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

[Shaka Zulu]

I seriously doubt a different or more faithful title would have made much of a difference to people.

In fact to someone who didn't know better, your title might have made it sound like John Carter was the Princess of Mars.

My titling is meant to sound like the titling of the other movie series it was inspired by-no more, and no less. And in the case of the others, it worked. I don't know how The Mouse could have missed those examples.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I seriously doubt a different or more faithful title would have made much of a difference to people.

In fact to someone who didn't know better, your title might have made it sound like John Carter was the Princess of Mars.

My titling is meant to sound like the titling of the other movie series it was inspired by-no more, and no less. And in the case of the others, it worked. I don't know how The Mouse could have missed those examples.

You are presuming it was the title was the reason why it didn't succeed.

In case of the other movies series you are suggesting Disney should've followed, may have been better films, or an inbuilt audience (like the Twilight book or those Jennifer Lawrence movies).

I didn't get around to see it because it looked like a CG fest with a bland lead. Title had nothing to do with it.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't think the title killed it either but with Hunger Games, Snow White and Twilight maybe they would've been better off emphasizing the Princess of Mars.

Honestly, looking at the box office from 2012, it's hard to see how it would have a chance. The Avengers, The Dark Knight Rises, The Hunger Games, Skyfall, The Hobbit, Spider-Man, Django, Prometheus, MIB 3, etc. not to mention Brave or Wreck-It-Ralph. You need to have a product that's strong to stand out amongst that.

This thread does have me interested in watching JC again sometime though.

 

[Professor Zoom]

I don't think the title killed it either but with Hunger Games, Snow White and Twilight maybe they would've been better off emphasizing the Princess of Mars.

I haven't seen it, so this is an honest question. Does the movie have that romantic angle as much as those movies? And I feel like those movies are for a younger crowd, whereas John Carter seemed more like a twenty something, i.e. not tween, movie.

 

[diankra]

Calling it John Carter smacked of corporate back-covering: take out any word that alienates someone in the focus groups (like Princess, Mars, forget about Barsoom), and eventually you end up with John Carter.
It's a name, so no downside. Problem is, no upside, except among people who already know who he is, who're probably irritated that it isn't "...of Mars!".
Which wouldn't necessarily be a problem if the film was great, but again, it felt like it what was left after anything to distinguish it from your average 100 million blockbuster had been vetoed or re-edited.

 

[Shurik]

I'm still in the minority of those who greatly enjoyed the movie. Flaws or whatnots.

Me too, it's a very fun movie.

 

[USS KG5]

I'm still in the minority of those who greatly enjoyed the movie. Flaws or whatnots.

Me too, it's a very fun movie.

Me three, quite an effective piece of work.

Anyone elese genuinely love the gut punch scene where he remembers his dead family while him and the dog-thing attack all their pursuers? Pretty cool.

 

[Gov Kodos]

I'm still in the minority of those who greatly enjoyed the movie. Flaws or whatnots.

Me too, it's a very fun movie.

Me three, quite an effective piece of work.

Anyone elese genuinely love the gut punch scene where he remembers his dead family while him and the dog-thing attack all their pursuers? Pretty cool.

Between the trading post and that scene, I found a lot of similarity to 'The Outlaw Josey Wales' in the origin and outlook they wanted Carter to have at the outset of the story. Carter, like Josey, is a man with no reason to live anymore beyond a single fixation. With Josey that was revenge, Carter his gold and maybe suicide in the end.

I think they spent too much time with John Carter as a fish out of water on Mars. The books had him diving right in embracing his situation on Mars while the movie kept him too reluctant in motivation too long which is similar to Josey in wanting nothing to do with anyone, but it made the Mars part of the movie meander until the arena fight.

I love the movie, but his motivation should have embraced Mars and Dejah at the start like the books. Dejah and Sola could have been, like the settler family for Josey, a reason worth dying for, and in fighting the Thurns and saving Helium, a reason to live.

 

[Pauln6]

I enjoyed it but just did not get round to seeing it at the movies. I don't think it deserved to be a dud compared to some of the awful movies that make money out there. It was probably that it was a bit out there in terms of its pedigree unlike say Star Trek, and there were other movies more popular with casual movie-goers on at the time.

 

[Gaith]

The first John Carter story was published in 1917, and is in the public domain. One can't really blame the Burroughs estate for retaining their copyrights on stories published later, but it's time to let the tradmark as it applies to works now in the public domain go.

actually the first story was published in 1912 in the pulps. the Burroughs estate fiercely protects it properties. like the recent dispute with Dynamite comics (which has since been resolved).

Well, there you go. Land properties get taxed, and intellectual properties eventually wind up in the public domain: such is the proper way of things. Anyone should be free to make new John Carter stories based on elements from those works already in the public domain.

I think they spent too much time with John Carter as a fish out of water on Mars. The books had him diving right in embracing his situation on Mars....

