.95 meters (29.3635 feet) according to Wickipedia. So if John Carter were an olympic athelete as good as Mike Powell or Carl Lewis, he could long jump a maximum of a little over 88 feet. That would be impressive. He should be a superman compared to an indigenous Martian. Of course, the down side to that would be the effects of such ligher gravity on anyone born and growing up on Mars. Deeja Thoris, for instance, should look like a beanstalk, really tall and slender.
Jeff C. I think the time is long past when we should label a movie as juvenile or simplistic just because it is made by Disney. That is like talking about a "cheap Japanese transistor radio," like we used to say before Japan became such a leader in electronics. Presently Disney is a conglomerate, having acquired controlling interests in several other movie producers, and is one of the largest players in the industry.
[ March 12, 2012, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: It's because there's less bleeding when you get cut by a lightsaber.
Auto-cauterization.
Gravity and jumping distances should fall under the inverse-square law, not straight proportion.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I don't know about that, rivka. Are light sabres supposed to be hot plasma beams, or force field beams? If the latter, then they do not have to be hot and capable of cauterizing the flesh they cut.
I think there is little significant difference even with the inverse-square law when you are talking about jumping distances on the face of a planet. You have to take the percentage difference in heights measured from the gravitational center of the planet. That is why you cannot jump to the moon with a pogo stick.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Are we now measuring heights from the center of planets? Or from the surface?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
Let's not turn this into a Star Wars debate.
quote:Jeff C. I think the time is long past when we should label a movie as juvenile or simplistic just because it is made by Disney. That is like talking about a "cheap Japanese transistor radio," like we used to say before Japan became such a leader in electronics. Presently Disney is a conglomerate, having acquired controlling interests in several other movie producers, and is one of the largest players in the industry.
Including Marvel Comics. Disney has its hands on a lot of properties that the masses don't even know about. People love Thor and Iron Man, but those are still Disney (now, anyway), just like JC.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
John Carter is probably going to end up being the biggest money loser in cinema history. The biggest former box office bust is Mars Needs Moms (also Disney) at $136m. And, as far as I know, only six movies have ever managed a loss above $100m — Mars needs Moms, Sahara, The Alamo, The Adventures of Pluto Nash, Speed Racer, and Green Lantern. John Carter is on track to be the first movie to lose over $200m.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: John Carter is on track to be the first movie to lose over $200m.
From the movie's wikipedia page:
Budget $250 million Box office $179,272,000
So, so far, it's only lost about $71 million.
This includes overseas, of course.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Note that the studio doesn't see much more than half the box office even in a best-case scenario. So you're probably looking at $150 million so far.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
Austin Powers bombed in the theaters and recouped in home video. Something tells me that (with word of mouth) this might happen to John Carter.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I don't think Austin Powers earned $200m in DVD rentals/sales.
According to IMDB The first Austin Powers made $24.3 million in DVD rentals in the American market.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
No, but it became a cult classic on tv and in rentals, spawning two sequels. And a flop doesn't mean a movie's bad -- nobody noticed Fight Club or The Shawshank Redemption when they came out.
But then again, it only cost $13 M to make. Its books balanced. It looks like that might not be the case with John Carter.
Blade Runner was a real financial flop, and it looks like it might begat a sequel (finally). Unfortunately, John Carter isn't anywhere near THAT good.
And I don't think international sales will help. Golden Compass made a killing internationally, but its terrible domestic run killed any chance of a sequel. In many cases, the production company doesn't get a huge share of the overseas sales -- they go to the foreign distributors.
[ March 21, 2012, 04:17 PM: Message edited by: Aros ]
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
I went to see this a week ago and thought it was really fun and enjoyable, with laughs and drama and likable characters - and really beautiful.
But I loved the ending. They went the 'Pirates of the Caribbean' route and had the movie tell a totally complete story - and gave it a slightly twisted happy ending with just a hint at the possibility that there could be more adventures to come. Since I was expecting a cliff-hanger, I was totally delighted.
