John Carter

Originally posted by roughrider
They include the fact it's performing strongly overseas in the small print, away from the big headlines calling it a huge bomb.

No they didn't... It's very early on in the article, hell they don;t even mention the domestic gross just the world wide. And as of now it is not on it way to make it's projected budget... Not even close.

And we don't know how or when studios slide away from the standard formula of 50% of the grosses come back to them; only that is the standard agreement.

That's what the article says, yes.

Originally posted by roughrider
Well, the budget was in the same territory as Avatar's, and you have to think the money and lengthy post production for both films was needed; the render time for CG to make the Na'vi and the Tharks as photo-realistic as the normal actors.

One interesting difference: unlike the Gungans in Star Wars, the Na'vi and Tharks have fairly humanoid faces. How much budget money & time does it take to craft an actor's facial movements into their CGI faces? Likely much more.

Yeah, but there's an easy solution to these pricey effects. Have fewer scenes with them. Just requires some simple pre-production chopping.

I just looked at the Wikipedia list for the Most Expensively Produced Films Ever Made (not adjusted for inflation; if it was, Cleopatra in 1963 would still be No. 1) Five of the top ten films are from Disney, including the No.1 film, Pirates Of The Caribbean 3. All recent releases.
I sense a trend or pattern here... 😖hifty:

We actually shouldn't care what films cost, only that we get the films we want, really.

Yeah this movie isn't gonna be making back it's budget unless DVD sales go really well or something. If they were planning a sequel I guess they can kiss goodbye to that idea.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
It was because it was simplistic, pretty to look at, and touchy feely. I even agree with the propaganda it was spreading, but I still didn't like it. But I'll admit that I was entertained. It just left me with a sour taste in my mouth, nothing to really enjoy afterwards, and I don't really have any desire to see it again.

By contrast: John Carter was confusing (not simplistic), not quite as pretty to look at per se (although still visually impressive), and not as touchy feely. I actually wish it was more touchy feely. There really didn't seem like there was enough genuine emotion.. but I still have to see how it plays again...

John Carter's narrative was confusing if you weren't paying attention, or willing to work at understanding. Personally, I like it when they want me to pay attention to understand. Stanton's previous film, WALL-E, had virtually no dialogue for the first half and it took you nearly that long to fully understand what was happening. I say if you are just so used to TV shows that don't want to work your brain, you will have trouble here unless you apply yourself.

It does take just past the halfway mark to fully understand (it's that pivotal scene with Mark Strong's character on the walking tour in Zodanga, that finally brings everything into focus), and then it's the last stretch of the movie that we understand the prologue in New York City. But it's worth it to follow; it feels like a great reward.

I felt the same way recently watching Hugo, not fully understanding what was happening in the plot (and getting impatient to) until the last third of the movie, where it suddenly makes sense and brings it together beautifully. That film also was challenged at the box office - because it was aimed at a family audience and it wasn't simple enough?

By contrast, Avatar was very simple. I remember watching the trailer and thinking "I hope there's more to the story, because I think I got it all right now." As it turned out, there wasn't. Everything proceeded in a straight line towards an outcome we could see a mile away - but couple that with extraordinary character animation and set pieces, and it was enough for audiences around the world, clunky dialogue be damned. An entertaining film to be sure, but like so many of James Cameron's films, there's nothing to chew on later once it's out of theatres. That's my opinion.

Originally posted by roughrider
John Carter's narrative was confusing if you weren't paying attention, or willing to work at understanding.

Douche. Not all of us have seen it 3 times. 😬 And no, even though I had read the book, keeping track of the names of the people/tribes (or whatever) became extremely difficult.
(but to be fair: the movie's not any more confusing than the book)

Originally posted by roughrider
By contrast, Avatar was very simple. I remember watching the trailer and thinking "I hope there's more to the story, because I think I got it all right now." As it turned out, there wasn't. Everything proceeded in a straight line towards an outcome we could see a mile away - but couple that with extraordinary character animation and set pieces, and it was enough for audiences around the world, clunky dialogue be damned. An entertaining film to be sure, but like so many of James Cameron's films, there's nothing to chew on later once it's out of theatres. That's my opinion.

My thoughts exactly.

Originally posted by Patient_Leech
Douche. Not all of us have seen it 3 times. 😬 And no, even though I had read the book, keeping track of the names of the people/tribes (or whatever) became extremely difficult.
(but to be fair: the movie's not any more confusing than the book)

I wasn't insulting anyone. Why do you think I went back to see it again? The narrative is complex, and I haven't read the books either. I wanted to clear up some things maybe I didn't fully get the first time. Which is why is gotten better for me with successive viewings.

Confusing is a strong word; I would use challenging. It's films like the first version of Dune that have confusing narratives, because their running times were cut down so severely.

Originally posted by steverules_2
Yeah this movie isn't gonna be making back it's budget unless DVD sales go really well or something. If they were planning a sequel I guess they can kiss goodbye to that idea.

yeah there isn't gonna be one.. this is an unmitigated disaster and disney is to blame

As much as I am curious about the upcoming sequel to Avatar....I honestly can't envisage John Carter having a sequel.
I know of the numerous John Carter adventures, having read them as a kid but unless it does a drastic jump like Pitch Black to Chronicles...the audiences will be complaining the sequel will be a rehashing of the first...