The books also established him as a non-aging being, so, there's that, too.

Anyone elese genuinely love the gut punch scene where he remembers his dead family while him and the dog-thing attack all their pursuers? Pretty cool.

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.

 

[davejames]

I think a big part of the problem was how they tried to take a classic scifi story and transform it into your average, summer CG action movie, with the same basic tone, effects, and design work as in all those movies. All that did was just make it feel even more generic and derivative.

What they really should have done is emphasize the more fanciful nature of the story, and made the world and aliens look a lot more fun or colorful or bizarre or something (like a movie that might have been made in the 80s perhaps). I mean this is already a very different version of Mars we're visiting, so you might as well have some fun with it.

Or perhaps make everything a bit stranger and weirder like something Guillermo del Toro might have done.

(And yeah, a much more dynamic lead actor would have helped quite a bit as well)

 

[DWF]

Taylor Kitch was fine as John Carter and Lynn Collins was beautiful as the princess and without alot of CGI the movie might not have been made, But it was released in March and had a huge budget and the director didn't seem to want the marketing to reflect that it was a John Carter from Mars. But personally I liekd the look and feel of the movie and the score and visual effects were first rate.

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.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Anyone elese genuinely love the gut punch scene where he remembers his dead family while him and the dog-thing attack all their pursuers? Pretty cool.

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.

That's what he was in the book, too, a former Confederate officer, Captain Jack Carter of Virginia. In his words

the servant of a state whose hopes had vanished with the South

which might be Burroughs wishing to invoke an image of Robert E Lee, Virginia's best known cavalry officer and gentleman. The movie does change Powell's character as he too had been a Confederate officer who'd headed west with Carter to prospect for gold and restore their fallen fortunes, as Carter put it in the first pages of the book. The movie has him as a Union officer trying to recruit Carter.

 

[Gaith]

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?

That's what he was in the book, too, a former Confederate officer, Captain Jack Carter of Virginia. In his words

the servant of a state whose hopes had vanished with the South

Right. So why should I root for an unrepentant officer of a state that wrote the protection of slavery into its Constitution?

which might be Burroughs wishing to invoke an image of Robert E Lee, Virginia's best known cavalry officer and gentleman.

I seem to recall George Washington and Jefferson also being Virginians. And wasn't Washington also a military officer and known horse-rider of some kind? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer.)


Next up: the thrilling adventures of a dashing and unrepentant former Nazi SS officer, transported from 1960s Argentina to the wild, exciting jungles of Venus?

 

[Mr Light]

Taylor Hitsch is a horribly boring actor. I don't understand how he got major movie roles. Particularly John Carter and Battleship.

 

[Gov Kodos]

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?

That's what he was in the book, too, a former Confederate officer, Captain Jack Carter of Virginia. In his words

Right. So why should I root for an unrepentant officer of a state that wrote the protection of slavery into its Constitution?

which might be Burroughs wishing to invoke an image of Robert E Lee, Virginia's best known cavalry officer and gentleman.

I seem to recall George Washington and Jefferson also being Virginians. And wasn't Washington also a military officer and known horse-rider of some kind? (Rhetorical question, no need to answer.)


Next up: the thrilling adventures of a dashing and unrepentant former Nazi SS officer, transported from 1960s Argentina to the wild, exciting jungles of Venus?

Go for the Godwin!

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, too. None of which changes how Burroughs wrote the book.

And, as far as Virginian's and horsemanship in the Revolution go, Henry Lee, Robert E Lee's father, was renowned for his horsemanship. Washington wasn't particularly so.

 

[DWF]

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.

 

[Gaith]

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, too.

True, though they lived several generations before, and to my knowledge, never once said that slavery should be preserved indefinitely.

None of which changes how Burroughs wrote the book.

For the purposes of a PG-13 adventure flick, how would making Carter a former Virginian Union officer have negatively impacted the character or story? That other Union officer at the beginning could have mentioned his being kicked out of the Army for drunkenness or disorderly conduct or something, to preserve his washed-up status.

Say what you like about Wild Wild West and The Legend of Zorro, they at least got the part about Confederates being the bad guys right.

 

[Gov Kodos]

Washington and Jefferson were slave owners, too.

True, though they lived several generations before, and to my knowledge, never once said that slavery should be preserved indefinitely.

They just didn't get rid of them

None of which changes how Burroughs wrote the book.

For the purposes of a PG-13 adventure flick, how would making Carter a former Virginian Union officer have negatively impacted the character or story? That other Union officer at the beginning could have mentioned his being kicked out of the Army for drunkenness or disorderly conduct or something, to preserve his washed-up status.

Say what you like about Wild Wild West and The Legend of Zorro, they at least got the part about Confederates being the bad guys right.

And where did the movie or book have Carter endorsing slavery or the rightness of the Southern cause? Like Lee, he went with his state.

 

[Saga]

the notion that every soldier in the Confederate army is automatically evil or bad by default is absurd.