Movie News

If you haven't seen JOHN CARTER, this fan trailer nails it! This is how the film could have been sold...

Published at: March 21, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

 

Hey folks, Harry here...   I know, everybody and their brother has written article after article about JOHN CARTER's box office death.   The annoying part is that folks seem bent on blaming Andrew Stanton for this.   Well, the film that ends with Directed by Andrew Stanton...   that film is pretty damn terrific.   I absolutely hang this terrible performance on the marketing of the film.  The movie was presented to the public with no context.   No introduction to the genre significance and certainly very little sense of the true grandeur that Stanton had in his film.   This fan trailer that the Reluctant Austinite made me aware of rights that.  Unfortunately, I can't place it in front of 500 million sets of eyes, but you do.   If you like it, share it.  Films sometimes live or die by those of us that let them.   The brutality that the media covers abused this film is truly beyond reason.  Keep an open mind and get curious...



Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 21, 2012, 9:46 p.m. CST

    it's too late, you already lost the battle

    by Rupee88

    just cash the checks from Disney and be happy. No one cared about this crappy movie but you. (yes a slight exaggeration but bottom line is that is it a FAIL...even geeks don't like it)

  • March 21, 2012, 9:48 p.m. CST

    Great Trailer

    by Clio

    Some idiot in charge of marketing this film should be cashiered.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:48 p.m. CST

    rupee88 - Hahahahahahahahaha perfection

    by Dharma4

    I liked the movie, but I agree. It's time to move on. It performed not so hotly.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:50 p.m. CST

    Saw it last night

    by smatt584

    Definitely wasn't 'crappy' by any stretch. The 3d was good too. Too bad there won't be a sequel.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:52 p.m. CST

    Every single Disney exec who touched the "marketing"

    by kabong

    should be fired.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    the problem is-- Stanton was in charge of the marketing, too

    by StarWarsRedux

    so really, it's all on his shoulders. granted, I thought very little of the film, and don't believe any degree of marketing could've saved it, really. but still.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    good lord boys, let it die.

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    this movie tanked. we need to move on.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Loved John Carter

    by Superponte

    best film (which I have seen) so far in 2012.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    That trailer is amateur as fuck

    by DBCOOPER

  • March 21, 2012, 9:54 p.m. CST

    That trailer was better than anything else put out-

    by sonnyfern

    -actually made the movie look interesting and you're right, the marketing DID kill the film. I didn't see ONE interesting trailer for it.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:55 p.m. CST

    That trailer made it look even MORE boring than it already looked!

    by ShiftyEyedDog

  • and the actual footage of the movie tells us even less about the film than the actual marketing campaign. Too much time jerking off ERB

  • March 21, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Why is everyone ignoring the real reason this movie "failed"?

    by Toe Jam

    Nobody beyond those who watch "Friday Night Lights" -- and there's not many of them -- knows who the hell Taylor Kitsch is. All Disney had to do was shell out $20 million more -- or maybe a back-end deal -- to a recognizable star, and this movie would have recouped at least half its budget, at the very worst. It's the sad truth, but the truth nonetheless. Without a high concept or found footage plot, you must have a highly recognizable star to headline any sort of blockbuster movie.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    oh, and something this fan trailer brings to mind

    by StarWarsRedux

    you have to put all that footage into slow motion just so you can tell what's going on in some of the shots. the level of detail and complexity in the design is a little overwhelming in real time, and in the theater-- in a bad way. it's all too busy, visually, for your eye to really fix anywhere on it. all if it's hectic, scrambled, excited with lines going every which way, with little to no sense of composition or color helping to give any sense of direction. after a while, it just gave me a headache.

  • March 21, 2012, 9:59 p.m. CST

    Great Trailer

    by tj23

    I never read any of the Burroughs stories nor new anything really on John Carter when I first heard about this movie, but I love Sci-Fi and thought this might be my kinda thing. Then I saw the first trailer and was just kinda, blah. It wasn't till I came on here and saw how passionate and excited some people were for this that I started to read up on it a bit. Then I saw a couple fan trailers and started getting pretty stoked for the movie. Went opening night, loved it, and this trailer should have been put out for this movie. If I would have seen that trailer in a theater I would have wanted to see that movie right then and there. Terrible marketing Disney, way to fuck what should have been a great franchise for years to come. Still, great movie, enjoyed every minute of it.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Harry, stop it, it's getting sad...

    by Randy

    The film failed and people don't like it, quit posting shit as to why it didn't do well.

  • On behalf of H.G. Wells: Fuck off.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:07 p.m. CST

    Let it die already!

    by Setthera

    It's a boring, poorly made film with a terrible lead actor who gets captured every 5 minutes. I can't wait for the constant blu ray articles that will start next week.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    fan trailer was no better

    by Titus05

    this trailer took too long to get going...found myself skipping ahead to get to the 'good' parts

  • March 21, 2012, 10:08 p.m. CST

    I'm gonna catch hell for this, but...

    by Zardoz

    ...that trailer makes me want to see the movie even less now. (sorry!)

  • March 21, 2012, 10:10 p.m. CST

    It's not the marketing that killed John Carter...

    by RandySavage

    it's the fact that what Stanton and his FX team and writers put to film resembled a 2hr version of the Geonisis scenes from Attack of the Clones. The CG (particularly the creatures) looked on par looked on par with something from a decade ago. The lines from the trailers made me roll my eyes. I should have been a mark for this movie... I like the book and these kinds of films... but what Stanton put to screen turned me away from shelling out to see it in the theater, regardless of all the different ways it was cut and marketed. Stanton (and his FX team, art directors & writers) = the reason this failed.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Harry, it's getting pretty pathetic

    by ATARI

    Just let it go already.<br> <br> Find something new to get excited about (I suggest Prometheus), and let this abortion die already.<br>

  • March 21, 2012, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Avatar killed this film

    by Zardoz

    It stole the basic story from John Carter and got there first, (and better?) so JC is just the 2nd coming of the same story!

  • March 21, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    the title of 'John Carter' was also a HUGE fail

    by Titus05

    they should have added something after John Carter to emphasize the sci-fi story...John Carter sounds like some generic feel good story about any kid growing up in the hood

  • March 21, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    I assumed the film was going to be as terrible as everyone said

    by Party_Animal_IV

    Imagine if Avatar of Fellowship of the Ring had an entire hour edited out of the theatrical cut, I bet people would have been making similar complaints about those films and it would have strongly undercut their box office totals. Maybe it was because my expectations were low, but I was surprised and found it very enjoyable and certainly better made than any live action Disney film. Even if you didn't like the movie for whatever reason, if you compare it to other recent Disney Movies like Prince of Persia, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tron: Legacy, Alice in Wonderland 3D, you might have to admit that they could have sold this and made some money if they wanted to. The film is clearly edited down from a longer run-time, and my guess is the intended three hour version would erase most criticisms. Didn't help that it wasn't shot in native 3D.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:13 p.m. CST

    Snarky!

    by Zardoz

    Where did you here that? The commissary? Dish, girl!

  • March 21, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    Disney made 3 errors

    by MrDexter

    1. They didn't call it A Princess of Mars 2. They didn't cast a face a worldwide audience would recognize 3. They let Stanton have marketing sign off. Honorable mention: it's average

  • March 21, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    This movie bombed because it didn't have Arnold!!

    by wattos new hat

  • March 21, 2012, 10:16 p.m. CST

    Kitsch

    by AlibyebyeEssmob

    Kitsch was a huge part of the problem. I was not a great fan of the film despite being a fan of the novel - too many flat lines, clumsy storytelling, confusing, etc. - but Kitsch was truly awful, and he's not a known star they can sell the film with. If they managed to get you in the theater, what you get is a guy who comes across as whiny and selfish, anything other than a hero, who delivers his lines like he's acting in a highschool play. Had they cast a decent actor, a remotely likable leading man, this might have found some life.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    That trailer explained almost NOTHING...

    by Chuck_Cobra

    other than the origin of the books. Half the trailer was reading. The general public doesn't have the attention span for that. The text should have been spread throughout the trailer, not all at the beginning. ANY kind of sound bites would have been nice too. There was another fan trailer released a little bit before the movie that did a MUCH better job.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:18 p.m. CST

    I Commend the Person Who Made the Trailer

    by WriteFromLeft

    A lot of effort and heartfelt thought went into its creation. The film does not deserve additional drubbing simply because it lost a lot of money. The film does deserve criticism because it looks like a CGI pigfuck. When George Lucas needed a Bantha for the original Star Wars, he used a real elephant and some cloth. Sometimes less is more, a lesson even Lucas forgot with the rise of computers in the filmmaking process.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    A bit of perspective...

    by jorson28

    I get the respect for the source and the disappointment at the film's material, but let's just be clear: If an AICN Talkback forum full of fans were actually in charge of marketing and distribution for this movie, those fans would probably elevate the thing to such a level of importance that it would never play in a single theater that didn't resemble the Alamo Drafthouse, and in the end, if ONLY the fans saw it, then you'd be happy just to gloat over the ignorance of the masses knowing that YOU appreciate the value of the film and its content beyond any capitalist systems of measurement.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Correction:

    by jorson28

    I meant to say the film's PERFORMANCE, not "material."

  • March 21, 2012, 10:21 p.m. CST

    Mary Shelly is credited with creating modern science fiction

    by sunwukong86

    with Frankenstein and The Last Man

  • March 21, 2012, 10:22 p.m. CST

    I Loved the movie......

    by Brian

    ...and you just got....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...............coxxed!!!!!!!!

  • March 21, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Wait 'til Prometheus bombs

    by cookylamoo

    That'll really be the end of big budget science fiction.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:29 p.m. CST

    you have to know this makes the whole shebang look worse.. let it go!

    by zom-bot.com

    there were several reasons the movie bombed. it's not going to change anything to keep crying about it. Harry...if you are a true lover of great, neat old sci-fi and cinema...do this: support, promote and praise small filmmakers with big visions and modest budgets, practical effects or ingenious solutions to achieve belief in the audience. We are all tired of seeing piss-poor CG and by-the-numbers green screen films with no uniqueness to them..we wonder-where did the budget go, if the actors are small-time, and most of the characters and sets were digital? Stanton's pIXAR projects looked more realistic- or at the very least- more visually interesting than this. what was he thinking?? we need to somehow convince hollywood to stop going this route. i can't believe that Disney, Stanton or this site can actually get MAD at us for not paying them back the money they spent on this. How did they expect us to? this thing was a fiasco the day it went over budget..we've all seen many times that bigger isn't better. hold John Carter up to District 9 and compare.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    besides, it will make back it's money in DVD sales...

    by zom-bot.com

    people of walmart will buy it in the 5 dollar bin or from it's pretty cardboard kiosk when it comes to DVD and is advertised like it was a hidden overlooked gem with phrases like 'see the movie america missed', or now is the time to finally visit the world of john carter' etc etc...you know they will.

  • And he assumed people already knew who the fuck John Carter was.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:38 p.m. CST

    Look...nobody cared.

    by Rex Carsalot

    That's why this movie failed. You can make the best trailer in the world, but it just wasn't that great of a story.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:39 p.m. CST

    Hey max? Please die. Thanks.

    by Rex Carsalot

  • March 21, 2012, 10:39 p.m. CST

    other sales phrases will be:

    by zom-bot.com

    'see it as it was meant to be seen- in the clarity and wonder of blu ray'... and 'see the movie that was too awesome for theaters in the comfort of your own home- but hold onto that couch cushion! Buy Disney's John Carter on Blu Ray/DVD/downloadable content and get a free 4 person, 4 day family pass to disney world, a free princess of mars poster for Dad, and taylor Kitsch will cook dinner for you for a month! Please? PLEASE?

  • March 21, 2012, 10:41 p.m. CST

    Stop it...this is ridicules.

    by conspiracy

    I'm gonna lay it out plain and simple...as a Film lover, as a Disney Shareholder, and as someone who has been here on AICN since right after this place was fired up. John Carter was not only let down by the Marketing, which was dismal...it was let down by the fact that it simply WAS NOT A VERY GOOD MOVIE. Stop looking at this as a damned uncritical lover of the property...and step back and try to take an objective, critical look at this film. The film Stanton brought to market was bloated, ponderous, at times bewildering to the casual Sci-fi fan, and worse in my honest opinion...it was boring and derivative. And no I don't care, nor does anyone else, that IT was the original. Model T's were the original mass produced car...but we've seen everything those can offer and have moved on to better cars, this film suffers the same problem. Model T's are best in a museum, admired for what they are...and such should have been John Carter. The lead was as flat as wood, the bad guys uninspiring, the romance almost as eye rolling unbelievable as the romance angle in the Star Wars Prequels, and there was at least 15-20min of pure ego swelling fat that should have bee cut. I don't say these things to be an asshole.... I say that as someone who wanted to see this thing succeed, as a Disney fan, as someone who has been on Disney like a crack whore on a pipe since December over the horrible marketing, who Cheered when they fired MT Carney and her inept crew of magazine minions, and who is still calling for Rich Ross head to be put in a noose for letting Andrew go 20%+ over budget...which explains the $200M write down (that is the public figure...you can bet it is more). Let this go...move on...it's an uninspired film that if it deserves a better fate will find it with home viewers. I won't be one however.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:43 p.m. CST

    What Might Have Worked...

    by wrath 4771

    A series of commercials and trailers like they did for The Phantom Menace, where you get a minute or a minute and a half showing/explaining the motivation of the characters. As for the site, at this point they are holding the corpse of Amy, telling her how much they loved her, but the rest of us aren't sure if they realize she'll reanimate any minute now...

  • March 21, 2012, 10:44 p.m. CST

    John Carter raped Max's Cherry... FACT!!!

    by MediaGold

    I just don't understand the hate for this film, other than the haters have some kind of issues with their brains . I saw it twice, it is great.

  • $200 million write-down says it all.

  • If they had stuck with the simplicity of "A Princess of Mars" and kept to the emotion of the only saving part of this movie, which was the "Grave Digging Flashback" battle scene it would've had a chance to hold a descent second week. Instead we got it jammed with shit expositions and everyone's favorite moment from the books only they're all half ass backwards. Only hotness of the leading lady and her manly arms could prop this up movie along with her blue eyes and boobs. Disney dang screwed it up.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    MAXCHERRY IS COMPLETE DOUCHEBAG, FACT!!!

    by thepentaveret

  • March 21, 2012, 10:46 p.m. CST

    Here's my 2 cents on a trailer for this:

    by Adelai Niska

    I will fight for you.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:47 p.m. CST

    Stanton had total control over the trailers ...

    by Anthony Torchia

    as well as the movie, he primarily is responsible for fucking up my childhood dream. He gave us Wall-E, so it's even, but fuck him anyway. 200 million dollar loss? Who cares? This trailer is pretty good, better than anything Mr. Stanton put out. Speaking of putting out ... never mind.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:47 p.m. CST

    sone of a bitch I used quotes. nevermind my post.

    by Adelai Niska

  • I love those books. I must read each of them 10 times as a kid and was so excited for the film. Paid the full price to see it in IMAX and had trouble staying awake. Just awful. Poorly written is the kindest thing I can say about it.

