I have thought about going to an IMAX 3D showing, but it seems to be standard practice that 3D films in IMAX get their screen ratio reduced. When I saw Avatar in IMAX 3D, it went from 2.35:1 to 1.85:1. I don't like it when the screen size is compromised. They don't do it for regular IMAX showings anymore.
It's not looking good for Mr. Carter after its second weekend: only up to $179 million Worldwide. BoxOfficeMojo. 🙁
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It's not looking good for Mr. Carter after its second weekend: only up to $179 million Worldwide. BoxOfficeMojo. 🙁
I heard it was up to $184 million today, after ten days. I think in the end, after the worldwide grosses & DVD/Blu-ray sales are all counted, it will be considered to have performed all right, just not enough to continue the series unfortunately.
These articles being written are having it both way - big headlines calling it a box office disaster, yet noting later how strongly it's performing overseas. It's hurting the perception of the film for others.
I saw it on the weekend for the third time; I convinced a reluctant friend who was visiting me, and he's a lifelong cinephile like I am. Not only do I like it more with every viewing, my friend thought it was one of the most awesomely imaginative movies he's seen in a long time!
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But do you think they'd consider lowering the budget a bit and continuing it that way? I mean, let's face it, the budget went a little overboard. It would probably only improve it to cut it down a bit.
It's always possible. I don't know what involved in the plot for The Gods Of Mars. How much would it cost to cut back on screen time for the Tharks, who need a lot of CG rendering time?
Once upon a time, The Wizard Of Oz flopped on it's release. If the film can just ride out the negative perceptions right now and get re-assessed (just as Oz was), then maybe there's hope. It's taken so many decades for this to happen. I can imagine someone else will continue on with this - if it's not Disney, then maybe someone like Paramount gets the rights back and they do it.
Originally posted by Patient_Leech
But do you think they'd consider lowering the budget a bit and continuing it that way? I mean, let's face it, the budget went a little overboard. It would probably only improve it to cut it down a bit.
I read somewhere that the director was anti-green screen so everything had to be filmed on location rather than in-studio, hence the over blown budget.
If he's willing to do any sequels in studio in front of a green screen, I'm guessing he'd get the go-ahead to do a follow-up.
Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I said it once and I'll say it again: bad marketing killed this movie.
Not necessarily. It's not like Disney doesn't know how to sell their products. I think this sort of Sci-fi adventure doesnt appeal much to the masses unless it's kept very simple and touchy-feely (i.e. Avatar) and/or unless it has a particularly interesting main character (i.e. Jack Sparrow). And it has neither. If it one of those, word of mouth does the majority of the marketing. Well, there is Woola, but you know, even he can't pull the weight of the whole film.. lol. Plus it didnt help that this was SORT of violent, so little kiddies couldnt really beg to go see it. It doesnt have a very well defined target demographic.
I think Blaxican does have a point regarding marketing...
I mean the sheer title of "Pirates Of The Carribean" or even "Adventures Of The Lost Ark" sells the movie, it's already marketting to an audience that wants & expects action & adventure.
Even "James Cameron's Avatar" is a guarantee to put bums in seats.
But a movie titled "John Carter" only piques the interest of a select few who have read the novels, otherwise it brings the question, "Who the hell is John Carter? Am I willing to pay $ to find out?"
I honestly can't imagine the argument/debate to leave "Mars" out of the title...
Originally posted by Esau CairnI honestly can't imagine the argument/debate to leave "Mars" out of the title...
I think there were justifiable fears about putting the word Mars in the title. 100 years ago when these were first being written, Mars was mysteriously exotic. The 1950's space invasion films turned Mars into a cheesy menace. I can't think of one film in the past several decades that had Mars in it's title that was a success (Total Recall was set on Mars, but avoided that fact in it's title.)
That doesn't mean you don't tackle the project, of course. It just means careful marketing. I do wonder why they didn't add taglines like "From the creator of Tarzan and the director of WALL-E..."
The film did honestly go for the retro sense of wonder. It's depressing to think that to get audiences in droves, they needed Johnny Depp camping around in here in eyeshadow...or teenage vampires...
Or whatever junk that is five minutes old that today's audience likes, in defiance of all good taste. 🙄
Regardless of big budget or straight to the shelves B-grade movies....MARS is the iconic sense of sci-fi & fantasy put together....something Disney knows & can market to a family friendly audience.
How can they think using "Mars" in the title to be outdated?
Mars Needs Moms 2011
Mission To Mars 2000
Red Planet 2000
Ghosts Of Mars 2001
Mars Attacks 1996
Make no mistake, Mars sells.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Regardless of big budget or straight to the shelves B-grade movies....MARS is the iconic sense of sci-fi & fantasy put together....something Disney knows & can market to a family friendly audience.How can they think using "Mars" in the title to be outdated?
Mars Needs Moms 2011
Mission To Mars 2000
Red Planet 2000
Ghosts Of Mars 2001
Mars Attacks 1996Make no mistake, Mars sells.
Every one of those films - disappointments and bombs.
I'll throw in another disappointment - The Martian Chronicles TV miniseries from 1980. Considered a big waste of time by audiences and by the man who wrote the original novel, Ray Bradbury.
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Regardless of big budget or straight to the shelves B-grade movies....MARS is the iconic sense of sci-fi & fantasy put together....something Disney knows & can market to a family friendly audience.How can they think using "Mars" in the title to be outdated?
Mars Needs Moms 2011
Mission To Mars 2000
Red Planet 2000
Ghosts Of Mars 2001
Mars Attacks 1996Make no mistake, Mars sells.
Yeah, I kind of think they should have made the title "John Carter of Mars." Or hell, even "A Princess of Mars." For me personally, I would have been sold on it a bit quicker with Mars in the title. Hell, those films may have been disappointing, but I wanted to see them because Mars was in the title..
Originally posted by Esau Cairn
I read somewhere that the director was anti-green screen so everything had to be filmed on location rather than in-studio, hence the over blown budget.If he's willing to do any sequels in studio in front of a green screen, I'm guessing he'd get the go-ahead to do a follow-up.
That's interesting. I would think they'd both have their budgetary advantages/disadvantages, though. Hm..