EMMYS: ‘Big Bang Theory’s Science 
Has Summit Pulled A Rabbit Out Of The Hat With Dean Parisot … 
Scoot McNairy Shores Up ‘Black Sea’ Role 
‘Client List’ Season 3 Pickup In Limbo Over … 
New Myth, Toonz Ent. Help Launch Epiphany, A $200 Million … 
Amazon Orders Cop Drama Pilot Based On Michael … 
Third Point Raises Stake In Sony And Presses To Join Its … 
Lionsgate Acquires Pulitzer Prize Winner ‘Devil In … 
ABC Executive Quinn Taylor Moves To NBC To Head Longform … 
Future Of ‘Anger Management’ Co-Star Selma … 
Returning Showrunner Dan Harmon Slams … 
EMMYS: Will “Arch Rival” Matt Damon Be Jimmy … 
Neil Patrick Harris Takes ‘Hedwig And The Angry … 
‘True Blood’ Season 6 Premiere Draws 4.5 … 
Cary Woods And His Long Road Back Into Film; Makes … 
Sony Doing Two More ‘Spider-Man’ Movies, Sets … 
Dave Chappelle To Headline Funny Or Die’s Oddball … 
CBS Sets Fall 2013 Premiere Dates 
‘Man Of Steel’ Soars To $200.3M Worldwide In … 
WME Signs Stage Vets Michael Mayer And Stephen Karam As CAA … 
Bruce Rosenblum Joins Legendary As President Of Television … 
Hollywood is in a tizzy over the early tracking which just came online this morning for Walt Disney Studios‘ John Carter opening March 9th. “Not good. 2 unaided, 53 aware, 27 definitely interested, 3 first choice,” a senior exec at a rival studio emails me. Another writes me, ”It just came out. Women of all ages have flat out rejected the film. The tracking for John Carter is shocking for a film that cost over $250 million. This could be the biggest writeoff of all time.” I’m hearing figures in the neighborhood of $100 million. And the studio isn’t even trying to spin reports of the 3D pic’s bloated budget any more.
Now, to be fair, this very soft tracking has been expected. The studios’ private reports have shown for some time very soft awareness and very little wannasee. So what’s Disney’s explanation? “It’s the last leftover from the previous regime of Dick Cook,” an executive who works for successor Rich Ross reminds me. “We’re not running away from the movie. Our job is to sell it.” Then again, Cook also left Ross Alice In Wonderland to sell, too, along with other hits and a few misses.
Disney is nervous, really nervous, but trying to hold out some hope. ”We know that we have a long way to go. It’s still four weeks out, and the bulk of the media hasn’t hit yet. Our Super Bowl ad did what we intended it to do: have a pop of awareness. On Sunday we launch a full campaign with 90+% of all of our media ready to go.” Problem is, John Carter (formerly titled John Carter Of Mars) only has a two-week window before Lionsgate’s hotly anticipated The Hunger Games opens March 23rd.
Disney is still planning a gigantic worldwide day-and-date push for John Carter with all the frills no matter how dismal its prospects look. ”After all the movie has Andrew Stanton of Finding Nemo and Wall-E,” an insider explains to me.
Editor-in-Chief Nikki Finke - tip her here.
Loading ...
No offense, but I don’t understand why Disney is shocked by this.
From the clips they’ve released/leaked, the CGI looks positively DREADFUL and, frankly, the acting isn’t much better. After watching them, I’d already made the decision to save my cash and download it from somewhere when it becomes available.
But I certainly have no desire to haul my ass into a theatre to watch it.
Deanna, Nobody cares where you are going to haul your ass to, but I’d like to thank you so much for your announcement that you will illegally download this film. I work in the industry, and DVD sales contribute directly to my Union’s pension plan. Could you give me the secret of how I can steal from yours? (presuming you have a job) Thank you.
It’ll be Netflix for me, but thanks for furthering the misconception that all downloads are illegal.
MAN UP, RICH ROSS. You can not run from this movie no matter how desperately your sycophants try to spin it. It’s a marketing problem? That’s 100% your fault too. The 2.5 year blame game you’ve been playing is now officially childish. Your hubris is catching up to you…
This movie looks so awful, it’s like a poor man’s Avatar. I don’t even want to download it illegally. I can put my bandwidth to better use.
Get a clue and read a book. Only Cameron could craft a movie suckfest like Avatar and then have icons of literature compared to his badly written films.