  • Unfortunately the movie itself isn't

  • ...you realize that, don't you.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:49 p.m. CST

    maxcherry your opinion is worthless to me FACT!!!

    by billF

    So stop making a fool of yourself.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    ALL CAPS SUCKS AND NEEDS TO GET CHOPPED!!! FACT!!!

    by zom-bot.com

    i can't imagine what it must be like to talk to some of you in person. i imagine it's exhausting, and involves halitosis.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:50 p.m. CST

    I've heard similarly negative things about Stanton recently...

    by SK229

    and I have no idea if it's studio spin or if the shit is true. I'm guessing the exec snarky mentioned wouldn't be M.T. Carney, since she's still at Disney, isn't she? If it's all true about him having sign-off on the marketing, then that's un-fucking-believable. What a goddamned dickhead. And to be honest, as much as I love Pixar and what they do and their track record obviously speaks for itself, a lot of those guys act like tremendously conceited assholes. As a matter of fact, ANYWHERE I've worked in animation, it's mostly dickheaded guys(and, oddly enough, what you might call 'jocular' or fratboyish types, which surprised me) and a bunch of women who really are the backbone of the show having to read the tea leaves on a daily basis to see if the male creatives are in a decent mood. Even Brad Bird seems like he can be kind of a douche nozzle and he's right in the wheelhouse of people I've experienced personally. Hell, he's got dopplegangers working on a few animated shows. Nobody said talent comes without a price, but in animation, douchiness REALLY seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Also, just to temper things a bit, I'm sure there are plenty of very nice people working in animation (and I mean children's shows or animated features aimed at a family audience), but I have yet to meet any that weren't women.

  • They want Stanton to remain on board, obviously.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:52 p.m. CST

    hey what's that 'M' stand for on that fan poster? lol

    by zom-bot.com

    because that wasn't the title of the movie.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:54 p.m. CST

    Also, I doubt Prometheus will bomb...

    by SK229

    I'm surprised at the people who somehow came across the trailer and are intrigued. If the movie lives up to that trailer (which will be shocking in and of itself), then who gives a shit how much money it makes. But I think that trailer dropped like a fucking hydrogen bomb and just leaves people slack jawed and in awe. IMHO, it's the greatest trailer ever made, somehow topping what I originally thought was the greatest trailer ever, Alien.

  • March 21, 2012, 10:56 p.m. CST

    Even if you think the film was crap

    by Party_Animal_IV

    Even if you think the film was crap, you have to admit they could have sold it. Actual garbage films are sold all the time and at least recoup. If Stanton really was responsible for how the film was marketed, then I guess it would be his fault. As for the film, it deserved a better fate.

  • March 21, 2012, 11 p.m. CST

    sk229...MT was fired in January, Rich Ross should be next.

    by conspiracy

    He is the one who hired her after all. MT had no film experience and should have never been hired. But thats beside the point that Rich Ross, coming out of cable TV, has no experience or clout in dealing with high powered, golden halo wearing, diva directors and allowed Stanton to go WAY BEYOND the approved budget. Worse...he gave Andrew a blank check and since he could always blame the previous Studio head, didn't give a fuck. Rich is guilty of gross negligence of duty. Dick Cook may have green lit this Turkey...but at least he had the finesse, power, and respectability to keep guys like Stanton from running amok. If Dick Cook was still Disney Studio head we might have even gotten a leaner, watchable film instead of a property that will weight on the studios earnings for the rest of the year.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:02 p.m. CST

    If you're a fan of the film, join the facebook page...

    by Kirbymanly

    ... "Take Me Back To Barsoom!" It's all about telling Disney that us fans want a sequel to this FANTASTIC movie.

  • "Her name is Arwen..." etc. It made the concept of the movie easier to understand for those who never read the book. And I agree the trailer should've spelled out the story. Studies show knowing the end of a story actually helps people like a story better. I think that article was even posted on this website.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    @maxcherry my point is this...

    by billF

    taste in movies is subjective. So when you dislike a movie and think it sucked you can only be speaking for yourself. Just as my liking movies is my subjective opinion. So when you start yelling FACT!!!...keep in mind that it may only be a fact for you and not for everyone else. None of us can speak for all.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:16 p.m. CST

    What will be the next bomb?

    by PhxMonsterGuy

    Nothing is probably going to tank like John Carter, but another of the big films this year is going to perform below expectations. Which will it be....MIB3, Prometheus, Amazing Spiderman, Dark Knight Rises, Hobbit, Battleship, Avengers, Brave, Abraham Lincoln:Vampire Hunter, Ice Age 4... and the list goes on. There's a lot of big movies coming out....which ones do you think will flop and which do you HOPE will flop? I think MIB3 and Abraham Lincoln:VH will flop. I hope that Dark Knight Rises flops just to see all the wailing and gnashing of teeth that will happen on this site. That would be far more entertaining than any movie this year.

  • Can someone please explain what this sentence means? I've tried reading it over and over with different emphasis and it still makes no sense to me.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    The final word

    by BeMoreFunny

    Kitsch was very good--he was supposed to play a dumb, simple yet brave Confederate soldier who eventually becomes something of a hero. He nailed this--the character isn't supposed to be charismatic or witty. He was not the problem. Also, not enough has been said about Lynn Collins as the princess--I can't think of a more beautiful woman in any film. Her beauty is really the whole point if the story--war could be avoided entirely if she just married McNulty, but Carter would rather die than allow this beautiful perfect woman to settle for a loveless marriage. The film is dense with story and detail but moves along very briskly and smoothly. It's a great film, the best sci fi/fantasy film since...Avatar? But Carter is better because it isn't all up it's own ass with messages. I hope this film does well enough overseas to warrant a sequel, it earned one.

  • One of the best trailers of the past 10 years IMO! Great pacing, that in broad lines spans a 3-act, that ends with a pulse pounding last 15 seconds...brilliant stuff!

  • March 21, 2012, 11:31 p.m. CST

    Disney failed the movie. The movie didn't fail Disney

    by Queefer Sutherland

    That's a much better approach. Idiots had a pretty good and very fun movie on their hands and they fucked up the marketing. No matter what flaws it may have, John Carter was a hell of a lot of fun to watch for me. The advertising campaign had no sense of itself. Because of their ignorance, we won't get to see any sequels, and that's a damned shame.

  • The last 12-18 months Iger has been very close to becoming the guy he replaced...a guy who began to see himself as Walt and overstayed his welcome. Ige cemented his place on the board a couple of weeks ago...even as he talked of retiring in 2015. He has put dubiously qualified, TV friends in places of fiduciary and product responsibility...Rich Ross being the most obvious, a man with ZERO film experience and no clout in a industry that demands familiarity and connections. Iger has shown little regard for the Studios dismal performance the last year-24 months...and when heads should be rolling he is circling the wagons around his Golden Boys. Iger has 12 months to turn this ship around...or he might get the same no confidence vote we gave his predecessor.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    Queefer...John Carter doesn't deserve a sequel.

    by conspiracy

    It is boring and derivative...a property that while inspirational and a spring board for decades of Sci-Fi films...has found itself outpaced by the very things it spawned. As I said...Model T's started mass manufactured cars...and are recognized as a stunning achievement...but you don't want to actually have to drive one when the cars it influenced are so much better.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:37 p.m. CST

    It was a mediocre film

    by Bass Ackwards

    A mediocre film, with no charm, heart, or excitement. Its not that the marketing failed to show what an amazing film this was, the problem is the marketing failed to hide what a tepid film it was. So I'll agree, the fan made trailer works in that respect, the Disney marketers had trailers that tried to convey the story and let people hear the dialogue, which of course was a tip off to the fact that the film was going to be a pretty droll affair. This trailer pulls a song from another movie and then does its damndest to make sure nothing about the actual movie gets conveyed, and you're right, that probably would have worked better as marketing, because, again, it at least avoids showing its hand that the film is going to be a bore.

  • You know, like the rest of us have been saying for six fucking months? See, it's not that we don't agree with you that the marketing was bungled, obviously it was. It's that you absolutely disputed that fact until all the walls were dripping with John Carter's blood. NOW all of a sudden it's =the fucking marketing bungled it=. Maybe at some later date you will also admit that....in retrospect....the movie fucked a lot of shit up and actually made an alien fantasy film kinda dull and silly.

  • This is the 3rd attempt i've seen of someone trying to make this film look good. It just goes to show how fans respect the material more than the studio does.

  • I think because of the trailers, both the mysterious teaser and the two new ones from last week, seem different than the standard studio fare. It is because they feel different than most big actiony sci-fi/fantasy to most of the average moviegoers who aren't sci-fi and Alien fans. First of all, the Prometheus trailers don't give away the whole plot like a cliffnotes for retards which is what most trailers do these days. Second, is the fact that people in space suits methodically exploring something actually seems pretty unique nowadays after all the Baysplosions. Prometheus is not selling itself on action so much as it is on mood and mystery. Surely there are great visuals, but it doesn't come across as eye candy like a Bay film, or like Battleship for example. There are no Chosen One type of cliche archetypal characters blowing stuff up while spouting one-liners and winking at the camera as they save the day. There are no superhero origin story formulas at work here, even though Prometheus is a prequel/origin story in a certain way. Third, is that you get the sense from the trailers, that Prometheus is not treating the audience like they are stupid as shit, while the other end of the spectrum sit the trailers for stuff like Chronicle, Project X, and Battleship. It is also not something that seems like it has given up, and instead of treating the material seriously, makes it silly and colorful and goofy like Dark Shadows. Nor is it a concept that needs to be treated with a bit of humor, yet is being treated deadly serious like Abe Lincoln Vampire Hunter. That doesn't mean that Prometheus will be a guaranteed hit, but it does bode well for its chances this summer. It reminds me of Inception actually, a smart and clever and serious sci-fi/thriller that both the younger primary teen and twentysomethings as well as adults can enjoy.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:42 p.m. CST

    But as someone else said....

    by Jaster Mareel

    Just go cash your fucking Disney check and drop it already.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:50 p.m. CST

    God, can we drop this film already???

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Stanton failed, Disney failed...let's leave the corpse where it belongs.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:52 p.m. CST

    Wake me when we get another stab at a live action movie by Kerry Conran.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • March 21, 2012, 11:54 p.m. CST

    lv_426..The Prometheus trailer is downright creepy and tension filled.

    by conspiracy

    Part of it is the incredible use of sound....Ridley and his crew know how to use sound like nobodies business. It just sounds fucked up, desperate and dangerous.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:58 p.m. CST

    Yeah that trailer would've drawn them in..

    by Sicuv Uyall

    I mean only the sci fi nerds who missed it the first time. Saw this last week with a friend in an empty theater. When it was done, we knew why. Any improvement in marketing would've only improved opening weekend, and then straight down.

  • March 21, 2012, 11:59 p.m. CST

    @cellarrat, That Music is not from "Requiem For a Dream."

    by JediRob

  • March 22, 2012, midnight CST

    From the Creator of Tarzan...

    by apewithchain

    That's all the ads needed to say ("Before there was Tarzan, there was John Carter" would also have been acceptable). In that context, the audience would've gladly accepted Mars, Cowboys & Princesses--even directors of movies like Wall-E (after all, the Disney version of Tarzan was a big hit). Now why was that so hard to do? Anyway, I just saw the movie again and liked it even better the 2nd time, on its own terms. I like this vision of the books, and I'd look forward to seeing these particular characters return, in this particular way. I can't imagine a future remake doing a better job. Time will vindicate this film, but it'd sure be nice if it got the support it needed now, when it makes a difference.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:01 a.m. CST

    Then again...I'm guessing they have more to work with on Prometheus..

    by conspiracy

    lets face it...there just isn't much to work with on John Carter. They released the big fight, they utilized images of the scenery and the hot girl and the jumping.. ...and after that...really, what else is there to sell the public on?

  • March 22, 2012, 12:02 a.m. CST

    db cooper

    by Patrick Mayo

    so are you

  • March 22, 2012, 12:02 a.m. CST

    Perhaps You Misunderstand What a "Write-Down" Is

    by Aquatarkusman

    It's an accounting term referring to reducing the value of an asset, not an imprecation to continue writing down stupid shit about a movie that's already swirling the cinematic toilet bowl.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:06 a.m. CST

    @lv_426 Excellent analysis.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • March 22, 2012, 12:10 a.m. CST

    I really liked this movie

    by quadrupletree

    The fact that it died at the box office and we wont get any sequels makes me sad.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:11 a.m. CST

    John Carter was a GREAT film!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Pretty close to being perfect actually. And I don't care what the budget was - my ticket to the cinema cost the same amount regardless.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:13 a.m. CST

    Very entertaining movie by the way.

    by The Founder

  • This movie would have done much better at the box office with an 'R' rating.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:29 a.m. CST

    I finally saw it

    by disfigurehead

    and I really enjoyed it. Not the greatest thing ever but still a nice entertaining day at the movies. Too bad Disney fucked the marketing.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:31 a.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER will get discovered.

    by blackwood

    It's like that, sometimes, for whatever reason, with these kinds of films. Niche to start, coming in crazy expensive because Disney dreamed of AVATAR money, and Disney is desperate -- pathetically so -- for a new live-action franchise so they can stop making PIRATES movies. Or whatever. I think all the hand-wringing (and fist-pumping, which is as sad and petty as anything) is a bit much, but I can understand; I'm disappointed it wasn't a huge hit. It deserved it far more than STRANGER TIDES and certainly any of the TRANSFORMERS -- both films I enjoyed, despite them being ostensibly soulless and functionally brain-dead. But JOHN CARTER I love, and it doesn't deserve this box office failure -- but more importantly, it doesn't deserve these grave-humping goblins crowing about its demise. JOHN CARTER is a great pulp action film with a lot of genuine heart and a good sense of humor. I was riveted and whisked away. A lot of people were. And a lot more people will be in time, when they discover it on video. I think this film will have long, long legs.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:31 a.m. CST

    I don't blame Taylor Kitsch.

    by tomandshell

    People didn't go and see Avatar because Sam Worthington was in it. The early trailers needed "From the studio that brought you Pirates of the Carribean" and "From the creator of Tarzan and the director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E." They didn't sell their pedigree.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:41 a.m. CST

    For what it's worth

    by mukhtabi

    I saw John Carter this past Tuesday at UA Sheepshead Bay. I friggin lost my mind for it. It's an astoundingly well crafted vision of Science Fiction Fantasy. Tars Tarkas, Woola, and the Therns are reason enough to dig the hell out of this film, but honestly, I think Taylor Kitsch actually was a fairly good John Carter. Would have been better to have someone with a real Virginian accent who actually represents a man, rather than an older boy, but I take what I'm given. I love this film unabashedly. I'm a burroughs geek, and this did it for me. I'm going to see it five times, at least. I know in the fullness of time, this will be viewed as awesome. Y'all are just too jaded and desperate for properties to fail because it's cool to rip down people. It really sadly is.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:44 a.m. CST

    Content means sweet f all

    by SomethingUberGeeky

    Telling people it inspired Star Wars and Avatar prior to them seeing the film does not reduce the 'been there done that' feeling of seeing it. It's just too late to the party. If you were not a fan of this as a kid its unlikely the general public would become one just because you provide some historical context. This film is for those who loved the books as kids/teens, and chicks who watched FNL and dig Taylor Kitsch. Turns out there's not as many of either category as they perhaps thought. Blame market research more than the post-film marketing. (Personal view of the film was that it wasn't able to shake the episodic feeling of the original material. Felt like JC was captured about 60 times in a row, which got a little tiring).

  • March 22, 2012, 12:44 a.m. CST

    *Context*

    by SomethingUberGeeky

  • March 22, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    Sadly, Stanton Fucked Himself On Marketing, But The Film Is Superb

    by THX1968

    I am beyond mystified by the reaction to this movie. It is an awesome movie. I have heard that Stanton put up roadblock after roadblock for an already inept Disney marketing team. It was Stanton himself that insisted on removing "of Mars" from the title, the single most colossal mistake that was made in the marketing of the film, and it was Stanton that refused to associate John Carter with his Pixar work, because he didn't want people to think it was a kid's movie. I absolutely loved the movie, but I think Stanton fucked himself royally by not listening to people and even the fans that were begging - BEGGING! - to make the title "John Carter of Mars". Well, maybe that will be rectified with the blu ray. It may even find a whole new life there, and end up being quite popular. There is a negative mob mentality towards this film. All you little illiterate dipshits that keep comparing JC to Attack of the Clones clearly did not see John Carter. You punks make me ill. Oh yeah, that trailer was very well done for a fan.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:48 a.m. CST

    thx1968 nails it- Stanton made a great film

    by YackBacker

    And marketing missteps aside, stop talking about the economics of the movie and GO SEE IT.

