Discussion in 'Science Fiction & Fantasy' started by Ptrope, Jan 13, 2009.
I really enjoyed John Carter, but I thought the title was stupid. The thing about the title is that it shows no imagination, creativity, or any particular respect for the source material.
As someone who enjoyed the books years ago, my first impression about the title was that the producer didn't give a crap about the source material, and I almost didn't go to see it for that reason, along with lackluster marketing, reviews etc.
I ended up seeing it weeks after release when another show I wanted to see was sold out. I was surprised and pleased.
I'm just one ticket, but I'm probably a pretty fair example of someone who wouldn't have seen the movie due to the title and poor marketing presentation, but would have had a better impression had they done it differently, and called it "Princess of Mars."
Same for me. I loved John Carter, but I tried Black Swan a few months ago, and I don't think I even made it 30 min. into it before I got bored and quit.
Hence the inclusive "and."
Like, Joan Jett and the Blackhearts.
Tome Petty and the Heartbreakers.
The worst thing is the rumor (may be more than rumor) that Disney changed the title because they didn't want "Mars" in a movie title after Mars Needs Moms tanked. If that's true, it represents boneheadedly literal Hollywood thinking at its worst.
Tome? Is that Tom's book nerd cousin?
But there's also Mission to Mars and Ghosts of Mars, which flopped to various degrees. What more proof do you want?
So if Totall Recall had had 'Mars' in the title, it would have flopped?
I think it's more likely that all of those films failed because they were terrible.
Yes. Yes it is.
You'll notice that they removed Mars from the Total Recall remake altogether...
No, they're just following the original story more closely. The title is just simple marketing.
John Carter a hit in the dollar theaters!!!
Good. I stand by believing this film deserves better than the rep it got before it was even released.
That bodes well for the DVD release. Maybe they'll realize that a sequel would do well if marketed properly.
Doubtful. Box office returns haven't just been bad for this film -- they've been atrocious. Heads rolled at Disney over this film's failure. That's not an environment that's going to lead to sequel, however well it does on home video (a market itself which, it should be said, has been experiencing a serious decline in the past five years).
If I understand things somewhat correctly, it did pretty good business, especially overseas, but it wasn't enough because of the overinflated budget. If it continues to do well in Drive-Ins, dollar theaters, DVD and cable, I don't see why they wouldn't produce a more reasonably budgeted sequel. Studios love franchises.
I'm looking forward to seeing it now that it's out on DVD..
Not franchises with stink on them.
If it had cost less than half of what it did it would have been a success by this point. It will undoubtedly make money, eventually, but eventually isn't good enough. Especially at a cost of quarter of a billion dollars.
Separate names with a comma.