JOHN CARTER movie rights lost by Disney, reverts back to Burroughs

[Gov Kodos]

Honestly, I don't think anybody in the general movie going audience cared what Carter's stance on slavery was. They were more than likely thinking about how the movie was ripping off Attack Of the Clones, Dune, Superman and other movies without realizing that the John Carter stories predate all of those stories.

There's that, too.

 

[Masiral]

Like that asshat Dumbledore said, sometimes being honorable is choosing what is right over what is easy.

Dumbledore also forgave Snape and Malfoy, who chose what was easy over what was right.

 

[Admiral James Kirk]

Like that asshat Dumbledore said, sometimes being honorable is choosing what is right over what is easy.

Why did you call Dumbledore an asshat?

 

[Gaith]

^ Well, his whole plan of putting all society's proverbial eggs in the basket of one kid and his two kid friends would be a great place to start. Good for a seven-book children's series about a child, not so good for wartime leadership.

(Hey, you asked.)

 

[Masiral]

^ Well, his whole plan of putting all society's proverbial eggs in the basket of one kid and his two kid friends would be a great place to start. Good for a seven-book children's series about a child, not so good for wartime leadership.

(Hey, you asked.)

By one kid, you mean the wizard Messiah prophesied to be the only one who could defeat Voldemort? Dumbledore didn't make Harry the wartime leader, instead the leadership fell to Mad-Eye Moody and Kingsley Shacklebolt. Harry just had to destroy the Horcruxes, not lead armies into battle.

 

[JD]

I'm sorry, but refusing to root for Carter just because he was a Confederate soldier is ridiculous. The politics of the Civil War had nothing to do with the story, so I don't see where it is worth getting so upset about.

Like somebody else said up thread, Cullen Bohannon, was a Confederate soldier, and an unrepentant slave owner (at least in the beginning), but people are still able to route for him. Nobody is perfect, so it makes sense that the characters in our media would reflect that.

 

[Shaka Zulu]

No, because I automatically disliked the character from the start for being an apparently unrepentant former Confederate officer, and never more than grudgingly tolerated him as a protagonist.

To be fair, he does grow to accept other races after a while on Mars/Barsoom, including the black Martians (although it takes an effort with the last-mentioned ones); you can't be that prejudiced after meeting a big green multi-armed Martian and a reddish colored one.

 

[JRoss]

The trailers did drum up a lot of negativity, but truth be told, it was a pretty great movie. Fantastic effects, lots of imagination, a clever plot twist at the end, none of Burroughs' racism, two good-looking leads. I'm sad there won't be a sequel, especially because this is one of those films that's going to get redeemed in years to come.

 

[JRoss]

What's all this about John Carter being honorable and heroic? Dude straight up tells the reader in the first book that he fights on instinct alone. He feels at one with battle dynamics and explicitly states that it's not bravery that drives him. As far as honor goes, we never really see him do anything either way, IIRC. He just drifts through the plot, vanquishing obstacles.

 

[Professor Zoom]

But anything about the first movie is really neither here nor there, the Burroughs' estate might now make another movie. Which will probably end up being yet another big budget action movie.

Uh, yeah... no. With whose money?

Fox, Warner Brothers, Universal, Legendary, Paramount if the estate is willing to try for a movie again. A miniseries though is also a possibility.

What would motivate any of them to take up a franchise that tanked at the box office? It doesn't seem like a good investment.

 

[cylkoth]

^If they feel the property is strong enough, or has enough potential, that alone is motivation for taking another chance with it. Same as Marvel not quitting with a Hulk film in spite of the poor reception the first Ang production received.

 

[RoJoHen]

I was so bored with this movie that I had to watch it in 3 separate sittings. I don't even remember what it was about. I just know it was that kid from "Friday Night Lights" and he could jump really high.

 

[Professor Zoom]

^If they feel the property is strong enough, or has enough potential, that alone is motivation for taking another chance with it. Same as Marvel not quitting with a Hulk film in spite of the poor reception the first Ang production received.