Hear hear! I have not read the Burroughs books on which this movies based, but those who have assure me that virtually every space epic ever written or filmed borrows tremendously from them. Including Flash Gordon, Star Wars, and yes, Avatar.
An “icon of literature” would be the original Odyssey, which Burroughs cribbed from for just about everything that he wrote. He managed a few original twists here and there, but let’s not oversell him. These tropes go back millenia.
I think she meant download from iTunes, Netflix, Xbox Live, etc. That’s usually what I mean when I say I will download a movie, music, or game.
Downloading = illegal. Really?
Come join us in 2007, dude.
But why would you download something that you think looks dreadful? In that guy’s defense, she did say “save my cash,” so maybe he thought that meant downloading it illegally.
Clearly because ‘downloading’ a movie (which is interchangeable with, yet not necessarily synonymous with streaming) is cheaper than going to the theater. And even if it is an actual download (to her computer), it’s still cheaper than going to the theater since the price obviously drops once it becomes a rental.
It’s shocking how everything has to be explained to people. To sum up:
1. She never said she would download it illegally.
2. Downloading a movie legally is cheaper than going to the movies, especially if you have a family where the cost of going to the theater goes way up. If you don’t know this by now, you really need to pay attention to technology more.
3. People are far more likely to rent a movie for $2.99 (stream…download…whatever) that they aren’t particularly interested in rather than spend $30 or more to bring their family to see a movie they aren’t all that interested in.
Hope that clears up a comment that was perfectly obvious in its original format.
If you have Amazon Prime you may be able to get is at a 99 cent rental when it comes out. As for Peter, I too work for a Studio (non-union job) and any of these ways of watching a movie hit the studios’ profit. The margin from legal downloads unless bought for $10 or whatever it costs – are nil.
Why buy it at full price? Wait a year after its for sale on DVD and pick it up at a Goodwill for $2.99.
LOLing at people acting like “save my money and download it” somehow means “legally purchase for free on iTunes.”
You made a wild leap that she’ll download it illegally. If you don’t know that, then don’t make such an accusation.
No offense to peter regnier or the rest of you who jumped to conclusions, but it’s rather presumptuous of you to assume I will download it illegally; I assume most of you have heard of and/or subscribe to services like Netflix or iTines, yes….?
But you said you’d save your money and download it, thus implying you aren’t going to pay for it. Clearly that was your intent otherwise you’d have said get from Netflix or such like.
I have to agree with Rudd. “…save my cash and download it from somewhere when it becomes available.” most certainly sounds illegal in that ‘save my cash’ can mean not pay for it. You can parse this all you want. A simple response of “I was not clear in my original post and should have mentioned Netflix (or other legal source of the download) as how I would save the money.
Have you ever even heard of Netflix? You pay a monthly fee regardless of volume watched. Ergo movies watched on Netflix are effectively “free”.
I’m embarrassed for you that I had to explain that.
Deanna doesn’t say she is going to download it illegally. Hey Regnier you grump take an early retirement and start using that pension right now.
Yeah Regnier, maybe next time throw in a “Get off my lawn” while you’re at it.
@peter regnier
You work in an amoral industry, which has made too much money of the amoral copyright. Be glad you have made any money, and start looking for decent work – because copyright will fall this century.
Agreed. You’re blaming the viewers for the demise of our industry? LOL What about the Exec’s who churn out One Expensive Corporate Sci/Fi VFX Disaster after another?…I think your blame is misplaced (though the studios would have you say otherwise) The John Carter series has not been in the public eye since at least the 40′s and they’re surprised it’s not tracking well?
Meanwhile one of the most popular Sci/Fi Fantasy book series of all time Robert Jordan’s “Wheel of Time” (14+ Million Copies Sold to date) and some others I can think of (Steve King’s The Dark Tower) spin endlessly in development hell at the major studios because of all these turkeys destroying the bottom line…The real news is that The Corporate SCI/FI Fantasy Business Model of bigger and better and more VFX is running out of gas…and this potential Edsel may leave it at the side of the road…
But then there’s always The Hobbit to give us hope that once in a while the Studios will produce movies we want to see and save your Collective Union Butts.
The Moviegoer has never been the problem my friend.
William Hazen
That might be more believable if the highest grossing films every year were NOT those huge FX-driven spectacles, while character-driven stuff flounders.
