Wasn’t it, sort of?
I think, there in lies the problem -
All of these movies are marketed the same - you could replace the score with the heavy drumbeat from a Conan or Princes of Persia or any of the hundreds of other flicks that are coming out - and they all look alike.
I will be buying this one on disk when it comes out - its a good movie - just from the previews - looks like all others.
Why, they could make more with a flop than they could with a hit!
Frankly, I was one of those who know who John Carter is, but that wasn’t much enticement. The books weren’t very thoughtful, and I always found Carter to be rather a flat character. Since the trailers didn’t change that perception, I wasn’t likely to go, and as a fan of old science fiction, I ought to have been part of the target audience.
That is a good trailer. I still might have avoided it because I’m a little predisposed to dislike ERB, but it evokes the grand vision and well-imagined world that ERB did do well, rather than a hack-and-slashy Prince of Persia knock-off.
I can’t figure out how sheltered from real-world opinions a person has to be to be that ignorant of the public perception of John Carter as a character. I can’t think of a single literary fiction character that old who the public at large knows who hasn’t been the subject of at least two movies in the last fifty years. His employees really let him down by not disabusing him of the fact.
I was amazed to discover the 2009 movie was the first time the work had been adapted to the screen.
I mean there have been eleven adaptations based on Rudolf Rassendyll, thirteen based on A.J. Raffles, fifteen based on Fantomas, twenty-five based on Bulldog Drummond, twenty-nine based on Fu Manchu, thirty-five based on Arsene Lupin, and sixty-seven based on Zorro.
And I still had to look up all of those names except Zorro. And God only knows how many films of Tarzan, another ERB character. Yeah, the director was totally off-base in assuming that the name was well-known. But the marketing team screwed up too, as evidenced by the fan-made trailers that actually, you know, make it look more like Avatar than Prince of Persia.
I am not familiar with the character John Carter; and the movie trailers did nothing to get me into the theater to see it. I saw the one alien dude and immediately thought of Jar Jar Binks; and thought “what kind of shitty sci fi remake is this?”
This is exactly what I came in to say. Before the trailer, I knew nothing about the book or the film, and after the trailer, I knew that some guy was in it and that there was fighting. That’s it.
After the fan trailer linked upthread (which was definitely better than the official one), I know the basic premise, but I still don’t have a bog what *happens *in the film. Some guy is in it, there’s fighting, and people and aliens give intense sweeping looks at unspecified things. I don’t know what the basic conflict is or what the stakes are or what the movie is about.
This seems to be getting more common in movie trailers (I had the same problem with The Descendants, which according to the trailer has George Clooney and a couple of kids and some pretty scenery and that’s all I could figure out) but it doesn’t give me any reason to go see the film.
The moral of that trailer is clear, when compared to the officially released one. Never, ever, ever, allow the audience to hear the dialogue in a science-fiction movie before they’ve paid for a ticket.
Otherwise what they take away is this.
Speaking as a market researcher, and knowing a little bit about Disney, as well, I can pretty much guarantee you that the studio did research on how well-known the character and franchise were. Whether or not the producers and director chose to listen to that research is another matter entirely.
I just saw a preview for something called “Wrath of the Titans” & it looked exactly, to my untrained eye, like the previews I saw on tv for “John Carter”. Both just generic fantasy action.
Poor, poor marketing.
Is it a sequel to Clash of the Titans (which sucked)?
Boyo Jim - probably a sequel. but couldn’t tell from that preview.
I looked it up. Yes it’s a sequel with several of the same actors.
Even though some of the most famous and critically lauded and popular films of all time have been box office bombs, there’s a notion that box office bomb=bad movie (a notion that is usually true but just happens to have some notable exceptions).
That makes me wonder if declaring JOHN CARTER a box office bomb might hurt it’s business further. And if so it almost makes me wonder if there’s now an intentional “keep it a bomb” campaign.
And totally agree on those fan trailers: they make me want to see it way more than the studio trailers.
It’s called Hollywood accounting. It can make any film a flop and any flop a success. For instance, did you know “Forrest Gump” didn’t make any money officially. And I don’t mean net profits. I’m talking gross profits. Where gross profits in Hollywood accounting don’t mean the same as every other kind of accounting
The most famous example is probably Coming to America. Art Buchwald filed (and eventually won) a plagiarism lawsuit against Paramount and during the proceedings an accounting was ordered of the film’s profits. Many were surprised to learn that a film that was made for $40 million and that grossed well over $200 million had somehow never earned a profit, and it was totally legal.
The meaning of profit is different. I’d say the meaning of gross is the same, and I think anyone who’s ever been cheated out of his or her share of a movie would agree with me.
A big factor is the studio and film production are considered to be two separate legal entities, even when the studio owns the film production. So a lot of the expenses of the film production are being paid to the studio. The studio is charging the film for the use of sets and equipment and sound studios and editing and marketing. So the film might have $100,000,000 in studio expenses which it has to pay before the film begins making a profit.
But the studio isn’t suffering because it’s collecting all of those expenses. They made $100,000,000 from a film that made no profits.
The makers of The Blair Witch had a contract that specified clearly who got what for the first $100 million (the makers got X, the distribution company got Y, etc.). After the first $100 million all of the money went to the makers. Their contract was basically a template for low budget movies- nobody, least of all the makers, ever expected the movie to see a fraction of 100 million, but when it grossed way over that it became the most profitable film produced to that point in time. As a result, that "all gross above ____" has been raised highly or stricken from a lot of independent films that find a major distributor, because even though most are doing well if they gross a few million you’ve always got that one low-budget that comes around every few years that throws everybody for a loop. (I read recently that as many gazillions as Tom Hanks has earned from acting that he probably earned as much for financing the low budget sleeper hit My Big Fat Greek Wedding as he did for everything else in his career combined due to the ‘bulkhead’ of everything over a certain amount being his production company’s money.)
Randy Quaid, in his last semi-lucid moment, sued for a percentage of the profits of Brokeback Mountain, which nobody can deny made a profit of course (made for, depending on the source, around $2 million, grossed $100 million+) except of course the producers, who using Hollywood Accounting I think proved it in fact somehow lost $9.14. IIRC Quaid did not have points in the movie but was pay-for-play so he didn’t really have a case anyway, but they settled with him out of court.
Chicago was one of the last mainstream hits to have a lot of lawsuits from people who unlike Quaid had clear points in the profits being told by studio Rick Roma’s “Oh yeah… well… I drafted that piece of legislation… yeah… well, on paper half a billion seems like a lot, but really… frankly it’s not doing well at all, it’s just moving hundreds of millions in a circle really.”
You know, it really should have done better, and I squarely blame the marketing. My son and I went to view it a second time Monday night - yes, we’ve seen it TWICE. It’s really a pretty good movie! It’s not a sword-and-sandals epic at all. It’s an action story, with romance and adventure; a flawed hero who finds redemption…and there’s a very powerful scene that was done extremely well, where John Carter is venting all of his pent-up hurt and pain…
Really, this had every right to do as well as any blockbuster, and if the trailer that was linked to up-thread had been shown in theaters, I think it would have done better. I think the studio was afraid it would be deemed to look too much like the Star Wars prequels, though, which I can see…but it’s by far a better movie than “Phantom Menace.”
Yes, this one is going in my Blu-Ray collection.