  • ...have not even seen the movie.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:54 a.m. CST

    "Grave humping goblins"; Thanks, blackwood.

    by Laserbrain

    "Floptrolls" is another good term - coined by docpazuzu I believe - to characterize the ghouls who like nothing better than to see an admittedly flawed but evidently heartfelt work like Carter crash and burn. Something to do with failure loving company, I'd wager.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    Disney actually did a go a similar route as this trailer...

    by Ribbons

    ...once they had gotten into TV spot mode, there was 1 or 2 emphasizing the significance of Burroughs' legacy ("Before Avatar... before Star Wars... there was John Carter"). All pretty rushed and half-hearted, though. I don't know if there's any marketing campaign that could have *saved* John Carter, but I certainly think the historical perspective is the way to go. Maybe not in quite so nerdy as whoever made this fan trailer, but it's the start of good idea, honestly. Because the bottom line is that, agree or disagree with the final product, an audience has an opportunity to understand what makes an adaptation of Burroughs special. And they certainly didn't get that opportunity here.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:59 a.m. CST

    I'm sure it's awesome

    by HonestAbe

    But the reason I'll wait for it to come out on Netflix is mostly that the aliens and creatures look like something that wasn't *quite* good enough to make the final cut of "The Phantom Menace". And that's saying a lot about how shitty they look.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Why are people acting like JC is an intelligent film?

    by TheLastCleric

    It’s fantasy far more than sci-fi and even when examining the film within those parameters it’s not a particularly smart nor consistent narrative. One scene has John Carter killing a Thark with a single blow and in another he’s captured and manhandled easily. He can’t break his chain in the arena (or pull out the stake it’s attached to) but he can tear a slab of stone weighing hundreds of pounds and whirl it easily like a mace. The Therns are also poorly explained and their impetus and motivations for their actions seems vague and downright illogical. (We want the stupid people to have the technology) All of the writers on this site along with proponents of the film keep insisting that what I saw on screen has some deeper cerebral component but from my vantage point all I saw was another vapid blockbuster with uneven FX work. The parallels some have made to films like Blade Runner seem even more outlandish after seeing the movie. Perhaps I’m out of the loop having never read the original books but while JC wasn’t a horrible film it certainly isn’t anything to dedicate (almost literally) an entire site to promoting.

  • John Carter was a pretty lame episode of Star Trek TNG. Still beats that fucking piece of shit 21 Jumpstreet though, my nigga.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:29 a.m. CST

    And Jules Verne has a little problem as well.

    by wintocha67

  • March 22, 2012, 1:29 a.m. CST

    OF MAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!!!!

    by wintocha67

  • Most people don't give a fuck about John Carter and even if you told them it inspired Avatar, etc... They still wouldn't care. I think you nailed it in your review, they should have kept "Princess of Mars" and made people discover John Carter as a new hero and then subsequent sequels as "John Carter and...". Kinda how Indiana Jones was introduced in Raiders and then had a bunch of movies with his name first. Or "Rambo". Introducing a new/unknown name never works. That's why "Tintin" killed in Europe and disappointed in the US.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:33 a.m. CST

    AAANNND... I'm done.

    by DrVillian

    Harry, my goodness. I hate, yet envy the delusions you create for yourself. I wish I had your rose colored glasses. I suffered through AICN's coverage of this film. I suffered through your review of John Carter. This is my letter of resignation from AICN. Ive come to the conclusion that you didn't see the same that the rest of us saw. You manufactured the emotions you thought you were supposed to feel to make this much more than it was, while in reality the movie fell flat on it's face to achieve. And that brings me to my reason for leaving. You latch your manufactured, overly emotional, tyrannical bullshit, to the real movie news I come hear to read. I am so sick of hearing you apparently being inspired by everymotherfucker that dies in Hollywood(no matter how well or little known they are) and how emotionally crippling it is for you as if they were your own family. Most bipolar people can't even have their emotions sway this much even if their house burned down and all their children got AIDS, let alone feel they need need to cut their wrists because the DP of Lawrence of Arabia died. And don't try and bullshit me on that you really are this passionate for this all this shit. No, you say this shit to tie your own thoughts and feelings to real professionals' work and accomplishments that we come here to read about, as if your name belongs right up their on the marquee with names of people who have the talent that you don't and never will have you delusional leech. You are unimportant.John Carter's failure proves are not the demigod you think you are, where Hollywood execs come and bring their offerings of set access, swag, and money offerings so the Almighty Harry Knowles will grant them a great opening weekend, and it scares the hell out of you. A real business lost real money, in the sum of 200 million dollars, and studio heads all across the land are hearing the call that some fat sloth down in Austin, TX does not have the power to control the mighty box office beast. You are the fat kid that people hate to but have to deal with so they can use his swimming pool. Well, now those kids are growing up and buying their own houses with swimming pools. It.... Is...over. John Carter is your final illusion that you somehow matter in an industry that had to deal with your fat ass and now realizes it doesn't. So now you latch on to JC's rotting corpse shaking it as if it will come back to life and grant you more time as a Hollywood insider whose personal opinions shake the foundations of movies everywhere. I'm going to Joblo, Latino review, superherohype and staying. Least I get information without someone's egomaniacal opinions, just simple facts on upcoming movies and where I don't need to search through the tearful headlines of how the guy who ran catering on the godfather died. The one thing I will miss most that I can't get anywhere else are the talkbackers. I written a few times here and there and read some great opinions from people of like mindedness. But I'm done, the once great kingdom of AICN is under control of a delusional tyrant and I must flee. Goodbye dannygloversdickblood, goodbye creepythinmanlives, hell even goodbye to scottpilgrimfan you poor dumb bastard.goodbye to all

  • Someone at Disney clearly had a vendetta against this film and Andrew Stanton! And the popular media has all of a sudden decided it want's to report on "John Carter" now! They've taken to its dismal performance like a moth to a flame! Actively rooting for its failure like a lench mob of frothy mouthed finatics! We all saw this coming and it was Disney that made sure "John Carter" wouldn't connect. Oh they covered they butts, held up their end by spending a ton on marketing but it seemed to all be subliminally discouraging patronage! Budgets and box-office ought to be of subsidiary interest at best. It has absolutley no barring on merrit. Since when does all this "inside baseball" crap appeal more to the average pedestrian than the whether or not a film is actually worthy of their time and money? "John Carter" is worthy! Unlike its marketing, "John Carter" the film is extremely well crafted and efficiently told! Everyone here and even in the mainstream media have decided to gloat at John Carter's underperformance as if it were in any way shaped by the actually quality of the film! Everyone who had enthusaism for this project, dreaded that it's uninspired marketing would spell the franchises doom. The writing was on the wall for many months. Still to this day, the common noob has absolutley no perception whatsoever of the actual premie of "John Carter", let alone Edgar Rice Burrough's legacy on modern science fiction. Just one example was last night's Jimmy Fallon show, where he made a joke about the financial loss Disney expects to take as a result of John Carter's paltry domestic take. Fallon joked that the reason it didn't stir up more business was because it was about an American Civil War soldier on Mars! As he mentioned this fact, before even arriving to his punchline, there were audible guffaws and giggles because you could tell it was the first anyone in that audience had learned of the actual premise of "John Carter". - That's what kind of sabotage Disney wrought on this film! A film hasn't recieved this much gleeful cheer at its underperforming since "Waterworld"! But at least Waterworld's trailers were well done and informative - Twentieth Century Fox didn't conspire against inself with a baffling marketing capaign! By the way - can't we all agree now that in hindsight "Waterworld" was fairly decent? I think that consensus has slowing gained traction finally. All of a sudden eveyone's slaping themselves on the back as if they're box-office oracles or something! Glorifying themselves as if they've been grated the gift of premonition! I haven't seen the media so glad to smear and misrepresent a film and its director since Mel Gibson's "Passion Of The Christ"! Fortunately that film had a built in massive fanbase that would not be denied or swayed by the biased, deceitful conjecture of transparent ulterior agendas. But for the life of me, I don't know what ax the media should have to grind with Burroughs and Stanton? - Guess they've just have been hungry for a metaphorical trainwreck where it's not particulary frowned upon to dance upon its smoldering embers like schoolgirls playing doubledutch. And they'll, just like many here, take much pride in helping along its demise! I for one will not be a party to it. I've seen "John Carter" now three times and each time it become more rich and fulfilling. It's a truely great movie, superbly crafted on every conceivable level with a deft hand and a sure eye! Since so many here insist on giving themselve the victory clasp for predicting the inevitable, I'll make my own divination; Mark my words, in the years to come "John Carter" will become a beloved mainstay and an outright classic and half of the johnny-come-lately's prancing on its asches now, will in time pretend they were on board with its many unsung virtues from the outset.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:47 a.m. CST

    @ the founder @ blackwood @ mukhtabi @ thx1968 @ yackbacker @ ribbons

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Good to see there's still some people left here with the decency and common sense to recognize a worthy film.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:47 a.m. CST

    @ nickr - Good riddance!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

  • March 22, 2012, 1:49 a.m. CST

    Seriously, the marketing is not the problem here...

    by Motoko Kusanagi

    It's the fact that a studio like DISNEY produced this. Even the trailer looks too tame, too generic, too family friendly. Now let that film die. Maybe it'll be a big classic someday. For some.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:57 a.m. CST

    I don't know where everyone's getting "arrogant director" from?

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Stanton did his job! He asserted his vision! In earnest! It was good! Very good! - I know right; "how terribly arrogant of him!"

  • March 22, 2012, 2:06 a.m. CST

    SHould have been titles "JOHN CARTER AND A PRINCESS OF MARS".

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Just like "Indiana Jones And The..." The next film then would have naturally been titles "JOHN CARTER AND THE GODS OF MARS", follows by "JOHN CARTER AND THE WARLORDS OF MARS" and so forth and so on!

  • March 22, 2012, 2:10 a.m. CST

    I can't write properly in these little boxes!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    At least have the common courtesy to provide an edit option. This is embarrassing! I'm composing sentences over here like I'm Lenny from "Of Mice And Men"!

  • March 22, 2012, 2:10 a.m. CST

    i watched it again tonight. i now like it more than Avatar.

    by antonphd

    this would have been my favorite movie for life if i had seen it as a kid. as an adult it is definitely in my top 10 favorite films. the fact that I won't get to see what happens when John returns to Mars makes me incredibly dissapointed. when John leaps into the horde racing toward him and excersizes his inner demons of rage and pain from the loss of his family i felt the same way i felt at the end of Braveheart when the big guy throws the sword and the scotts charge the field. i understand that movies like this are not for everyone. i do wish everyone could love this movie like i do. but it's ok if they don't. but i do think it's nothing but mean spirited to kick this movie for failing at the box office or to accuse people who love it of having false motives for trying to get people to see it. i love this movie. i tell people to see it, because it makes me happy to share the things i love. that's the reason i come to aicn. to share the films i love.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:11 a.m. CST

    It really is amazing how much better this Trailer is...

    by Jay

    Than anything Disney produced. It's just such a mindfuck that a number of sites and forums chose JC, a film with some real heart and enthusiasm, to put on a pedestal as to why they hate Hollywood. And it's all because of it's marketing and budget gossip. Had this been 100 million dollar film and financed by an independent foreign group, everyone would be cheering how these non-hollywood folks showed the studios how it's done. That's exactly what happened with District 9. Not a bad film, but incredibly overrated. But it came out the same time as Transformers 2, and it was made by non-Hollywood folks with a much smaller budget. And the reviews were all too happy to point that out. JC is just at the other end of the spectrum, unfortunately.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Thats fan trailer neatly displays all that is wrong with fandom

    by dikkyboy

    Really really sad, amazed that it got posted as some kind of example of great marketing

  • March 22, 2012, 2:13 a.m. CST

    all that mumbo jumbo was terrible

    by yourSTEPDADDY

    but the video portion was a lot better than all the real trailers... still, i dont think i wouldve been interested in seeing it. and i actually got tickets to a screening but didnt go because i felt it wouldve been an overall waste of time. also, a movie should never be set on mars ever again... its a horrible, boring looking planet

  • March 22, 2012, 2:30 a.m. CST

    arrogance & the history of JC

    by rogerdodger21

    if you read the new yorker piece last fall about the making of the film, you get the sense that stanton was/is/always has been pretty arrogant. then again, james cameron is the biggest prick every to make a movie, so maybe arrogance is a necessary part of the equation for a blockbuster. truth is that the movie was just pretty good. not great, not shitty... just kinda meh in parts and then beautiful in others. as for anyone who thinks the "history" and "legacy" of john carter in this trailer could have meant anything to the success of the film, well that's just silly. i was a born and bred starlog-reading sci-fi fan since birth, and not once did i ever give a shit about john carter. it just seemed quaint and old-fashioned, and those are things that just don't sell a movie these days. i respect history in my books, but not necessarily in my blockbuster movies. yes, it's the grandaddy of so many great films, but it should have stayed that way. no one wants to see grandpa's movie when you can see the younger, sharper equivalent. give me something original that will challenge me, blow my mind, and excite my inner fanboy... not some tired hero story we've literally seen again and again.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:41 a.m. CST

    Good fan trailer — maybe I'll just watch that instead of the blu

    by Chuck_Chuckwalla

    Saw it. Not a total piece of shit that some say it is. It is CONVOLUTED. They added too much stuff to the original Princess of Mars story. Some impressive CGI here and there, though. Woola was great. And I fell in love with the chick that played Dejah (she gets my vote for Wonder Woman). Willem as Tars was inspired. Stuff that I didn't care for: The dude playing JC was just okay, I would have gone with Jackman. And say what you will about Watchmen but at least they got Mars right. What's up with Sinestro? Playing the baddie in two shitty superhero movies within the span of one year? And yeah, JC qualifies as a superhero — he inspired Supes. So, some tasty pieces of yellow corn in an otherwise stinky brown turd. The only thing more over-inflated that this picture's budget was Stanton's EGO. He controlled how it was marketed to the point it made the execs CRY. Now, get your ass back to Emeryville and give me WallE part 2 you big beautiful bastard.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:48 a.m. CST

    whoever did the marketing on that movie needs to be shot

    by technosnob

    Star trek was the hit it was in huge part because of the marketing.

  • You're sentiments about, and interpretation of "John Carter", mirror my own precisely! Of course Cameron wins on pure spectacular vision and action sequences though. "Avatar" truely is something impressive to behold. But John Carter, as a character, is a man of much more nobel spirit, natural decency, intellegence and relatable flaws and pain than Jake Sully's grunt douchebaggery in "Avatar". - The same assessment holds true when comparing the films themselves as well. "John Carter" has both more emotional resonance and spry whimsy than "Avatar". And Taylor Kitsch has far more amiable charm, stoicism and charismatic presence than Sam Worthington.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:53 a.m. CST

    I've seen ZERO advertising across London

    by zonkk_za

    I travel by the underground from Camden in the north to Tooting in the south every day and take multiple bus rides through the city. As yet, I have not seen any posters and any of the 17 tube stations I pass through each morning and night. I have not seen any banners on the sides of the London buses. But there are still loads of posters for "A Dangerous Method", "The Devil Inside", "Martha Marcy May Marlene" and loads of other small studio or indie films. There are even posters for the DVD release of that "Abduction" film. But absolutely NOTHING for "John Carter". I don't watch much TV but I cannot recall seeing any adverts on TV for the film either. When speaking to people at work when I mention how great "John Carter" was, most respond with a "What film?" or "Is that the sequel to Get Carter?" Others who have seen the previews generally have said "Doesn't tell me anything. I might just wait for the DVD release or catch it on TV" So even though there might have been a huge budget for marketing, I haven't seen any evidence of it in London.