Since that’s the audiences’ choice – how are they not part of the problem??
And lets not forget about the 15 million plus paid to some of these “blockbuster” “bankable” actors/actresses. Hate to say it, but the era of over paid movie stars might be setting soon. The price of everything is going up and people are very careful about what they spend their money on these days. A movie could be perfectly fine character/effects wise, but it still might not profit. That’s not to say start making low budget trash. Maybe cut back on the number of films made a year, and make those released REALLY GOOD “ORRRRIIIGINAL” FILMS. No one wants to see a remake of Bodyguard with (don’t take me seriously here) Lady Gaga & LL Cool J. Stop it Hollywood. SORRY.
Um, sorry..who are YOU to decide how much money one should make, and how copyright law works? What do you do for a living?
I assume you’re a bureaucrat or paper-shuffler of some kind. You know, someone who doesn’t have to actually create/produce anything for a living. Just another parasite.
“Gimme gimme gimme, need some more. Gimme gimme gimme, don’t ask what for.” — Black Flag
posting Black Flag lyrics in defense of copyright royalties? hmmmmm.
Parasites? Are we talking about Hollywood?
Without copyright law there will be no movies to steal. Does anyone think movies cost nothing to make? The entitlement generation is what is endangered as they learn that evrything actually takes work to create, and those who work do not like those who steal..
Hey!!!!! Forget about the download. Let’s talk about the film.
Well you are screwed because DVD is dying fast. There are legal ways to watch a movie online.
Ever heard of iTunes ?
Great reply to Deanna, but I have to somewhat agree with her. I’m a big Disney fan, but this film’s marketing has not made me want to rush out to the theater and see it. I think Disney should channel some of the money they have been spending on mediocre films and spend it on upkeep and repairs of rides at Disney World instead!
Your union pension will pay you regardless, right? STFU.
Hey union thug. I don’t go the movies. I don’t want to mix with the others form the hood with their screaming babies or cellphone conversation. If I care top watch a movie, I get it on cable.
I read ERB’s John Carters of Mars paperbacks when I was a kid in the 70′s. I will wait for it to show up on Cable. I have real comfy chair in the living room, where I am King.
If you are worried about your pension, you can always work in porn.
Aw, poor union Peter won’t have a bloated pension to fall back on when he’s 50? If you’re in the industry perhaps you can explain why the vast majority of what you produce is crap, and not worth paying a single dollar for…at least from those of us who actually work for a living.
You can’t.
Unions are shitty organizations that deserve to be stolen from anyway. Deal with it.
I’ve certainly had no desire to seek this out thus far. It sounds like a really bad premise, and the clips don’t make it seem like th execution has done anything to elevate it.
The premise comes from a 12 book series written by Edgar Rice Burroughs, you would enjoy the books. As far as hating a film before you see it, who knows it might suck, I hope not because I’m a fan of the books, but after seeing Pulp Fiction, people thought that was good!
I think they should title it “Look Kids, it’s Tim Riggins in a Loincloth!”
Or they could not listen to trolls who love to trash movies they have no concept of and then run to dole out money to the latest Michael Bay blow up crap film.
I will for sure see it, I love Tim Riggins!
And then kids ask, “Tim WHO?!”
Then Disney has to respond, “Oh it was on some low-rated show that few old people and TV critics liked. Never mind.”
Deanna, come on now, gas, grass or ass, no one rides for free! Haul that big thing into the theater and give it some love. You gotta give it to get it!
I’m with Peter, Deanna. If you don’t want to see it, fine, but give up your sense of entitlement about seeing it for free, because that’s just not a “right” you should feel entitled to.
You’re with Peter in that you can’t read.
He said nothing about taking it for free. Turns out you can purchase movies, rent movies or use a service like Netflix to watch films online.
Nice jumping to conclusions, though.
Except that nobody DOWNLOADS movies off Netflix. I can read just fine, and I read that Deanna will likely download it for free, hence the “save my cash.” It looks like you’re having trouble reading as well.
I don’t know about you people, but all the Blockbusters around me have closed and I like the spontaneity of picking my movies – hence what I do is wait until after the movie is out and then, through my blue ray player, I DOWNLOAD the movie from my AMAZON account. It costs me $3.99. That is $3.99 more than free and $32.01 less than 2 tickets at the local AMC. Welcome to 2012!
