Disney's JOHN CARTER

[Deckerd]

I think Mars Attacks was pretty successful.

[Asbo Zaprudder]

Gov Kodos wrote:

---

It takes characters and locations from the first 3 books, but its not even a loose adaptation of A Princess of Mars. It has many similar scenes and the tone is very much in tune with the books. However, it's not a close following of the story in A Princess of Mars. The basic premise of him getting to Mars, meeting Dejah, Tars and Sola as well as fighting Zodanga are from the first book but that's about it. The Therns are from the second book, but they are religious hucksters using the ancient Martian religion to prey on the other Martians and aren't techno-gods as in the movie. The third book deals more with the ancient Martan religion and the goddess Issus mentioned in the movie.

The film also turns Zodanga into a walking city, which is kind of a neat way of explaining why its location varies between the books. Turning the Therns into aliens isn't too bad an idea except that their powers would seem to make them almost invincible - apart from just shooting the frackers, that is. Better than Therns as wannabe "White Martians" wearing blond wigs, anyway. I suspect the plan was to reveal Issus as a fraud in a sequel, although she would probably have to be described as something other than a "Black Martian" for obvious reasons.

[Mr Light]

For a movie to be considered successful it has to make back 2-3 times it budget on its theatrical release.

Mars Attacks, international gross 101 million, budget 100 million, that's a flop.

But again, I like the movie!

[Deckerd]

Where did you get those figures?

[Mr Light]

Box Office Mojo

[Deckerd]

Budget: $70,000,000 (estimated)
Opening Weekend: $9,384,272 (USA) (15 December 1996) (1955 Screens)
Gross: $101,371,017 (Worldwide)

It all depends where you get your figures from. By IMDB's figures it washed its face with some change.

[Harvey]

I find The-Numbers to be the best source for budget/box office online. Here's their listing for Mars Attacks!

Budget: $80 million
Box office (US): $37.77 million
Box office (foreign): 63.6 million
Total box office: $101.37 million

I'm sure it broke even on television and home video, but at the box office it was surely a flop (remember that those are box office grosses; the distributor/studio doesn't get all of that money back, and they don't list the cost of advertising as part of the budget).

[Dream]

Mr Light wrote:

---

Yeah, they said Total Recall was the only successful Mars movie. BUT! They don't have Mars in the title. And it was in 1990, that's 22 years ago

John Carter doesn't have Mars in the title either. Total Recall and John Carter are a good comparison.

[Mr Light]

I wonder what the advertising for Total Recall was like? Do they mention/show the fact that he goes to Mars, or is just the missing memories and the action?

[Dream]

Mr Light wrote:

---

I wonder what the advertising for Total Recall was like? Do they mention/show the fact that he goes to Mars, or is just the missing memories and the action?

I just rewatched the trailer on my TR dvd, great movie by the way, and Mars is a big part of it along with plenty of Sci-Fi action. Now this is a kickass trailer!



www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5FiBcmeBhw

I think a large part of the sucess of the movie was that it was made during the height of Arnold's popularity as an action star, Terminator 2 was released the following year.

[Asbo Zaprudder]

As has been said elsewhere, the essential factor missing from John Carter is a credible and charismatic lead actor. I doubt many people outside the US can name anything that Taylor Kitsch has been in. He does a reasonable job in the role, but I think he was miscast.

[Mr Light]

I saw a clip from the movie on an interview show, and looking back on it after having seen the movie, I think the biggest flaw was the lead actor/character. The actor wasn't that charismatic and seemed to be doing a horrible slo-mo John Wayne impression. And the character was too stoic and boring, never really enjoying himself except for that brief moment when he first lands on Mars fumbling around. Of course this makes sense as a Civil War veteran, but it wasn't very entertaining. They still gave him more personality than the John Carter in the novel though

[captcalhoun]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

As has been said elsewhere, the essential factor missing from John Carter is a credible and charismatic lead actor. I doubt many people outside the US can name anything that Taylor Kitsch has been in. He does a reasonable job in the role, but I think he was miscast.

UK resident says, "Wolverine" and "Friday Night Lights"

[Asbo Zaprudder]

captcalhoun wrote:

---

UK resident says, "Wolverine" and "Friday Night Lights"

Wolverine - terrible film and I don't recall Kitsch being at all notable in it at all although he certainly was in it.

Friday Night Lights - never watched by more than 26,000 people on ITV4 and also some fraction of those rich enough to be able to afford Sky Atlantic. Probably not enough people to make him recognisable to the vast proportion of the UK public who might be inclined to go to the cinema.

As someone else said, it was a bit like they cast Derek Zoolander for the role.

[Dream]

Asbo Zaprudder wrote:

---

Wolverine - terrible film and I don't recall Kitsch being at all notable in it at all although he certainly was in it.

Yeah, Wolverine was terrible. Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were also in it too. Which idiot thought it was a great idea to reunite those two people for another movie?