  • Greenlight that sequel! By the time it get's made and ready for release I guarantee there will be a robust audience clamoring for it!

  • March 22, 2012, 3:10 a.m. CST

    Looking forward to the fan edit.

    by kirttrik

    Once the extended cut, and completely scenes are released, a great fan edit on the level of THE PHANTOM EDIT can be created.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:15 a.m. CST

    by Cristian

    first of all thanks harry for posting this.. in the name of all the people who grew up loving these books... again THANK YOU. i find it so strange that people have so much hate towards this movie. not only do i think that the movie was perfect but it brought to the screen an entire world that up until now i could only dream of. for some of us this is the stuff dreams are made of.. and all the haters out there must hold something dear to their hearts and i don't think that bashing a film they love and director they like .. would put a smile on their face. but that's ok. even more frustrating was reading the stuff that guy max wrote about andrew. common man.. how can you call a guy who spent his childhood drawing the characters on paper arrogant ? there's so much love poured in this it's overwhelming. and to be able to dream of this as a kid and grow up and given the opportunity to bring this story to the big screen is just plain awwwsome.. a dream came true here and nobody can take that away from Andrew Stanton PROOF, FACT: http://io9.com/5890910/michael-chabon-and-andrew-stanton-created-john-carter-fan-art-as-kids-and-here-it-is i hope Mr. Stanton can see this.. i'm almost 30 and you made me believe like anything is possible. You've succeeded in making something that all of us can only dream of doing in a lifetime. for 132 minutes i was a kid again and i thank you for that. a movie buff all the way from Romania.. ps - i cried like hell during Wall-E. it's my favourite movie:)

  • March 22, 2012, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Michael Giaccino is a sore on the face of Hollywood

    by locater16

    He's the composer version of Brett Ratner. He's never going to go away and will ruin the scores of potentially good movies for decades, thanks random person who did the music for this, you've more talent than he does at least.

  • trying to make Stanton blameless of all this fiasco is byzarre to say the least.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:31 a.m. CST

    The Elephant/Mouse in the room.

    by gotilk

    Why are people not realizing one of the real reasons the audiences didn't seek this out? The Disney name, even after all this time, is associated with children. Tron may have pulled some of them in, but that was from the purely original imagery. No way to prove it, but I'll bet you that if we could go back and remove the Disney name from the marketing, adults would have shown more interest.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:38 a.m. CST

    It couldn't be more obvious...

    by JonJonB9

    that you guys are being paid to pimp this film. I fear it is a lost cause by now, clearly your influence is meagre at best.

  • Stanton... Responsible for the marketing, responsible for the neutering of the title which is to say the removal of "of Mars", responsible for the casting of TV show actors without a big draw for the masses, responsible for the MASSIVE budget which this movie would never have reached in the first place. Responsible for an average movie, and a rotten movie on rotten tomatoes. Andrew Stanton should not have directed this film, that is a fact.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Fix the problem, not the blame. It wasn't a good film.

    by Fortunesfool

    Once the ravenous fanboys had told all the other fanboys to go an see it, there was no other buzz left. No one else cared.

  • Attention, all you loud-mouth little boys throwing tantrums because Harry has good taste in films and is unhappy that those of you with shit taste in films didn't bother to go see a great sci-fi movie -- shut up, grow up, and get lost. It was a good movie, it was well made, and it's getting praise from Harry and other folks because they have good taste in movies. If you screaming little boys don't like reading about it, here's a little tip: f*** off and go rant about how you're "too kewl to like anything" somewhere else. Half of you are from some other little fanboy sites, coming here to whine and trash-talk because you can't get as many readers on your own site. Wa-wa-wa, poor little babies. Christ almighty, grow the hell up already.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:01 a.m. CST

    this site is hilarious. IT WAS FUCKING BORING!!!!

    by gomez33

    I just don't get why this site is trying to ram this boring pile of meandering shit down our throats. If you hadn't read the material, it would make no sense, as it was, even after reading it, it made little sense. Get over it, it simply wasn't a very good film. That has fuck all to do with the marketing.

  • Any film where the hero beats the bejesus out of two space alien gorillas and then cuts the head off the bad guy in one shot is not all that terrible. The film's biggest flaws it that it's mostly exposition bomb after exposition bomb.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:30 a.m. CST

    for a big bloke

    by Mr_P

    Harry is pretty good at bending over and holding his ankles!

  • March 22, 2012, 4:35 a.m. CST

    Kitsch was a big part of the problem

    by Type 40

    I saw the trailers & although I knew who John Carter was in the books, I didn't recognise him in the guise of Taylor Kitsch. I had never seen him before then. Not a good start. Nevertheless, I did go & see the film, & yeah, Kitsch fell flat a lot. He wasn't helped by his overall look though. He looked pale, pasty & sick throughout the film in comparison to the Barsoom natives - hell, he looked sick next to the earth people. A recognisable name actor in the role who commanded the audience's respect from the get-go would have made a massive difference to this film. Put that actor front & centre in the trailers along with a few well-delivered killer lines & an action hook, & this film could have been a success.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:35 a.m. CST

    See it!

    by Chris Cuson

    I have been championing John Carter on my site as well. I loved it. I appreciate Harry and the gang championing it as well. I hate seeing a good film thrown under the bus, as this one clearly was. www.bizzam.wordpress.com

  • March 22, 2012, 4:35 a.m. CST

    AICN please stop...

    by JohnCarters PaleBloatedCorpse

    I can't take it any more - I've passed through mortis and now I'm filling up with decomposition gases - if you keep poking and fingering me I'm going to pop and leak evil smelling fluid all over the moive going public. Please leave me to rot in peace

  • March 22, 2012, 4:44 a.m. CST

    Ewww thanks for that mental image JCPBC

    by nobbythehappyelf

    Still boycotting this movie due to the shameless shilling going on here. I really dont care if Goofy's Codpiece (Previously known as Beaks) blames me for the cancellation of all future SciFi flicks either. However as promised - I am reading a Princess of Mars and I've paid for a copy of the 2009 film of the same name. I'm reading the pulp novel first - it's quite good fun and passes the time when squeezing out a massive shit. I agree with the other UK poster who lives in London - i've seen ONE piece of advertising at Euston station on the video boards which last night had been replaced with a vid clip of Disney losing $200 plus on this failure! I've not seen a single poster on the tube or TV spot. Fail Fail Fail. Harry - isn't it time that you suffered from a fatal Cheetos over dose yet?

  • March 22, 2012, 4:54 a.m. CST

    the blame

    by Vince

    it's easy to, in hindsight, apportion blame. Disney have a track record of going in with all guns blazing, but totally missing the mark. This could only happen via studio producers. they pull the strings, and they are largely responsible for the look and feel of a film. To blame Stanton soley is a bit unfair. Having said that, whoever art directed this, stanton surely was one of the many, got it very wrong. With the exception of the ships, It's visually very pedestrian, and let's face it Mars looks dull and derivative. It's no use crying that Lucas plundered Carter for his star wars imagery, that's the way history is. In this instance, the carter look should have been modified to take it away from Tattooine. It should have been a wild pulp sci fi mars, full of crazy rock towers and alien flora, instead of a failthful recreation of Utah. The creatures are too cartoony, Stanton ( pixar) appear to be the problem here. In a post avatar world, the fx are dated. the fact that carter took so long to come to fruition on screen is because it's so very dificult to adapt well. cudos for getting it done, but criticism is just for failing to get it right. promotion wasn't the problem. they spent 100 mill on that!

  • CLOWNSHOES!!!!!!!!!

  • March 22, 2012, 5:11 a.m. CST

    John Cratered On Mars

    by tailhook

    Take any movie and you'll have some segment of people who love it unabashedly, regardless of merit. The simple fact is that wasn't the majority of the viewing audience, or even a fairly large minority, didn't. The masses simply did not show up and it didn't have squat to do with marketing. It starred unknowns and was directed by a live-action first-time director nobody had heard of with material nobody was familiar with. Brad Bird couldn't have saved it. He was quite smart and teamed up with Tom Cruise and Jeremy Renner in a well-known franchise sequel as his first outing. Thats all you got to say and a halfway decent movie will gross $700 billion. The simple fact is there is a reason James Cameron is James Cameron. And Andrew Stanton, you're no James Cameron.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:12 a.m. CST

    heh.. meant $700 million...

    by tailhook

    my bad.

  • Or Kerry Conran. Or Zach Snyder. Anyone with visual mastery. Anyone willing to go full-Frazetta mode. I want to see other Barsoom movies. Fanboy's dreams...

  • March 22, 2012, 5:30 a.m. CST

    Never too late...

    by rguerr2

    Love this trailer and I agree it was not marketed right. As soon as I heard that Disney was going to do this movie I read the first two books. Loved them and this trailer shows what it’s all about. Most folks, and seems critics, never heard of these stories so when they see it on screen now they think they are copying from some else (i.e. Avatar) but as the trailer shows those folks were inspired by ERB. The movie was beautifully done and the dialogue as one comment here remarks as being bad, matches the books to the most part. I am also bothered how most take domestic money as being important these days. I look at world box office. We are a world community now and we are only a small percentage. When we look at box office we should see the full picture. Avatar did most of its monies overseas, 72% worth while J Carter is also doing mostly overseas currently 70%. I say let’s see what happens.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:38 a.m. CST

    Plants vs Zombies in here

    by nobbythehappyelf

    rguerr2 I have difficulty deciding which you are

  • March 22, 2012, 6:16 a.m. CST

    Another day on Aint It Carter News.

    by JohnWayneWasGay

    Enough already,nobody wants to watch this movie.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:25 a.m. CST

    Loved It

    by nemov

    ...but not knowing anything about the movie going in I was struck at how terrible the marketing was. The trailers made the film like like a family friendly version of Conan the Barbarian in space. I only went to the movie because I trusted a handful of reviewers who loved the film. It's difficult to stop the herd once it gets going. I'm reminded of Weezer's album Pinkerton that was received as a flop when it came out. It was so bad the band didn't play any songs on the album for over ten years. The album is considered a classic now. When it comes to films though there's no way back.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:25 a.m. CST

    I'd choose John Carter over Avatar any day

    by Charles Calthrop

    I'm bummed that Cameron's strip-mining of Burroughs came out first and was able to capitalize on the advent of modern 3D. I found John Carter vastly more entertaining. I'm still shaking my head at this Bizarro World scenario where Avatar made $1 billion and John Carter will go down as a huge failure. Here's hoping for a deluxe Blu-ray box set to take the sting out of it.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:32 a.m. CST

    charles calthrop

    by kwisatzhaderach

    If you chose John Carter over Avatar then you know nothing of the art of filmmaking. Poor you, a heavy burden to be going through life with.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:33 a.m. CST

    Box Office John Carter

    by Leo Morgenthau

    May I draw your attention to the fact that the movie seems to make a lot more money overseas: Cume as of today: Domestic: $55,539,194 30.6% + Foreign: $126,100,000 69.4% = Worldwide: $181,639,194 Which makes Disney's claim of a loss of ca. 200 Mio. $ seem somewhat exaggerated.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Review does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    Harry says *Well, the film that ends with Directed by Andrew Stanton... that film is pretty damn terrific. I absolutely hang this terrible performance on the marketing of the film.* So, Harry - nothing at all to do with the reviews then?? When are you going to accept that it wasnt just the fault of the marketing?? Los Angeles TimesReviewed by: Betsy SharkeyMar 8, 201240 That John Carter is so hit and miss, and miss, and miss is unfortunate on any number of levels. Time Out New YorkReviewed by: Keith UhlichMar 8, 201240 Aside from a few inspired vistas and alien life-forms (the Road Runner–fast red planet dog Woola is sure to sell a bazillion action figures), John Carter is as deadly dull as its basso-voiced, beefcake slab of a star, Taylor Kitsch. VarietyReviewed by: Peter DebrugeMar 6, 201240 Stanton has been given the resources to create an expansive, expensive world, but lacks the instincts to direct live-action, a limitation that shows most in the performances. Bare of chest and fair of feature, Kitsch doesn't exhibit enough charisma to carry a project of this scale. New York PostReviewed by: Lou LumenickMar 9, 201225 Interminably long, dull and incomprehensible, John Carter evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years without having any real personality of its own. Washington PostReviewed by: Ann HornadayMar 8, 201225 Even Strong's best efforts can't save John Carter from collapsing in on itself like a dead star. San Francisco ChronicleReviewed by: Mick LaSalleMar 8, 201225 The opening to John Carter is a dud, a battle between airships made of woven bamboo, bursting into computer-generated flame over a sandy terrain. There's nothing to see, nothing to think about, nothing to care about, and nothing to feel, just emptiness. The emptiness is never filled over the course of 132 long, barren minutes. Entertainment WeeklyReviewed by: Owen GleibermanMar 7, 201225 Nothing in John Carter really works, since everything in the movie has been done so many times before, and so much better. The GuardianReviewed by: Peter BradshawMar 18, 201220 Dejah, with her seen-it-all-before smirk, is not a very sympathetic heroine, and Kitsch is stolid and dull. And as for the red planet, the answer to David Bowie's famous question is no. What a sadd'ning bore it is. Tampa Bay TimesReviewed by: Steve PersallMar 7, 201216 Most annoying is John Carter's scarcity of action. This much buck should buy more bang. Slant MagazineReviewed by: Jaime N. ChristleyMar 6, 201212 As film theorist Siegfried Kracauer once wrote, to paraphrase, art often blooms in the most hostile soil. No such luck here.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:34 a.m. CST

    Yes, this bizarro world scenario...

    by kwisatzhaderach

    ...where a super-talented and self-taught filmmaker like James Cameron takes audiences on an amazing journey and gets $2bn box office and a moderately talented animator makes an artistically empty and dramatically dead film which turns out to be a bomb. What a bizarro world we live in....

  • March 22, 2012, 6:35 a.m. CST

    I'll take the books any day.

    by Scarecrow237

    I've been a fan of the books since I discovered them 30 years ago. My wife has never read the books, and had never heard of John Carter. We both like science fiction and saw this movie. WE BOTH HATED IT. It wasn't marketing that killed this movie, it was writing, directing, shooting, design, acting, special effects... Someday someone will make a version of this story that is watchable. Stanton did not.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:36 a.m. CST

    leom

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Exhibitors take half the money. Do the math.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Owen Gleiberman was spot on:

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Nothing in John Carter really works, since everything in the movie has been done so many times before, and so much better.

  • It confuses moviegoers.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:47 a.m. CST

    sevenkdr

    by kwisatzhaderach

    I think most audiences were confused as to why Taylor Kitsch had replaced Noah Wyle, and why he was no longer in County General but standing around a bit of desert pretending to be Mars.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:56 a.m. CST

    please, please, please....

    by Pau

    ... just let it die already. I know Disney paid you big money, but it's just enough.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:59 a.m. CST

    Can't wait for the blu ray

    by barnaby jones

  • March 22, 2012, 7 a.m. CST

    Time to stop trying to revive this rotting corpse of a movie.

    by vorlonkosh

    It's dead, good riddance, quit wasting bandwidth that can be applied to more worthy films that are up and coming.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:11 a.m. CST

    definatly a better trailer then the crap Disney conjured up.

    by AsimovLives

  • March 22, 2012, 7:18 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I saw it.

    by Dollar Bird

    In 3D in a fairly empty theater in the middle-of-nowhere Slovakia. I liked it. I thought I might, as I like the books and Stanton's previous work, but you never know. It's not perfect, but few films are (I can think of maybe 3 that are quite close). The flaws? Although Giacchino made nice main theme, his music never really lifted me. He tries very hard to John Williams it up, but he just can't write memorable music. Mood-fitting, yes. Memorable, not really. Also, the characters kind run around all over the place, back and forth, and the film took a while to get going. But, once it did, I really liked it. For me, there was more to like than dislike in the film. I actually thought Carter was a good character, a little rounder than in the books. Dejah Thoris worked here, too. In the novels I just remembr her as a damsel in distress; the film gave her a bit more to do. And Miss Collins was appropriately beautiful. The Tharks were good. I wish Tars Tarkas was given more to do, since he always was my favorite character in the books. The flying ships were fantastic. The action pretty clear to follow and exciting enough to make me sit up. In the end, it was just a good, old-fashioned adventure film. If I was 8, it would be my favorite movie. I'm a bit sad that it never found an audience mainly because I am curious about where Stanton and company would have gone with the sequel. But, it's easier to say something bad than good, and shadenfreunde runs deep these days. Alas.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:20 a.m. CST

    Give up Harry, it's over.

    by james_cameron_raped_my_childhood

    You've can rant about the injustice, about how it's the most influential book ever published, everyone who's ever lived ripped it off, Lucas ripped it off, etc, but audiences don't care. They felt it had all been done before, to them it's AOTC meets Avatar on Mars meets Conan. Sad thing is these same people will turn out en masse to see Transformers 4.