She also clarified she was talking about streaming. Some use the terms interchangeably as they aren’t as hip with the terminology as some tool living in his mom’s basement. The little ones and zeros do get sent to the computer.
“Save my cash”
“save my cash”
A night out at a theater, single person, including parking and possibly a soda and a bag of popcorn – $30 -$40.
“download”
A misused euphemism for any form of digital delivery, be it cable pay-per-view, Netflix, I-Tunes – including drink and soda, under ten bucks.
Or, yes, illegal download in some cases. But that isn’t the first conclusion I’d jump to.
Im going to download this movie for free (yes illegally) just to spite you and peter, cookmeyer. I usually pay for my movies, download legally but people like you piss me off. Sorry, no sympathies after seeing the way you jumped on Deanna. If your industry would make things affordable, maybe Id buy that dvd.
“Affordable”??? It’s ten bucks for a movie ticket… How is that not “affordable”?
I don’t think many in the biz are really counting on Blu-Ray sell through to fill the coffers. Though Blu-Ray is definitely better than most streaming.
Ten bucks? Where? New movies are 13 bucks a pop at my local theater. !5 if in 3D, and 18.50 if on IMAX. I’m with Deanna… if I ever watch this trainwreck, it’ll be over Netflix a year from now, after I’ve watched everything else possible.
You’re so right. A $12 DVD or a $1-$5 rental is so much more expensive than, um…hmmm…not a dinner out…not a play…certainly not a sporting event…
Wow – TOTALLY relevant argument, Michael. Let’s compare playing checkers to sex while we’re at it.
The issue isn’t comparing the cost of movies to the cost of any other form of entertainment, it’s the cost of movies now to what they’ve historically been – the absurd rate at which an evening at the movies has increased. Just cause going to a Lakers game is more expensive than going to a movie doesn’t justify the price of the movie. It’s a moot point.
Like the other logical people on here, instead of my girlfriend and I buying two tickets to a questionable movie like John Carter at The Grove ($13.75 x 2 = $27.50) plus the parking after validation ($3), not even including popcorn/drink, I’m out $30.50. Or I could rent it from iTunes for $4.99. I would love to see someone do a study re: how lowering the ticket price would result in more patronage equaling greater revenues despite smaller profit margins.
Of course we could always just compare two totally unlike things, right Michael?
Hi, Michael. I have a $10 lump of crap to sell you. Very affordable. Can’t lose. Just drive to my location, buy a voucher, take a seat, waste a Saturday night. For my lump of crap.
I’m gonna illegally download it to save money, then to save time I will delete said download without watching it. Yeah, that’s what I’m gonna do.
Deanna, you quite clearly don’t know what dreadful CGI looks like. This may have many hurdles, but the quality of the CGI is not one of them.
I loved the trailers and I don’t think anyone should go into a panic mode just yet. This movie will be HIT not worried.
Even if it were a Cook holdover, Disney had years to fix it, and the budget didn’t get that bloated until Mr. Ross took over. This one is 100% a Ross/Iger product. Let me guess who will be “out” at Disney as a result. And I doubt it will be Mr. Iger.
Is there someplace online one can get access to current or historical tracking data for films? This would be very helpful in my research of Hollywood box-office.
Thanks for any suggestions!
WI presume there are companies that one can pay to get this data?
A bigger loss than PLUTO NASH????!! Impossible.
I’m not entirely certain that blaming this on Dick Cook is correct – didn’t Rich greenlight this?
Even if this was a leftover from the Cook years, this film was made under Rich Ross’s team. And, unfortunately, from what has been seen to date, Disney (Cook and Ross) did not end up with a good film even with Andrew Stanton directing.
Perhaps, this will be a surprise hit…but nothing so far looks good to me.
So you have already seen the movie?? I didnt think it was released till March 9th.
No you are judging a film before it even comes out like most internet trolls do when it doesnt have the same tired stories and directors we have been subjected to for the last 10 years.
Aleric,
You are absolutely correct. I am judging this film from what I have seen to date. If this is a great Andrew Stanton film…it has the worst marketing in the history of mega budgeted films.
And Aleric, if you cannot read a comment with no viciousness without subjugating the poster to an ‘internet troll’…go fuck yourself.
I’ve seen a fair chunk of the film and it looks to be amazing. “worst marketing in the history of mega budgeted films” is pretty spot on.