Having seen what happened with the decreasing quality of the 'Pirates' series, I think I'd be happier and love the movie a lot more in the long run if they never made a sequel. Plus, if they made sequels they'd eventually kill the dog, because they always do. And then I'd cry.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
This was SO much better than Pirates, though. (sigh)
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: John Carter is on track to be the first movie to lose over $200m.
From the movie's wikipedia page:
Budget $250 million Box office $179,272,000
So, so far, it's only lost about $71 million.
This includes overseas, of course.
That budget figure is just production, without including costs such as advertising. In addition, that box office figure isn't what the movie gets back from the cinemas, it's just the dollar figure from sold tickets.
Disney is already stating a probable 200m writeoff, making it by far the biggest flop in the entire history of moviedom. By a wide margin.
(revised: apparently cutthroat island outdid Mars needs Moms in terms of box office loss at about 145+ million)
Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
How in blazes did Mars Needs Moms cost $150M to make?!? But I digress...
Disney's own Treasure Planet, which was a pretty massive bomb, only cost them $70M. And there are a half dozen movies that did worse than Cutthroat Island. (Link) Posted by AchillesHeel (Member # 11736) on :
Doesn't this make anyone else a bit pessimistic about the EG movie? Long time sci-fi book, well respected in the literary community, plenty of comparisons to works that came out afterward. At least one fool in all of the internet is bound to post "wtf that kid kills another kid, what a ripoff of kickass and then he goes to hogwarts in space."
As a finished work the two books/movies have a lot in common and I really hope EG does better, if nothing else they have a much more impressive cast assembled.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
A lot of people think that marketing was the problem. Does the trailer give you the impression that it's a story-driven epic space opera? Or another rip off of 300 / Clash of the Titans / etc?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: How in blazes did Mars Needs Moms cost $150M to make?!? But I digress...
It was supposed to be the magnum opus of imagemovers digital's plans for a motion-capture revolution in CGI. They spent a lot of money to work the movie diligently into the uncanny valley. Post-production on the hassle of mapping facial animations onto motion capture animated body models was a nightmare, as was all attempts to conjoin the body models to their digital environment while trying to keep them from looking detached from the scene. Many millions of dollars in processing and overworked CGI artists later, they had managed to desperately craft them all together into something which did kind of sort of work. In an intensely creepy looking way. At least they saved money on the whole plot thing, though.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nighthawk: And there are a half dozen movies that did worse than Cutthroat Island.
Ok. RE-amended back to my first list.
quote:Originally posted by Aros: A lot of people think that marketing was the problem. Does the trailer give you the impression that it's a story-driven epic space opera? Or another rip off of 300 / Clash of the Titans / etc?
I can't comment much on the advertising campaign for the movie, since I managed to completely, completely miss it. I saw not even one banner ad nor tv spot for it.
Other marketing decisions, in hindsight, obviously contributed. I still have no idea why they decided to release it under the name "John Carter."
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
The first trailer I saw for this movie on TV was in in the UK in late December last year. For a movie coming out almost three months later.
Here in Madrid, the city was plastered with posters for about three weeks. Unfortunately, they didn't change the title (which is unusual, and in this case, an 'y la princesa de Marte' or something, would have been a very helpful clue since the books are not exactly well known here), and the posters seemed to be just a half naked guy against a red background. Which is all very lovely, but doesn't really give any idea as to the plot.
I can completely see how they must have spent a pile of cash to market the movie, it's just that said marketing was appallingly badly thought out.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
I liked it a lot. Sad it's doing so bad because I really thought they did the designs really well. Not enough killing and conquering green Martians but overall very enjoyable.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
About jumping heights: Kinetic energy at start is equal to potential energy at the top. The kinetic energy is the same for a given set of muscles, so it's equal on Earth and Mars. Potential energy is given by mgh, where g is the local acceleration due to gravity. We can easily see that height is inversely proportional to g. Therefore, if Martian surface gravity is one-third that of Earth, a man can jump three times as high as on Earth.