  • First of all, the first 30 seconds will turn off 90% of the movie audiences. The morons. They don't care about sci-fi or origins or books or any shit like that. They are idiots. So just there you fuck it up. And then, it's selling itself under that "it's epic and important" premise and keeps shoving thr most uninteresting images on screen for WAY too long. No pacing, no plot, nothing to make it interesting. It's just "dude, it's super sci fi, it's important, and here are two minutes of badly paced cut scenes from the movie to convince you". Want to save the movie? Drop the "Disney" label and change the title to "John Carter from Mars".

  • It's really jacked up, but Disney did an extremely piss poor job in marketing it. And I'm sorry I wasn't feeling Taylor Kitsch they should've had someone a little more substanial when dealing with an unknown story to the general public like this. It's actually kind of sad especially because Avatar sucked so bad to me, yet people lined up in droves to see it's pointless 3D boring as hell story, and chick flick masquerading as an action movie.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:40 a.m. CST

    Definitely going to rent this one...

    by ScriptCunt

    And that "awesome" trailer is a pretty weak bit of student project editing.

  • The Diz definately needed to market it better.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:45 a.m. CST

    I also think Taylor Kitsch is an unlucky bastard

    by james_cameron_raped_my_childhood

    From Carter to Battleship. The one two punch from hell. Career about to get flushed down the toilet.

  • Any time a 250 million film needs 100 million in marketing it's a sign that not even the producers think the product is good enough to attract the audience. By the way, how much of those 100 M did they pay AICN to hype and promote this shitty CGI ''Avatar-meets-Flash Gordon'' movie EVEN AFTER IT'S BEEN PROVED IT IS AN EPIC FLOP???? There can be no doubt John Carter will go down in history as a box office bomb.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:53 a.m. CST

    starwarsredux I agree about too much,too fast visually

    by Chain

    I had a big problem with the Transformers movies because of this very problem. It all blurs into one huge cacophony of images that can't be assimilated before they're gone.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:01 a.m. CST

    If I worked for AICN..

    by cookylamoo

    I wouldn't be able to resist running article after article about John carter just to piss these rude assholes off.

  • Sure, if you ignore the authors who had been doing it **for donkey's years** by that point. Burroughs didn't invent the "modern science-fiction" equivalent of the wheel; "modern science-fiction" was around before Burroughs was old enough to pick up his first pen. The genre revisionism needs to stop before it becomes accepted knowledge by those who don't know any better. Like Harry. Like whoever made this beige-tastic trailer. 'John Carter', aka the modern science-fiction saga that was **too afraid or too ashamed** to let people know it was science fiction. Until it was too late. Oops.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:14 a.m. CST

    Saw it before anyone in 3D IMAX in an empty theater.

    by UltraTron

    Totally unsatisfying on the whole. Some great parts. Could have been fixed with a few major changes. Officially hate it now because of this one last mention of it. Yep. Just because you mentioned it again I now hate it.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:15 a.m. CST

    The desolate beige deserts killed this film...

    by Harlock999

    ...removing any sense of "new" and "adventurous." Instead, the southwestern desert scenes reminded me of a really boring vacation or a horror-filled breakdown on the side of the road. This may sound stupid, but a red tint to both the desert and sky may have saved this flick. I mean, even the GREEN aliens looked beige most of the time. John Carter, while a decent film, was - in no way - what I imagined while reading Burroughs' Mars books back in the day. Those books transported me to a CRAZY alien Mars. Not Nevada.

  • The fact that this is set on mars which is a planet with no atmo and has no intelligent life is the reason this bombed well that and the fact that the movie sucked giant white ape nuts.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    The blu-ray marketing strategy

    by UltraTron

    will mirror The Thing(2011). Won't be available to rent on Netflix for a while to force some people to buy it. Maybe a longer cut could make it better but one it's biggest problems is it has the worst costumes since Beast Master. We're talking beast master guys. You can easily say that everything from flash Gordon to Krull has better costumes.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:22 a.m. CST

    shut up. it wasn't that good.

    by noiretblanc

    not that bad, but not that good.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:37 a.m. CST

    John Carter FTW

    by DocPazuzu

    No, there was nothing visible on screen that could justify 250 mill. Nothing. Yes, there were flaws and bumps and bruises throughout the film. Yes, there were a lot of creative and aesthetic choices which I didn't like. Yes, the title is horrible. Yes, the marketing was hideously misjudged and executed. No, it isn't the new Star Wars -- whether you think that's a good thing or not. Still, I loved John Carter. Show me one single live-action sci-fi adventure movie over the past ten years that had more heart and spirit than John Carter has. If your heart didn't soar when Carter first leapt into action to save the princess and fuck up the Zodangan navy, then you're dead inside. I'd rather spend my money on flawed, unpolished, thrilling gambles than on shiny, perfectly formed, creatively bankrupt turdspools. In fact, I'll be buying the biggest, fattest blu-ray set available once they hit the market. Oh, and for all his bluster and waving of spreadsheets, revenge_of_fett actually hasn't seen the movie. He's an obnoxious, bean-counting cunt with the cookie-cutter movie taste of a room full of stoned high school focus group retards. And he didn't understand the title Attack The Block.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:40 a.m. CST

    Enjoyed it meself.

    by babbune

    Whilst handicapped by "seen it before" moments (for obvious reasons) and a lack of variety on locations, I was pretty well entertained by the movie. Better than I thought it was going to be and would have no issues watching a sequel. I wonder what the director could do with a Star Wars movie...hmmmm...(awaits fanboy backlash)......

  • March 22, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu: 1 over the last 10 years? Avatar.

    by UltraTron

    Avatar floors every fucking movie made in the last 10 years. Just wipes it's ass with them all.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    ultratron

    by DocPazuzu

    I did (and do) enjoy Avatar but there wasn't that much heart in it. Yes, the final battle was awesome, but it didn't give me the pulpy thrills JC did. Avatar was so beautiful to watch that it almost distracted from the action at times.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    John Carter < Avatar < The Last Circus

    by Joe Plumber

    You know it's true.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST

    Harry, you should be well past the denial stage by now

    by Joe Plumber

    It ain't healthy to be so delusional.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:56 a.m. CST

    So, because the source material is great and influential...

    by dozzie81

    ...we're meant to give the movie a free pass. That's the message here right? Just like how the original Psycho is great so we should all champion the remake, and same with Star Wars prequels?

  • March 22, 2012, 9:01 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu:

    by UltraTron

    I to received some of these pulpy thrills you describe. I really cheered when he brought down that whole Thark army by himself. But there was nobody in the theater so I didn't care who would hear me.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:03 a.m. CST

    Vern tells it like it is.

    by DocPazuzu

    http://outlawvern.com/2012/03/13/john-carter/

  • March 22, 2012, 9:04 a.m. CST

    ultratron, that was the best scene in the movie

    by Joe Plumber

    It needed more of that, imo.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:13 a.m. CST

    There is a very large contingency of geeks that loved this movie

    by D.Vader

    I don't understand why many of those that disliked the movie feel the need to lie and spin the story to mislead and suggest that everyone hated the movie when that's simply not true. What do these guys get out of that kind of behavior?

  • March 22, 2012, 9:13 a.m. CST

    leom ...I don't have time to explain fully...

    by conspiracy

    but your assumptions about box office v. cost are wrong...it isn't anywhere near as simple as Movie cost $100...movie made $150...therefore movie made $50. Let's just say that Disney is likely UNDER REPORTING the true value of the write down as a way to calm investors...that they'd admit to such a high figure in the first place is telling. John Carter...if the $250M production cost, and $100M marketing costs are valid...would have needed to make around $550-600 just to break even over the planned ROI timeline. And Never, EVER count foreign box office unless you are a marketing agent looking for lead copy...between the exchange rates,fees from banks, distributor fee's, foreign government rules regarding transference of capital from their shores, etc....foreign box office can take months or years to actually hit the books...and it is usually much MUCH less than the box office numbers would suggest.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:15 a.m. CST

    This trailer sucks

    by maverick2484

    And the movie itself was incredibly mediocre, which, as many others have now pointed out, is the real reason it bombed. I've never read a John Carter book, but I love sci-fi and fantasy as much as the next fanboy, and I went into the flick with a totally open mind and no preconceived notions about the plot or the characters. About halfway through I started checking my watch every 15 mins or so. I couldn't tell you a unique thing about any of the characters other than Carter himself, I felt totally uninvested in the stakes of the film. Who were those four armed guys? Tharks? Thraks? Does anyone give a fuck? And why is McNulty in this movie and what's with that bracelet that shoots blue? Oh, here's Mark Strong playing a bad guy, what a fucking surprise. Just a muddled mess of a film with periodic bursts of action followed by long periods of nothing interesting happening. It felt stiched together out of familiar scenes from better movies. There's a reason why a film of this scale came out in March instead of the summer. This was a straight up B-level blockbuster on par Battle LA and Clash of the Titans. The notion that audiences would have been more receptive to a mediocre movie if the history of the source material had been crammed down their throat is so completely condescending. Audiences aren't "wrong" for dismissing John Carter - good, mainstream films find an audience, and this film simply doesn't offer anything that audiences haven't already seen a better version of somewhere else.

  • Guy's twin brother dies. Turns out his twin was part of a science team who studies an alien civilization on a distant planet. The science team is funded by the corporation that is mining the planet. The science team is just there to clear out the indigenous population to make way for strip mining. Guy befriends native population and eventually helps them overthrow the invaders. This story is told through the use of the most advanced technology ever utilized to create moving images. It uses some devices that are more advanced and intelligent than all other films in history. The placement of human consciousness in a cloned alien body for example. The back-story of a school where humans teach the indigenous population English to facilitate their removal from areas of mining interest. Yeah when you break avatar down it's perhaps the most intelligent thing hollywood has ever attempted. You can rattle your Inception cage. That was an intelligent movie. But was it as satisfying as Avatar? Before inception and avatar I have to go back to Altered States and Solaris to find a smart sci-fi screenplay to put up against these.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:17 a.m. CST

    We're still talking about this?

    by Father

    The film failed at the box office and got a mixed response from critics . There are better films on to come - move the fuck on, man.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:19 a.m. CST

    TRON and The Black Hole weren't hits when they were released.

    by Royston Lodge

    If the movie's good, it'll find an audience.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:23 a.m. CST

    The Mondo poster should have been the teaser

    by Arteska

    Had they led with that approach instead of the Powerade one early WOM would have at least had some grist. As for this trailer its tone and approach is great but it's also amateurish - particularly with how it opens with all the text. There are ways of communicating the same info differently but as I said putting this info up front would have been smarter than hiding from it as they did. But yeah conceptually it's more inspired than what they threw out. The Super Bowl spot in particular is one of the most stupefying movie marketing surrenders I have ever seen.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:24 a.m. CST

    ultratron at it's core Avatar is a Dance with Wolves/Pocahontas story

    by Joe Plumber

    Cameron makes no attempt to conceal the aliens as anything other than thinly veiled Native Americans. I do appreciate the anti-corporate/big oil message though. We need more of that now. Greedy bastards!

  • Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon= visual images instantly ingrained in minds everywhere. That's why they never made Carter back then. Buck and Flash were already a part of the visual medium. First come. First serve. People knew flash and buck more then. They know em more now. The power of comics.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:31 a.m. CST

    cotton_mcknight:

    by UltraTron

    Glad I haven't seen any of those other movies you speak of because I fucking loved Avatar. Sounds like you had it spoiled for you by those other movies.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:31 a.m. CST

    Ignorance is bliss

    by UltraTron

  • March 22, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Stanton was responsible for the ABYSMAL trailers and posters...

    by knowthyself

    so..yeah it's all his fault.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST

    what was done right, what was done wrong

    by j_difool

    it's easy to think you know it all. i worked in theatrical marketing for 9 years. this trailer would never pass muster. the dude picked a lot of wrong shots. there's no excitement in this thing. it's poorly edited. fact. what he got right, and what some very highly paid Disney marketing execs got wrong, was the concept of "legacy." this totally taps into the core audience and generates curiosity outside the core audience. all that bit about inspiring James Cameron and Jane Goodall.... Disney totally fucked up on that. And this dude got it 100 per cent right. that said, and I must disclose here that i have not seen the film -- a lot of this footage looks pretty shitty. it looks like a screaming CGI shitfest. wanky. craptastic. lame. it might play great in context, because the characters might be fantastic and it might totally absorb you so you forget, but as footage, it looks like the worst kind of B-movie shit garbage on the level of Laserblast (which was great, but not $200mil great). it does not look like it would inspire anyone, least of all Jane Goodall. and since we're on the subject, this lead actor looks terrible. is he any good? he looks miscast and totally out of place.

  • Can't wait for Avatar 2

  • March 22, 2012, 9:37 a.m. CST

    So like the title of the movie is John Carter of Mars.

    by UltraTron

    In the theater that is the title that comes on the screen. So I guess since everyone is still calling it John Carter that the ads are to be considered the actual work itself?

  • March 22, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST

    When it plays on Disney channel kids will call it by it's title.

    by UltraTron

    They will say I want to watch John Carter of Mars. Kids know how to read

  • March 22, 2012, 9:39 a.m. CST

    WHEN YOU KEEP SAYING "FACT!" ALL THE TIME

    by doom master

    IT BECOMES LESS FACT AND MORE FICTION....

  • March 22, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Royston Lodge, saying that TRON and BLACK HOLE werent hits ergo JOHN CARTER will somehow someday be regarded as a classic... it's just... irrational and perhaps even delusional. Mr Beaks wrote a big article about it where he compared JOHN CARTER's box office performance to BLADE RUNNER. Yes... TO BLADE RUNNER!! Look, there's a difference between films that arent hits and films that are bombs. JOHN CARTER is a bomb. CNN had it as one of the top 5 biggest bombs in the entire history of cinema (adjusted for inflation CLEOPATRA still holds the title of biggest money loser). Comparing JOHN CARTER to TRON or BLADE RUNNER... it's like your skydiving without a parachute and clutching at straws. It's only going to end in one outcome. Splat!

  • March 22, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    Ultratron

    by Kill List Hammertime

    Not trolling, but don't forget Moon. One of the best sci fi scripts around.