The project was developed under Cook but yes, Ross allowed the film to go into production. He and Sean also allowed the production to run out of control to the tune of more than $300. They’re also spending more than $70 on domestic marketing alone so they’re clearly not cutting their losses.
$250M$350M$70? try $85 million or more. they are in FULL Panic mode with the marketing spend…
this has nothing to do with rich, sean, or dick cook. This is all about John Lasseter and Bob Iger.
Stanton has been wanting to do this for years and with Dick Cook out of the way, and Bob giving free reign of the company to lasseter (animation, theme parks–note how much they’re advertising arrietty a movie that will make nothing but they have to satisfy geeky lasseter’s love for miyazaki’s company, legacy) the real interesting question is if this fails to the extent that is being predicted, who will pay? I am sure lasseter is already blaming marketing, but empty carney is already gone, and it won’t feel right to blame someone who’s already left. SO who walks the plank?
I doubt this is the MDE we all know and love, but he/she is absolutely correct. John Carter was made under the aegis of Lasseter and Stanton… the studio just had to go with it. You can chalk up the ballooning costs to what often happens when animators attempt live action… they’re too accustomed to being able to whip out the eraser and change whatever they want whenever they want. The concept of wrapping locations and actors is completely foreign to them.
Marketing is ultimately Ross’s responsibility, so he can take the hit for that, but not the decision to green light or develop the project.
All the same, I wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss. Lasseter is still batting a thousand.
I was with you until you said that the reason animators make poor live-action directors is that they’re accustomed to being able to change anything, any time. Not so: while on the set, a live-action director can go with a sudden inspiration, try a different camera angle, edit the script, or say “we’ll fix it in post.” Furthermore, he can shoot hours of film out of which he may pull only a single take, so while shoots certainly require planning and coordination, the director has a lot of wiggle-room before the final product.
Animation, by contrast, takes potentially WEEKS to create the same performance that an actor gives in 10 seconds, so the director has to have planned every aspect of the shot meticulously. Re-doing anything that goes into the final product is INSANELY expensive. Just look at the number of deleted scenes in your average animated film. No, I mean deleted, as in finished and then removed. Yeah.
Animation directors may be handicapped in live-action for a number of reasons, but an inability to make up their minds is not one of them.
You can chalk up the ballooning costs to what often happens when animators attempt live action… they’re too accustomed to being able to whip out the eraser and change whatever they want whenever they want.
Yes, that’s why Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol, directed by Brad Bird, was such a huge failure. What were those numbers again?
Budget $145 million
Box office $653,413,423
Oh, wait…
change the title, make it, “John”
Yep. Make it as wide-reaching and generic as possible – so generic that NO ONE cares about it.
Or how about the book title ” A Princess of Mars” which is infinately better and draws in more interest.
But don’t change the “JCM” logo that’s been splashed around for a year. ‘Cause that might be confusing.
Or better yet, change it to “John Cartier.” That will boost the female demo.
I was wondering why Disney was regurgitating the ER tv show… then I found the movie website… now I’m more confused…
John Carter makes Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance look like Oscar-bait.
Tool
And its box office might make Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance look like Spider Man (the Raimi version).
Who greenlighted this monstrosity?
You knew Disney didn’t have faith in the project when marketing took “of Mars” off the title.
Yes, and can someone explain why that was done? To remove whatever tiny bit of name recognition this movie might have had?
Are we not supposed to know that it’s Mars? Is it not Mars?
Maybe the whole “Mars Needs Moms” fiasco scared the “Mars” out of them.
If that’s true, that is so dumb because that movie came out over a year ago and NOBODY SAW IT! The awareness of Mars Needs Moms must be so small and you have to think people are really stupid that they can’t tell the difference between the two movies. That’s the insulting part.
And to all the people who say the effects suck, did you know that Pixar did them? I guess Pixar animation sucks too huh?
Haha, that is depressingly plausible. Surely the word “Moms” in a title wouldn’t keep little boys away, it must’ve been “Mars”.
$250 million… how could that happen? Yikes. Tron managed to crawl to respectable numbers for them, but I don’t see it happening again. I wonder how this will affect other big dollar Disney live action like The Black Hole and 20k Leagues?
They can blame Dick Cook all they want. The marketing for this has been the most dreadful, pathetic and confusing campaign I can think of in recent memory.
First) MARS struck from the title. Ok, so when normal people see any ads for this and it cuts between Revolutionary War scenes and alien battles shot ON THE SAME LOCATIONS… how the hell is anyone supposed to decipher what this film is about?
