The weekend could have been worse - it probably made thirty million domestically and a total of seventy world-wide.
"John Carter of Mars" Moving Ahead!
- Thread starter Ptrope
- Start date
17 per ticket?! where are you going to the movies?! I pay $5.25 for the matinee
That was the IMAX 3D price. It has apparently increased from $15 since the last time I saw a film in that format.
I'm pretty sure it was the full run time judging by how numb my butt felt by the end.
The reviews I've seen from critics have been mixed from good to fail. But the opinions from John and Jane Public who've seen it lean to the positive by an apparently large majority. Word-of-mouth just might help this film out if Disney does leave it in theatres a bit longer than usual to try to regain some of the investment.
Sadly I doubt anyone at Disney is actually reflecting on how they themselves played a major part in the film's marketing failure.
Now I'm feeling a bit cheated. I'd like to know what I could have missed. At least I can look forward to some extra footage on dvd.
Sadly I doubt anyone at Disney is actually reflecting on how they themselves played a major part in the film's marketing failure.
What??? I saw it in 2D (thankfully) and enjoyed it as is. But sitting here figuring it out I don't think what I saw was 2 hours and 20 minutes.
Now I'm feeling a bit cheated. I'd like to know what I could have missed. At least I can look forward to some extra footage on dvd.
From what I've been reading, Disney really #%€€€%# up the marketing campaign - which is sad, because I really want to see sequels to this, which are now unlikely to occur. But apparently Stanton also made many errors during filming, and he controlled part of the ad campaign.
In short, there appears to be plenty of blame to go around, according to this article: "Ishtar lands on Mars" - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hpw
In short, there appears to be plenty of blame to go around, according to this article: "Ishtar lands on Mars" - http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&hpw
Plus calling it "John Carter" is just so horribly, horribly bland.
That's still no excuse, to the average movie goer SW was first.
There was plenty of material in this film to cut a compelling trailer/ads from. Instead they concentrated on the arena scene, probably the weakest action set piece of the film IMO.
There was plenty of material in this film to cut a compelling trailer/ads from. Instead they concentrated on the arena scene, probably the weakest action set piece of the film IMO.
Vulture.com has a damning expose on the faults behind the making of John Carter, which basically paints it as a repeat of what happened with Heaven's Gate (too much carte blanche given to the director). Unfortunately a moral one takes away from this story is if you're looking at adapting a novel that, in turn, has been so influential to things like Star Wars that most of its signature moments have already been plundered for other films, you simply can't do it. Or if you do attempt, you have to bit the bullet and abandon the original story.
It's sort of like how remaking Metropolis is impossible now because a new Metropolis would be seen as a rip off of Blade Runner.
Sucks for fans of the novel in question, but moviegoers are generally illiterate (in terms of, as noted above, they won't know Star Wars wasn't the first to do XYZ), so what can you do...
http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
Alex
It's sort of like how remaking Metropolis is impossible now because a new Metropolis would be seen as a rip off of Blade Runner.
Sucks for fans of the novel in question, but moviegoers are generally illiterate (in terms of, as noted above, they won't know Star Wars wasn't the first to do XYZ), so what can you do...
http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
Alex
Yeah, but production and marketing budgets were much lower back then, too.
And ticket prices.
That was also when they didn't cost §250 mil. to make. (+marketing)
Also that was a time when they didnt make as much money from cable, DVD-bluray, overseas markets and so on to justify such costs.
Let's put it into perspective, it made $100 million in a WEEK.RAMA
Reads more like a damning expose in the faults behind the marketing of John Carter.
The funny thing is had they stayed really faithful to the book I don't think it'd seem as derivative as many think.