  • .....one: Disney should have done a lot more research into reactions to this movie before they filmed a single scene. It's no good saying 'yeah, but John Carter did it all first' after the poor reaction to the 1st trailer. Joe Blow going out for a pizza and a movie ain't interested in the geek blurb about Mars or how the story was written 100 odd years ago; we live in an age of dumb shit blockbusters like Transformers and Avatar, mister avaerage just wants a couple of hours away from it all. If they see a movie that looks like Avatar and AOTC they'll say so. TWO: The poor director was in way over his head, for a project of this scale Disney should of gone to a Cameron size director, but Disney chose cheap over chops, like marvel do. The movie sagged badly and should have been cut better, far too much gibberish talk for the audience to relate or invest in, and a bad choice of lead actor. THREE: Terrible marketing and promotion with Disney unsure as to what type of movie this was and how to offer it. FOUR: just one word; Disney. They just have themselves to blame, all this bollox about bad reactions and negative comments, if you make a good movie people will go and see it. Pretty simple math Bob. Like i said JC isn't a bad movie, better than last years dismal GL, but jesus christ! over 200 million dollars spent!! How the fuck can you spend that much money and NOT make something awesome is beyond me!! How they think Harry Knowles will influence a few million people to go see it is yet more evidence of the total fail this movie attracts like a magnet.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    Kitchs also played Gambit in WOLVERINE

    by doom master

    NEVAR FORGET

  • March 22, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    15-20 years from now

    by DocPazuzu

    John Carter will have been reevaluated and considered a minor genre classic. I guaran-goddamn-tee it.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:04 a.m. CST

    Maybe there's a future for Stanton in 3D cartoon gay porn...

    by mdk

    ...No? Well, I guess he's "Cimino'd" then. Don't let Hollywood's door hit you in the ass, Andy!

  • March 22, 2012, 10:05 a.m. CST

    15 - 20 years from now this site will still be putting up articles about it.

    by Kill List Hammertime

  • March 22, 2012, 10:14 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    docpazuzu, yes in 20 years time i'm sure JOHN CARTER will be spoken of in the same hallowed tones of 10,000 BC and PRINCE OF PERSIA.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:23 a.m. CST

    :)

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    Yes, this amateur trailer has the right idea. Yes, the marketing for this film was terrible. The international trailer was a bit better. Oh hey, look, it's doing better in foreign markets. The film itself is still mediocre. It has moments of greatness and is weighed down by many problems. I agree 100% with canned_dirty_ape's criticisms.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    cobra-kai

    by DocPazuzu

    I'd file those two movies under the category highly polished, deep mahogany shiny pieces of shit. John Carter isn't at all the same type of by-the-numbers effort. It's lumpier and more flawed but still has much more going for it in terms of heart and thrills. No, John Carter will find its legs in the long run whereas those other two will not.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Useless Sequels

    by Dr 13

    There's so many useless sequels: The Hangover part 2, next will come Grownups 2. Movies that either ruined to first one, or the first one wasn't even good, but because it made some money, they are so greedy they have to crank out another one. John Carter more than any other movie I can think of should have a sequel, but this is likely impossible. If the marketing was better it could have gotten over the hurdle. It wouldn't have been "The Hunger Games" but it could have made a profit.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST

    Don't worry, in 15-20 yrs this site will still be running articles about it.

    by Kill List Hammertime

  • March 22, 2012, 10:35 a.m. CST

    Fucking stupid fucking site making me double post. Aaaaarrgghh!

    by Kill List Hammertime

  • March 22, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    It's nice but...

    by Tom Fremgen

    The movie is still flawed, which is killing the reviews. I don't think the movie is bad, but it's just almost, nearly good. As other have mentioned the movie needed: -Better script -Name actor -(and) better marketing I do like how this trailer explains why this story is important. I think reviews would response to that- mind you the movie would still have to be better.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Big budget sci-fi movies bomb all the time....

    by cookylamoo

    At least once a year someone spends 200 million and nobody shows up.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Doc, i'd file them under that category too. To be honest I haven't seen JOHN CARTER yet but I will definitely be excited to rent it when it comes out a few months from now. The overwhelming reaction about the films quality seems to be mixed and leaning toward negative, but a few talkbackers whom I trust (such as yourself and D.Vader) have really enjoyed it so I retain a glimmer of hope that I might too. Anyway, lets reconvene in 2032 and see if your prediction that its become a cult fave is true!

  • March 22, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    I agree with marketing guy from above

    by Himbo

    The trailer didn't do much for me. As they say: Show don't tell. That said, I see many talkbackers above talking about how they couldn't get interested to see the movie, which is kind of a QED on the wrongness of the marketing for this movie. Opinions can (and do) vary on the quality of the film. Geeks can vary. We love not wisely but too well. And we hate... and we hate the things we should love sometimes. But damn near anybody writing on this board should have wanted to see the movie. Hell, I think you all should go ASAP. I loved it, though it had it's problems. And I loved the whole of it more than I loved the 10 minutes of Avatar that I caught on HBO. I didn't know what to expect. I went to a 10am 2d showing and paid $6. I didn't check my watch once. When it was over, I said "WOW!". And I am saddened that I will not get to see a sequel. I am considering seeing it again in 3d. A friend saw it 3d IMAX and had to pay $20 and did not like it. But we both saw it... but we are older than most of you. I saw it in spite of marketing. But I'll tell you this: if you suffered through any of the Pirates of the Carribean sequels, you owe it to yourself to see John Carter of Mars. I think I actually enjoyed it more than Pirates1.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Everybody should go watch the Tracy Lords version.

    by cookylamoo

    It stays closer to the book and it didn't cost 250 million. The guy in it is no worse than Kitsch and frankly I think Tracy Lords is hotter.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    There's never been a proper Tarzan movie either.

    by cookylamoo

    I can just see Tarzan, after the death of his ape mother shooting black Africans with arrows or pulling them into trees and ripping their throats out. Not because he's a racist, but because he considers them to be another species.

  • Because that's actually an interesting title. They fuckin blew chunks on the marketing.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Fuck yes! That trailer is incredible!

    by Raptor Jesus

    You've got to SELL IT and that trailer does just that.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    By far the best John Carter trailer

    by Jackson

  • March 22, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    Maybe they thought it was a movie about Jimmy Carter??

    by Samuel Fulmer

  • I'm gonna screw my family and friends and call Chris Hardwick and tell him his days are numbered because I'm the new face of Geeks on the Internet! He can have my old room back here in Louisville! Harry, you've created a monster. Who do you think you are? I am! Seriously, I really liked "John Carter," and there were moments when I felt like I was watching a new Ray Harryhausen movie. Also, I haven't laughed quite as hard in a fantasy film in a long time as I did during the scene early on when John Carter is captured as a deserter and quickly escapes by jumping through the window--MULTIPLE TIMES! Great editing in that sequence! It really set up John Carter as a single minded, determined and capable individual while making him rougishly likeable.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    Get the fuck over it.

    by Joe Jones

    It bombed, and it bombed in truly epic, undeniable fashion. This site is just not the taste-maker is once was. The reasons are known by all. The point is: Too fucking bad. Get over it. You were not heard. No one gives a fuck about John Carter. Maybe the rest of mainstream society just isn't in tune with your superior taste? LOL. Next bomb? Avengers, and that one will sting even more, won't it, boys? The end is near. Nolan will take it out on a high note, but it's all downhill from there. Next we get the same Spiderman movie we've already seen only this time he fights a big, rubber komodo dragon, the same Superman we've already seen (with the same bads), followed by Fantastic Four story we all know, followed by Iron Man at Christmas, and more dweeby comic book movies until they lose enough money to get the point. We've over it. Stop telling the same fucking 50 year old stories every 5-10 years and give us something new.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Hmmmmm.. I actually thought it was good.

    by MJAYACE

    The only part that I didn't like was the "humans" on Mars reminded me for some reason of a cross between Romans and the Hawk people from Flash Gordon 1980.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:30 a.m. CST

    And one more thing: The sequel to Serenity is coming any day now...

    by Joe Jones

    ...srsly, wait for it.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    Yep, that's how they should've sold it. But they DIDN'T. They just DIDN'T.

    by BurnHollywood

    Way to go, overpaid ad exec douchebags.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Sometimes things get past the sell date

    by Samuel Fulmer

    If this came out in 1960 it would've been compared to the old serials, but still could've been something. Coming out almost 50 years later and after almost 30 years of non-stop canabalization of many of the ideas in John Carter, it had no choice but to be dead on arrival unless...unless it was spearheaded by a truly visionary director who really could put a unique modern spin on the material. Instead you just get updated effects and 3-D for something that is more or less a story that's been told a billion times in recent years (most noteably the highest grossing film ever Avatar). You had to have people behing the project that could bring something truly unique to the project to make it stand out, but that was not the case.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    I haven't and won't see John Carter.

    by hallmitchell

    I will say that trailer is stacks better than the Disney trailer.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    title and trailer

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    Whoever came up with the idea and whoever agreed it was good, to remove "OF MARS" from the title, should indeed be fired. "JOHN CARTER" sounds like a George Clooney as average guy snoozefest flick that gets buzz around awards time but that few people actually see or enjoy. Regarding this trailer, it had its moments, but yeah, less is more, it went on far too long, showed too much (remember how first The Phantom Menace trailer actually made the film look interesting.) And also, in regards to the assumed weaknesses of the film that this trailer only emphasizes, the male and female leads look totally uninteresting and bland. CGI aliens are really nothing new these days either. There's really nothing to pull a JC newbie like me into the theater. And yes, despite Harry and countless others here coming out of the woodwork proclaiming how JC of M is the seed that sprouted some ideas of Star Wars etc. etc., that fact doesn't make it better than all the things that came after, or more enticing to the public. For the general public, this is "been there, done that", and at least, at the very very least, Attack of The Clones for example had far more interesting leads like MacGregor and Portman, even if their performances were ultimately negligible. Of course there are LOTR (and especially, Peter Jackson) detractors out there, but there's an example where Tolkien as far as I'm concerned basically created the fantasy genre and everything since has leaned so heavily on what he created. And there were plenty of fantasy films with wizards and goblins etc. before PJ's adaptation. And yet, PJ's adaptation still came out and absolutely killed at the box office, because he had a great story, great leads, great FX, great dynamism and colors, the essential poetry of Tolkien, great music, etc. etc. If JC of Mars couldn't do that, if it couldn't turn people on and get them in the seats, then the flaws go beyond marketing, into casting, and possibly even story.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    No matter how many times you repackage a turd... It's still a turd.

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 22, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    You're in loser denial

    by Patch

    LIVE IN THE NOW! I haven't gotten around to seeing this yet and I will at some point but you've really got to let this go...

  • March 22, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    When i saw the first Disney sanctioned trailer.

    by hallmitchell

    I called flop of gigantic proportions. Lead actor looked like a Calvin Klein model. Fake looking CGI everywhere. Disney and Andrew Stanton didn't listen to the fans.

  • The only reason the crap makes money is because parents use it to babysit their kids. That's it. It isn't like Disney shit sells based on it's artistic viability or merit. We have been shown... Time and again... That no matter what... If you make a SHIT FEST and sell it to kids... Families will make it a #1 hit. Look at THE LORAX. The problem with John Carter is it's budget first off. $250 for a shit fest is fucking offensive. It is impossible to make a decent film under the Disney label. There are simply too many limitations. So just keep it to what it is and make cheap, crappy garbage for kids. That's all it will ever be. When you try to bring grown ups to kiddie fare for $250 million it just backfires and neither come. It's too adult for kids but too kiddie for adults. NO ONE WANTS TO SEE THAT. AND HOW THE FUCK DID PROMETHEUS ONLY GET $100-$150 MILLION?!?!? I bet it looks 100% more expensive and awesome than anything Disney has ever done. Money means nothing. Get a good director like Ridley Scott and the film will be good, regardless of cost. But of course... Ridley would never sign on to a Disney shit fest because he's better than that. Disney doesn't get "good" directors. They get politically correct assholes who churn out mindless kiddie fare.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    Calling the movie...

    by pumaman

    Calling it " John carter" and NOT calling it 'John Carter of Mars' is a damn good reason why most people missed this movie at the theatres...

  • March 22, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Next thing you know...

    by pumaman

    They'll be rebooting Spiderman , Superman and telling us that the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles are actually fucking aliens !...oh hang on.....

  • March 22, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST

    Last Disney Mars movies

    by Samuel Fulmer

    Well there was the 2000 live action (and as the years go on I believe underrated) Mission to Mars which was a flop, then there was last years animated Mars Needs Moms which was an even bigger financial disaster than John Carter. Maybe Disney needs to stay away from Mars!

  • March 22, 2012, noon CST

    Total Recall did Mars properly...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Or does Mars really look like Arizona?

  • March 22, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    AHH THAT'S WHY MISSION TO MARS SUCKED?!?! Disney was involved!

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 22, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Even DePalma couldn't save the film from Disney.

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 22, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    So, here's what I don't get...

    by Ribbons

    I don't know why I'm even bothering with this, it's not like it's going to change anything. But I wanted to get it off my chest at least once. This isn't about whether John Carter was good or not, or even John Carter, specifically. But I've seen this cycle several times now where AICN... fans? are incredibly vocal and celebratory when some geek movie flops, because the fact that everybody who runs the site talked about it so much fills them with rage. What I don't understand is, well, why. Unresolved father issues? Maybe he kicked you out of the house even though he's stupid and old, and your way of getting him back is sticking it to Harry for "telling you what to like" (because this is America, and you tell them what to tell you what to like) or whatever it is you think you're fighting for? I don't know, whatever. Without trotting out the old "nobody makes you come here, these opinions are all free, blah blah blah" argument... you DO kind of come here of your own free will. And if you know what this site is, then what do you expect? It is very much a geek website; they're going to talk mainly about geek movies. Right now, John Carter is pretty much the only one of those in theaters, so what exactly SHOULD they be talking about all day that they aren't and it just makes you *so mad*? 21 Jump Street and Another Earth or some shit? It doesn't matter if John Carter is any good or not, there's nothing else to talk about in the geek-o-sphere. Maybe you would rather they talk about upcoming movies that general consensus agrees look like they're actually going to be good? Like Prometheus? But wait, that doesn't work either, because when they ran 3 or 4 Prometheus stories last week (when there was enough material to run a lot more -- two new trailers, the kick-off of an ARG campaign and a presentation at Wonder-Con) you started to see TalkBackers go "WELL LA-DI-DA, AIN'T IT PROMETHEUS NEWS?" The nerve. It's like each new movie is less of a burden and more of an opportunity to bitch.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:06 p.m. CST

    no_more_comic_movies

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    I hear you on AICN's apparent denial on this issue or whatever, but your prediction that Avengers is going to bomb, is ludicrous or trolling, from any perspective. Iron Man 2, Captain America, and Thor all did really, really well, and even the critical response overall was decent. And you really think a movie with all three of those characters is going to bomb? Even with Iron Man 2 being something of a turd, it's just not possible that Avengers is going to tank. It may not become one of the top grossing films of all time, and it might not even be that great a movie (but I'm optimistic it will be similar quality to what's come before.) And the success of future comic book films for Spidey and Superman, yeah, those are in doubt. But The Avengers is a major feel-good explosion-filled popcorn flick this summer, it's going to own the box office for its moment. Everybody knows who the fucking Hulk is. John Carter, not so much; to compare them is folly. Weird, man. But yeah, that poster was cool.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    Wow, I actually want to see the film now. That looks tight.

    by kbarber29

  • You are an idiot. People don't hate on shit because of any other reason than it sucks in general. Oh, and JOHN CARTER is not a GEEK movie. We need to start differentiating between geek fare and kiddie fare. John Carter is KIDDIE FARE. I don't care who wrote it or how popular it was 100 years ago. It doesn't hold up in today's world. It's can't really even be called Science Fiction. It's not. Take that and render it through Disney's cash machine and you have a turd - John Carter. And I'm not saying GEEK fare is any better because GEEK fare is usually only a step above kiddie fare. It's often just as unbelievable, unrealistic and childish. But again... It seems DISNEY is still a step below even that. It's like BATMAN & SPIDERMAN vs. Mickey Mouse. Sure... It's all gay... But Mickey is gayer.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    Wonderful film...

    by Blue_Demon

    ...I like the fact that it exists. I put it there with Sky Captain and The World of Tomorrow - only a few people gave a shit about it but since I enjoy it...what the hell? Oh and Andrew Stanton gets the prize for Best Michael Cimino impersonation.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    Saw & liked JC, but that trailer was sleep inducing.

    by the_patriot

    That trailer commits a different kind of marketing sin in that it's just insanely slow and tedious.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Stanton and Marketing

    by docgl

    No director has enough power to control marketing. Most have no control over this at all. If Stanton had any say in marketing it was in the cut of the trailer. The studio's money is at stake. They make the final decisions on marketing. Disney screwed up not Stanton

  • March 22, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance you idiot

    by Ribbons

    I didn't make up that quote. Take your pick from any one of the Prometheus articles from last week and you'll probably find a handful of similar complaints. Just because you're not complaining doesn't mean you speak for everybody.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    No trailer would save it from the bad reviews,

    by Flip63Hole

    bad word of mouth, bad editing, terrible acting and screenplay. It was a horrible SyFy channel movie. It's over. Let's just put it behind us and hope Hollywood stops shoveling us mindless crap...