Second) Building an entire campaign (as well as viral) off the mystery and self-importance of your intellectual property that 95%-99% of the world is unfamiliar with… that’s suicide. Who is John Carter? Who cares? A minute just went by and I couldn’t tell if I just saw an ad for the fourth Star Wars prequel or Prince of Persia 2.
Third) You spent HOW MUCH money on a superbowl ad where barely a single shot from the film was full frame on the TVs of various sizes that the majority of America are likely to be paying the most attention? A series of tiny moving photographs of incomprehensible CG? Really?
Fourth) Every single ad should contain the following: “from the minds that created Tarzan and WALL*E”. That most of the ads I’ve seen don’t even bother to infer these people are involved speaks volumes of the fear behind the curtain at Disney over this film. Well, congratulations, your fear is leading to your destruction and of course you’ll just blame the product. You always do.
I have to agree that just calling it John Carter was a bad move. Unless you’re familiar with the books, you have no idea what genre the movie is. A bad move.
When I saw the Superbowl commercial, it looked like Prince of Persia with no plot, so it actually reduced my interest in seing the film. When they posted the international trailer here at deadline, I watched that and it totally changed my mind to wanting to see it. That trailer showed what the movie was about (not just things exploding) and how he gets to Mars and who he is. So I’ll definately see it.
No movie should cost $250 million. I don’t care who’s in it or what its about, that’s a ridculous figure…
The marketing campaign for this is absolutely ABOMINABLE. I’m going to see it because I know the property and people I know who have already seen it say it’s good. But why should anyone else? Dropping OF MARS from the title is the dumbest thing imaginable– that’s what defines the story in the first place! The trailers and TV ads make it look like an extension of the climactic battle from ATTACK OF THE CLONES and we get no concept of what the story is– of John Carter being pulled from 19th century America and placed on Mars. The print campaign is abstract to the point of being baffling. MT Carney shouldn’t just have been fired for this– she should have been run out on a rail. No matter how good or bad the movie is, it didn’t have a chance with the abysmal marketing campaign and the lack of definition from Rick Cook and his cronies.
Absolutely agree with this. From what I’ve read, people who have seen early screenings LOVED – not just liked, but came out GUSHING – about this movie. They say it’s a historical love story with incredible special effects blah blah blah basically NOTHING YOU SEE IN THE TRAILERS. Disney has been acting like it has a good film it has no idea what to do with and which it expects no one to see since pretty much greenlighting this project.
This is easily the worst marketing campaign for any film in recent history. I’m baffled.
Really, because the guy I talked to who saw it said THE STORY WAS SILLY and the lead actor HAD NO SCREEN PRESENCE and WAS DULL. But I guess we’ll all see who is right in a few weeks.
The marketing and title change for this movie comes from a knee jerk reaction to the failure of 2 films.
The first is Mars Needs Moms, the second is Cowboy & Aliens. Although we all know that every film should be just on its merits, the hollywood machine is low on inspiration and big on trends. When they see a movie with Mars in the title bomb so badly that it’s releasing studio closes a movie division because of it, then Mars in a title becomes death. When a movie that blends the Western with Sci Fi bombs huge, with huge stars in it no less, then that storyline becomes marketing suicide. Now you have a short, clear explanation of the denuding of any uniqueness or originality from the marketing of JCM.
John Carter is bad. Test audience hate it. Women hate it. Kids hate it. It’s more of this Scott Pilgrim vs The World niche crap that Hollywood mistakenly thinks can be the next big thing. Estimates put costs close to 400 million with everything said and done. There will be pink slips handed out after the opening.
I boycotted “Mars Needs Moms” because the title is downright silly. On the other hand, “John Carter of Mars” is not a silly title at all.
The failure of this film in terms of people’s anticipation of it is all in the marketing. I saw a fan-made trailer on U-Tube that portrays it as being as good as “Avatar.” I would be seeing it in any case…I am a lifelong Edgar Rice Burroughs and sci-fi fan, including the history of the genre. However, now, after seeing that fan-made trailer, I am really *excited* about it rather than simply planning on seeing it since it is from the “John Carter of Mars” book series.
I suggest all of you doubters and haters go to the SyFy channel’s sister site Blastr.com or search on U-tube for the fan made trailer. It will make you feel totally differently about the movie.