Potential? John Carter lost a LOT of money. On a 250 million dollar production budget, not including publicity it only made 284 million world wide.

The Hulk didn't do as expected. But was still profitable. Hulk was made for 137 million, not including publicity, made 245 million world wide.

And also consider which has a wider brand recognition, Hulk or John Carter? Even before his recent appearances, I would easily say the Hulk.

I would be shocked, shocked if another studio made a major investment in Carter for a long time.

 

[USS KG5]

^ Well, his whole plan of putting all society's proverbial eggs in the basket of one kid and his two kid friends would be a great place to start. Good for a seven-book children's series about a child, not so good for wartime leadership.

(Hey, you asked.)

Its a damn lucky thing it IS in a seven book series about a child then!

 

[BillJ]

^If they feel the property is strong enough, or has enough potential, that alone is motivation for taking another chance with it. Same as Marvel not quitting with a Hulk film in spite of the poor reception the first Ang production received.

Potential? John Carter lost a LOT of money. On a 250 million dollar production budget, not including publicity it only made 284 million world wide.

The Hulk didn't do as expected. But was still profitable. Hulk was made for 137 million, not including publicity, made 245 million world wide.

And also consider which has a wider brand recognition, Hulk or John Carter? Even before his recent appearances, I would easily say the Hulk.

I would be shocked, shocked if another studio made a major investment in Carter for a long time.

So the trick will be to make it on a smaller budget. The audience looks to be there.

 

[cylkoth]

^If they feel the property is strong enough, or has enough potential, that alone is motivation for taking another chance with it. Same as Marvel not quitting with a Hulk film in spite of the poor reception the first Ang production received.

Potential? John Carter lost a LOT of money. On a 250 million dollar production budget, not including publicity it only made 284 million world wide.

Yes, the Disney movie was a financial bomb, no one's disputing that. But the issue was, the desire/hope that the Burroughs Estate could wrangle/lure in a gambler that might have the huzpa to take another slab at it.

That hope is fueled by the fact that the Disney film just wasn't good- I wanted to like it, but taken as a simple action adventure romp, without considering the source material's pedigree or standing as a genre classic, the movie failed to excite (me, at least). It wasn't a horrible film. But looking at how much it did make, you could see where the temptation might be for a reboot on a much smaller budget ($60-$70 mil), would come from. And see where it goes from there.
Yes, it would be a challenge-the howling would come mostly not from genre fans but from entertainment industry insiders and critics, more obsessed with gnashing of teeth/ reviewing the Disney film's budget, rather than the source's potential to yield a rousing motion picture experience.

 

[Saga]

i think its more likely that we might see films based on some of Burroughs other works. i know there is a new Tarzan film in development. i think something like I Am A Barbarian or The Outlaw of Torn could be made into a good film.

 

[Gaith]

Everybody calm down. We're already getting John Carter-based sequels. Directed by James Cameron and starring Sam Worthington.

(Except, as I'm sure the good Christopher will be the first
to point out, the very real Burroughs inspiration behind
Avatar makes this only a slimmer of a joke.)

.
​

 

[Professor Zoom]

^If they feel the property is strong enough, or has enough potential, that alone is motivation for taking another chance with it. Same as Marvel not quitting with a Hulk film in spite of the poor reception the first Ang production received.

Potential? John Carter lost a LOT of money. On a 250 million dollar production budget, not including publicity it only made 284 million world wide.

The Hulk didn't do as expected. But was still profitable. Hulk was made for 137 million, not including publicity, made 245 million world wide.

And also consider which has a wider brand recognition, Hulk or John Carter? Even before his recent appearances, I would easily say the Hulk.

I would be shocked, shocked if another studio made a major investment in Carter for a long time.

So the trick will be to make it on a smaller budget. The audience looks to be there.

I think the trick would be to do a TV project actually.

 

[RJDiogenes]

I always thought it would be cool to do a retro version of the Barsoom novels, the way that HPLHS is doing Lovecraft. Imagine if Johnny Weissmuller and Maureen O'Sullivan had done John Carter and Deja Thoris instead of Tarzan and Jane....