  • March 22, 2012, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Mission to Mars I used to hate it

    by Samuel Fulmer

    I saw it when it first came out and having been bombarded with commercials making it out to be the next action packed event effects and De Palma being one of my favorite directors I was hugley disappointed. Having watched it again in recent years I kind of admire what De Palma was going for, more of a throw back to the 1950's Sci-fi movies then what was being put out at the time. Still not an entirely successful film (mostly due to some poor casting decisions and a simplistic script), but I still admire it for being one of a handful of optimistic De Palma films, and it's got an amazing Morricone score, some really good set pieces (the space twister on Mars, the asteroid scene, the space walk), and sadly Stephen Burum's last job as DP for De Palma.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    In the original novels-Carter crossed time as well as space.

    by cookylamoo

    The Mars he went to was thousands of years in the past when Mars still had an artificial atmosphere.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Can't say I want to see an Avitar sequel.

    by cookylamoo

    Unless the humans win this time.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:37 p.m. CST

    Bad Marketing is just ONE of the many reasons this movie failed

    by Kikstad

    John Carter failed because the marketing was terrible (starting with the bland, misguided title right down to the poor PR dealing with the negative buzz before the movie even hit screens). Some other reasons: 1. 3D backlash - I still firmly believe that the 3D trend is still more of a hindrance to box-office success than a benefit. 2. Just because it was a groundbreaking novel from 1912 doesn't mean it necessarily makes for a good contemporary science fiction movie epic today. 3. Special effects extravaganza burnout. I think audiences are craving a more gritty, less CGI feel to the films they see. Eye candy isn't enough. 4. Sometimes you don't need an A-list cast for a blockbuster, but in this case I think Disney should have invested in some bigger names for the male and female leads. They obviously "couldn't open" this movie. 5. Putting nostalgia aside, was the story really good enough for our times? They changed some things that shouldn't have been changed and didn't change other things that should have been. 6. If "John Carter" really is as good as the apologist claim, history will prove the box-office results and critics wrong. But sometimes denial has to be put aside and the excuses have to stop and everyone just has to admit that even great marketing can't always save a poor/mediocre story. Am I right or am I wrong?

  • March 22, 2012, 12:41 p.m. CST

    =No director has enough power to control marketing=

    by Billy_D_Williams

    On the contrary, Spielberg generally approves all marketing for his films, so does Cameron, so does Fincher...major directors usually have alot of say about the marketing of their films. Stanton was Disney's golden boy, and was handed a $250 million dollar film as his first live action...word on the street is he had ALOT to do with the marketing and approved many decisions. Please, if you don't know what you're talking about, keep your opinions to yourself

  • March 22, 2012, 12:43 p.m. CST

    JCM--future cult classic

    by Yukon Cornelius

    I saw it last Saturday in Imax 3D and loved it! It was 2 hours of transporting, pulpy sci-fi goodness--way more enjoyable than the crappy Star Wars prequels. Avatar was ok while watching it, but instantly forgettable, for me at least. I had no desire to see it a second time, but I keep thinking about JCM (mostly Dejah Thoris--yummy! I thought she--along with Woola and Tars Tarkas--was the best part of the film) and I can't wait to go back and see it again on a 2D screen. I agree with others that this film, while admittedly not perfect, will find legs as a future cult favorite. Then again, I'm a huge fan of David Lynch's Dune--I'd rather watch a magnificent, heart felt failure than some crappy Bay or Ratner piece of soulless shite. Also, love the Mondo poster--it's got a real "sensawunda" about it that the film itself has but the official advertising failed to express. Things that could have been done differently: 1) The advertising for JC really sucked--especailly the title! It sounded like a dry biopic of the 39th president of the United States. Should have been something way more evocative and pulpy like John Carter and the Princess of Mars or John Carter: Under the Moons of Mars, marketing research be damned! Went to see Friends with Kids last night with my wife since I dragged her with me to see JC, and overheard some twentysomething hipsters say, "John Carter, never heard of that, what is that about?" Oy vey. 2) I personally liked the bright, sun drenched Utah locations used, but think maybe the Martian landscape could have had a bit more of an otherworldly red sky and sand look to it. 3) Taylor Kitsch was fine as Carter, but my pick to play the character would have been Josh Holloway, the guy that played Sawyer on Lost--he's got the Han Solo/Indiana Jones swagger that the character needed to really win over audiences and even had the Southern twang of a Confederate soldier from Virginia. Would have also liked to have seen a bit more battle footage of Carter as a soldier during the Civil War, even if it was just done as a montage under the opening credits. That said, I loved the film whole heartedly and was transported to this world--I fell in love/lust with Dejah Thoris and couldn't keep my eyes off her when she was on screen--I thought she really brought what could have been a paper thin character to life, and couldn't help but laugh at Woola, the Martian watch dog. Tars Tarkas and the Tharks were great, and I loved the Miyazaki style insect-winged ornithopters and sky ships (would love to have seen even more swashbuckling, rope swinging, sword fighting, sky-pirate action on those flying ships, but maybe they were saving that for future installments. Alas.) Anyway, I can't wait to revisit this when it comes out on blu-ray, and I'm hoping the director puts out an extended edition, since I'd like to spend more time in the cinematic world of Barsoom and it looks like the chance of getting any sequels made is now slim. Any self respecting sci-fi or film geek that hasn't seen JC yet should disregard the negative hype and floptrollism about the budget and negative reviews and go see the film for yourself in the theater while it's still out...I think you'd be pleasantly surprised that's it's actually a much more enjoyable film with more heart than the negative press would have you believe. YMMV.

  • March 22, 2012, 12:48 p.m. CST

    Anyway, here's a real filmmaker at work...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    David Cronenberg's Cosmopolis has a teaser.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DCFB-WPe9Ic&feature=player_embedded

  • March 22, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Take out the historical context...

    by Redmantle

    Boring.... I'm interested in such things, and I thought B.S. Disney is making an "IMPORTANT" action movie. B.S. But the other visuals were cool. Harry, you don't know what you are talking about when it comes to marketing a movie either, as if that commerical would have got butts in the seats. Maybe w/o the historical content...

  • March 22, 2012, 12:57 p.m. CST

    agree about the lead

    by Redmantle

    too pretty.... and they needed a sexier dejah thoris. THIS is John Carter? Friggin Disney...

  • March 22, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    by Jack LesCamela

    When I have no interest in seeing a given movie, like say THE HUNGER GAMES or THE TRANSFORMERS what I do is disregard it entirely. I don't go and post on message boards about why I'm not interested or why I might hate it --I'm too into being focused on movies and stuff I *do* love. If other people love those movies I don't care for that's fine too. There should be movies for everyone to enjoy. Watching the response to JOHN CARTER has been fascinating to me. In addition to the critics whose judgment is suspect in regards to genre movies at all times, you have what is apparently one of the largest contingents of mean spirited illiterate assholes with computers and online accounts ever assembled. In my experience, you can tell a lot about something by the quality of people who dislike it. Andrew Stanton's JOHN CARTER seems to turn morons into an angry beehive, both on message boards and in the higher echelons of Disney I guess. What is it that Jonathan Swift said? "When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him." That sums up what we have with JOHN CARTER perfectly I think. You know who loved JOHN CARTER? People like Neal Adams, and Joe R. Lansdale, Michael Moorcock, Kim Newman, John Shirley, Howard Chaykin, Ed Brubaker, Gabriel Ba, John Maddox Roberts, John Rogers, Greg Bear, Gail Simone, Jess Nevins, Andy Diggle, Ron Marz, Jhonen Vasquez, Ivan Brandon, Damon Lindelof, Kurt Busiek, Chris Gore, Heidi MacDonald, etc. Some of those names are legendary. Some will be in time. All of them are worth listening to over the braying stupidity of hate filled imbeciles. JOHN CARTER is a flawed masterpiece. Don't wait twenty years for the critical reassessment. Everyone should go see it in the theater NOW.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    I rarely agree with Harry

    by Jason

    but in this case, I do agree with him. THe marketing decisions made for this movie are clearly what destroyed it. I knew nothing about the books and when the trailers started showing up, they did nothing to change that. It looked, to me, like some sort of Conan in space romp. Which is all fine and good, but I didn't really care to see it. Had they given me some clues in regards to the setting, time period, etc, it likely would have peaked my interest. The wife and I randomly went to see it as she had some free tickets and we both loved it. I've since recommended it to 4-5 people who felt the same way I did about the commercials and they also loved it. Don't blame the director, actors or the FX, blame the suits.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    This trailer...

    by Chris Moody

    ...was infinitely better than the crapfest trailers from DISNEY.

  • The same way Arnold's Conan the Barbarian is today.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER (of Mars)...

    by Chris Moody

    ...was a failure of MANAGEMENT rather than of film-making. Does anyone know who created the trailer? That person should be banned from using computers for the next 25 years.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    *the STUDIO trailer

    by Chris Moody

    The kid who made this trailer should be offered a job by Disney.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:25 p.m. CST

    FUCK! Now is the first time I want to see this..

    by tazzzer

    I wonder if Disney will rerelease it with this format of advertising. From memory Braveheart was originally misunderstood and then rereleased so who knows..seems to deserve a second chance.

  • Amongst many other reasons (plodding, bloated, miscast lead, a director with too much control,Horrible Marketing, etc...) the biggest problem is that it is a Model T in a BMW world. The story has been cherry picked, and actually improved upon to the point that the reason for filming the inspiration for so many Sci-Fi films over the last 50+ years becomes moot. Look...you go to a museum and look at a Model T or Old Daimler..and you admire the effort that went into creating them, the genius of the original designs that influenced 100 years of modern cars...but you sure as hell don't want to own one, and if you ride in one you think.."So Quaint..but thank God things have progressed". Same with John Carter...it should have been left alone, respected and admired for what it is, but with the ultimate realization that things have moved on, people have seen this all before, and ultimately in much better forms.

  • Or blaming the audience for "not recognizing" a "flawed masterpiece" and belittling their opinions if they don't agree with yours. The marketing stunk -- but so did other aspects of "John Carter." (Love the "JCM" logo even though "Mars" is nowhere in the title.) Saying that it was a mediocre adaptation doesn't minimize the groundbreaking nature of the original novels. Maybe "the suits" should have read them. According to current numbers on BoxOfficeMojo.com, taking domestic and international ticket sales into account, the movie has made $181,639,194 out of a reported $250,000,000 budget. All things considered, it will likely break even or maybe even make a bit of profit down the road. But it certainly won't have the return on investment that Disney expected. And that means the suits panic, some jobs might be on the line, people are embarrassed, future projects face an uphill battle if compared to "John Carter," and so on. And that all leads to finger pointing and the blame game. It's marketing's fault! It's the director's fault! It's fanboys' fault! It's the media critics' fault! My answer after seeing it is that it's the film's fault -- it didn't resonate with audiences of our time.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    yea sorry still wouldn't see it..

    by foree forehead

    ..based on that. ishtar!

  • March 22, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST

    kikstad...Well said. And agreed about the leads..

    by conspiracy

    I found the female lead to be fine, but the guy has the personality of cardboard. And a film of such an obscure property, and yes it is obscure to the general audience, requires SOMETHING...a NAME, to get their attention. $250,000,000 and not even a recognizable name to put on the signage is unforgivable for a film this day and age.

  • You write: "When I have no interest in seeing a given movie, like say THE HUNGER GAMES or THE TRANSFORMERS what I do is disregard it entirely. I don't go and post on message boards about why I'm not interested or why I might hate it --I'm too into being focused on movies and stuff I *do* love." But movie buffs, especially genre movie buffs, LOVE to talk about movies and comics and TV shows and games, etc., stuff that they love and also the stuff that they don't. In a perfect world for marketers, the Internet would be awash in only POSITIVE discussions of brands and content, full of nuggets of goodness that would be PR gold to share with clients. Real people use the Internet (message boards, social media, etc) like they do a watercooler or a bar -- it's a place to share opinions and ideas and let loose for a bit. Studio honchos, filmmakers, marketing gurus, etc. need to understand that instead of blaming the public for being human instead of a passive crowd willing to accept everything that is spoon-fed to them. Fans bitch and moan usually because they want to see the genre they love continue to produce excellent content, not the same-old same-old crap with weak stories. It's all about stories and characters and ideas, not special effects, posters, 3D gimmicks, focus groups, etc. And then it's all about putting it in the hands of true artist who can deliver the goods.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    kikstad...it will never "Break Even"

    by conspiracy

    The ROI is typically spread out over several years of rentals and dvd sales. Even including DVD sales which are forecast and factored in as a percentage of First Run box office...John Carter will never be in the black given it's performance to date. For this film at $250M+Marketing to have a positive ROI it'd have had to turn in $550-600M numbers first run once you figure in interest and assorted other things like future value costs. And THAT is only if the numbers Disney are publicly quoting are in fact the real numbers...I suspect they are higher and Iger is trying to do his best to be honest while hiding the true losses. No...this is a big red mark on the books...period.

  • March 22, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Janine Carter of Omaha

    by Pau

    please, go watch this turd in 3D, so Disney can pay me more money for spamming. I really need a new tub

  • March 22, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST

    jacknaples

    by VoiceOfSaruman

    "Flawed masterpiece" is something of a desperate oxymoron - I'm not sure there is anything more unbearable than a "flawed masterpiece" - it sounds like a frustrating let-down of literally epic proportions. If you love a film, great. It doesn't have to be perfect. Geeks tend to love movies from their childhood, movies that have to do with their childhood, movies about things from their childhood, etc. etc. And I do too. And some of these things we love are indeed flawed. But once you start saying things like it's a (flawed) masterpiece, at the same time suggesting if people aren't super-interested in the movie than they shouldn't talk about it, well all that just invites commentary in itself. You're better off just calling it a great movie (because no one wants to see "Flawed masterpiece!" as a blurb on a DVD cover) and then choosing to ignore the negative backlash here. Maybe no worse than some other films here on AICN, but the AICN (Harry + talkbackers) approach of calling John Carter the grandfather of all that is great and geeky just invites people to react and comment. You have this fan trailer comparing it (more or less) to the likes of not just Star Wars but also Arthur C. Clarke and Ray Bradbury, and then you're saying, well if you don't like it or aren't interested, shut up. Everything I'm trying to say, kikstad said better, but there it is. And agreed fully with conspiracy - the male lead thing here seems kind of outrageous. The guy has the most forgettable face and presence. Casting a relative unknown is not totally unforgivable in itself, I'm all for fresh faces, though I can understand why studios are not. But this guy seems a bit of an odd choice, bless him.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Great Performance by Linda Shayne as "Miss Salmon"

    by cookylamoo

    Best boobie bounce of the eighties.