This doesn't take into account that his reflexes will be all wrong, to be sure. When he crouches to get the maximum push from his legs, he will expect (muscle memory) that it takes a certain amount of time for his center of gravity to drop. It will actually take quite a bit longer, because he's not falling as fast as he usually would. He will therefore, unless he consciously corrects, start pushing too early, and not generate the full force of which he's capable. But presumably he'll soon learn to wait a bit longer.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Can someone explain to me how, according to this article, Disney expects to lose $200 million despite that they've only lost about $150 million on it so far? Aren't all the major expenses already over with and from here on out they will only decrease their loss on it from more ticket sales, dvd sales, etc.?
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Can someone explain to me how, according to this article, Disney expects to lose $200 million despite that they've only lost about $150 million on it so far? Aren't all the major expenses already over with and from here on out they will only decrease their loss on it from more ticket sales, dvd sales, etc.?
I'm curious about that, too. There must be other costs associated with the film that weren't revealed.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I've finally begun reading A Princess of Mars for the first time. I see I've been misspelling the name of John Carter's "princess." It should be Dejah. I just wish Edgar Rice Burroughs have given just a little idea how Carter got to Mars. So far it seems like some kind of out-of-body projection. But even that is not clear. Oh well, anything he suggested would just be hand-waving anyway.
I'm about 2/3 through the book. I plan to see the movie Sunday afternoon. I always like to read the book first, so I can compare the movie to it.
Posted by Aros (Member # 4873) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Can someone explain to me how, according to this article, Disney expects to lose $200 million despite that they've only lost about $150 million on it so far? Aren't all the major expenses already over with and from here on out they will only decrease their loss on it from more ticket sales, dvd sales, etc.?
Total costs were $350 M after marketing, right? They only receive a portion of domestic ticket sales -- I think it's less than half. And most likely a smaller portion of overseas sales (unless they're doing their own overseas distribution).
There are also a lot more costs from an accounting perspective. They likely look at a project based on NPV (net present value), or the present value of future cash streams, and they may be calculating using opportunity costs (what else could they have been doing with their money? Another Pirates sequel would be safe).
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I've been asking around about the advertising for the movie, and as far as I can tell, it was singularly incompetent. None of my friends really knew what the movie was about unless they had specifically seen a thread about it, which was few, and the threads were all usually like 'what is a john carter anyway'
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I think they made a huge mistake not calling it John Carter of Mars. Sure, it would mean few girls would go see it . . . but few girls went to see it this way, too. The trailers weren't focused enough, either, leaving it too ambiguous what the general thrust of the plot was. They should have exposited the entire setup in one of the most distributed trailers.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Sure, it would mean few girls would go see it...
Not necessarily true, that.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Not possible to know without trying it, but their audience research results were pretty conclusive, from what I understand.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
I understand why they did it. The character doesn't become John Carter "of Mars" until the last part of the movie. Until then, he's John Carter of Earth.
The audience research they did was pretty conclusive, as fugu said. The word "Mars" doesn't stick with people, not in a positive way, anyway. Not only that, but most films that have used the word "Mars" in the title have gone on to do somewhat poorly at the box office, including "Mars Needs Moms".
Regardless, I think we can all agree that the marketing campaign was poorly executed.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote: Mars Needs Moms
Somehow, I just can't quite believe that the 'Mars' part of the title is as problematic as the 'Moms' bit. Whatever, it's a very stupid name for a movie.
But there seems to be little point leaving out the 'Mars' in 'John Carter of Mars', because the moment the movie starts, Mars kind of hits you in the face. There's really no hiding it.
Unless they thought people would just assume the movie was an intimate character portrait of an ordinary guy and his obsessive relationship with his favourite brand of chocolate bar.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
I saw the movie in 3D. It was also shown in IMAX 3D, but the theater stopped showing it in IMAX after just a few days, which was before I was ready to see it.