I read somewhere it was changed to John Carter because “Girls don’t like planets and boys don’t like Princesses.”
–J
@nobody, yours is the best argument for why this will flop.
But I don’t think it’s going to flop at all. I think this is the swirl of industry gossip, and a lot of bloggers repeating other bloggers. Horseshit all around.
You people are having so much FUN bashing this thing. Jealous twits that jump to conclusions 3 weeks out. Ridiculous.
This film will do respectable business domestic and modest-but-successful business international. Long term profitable. Will lead to sequels. That’s my prediction.
P.S. “Could be the biggest writeoff of all time” is a quote from an exec at a COMPETING STUDIO. Y’think there might be some motive behind that? Wake up folks.
So you promise this thing will do the BILLION dollars it needs to break even? THANK GOD. Everybody can stop panicking now! Random dude swears you’ll do a billion dollars! Woohoo!
It does not need to do a billion dollars. It needs to do closer to half that, which it may be able to pull off with international sales and toy tie-ins.
Bitter fanboys and hipster critics have been rooting for this movie to fail since it was announced. I hope it’s good and makes money just so they can all shove it where the smug, annoying sun don’t shine.
You need to check your math, since you seem to be one of those idiots who think distributors show movies for free. This movie needs to do close to a billion to break even in theatrical. And if you had been paying attention, you’d know there is no big push for toy tie-ins. Sorry.
not surprising since the thought probably this was a lord of the rings or could be made into onee.
John Carter is a pulp novel and ve3ry different and no real fan base in the various sci-fi communities.
The campaign looks like big budget low level sword and sorcery movies
this is where package good marketers iss the affect to the IP.
all adventure sword and sorcery movies are not soap.
Im sure the movie can be made to track better oncve the understanding is it doesnt sell itself and it looks like reconstituted creativity. .
“John Carter is a pulp novel and ve3ry different and no real fan base in the various sci-fi communities”
Your ignorance is truely amazing. No fan base, how about one of the most dedicated fan bases for over 100 years. The man that created Tarzan and has influenced almost every auther from the 20′s till the present.
Well, then I’m sure that big fanbase will make this movie a surprise hit so they make the other books into movies.
Right?
I have no desire whatsoever to see it. The trailers make it seem like an Avatar rip-off, from what little you glean about what the movie is actually about. The actors aren’t appealing, the CGI looks pedestrian…just a big ‘meh’ feeling all the way around.
If I were them , I would’ve kept the ‘of Mars’ in the title. Women weren’t going to flock to this thing regardless.
Avatar rip off? Really? The books in this series were written 100 years ago, not in the X box mind numbing society we live in today
You’re utterly missing the point. “The trailers make it seem like an Avatar rip-off.” Read that line really closely. He’s not crapping on the beloved book series while playing Modern Warfare. He’s making a point about the marketing. Sheesh.
^ I am sick and tired of this reasoning. Sure, the books came out a long time ago, but the movie has the whole mood/feel, look of Avatar and Star Wars II. The only reason they made this is to cash in on Avatar.
But, but, I don’t understand… it’s in 3D! 3D! I thought 3D made every movie an instant hit?
I can’t wait until Hollywood learns that if you start with a crap story, jizzing CGI and 3D all over it only makes it more of a mess.
Several notes from a marketing employee:
Just because Dick Cook greenlit the film, does not mean that Rich Ross and his team have not had MONTHS to help shape it, edit it, re-shoot it and other things that develpment people earn their paychecks for doing. It was their job to ensure that the company’s $300 million dollar negative investment was sheparded along correctly. Maybe less foriegn travel and more focus would have helped, executive team?
the marketing has been a text book atrocity. In what world was it smart to wait until 3 weeks out to finally tell audiences what the movie is about? the brand new spots are very succinct–”john, we brought you to mars from earth, bacause our planet is under attack and if we lose, earth is next.” anyone who has done this more than a few months knows that audiences crave story points.
$3.5 million for a spuer bowl spot that is a title reveal? maybe for something coming out in the future – 6,12 or 18 months away. but a month out? absurd. they should have been way past that at this point.
change the title, losing the “Of Mars”? why? just bacause you can? a silly, waste of time, distraction and irritation to the fanboys. you court them, not alienate them, when you have a science fiction movie.
the outdoor has had marketers all over town losing their shit. “what is it?” “you have got to be kidding?” “i guess they have given up?”
maybe if it starred Myley Cyrus things would have gone better? or it been on a basic cable channel that does not have to sell ads? or had been run by development and marketing executives from the film world? just saying…
You don’t understand the politics.