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
As much as I am curious about the upcoming sequel to Avatar....I honestly can't envisage John Carter having a sequel.
I know of the numerous John Carter adventures, having read them as a kid but unless it does a drastic jump like Pitch Black to Chronicles...the audiences will be complaining the sequel will be a rehashing of the first...

I disagree entirely. The stuff about Issus and the collapse of their "beliefs" in their leader as some god would make for an excellent f*cking story. One more interesting to me than the first film. And the stuff with the black men would be extremely suspenseful. I'll be terribly sad if they don't find a way to continue this somehow...

🙁

I mean, they could probably do something pretty solid with a third of the budget..

That's kinda what I was hinting with the comparison jump from P/Black to Chronicles.

P/Black was a simple straight forward story...like John Carter.
Whereas Chronicles built not only a historical but religious aspect to the people & verse that Riddick lived in.

So yeah expanding on the nature of Issus & the downfall of their beliefs on Barsoom is the drastic jump in stroyline/plot I'm talking about. However at the same time, we're still assuming the potential sequel would still be a Disney film & I think the topic of Issus & religion would be an even harder story to market.

Ummm refresh my mind about the "Black Men".

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
That's kinda what I was hinting with the comparison jump from P/Black to Chronicles.

P/Black was a simple straight forward story...like John Carter.
Whereas Chronicles built not only a historical but religious aspect to the people & verse that Riddick lived in.

So yeah expanding on the nature of Issus & the downfall of their beliefs on Barsoom is the drastic jump in stroyline/plot I'm talking about. However at the same time, we're still assuming the potential sequel would still be a Disney film & I think the topic of Issus & religion would be an even harder story to market.

Yeah, but they've already hinted a lot at the religious customs on Barsoom in John Carter. There were little hints in Pitch Black at some of Riddick's past, but yeah, it was a major shift.. And I totally agree: the sequel would not work well with Disney... hell, I still say the first one was hurt severely by Disney. My dream would be for Universal or somebody to get ahold of it, cut the budget to about $100 million or so, and rate it R... fat chance, I know. But a brotha can dream... 🙄

Originally posted by Esau Cairn
Ummm refresh my mind about the "Black Men".

Um, my memory for such things is vague at best, but they are the Black Pirates of Barsoom.

Spoiler:
They keep people hostage (as slaves maybe?) and I think John Carter discovers his son there who also has some mad Mars jumpin' skills. There's a chapter where they have to escape while they are all asleep. They steal a ship and a bit of a chase ensues.

My hope is that since Stanton has already begun adapting the next book and it's kind of a passion project for him, that he'll shop around and find a way to make it anyhow... *crosses fingers*

Wonder how this will affect Taylor Kitsch since they were saying he was going to be the next big star.

Judging from only John Carter (cuz that's all I've seen him in), he didn't seem to have much range. He also seems like kind of a dick (in character and in real life), so I'm not a huge fan, but oh well. But yeah, John Carter probably didn't do his career any favors.

No matter how many stories are written about it's underperformance in the states (and we'll find out who at Disney was responsible for the botched marketing campaign), if the performance overseas continues to be as big it is, then the money men will be convinced there is an audience for this and adjust their strategy for another installment. (fingers crossed.)

Word.

Originally posted by roughrider
(and we'll find out who at Disney was responsible for the botched marketing campaign)

I don't think anyone in particular was to blame. I think it was doomed from the beginning with such a huge budget.

De-stressing from school (massive finals next week) and seeing this again tonight. : )

Okay, just got back from seeing it again. I did enjoy it a bit more the second time. But many of my same complains still apply. I still have mixed feelings about it.

Pros: 👆

- Willem Dafoe
- (Mostly) Good special effects
- Woola
- Epic Sci-Fi Scope
- I did like the placement of the Arena scene this time, even though it's late in the movie. That's when the movie really came to life.

Cons: 👇

- DISNEY made it.
- John Carter just isn't all that likeable. He's written (for the movie) as kind of a dark character, but because it's Disney he can't really express that darkness fully, so he really just comes off as dull and not likeable. And he sort of starts to get somewhat likeable at the very end.. but it's too late.
- I don't like the Sci-Fi cliche of shape shifting people. That shit's annoying. It's such an easy gimmick to write, but it's just dumb to me and it's been done in Sci-Fi so much. And it's not in the book...
- And while the special effects are pretty good, I think they went a little overboard at times and some shots are really bad (like when He flies that little ship for the first time escaping for example).
- That decapitation is still anti-climactic as hell (fu*k you, Disney).
- Budget/Effects overwhelmed story/characters

But dagnabbit, I'd still like to see a sequel.. I think subsequent stories would be better (if they get rid of those stupid shape-shifters... and Disney).

Originally posted by Patient_Leech

- That decapitation is still anti-climactic as hell (fu*k you, Disney).
[/B]

How do you rate/compare it to Jango Fett's de-cap in the arena, too?

As I mentioned previously, that Thark was more of a bully than a villain so his demise didn't need to be a big deal.