On the whole, I think the movie improved on the novel a little bit. It gave an explanation for how John Carter got from Jasoom (Earth) to Barsoom (Mars). The motivations for why some characters did what they did made better sense in the movie, except for where the novel gave a more in-depth explanation for the back history and relationship between Tars Tarsis and Sola.
I think it was cool that the screenwriters/producers decided to work Edgar Rice Burroughs himself into the story line. That added a little interest, and worked pretty well.
As for how far John Carter could jump, this has already been discussed. But the movie clearly got carried away. As I mentioned before, the official, verified long distance jump record is currently 8.95 meters (29.3635 feet) according to Wickipedia. So if John Carter were an olympic athelete as good as Mike Powell or Carl Lewis, he could long jump a maximum of a little over 88 feet. However, in the movie, we see John Carter jumping what has to be over 100 yards or more, which is plain ridiculous.
Anyone growing up in the lighter gravity of Mars should be tall and slender, like a beanstalk. So Dejah Thoris should not be so beautiful. At least she should tower over John Carter.
I don't know if the movie is going to show a net loss, like many people are saying. (It was said to cost $250 million to produce.) Too bad if that is the case. I think Disney did a good job, and it would be nice to see a sequel or two. (Burroughs wrote many sequels.)
I think there is a chance that this movie could be a sleeper, that develops a big fan following over the course of time. That is what happened for the original Star Trek TV series. Which the network stupidly killed--and then over the next four decades the series went on to spawn four more TV series and about a dozen movies.
Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
I STILL haven't had time to see it, but have started rereading A Princess of Mars. After 45 years since my first reading I still love these tales. Burroughs was so good at world building - he creates a whole Martian/Barsoomian culture in the first 50 or 60 pages, with a 100,000 year history, a religion, a technology and a cultural/anthropologicqal setting which works. So what if it's not particularly logical (egg-laying humans, etc) in the context of the stories it's believable and heaps of fun. And it's reminiscent, to me at least, of Tolkien's world building.
As I said in an earlier post, I was SO wanting the first Mars probes in the 60s to send back pictures of green Martians on thoats and canals criss-crossing the landscape.
Posted by Ron Lambert (Member # 2872) on :
Yes, Phillyn--I have to agree. Burroughs does compare well to Tolkien. A lot of the early pioneers of syfydom seem to have been taken with him.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Phillyn--I have to agree. Burroughs does compare well to Tolkien. A lot of the early pioneers of syfydom seem to have been taken with him.
This time, Ron, you've gone too far.
Posted by Jeff C. (Member # 12496) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy:
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Yes, Phillyn--I have to agree. Burroughs does compare well to Tolkien. A lot of the early pioneers of syfydom seem to have been taken with him.
This time, Ron, you've gone too far.
Grab the pitchforks!
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
I love this about Hatrack....
Thanks to a post in this thread I just spent 2 hours....and I read really, really fast.....looking up page after page to Star Wars info on Wookiepedia. Posted by Phillyn (Member # 12597) on :
Well, I've seen it and the best I can say is that if I wasn't such a fan of the books I'd have enjoyed it a lot more. My wife, who doesn't know the books, liked the movie. What I liked: Visually wonderful, especially the physical settings. Most things looked right. Especially liked the neat mix of advanced technology with late 19th Century Industrial Revoloution detail, such as the great big wheels used to steer the fliers, and the other clunky bits of machinery associated with the high tech stuff. I thought that was really well conceived and worked really well with the timing of when the book was written. What I didn't like: What they did with the story - completely (to me) unnecessary changes to a simple story that needlessly over complicated it. The irritating aspects of John Carter's personality The boring middle section
Having said that, it was fun. I think my biggest problem with the movie was me - I have a 45 year old vision of what these stories look like, based on multiple readings, and they didn't deliver my vision (simliar reaction to Lord of the Rins first time I saw each of them). If I saw it again I'd probably enjoy it more.
Would I buy it on dvd? Before seeing the movie the answer would have been a definite Yes. Now, not so sure...
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)