Lasseter’s guy, Stanton made this movie. If rich says, “no” to Stanton, he goes to Lasseter who in turn goes to Bob who will then say, “yes.”. Do you think Lasseter has ever called rich for anything???
Is it right? Doesn’t matter. Fair to rich? Doesn’t matter. That’s the way it is. Which is why this story is so interesting. If it flops, who takes the heat? Does Iger offer up Rich as a scapegoat and then beg nina (who’s about to have a real spring family oriented blockbuster) to return?
Soft tracking? What a shock! Let’s see. We’ll take a series of stories written in the 1800′s that have been milked over the years by practically every sci-fi film from “Star Wars” to “Avatar,” leaving absoutely nothing left that might even appear original, cast two unknowns in the lead roles – one of whom is as arrogant as they come, and finally… let’s spend $350 million on it. Yes. $350. The spin began months ago. This film had a 24 day re-shoot – nearly half the schedule of the average lower budget film. Then they re-shot more! Fantastic plan, guys. Genius.
I’m a fan of the filmmaker within the animation world, but this movie will be a disaster.
Actually, the reshoots were planned from the beginning. Stanton says as much in an interview with Harry Knowles. Stanton claims that Pixar generally has four planned reshoots, so the reshoots were pretty much always part of the process.
I think you’ve nailed the real problem, JCrew.
It simply took them too long–and by that I mean about four decades too long–to get this movie off the ground. Not that the special effects of the seventies or eighties could really have done it justice.
In the meantime, as you point out, the images have been milked by too many other films–many of them good films.
If there had been no Star Wars, no Avatar, no Conans, everyone’s eyes would be bugging out at this trailer.
As it stands, yes, the floppy-eared Martians look like Jar Jar Binks and the gladiatorial combats with monsters and the battle scenes look like outtakes from some Star Wars movie crossed with one of those stupid martial arts films where the combatants have somehow learned to fly.
That it all starts in the Victorian era and that John Carter arrives on Mars through a cave is not enough to distinguish this story from its many imitators.
The books this is based on were amazing, and what made them most amazing to me as a child was the dark, gritty, and sexy bent, all of which made it titillating.
This looks like an overproduced, crowded, Disneyfied, Jar-Jar Binksified version that lacks the best aspects of the book.
Also, Tim Riggins, god bless him, is miscast.
I have to admit, first time I saw the trailer, my gut said “ICK”. He’s no Luke Skywalker and it looks like they tried to do another STAR WARS. It looks very uninspired. I’ll be skipping this one.
I’ll be getting my sci-fi buzz when LOCKOUT comes out.
Toldja!!!
I’m not surprised at all. The promotional campaign hasn’t been strong and none of the clips look promising. Given the cost of the film, I’m shocked info about it isn’t plastered everywhere. Looks to be a major flop indeed.
Shorten the title again, call it JC. That might bring in the religious crowd.
DING DING DING
We have a winner!!!!!!!!
Nice!
…and claim the Virgin Mary appears somewhere in the film, but don’t tell them where. They. Will. Be. RIVETED.
I can’t believe I made it this far into the comments before getting a good belly laugh.
Thanks for rescuing me from the cat fight.
This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. Terrible idea to do this movie. Bean counter thinking all the way. Classic Edgar Rice Burroughs source material but now rendered totally obsolete. Enduring as an early work of science fiction but a ridiculous choice for a movie at ANY budget level.
Everything is booming right now. 2012 is the YEAR OF THE BIG BOOM!
I don’t care how God awful this film is, or how bad it is tracking, it will boom at the box office too!
Of course boom in this case will only cover breakeven. They spent over a quarter of a billion dollars on this thing?!?! (Which is all they are admitting to). More like closing in on half a billion with overruns and p&a. INSANE.
But no matter how stupid and reckless that was, this will boom at the box office. EVERYTHING IS BOOMING THIS YEAR.
Movies still flop in booming marketplaces
So a movie based on a classic science fiction series is no good as compared to the usual morbid dren that comes out to depress millions.
Who is John Carter?
Exactly…
The guy on the poster. Duh.
This is the downside of the “just make tentpoles” studio strategy…. Hopefully Disney makes their money back on the TEACUPS RIDE movie.