  • John Carter's under-performance is another example of why studios are getting gun shy about huge budgets. The bad news is that projects I want to see, like Ron Howard's ambitious adaptation of Stephen King's DARK TOWER epic or Darren Aronofsky's adaptation of John Milton's PARADISE LOST are having trouble getting financing to be made. The good news is that maybe it will encourage Hollywood to actually have more sustainable productions and encourage filmmakers to be more creative with smaller budgets. A movie should not depend on computer generated imagery and special effects at the expense of good writing, good human acting, and a good eye for traditional film-making techniques. The failure of John Carter should be a black-mark on the genre we love (just like Green Lantern's underperformance shouldn't be a death knell for superhero movies).

  • March 22, 2012, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Sorry for my typo -- I'm writing too fast

    by Kikstad

    I meant John Carter's failure should NOT be a death knell for big epic science fiction stories. It just wasn't the right project for this day and age, and in my opinion the execution on many levels (casting, writing, acting, marketing, etc.) left a lot to be desired.

  • March 22, 2012, 2:33 p.m. CST

    John Carter a cult movie to be? I'm affraid not.

    by AsimovLives

    This movie will be all but forgotten by the end of the year.

  • It's a travesty that marketing has so much power. A shit film marketed properly makes money. An excellent film not marketed properly fails. And people here are rooting for this. They're complaining like it failed because it was marketed improperly! Well... Why would you want it to have succeeded? It would have just sent the message we want more of it. Can't wait till the day humans catch on that DIRECTORS make movies... Not stupid trailers and marketing hype.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:01 p.m. CST

    TISSUE FOR CRY?

    by Jaster Mareel

    Had to resurrect an old AICN meme for this article.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:05 p.m. CST

    How they should have sold it...

    by tailhook

    By putting out a watchable movie. The whole conceit that it was the marketing department that 'failed' John Carter pretty much confirms that the movie itself was a failure. If it wasn't, why would you need the MARKETING to convince people to go to the theater to watch this turd?

  • March 22, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    kikstad..I do not think it will be the Death Stroke of Sci-Fi...

    by conspiracy

    ...but honestly...some fiscal sanity MUST be regained in the industry. I am a FIRM believer that tighter budgets force the creative side to be more, well, ...creative. Force them to actually use the talent they have instead of just throwing $$$ at the screen. There was no valid reason why John Carter could not have been made for $120-150M...or even less. It would have been a tighter, more focused production at that level..., would be closer to achieving profitability and thus have a chance for a sequel. And I believe, with the fat cut and the director forced to put aside his vanity, might have just been a better overall film as well. And this all ends at the Box office...where due to the cost of these talent driven productions it now costs $75 for a family of four to go see a movie...simply because you have several 8 figure first dollar profit participants on top of a $200,000,000 shooting budget in addition to unreasonable ROI calculations from the studio itself as it tries to justify the expenditures. They are pricing themselves out of their captive market. John Carter, from a business point of view...is a perfect example of everything that is wrong with the way Hollywood operates these day It is simply ridicules...across the board...and cinema is suffering for it.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Why are we still deriding it? Simple

    by Jaster Mareel

    First off.....BECAUSE THIS ARTICLE EXISTS! Clearly we're not the only ones unwilling to drop it. Harry can't help but do a 20 minute death scene over it. And we're right there to twist the knife. And why are we doing that? BECAUSE WE SAID LIKE 10 FUCKING MONTHS AGO THIS FILM WOULD BOMB! And we were branded as =haterz= and that the audiences at large would embrace John Carter to their fucking bosom and we would be proven wrong. GUESS NOT ASSHOOOOOOOLE! so WE have been proven right beyond any shadow of a doubt, and YOU the ever-vigilent Cart Cock Suckers, have been proven indelibly wrong. All i ask is that the next time we sound the air raid siren, set aside you gullible fanboy knee-jerk defense mechanism and judge the landscape honestly.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    It's not the marketing, it's the content

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    They could have had some bad ass swordfights and duels to show off, some interesting environs and creatures. But that would have required some humility towards the source material. Instead they have a guy jumping high and swinging boulders in Utah to show.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    The film is VISUALLY BORING!

    by Jaster Mareel

    I mean, it's Mars, it's alien cities and cultures and creatures! And Stanton decided to make it Utah with some elephant-skinned-penis things running around. How do you make an exciting trailer out of that shit?

  • March 22, 2012, 3:22 p.m. CST

    It wasn't the marketing or Stanton that ruined this film....

    by Jonathan Hicks

    It was all you po-faced miserable hater fuckers who wanted it to fail. There. I said it.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:22 p.m. CST

    The hater/Troll intellect

    by indyhu

    One of the things that I have seen grow big in the last few years is the way the hater/troll dogpile on many, many films to crap on them, especially big budgeted films to say how badly they will fail from the beginning. If the film fails, they pat themselves on the back openly in forums like these. If the film is a success, it is due to the stupidity of the masses. So, really, they just are trying to tell you they are that much smarter than you. So, you can beleive and join them, or ignore them and like what you like. But as far as true opnions go, there are very few people that will be swayed due to an argument on one of these boards. Hmmm. 181 million worldwide. So if we were not privy to the money spent by the various companies for each movie that came out, this movie would be considered a failure for making 181 million dollars after ten days. How long ago was it that making that much in ten days was a record?

  • March 22, 2012, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Re: kikstad

    by Jack LesCamela

    But movie buffs, especially genre movie buffs, LOVE to talk about movies and comics and TV shows and games, etc., stuff that they love and also the stuff that they don't.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    ONCE AGAIN for the perpetually stupid!

    by Jaster Mareel

    "John Carter" is now officially a flop of galactic proportions. The Walt Disney Co. said Monday that it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. Directed by Pixar's Andrew Stanton, the 3-D effects-laden movie about a Civil War veteran transplanted to Mars was already headed to the "Red Ink Planet," according to Cowen & Co. analyst Doug Creutz. Yet he expected a write-down of about half that size. "John Carter" has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide, Disney said. But ticket sales are split roughly in half with theater owners. The movie's production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with about $100 million more spent on marketing. That'll cause the movie studio to post a loss of $80 million to $120 million for the quarter, Disney said. Miller Tabak analyst David Joyce said the studio's projected loss is more than double what he had expected, and will cause him to trim his estimate of earnings. The hefty spending on production and marketing is causing the Burbank, Calif., company to book the loss sooner than might be the case for a smaller-budget film. "It's good that Disney's airing their dirty laundry now," he said. Disney shares fell 34 cents to $43.10 in extended trading Monday. The stock closed regular trading up 25 cents at $43.44. http://www.moneynews.com/Companies/disney-johncarter-earns/2012/03/19/id/433081

  • March 22, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Jimmy Fallon summed it up

    by Volstaff

    In his monologue he talked about the movie tanking."John Carter, a movie about a civil war vet who goes to mars is projected to lose Disney about 200 million dollars. As to why it failed, well, it's ABOUT A CIVIL WAR VET WHO GOES TO MARS!"Huge audience laughter ensued.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    Stop flogging a dead flop already.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    This sites integrity sinks lower and lower with their pimping of John Carter of Flop.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    @mentaldominance

    by Blue_Demon

    I liked the design of everything in that movie. It had elements of the old Superman cartoons and Wally Wood (the amphibious squadron's space suits) and just the general homage to retro-science fiction that I love. Like I said, some people liked it and some people hated it. Oh, I lowered my standards once. Your mother needed the money.

  • Seriously, the guy ain't got shit to say for losing Disney $200 MILLION FUCKING DOLLARS? I'd like to hear him spin his yarns about all the sequels he's got planned NOW!

  • March 22, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Is JC really that good?

    by wrongThinker

    I felt the overall aesthetic and art behind mars and the martian architecture was great... so was Woola. But the movie itself? Not so much. The action scenes (except for that one in the middle, you know the one) were not particularly interesting, inventive, or exciting. The acting was fine, but the dialogue was weak and inconsistent. There were many long-explanatory scenes that didn't explain anything at all (the scene inside the weird tree... ship... thing, the villains explanation of his villainy, etc.). In fact, the villains in general were awful (again, a fault of the writing, not the acting). How can you have a great hero without a great villain? I don't know what movie people saw, but it wasn't the one I saw on the screen when I watched JC.

  • March 22, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    So Now It's Time To Point Fingers For AICN...

    by Mako

    Harry, Moan and groan all you want about the marketing of JC. Was it bad? Some can argue that it was not marketed well. But how can marketing be 100% to blame if they don't have a decent product to market? Andrew Stanton is to blame for some of this mess. You and the boys here (other than Kidd) seem to have such love and admiration for this man - that you would jump off a cliff if he asked. JC is mediocre. Standton had a lot of people at PIXAR to help him achieve greatness with Wall-E and Finding Nemo. Lately... Standton has been going around (TED) with his nose up in the air telling everyone how "great" storytelling is done. OMG!!! Karma just bit him in the ass cause JC was not good storytelling. Denial is a word some of you here need to look up and memorize what it means. Cause that's what most of the AICN troops are laying in. With your severed limbs and guts hanging out "pimping" a movie more than I have ever seen in AICN's history. And the irony? It turned into one of the BIGGEST FLOPS ever!!! So much for how much reach you all have in the "real world".

  • So I'm trying to figure out what this sentence means exactly. Poorly constructed. The brutality in which the media covered this film bordered on abuse and was beyond reason. There, you're welcome.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:16 p.m. CST

    I'm 41. I haven read it and I've never known anyone who has.

    by gboybama

    They weren't going to get people like me in the theater unless they gave me a reason to be curious about John Carter. I still can't see any reason

  • March 22, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    wrath of Fett

    by mukhtabi

    Is your life truly so devoid of meaning that the only pleasure you gain is by being a pompous ass when you have been proven correct that something you decided would fail did? Do you truly lack the capacity for joy? A professor of mine once contended that those who thrive on negativity cannot begin to understand the world except through a dirty and hateful lens. Is that truly you, are there things other than declaring your self-righteousness that can bring you joy? Or is this 'I'm right/You're wrong/bow to my greatness fucktards' really all you want out of life?

  • March 22, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Thought it was pretty Epic.

    by WASPFAN

    The way CGI was mixed with real landscapes. The different camera angles and the great 1800's footage. Don't know what half the critics saw but folks hated blade runner when it came out. This movie was really well done but marketing was so bad that everyone was declaring bomb before anyone had seen it. I think it is much better than sw prequels, not as preachy as avatar, and had solid acting thru out ... It will be a long time until a studio attempts something this grand. I do agree with some folks that I think Andrew and Disney just assumed people would go see shock and awe. They treated the USA public like idiots and with a little different market strategy could have easily made this a success. Action trailers, no products, and a confusion on who to market to. My seven year old loved it ....my wife like it ... 13 year old daughter did not get it... It was setup for failure from the beginning when mars was removed from title.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:50 p.m. CST

    Ignore the hate give it a try sequels would be nice

    by WASPFAN

  • Because on a business level this was possibly the greatest blunder in the last 20 years. While I was hoping for the best..and wanted this picture to succeed..., all the indicators were there that the deck was stacked against it; and this was before the marketing blunders that were and are not unique to this property; instead being an indication of incompetence at the top of the Studio itself. No...JC's problem is that Andrew Stanton...an untried, untested live action director with a golden halo based on his success in an unrelated medium.. was given a Quarter Billion Dollar blank check and told to go make a film based upon a little known 100yr old pulp story. He made that film without a strong producer keeping him in line, without any apparent input or oversight from the Studio heads,and without even having a bankable name attached to open it to a general public which really does care about such things. And now that it has cost the studio...and people like ME a considerable amount of money, we are getting excuses and coverups as to why this production squandered a sum that SHOULD have made 2-3 films. Why are we being "Brutal"? If it were YOUR money wouldn't YOU want answers and an accounting? It was not a HORRIBLE film...but it certainly was not GOOD, nor was there $250,000,000 on that screen.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:51 p.m. CST

    are^

    by conspiracy

  • March 22, 2012, 4:52 p.m. CST

    Hunger games

    by WASPFAN

    The difference in advertising .. Shit the local Chicago news is telling folks how it was made even. It is everywhere. They even get advertising free....

  • March 22, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    You should hang the performance of the film on...

    by PorkChopXpress

    ...the fact that it sucks balls.

  • March 22, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    waspfan... please... please will people stop comparing JOHN CARTER to BLADE RUNNER. It's just wrong on so many levels. Btw I just looked up BLADE RUNNER to see if this notion of it being a turkey is true, and guess what? In 1983 it was nominated for 8 BAFTA's, 2 Oscars, and a Golden Globe. And on a budget of $28 million it made $33 million. So please fuck off with the CARTER comparions.

  • March 22, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    mariusxe...

    by PorkChopXpress

    John Carter was great! Really loved it. HATED Avatar. Most of the world clearly has no taste.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:01 p.m. CST

    ...

    by PorkChopXpress

    Since it didn't post my comment: When most of the world dislikes something and you like it, the logical reaction would be to ponder whether your OWN taste is suspect...not the majority's.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST

    Subtitles in JCM

    by Yukon Cornelius

    One other thing that I really liked about John Carter (of Mars--I refuse to just call it John Carter) was the use of subtitles for the alien language when JC first arrives on Mars. One of the many things that annoyed me about the Star Wars prequels was the fact that all the aliens (other than possibly one or two lines, if I recall correctly) spoke English. The OT used subtitles for Greedo and Jabba the Hutt and it just really adds to the sense of otherworldly versimilitude. I think those damn Trade Federation aliens in the beginning of Ep. I would have been a lot cooler if they were speaking subtitled alien gibberish rather than their over the top Oriental accented English. And perhaps the Disney name hurt this flick, but anyone that thinks this film is some watered down kiddie flick not worth their time or money is crazy--the Tharks literally shoot the unhatched babies that aren't able to claw their way out of their eggs in the incubator scene! You don't bloody well see that kind of wholesale infanticide in Disney movies all that often, now do you?

  • March 22, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    porkchopxpress..It doesn't "Suck Balls"...but it isn't a $250M film.

    by conspiracy

    ..nor does it bring anything fresh to a tired genre...nothing there to inspire the general public to go see it. We would not be having this conversation if the director and producer had put away their egos, used a modicum of good sense and restraint and made this film at a reasonable, $100-150M cost. Just think about that...if Andrew Stanton had just used common sense in making this film...even as under performing as it is, it would still likely eek out a small profit over the next 2 years through a combination of box office and home viewing sales. Whats the difference between a $120M picture and a $250M picture? Profitability.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Cobra

    by WASPFAN

    Well I recall before all the acclaim there was a bunch of people that absolutely hated blade runner. You won't be able to find it because the fuckn Internet was not even in diapers. I also remember reading some terrible sw 1977 reviews when everyone thought it would tank. And blade runner did not turn a profit at box office that year .. Partially due to R rating... I was not comparing the movies .... It won an Oscar for set design dude... Not anything else... Most kids these days don't love it either. I hate the directors cut because I was in love with the theatrical cut... Mileage may vary. Potty mouth... I love JC.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner blazed a trail, was new and fresh and took risks...

    by conspiracy

    John Carter spend $250,000,000 to try and sell the public a Model T.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:20 p.m. CST

    Re: Jimmy Fallon summed it up

    by Yukon Cornelius

    Rule #1: No one should ever use Jimmy Fallon** as a barometer of artistic merit. EVER! **Substitute Jay Leno at your discretion

  • March 22, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    mukhtabi, I enjoy plenty in life fuckhole

    by Jaster Mareel

    What, because I slagged off on an OBVIOUS loser you were too naive to spot despite pretty much all of Planet Earth warning of it's impending doom...I somehow hate everything? Yeah, that's called DENIAL, ASSHOLE! Try to wrest yourself from your drunken fanboy tirade long enough to realize that the world doesn't revolve around you and your infantile tastes. Same thing that happened with Scott Pilgrim. 1% of the population thought it loolked like the second coming of Christ. Why? I have no fucking idea but the rest of us saw those trailers and thought =What fucking mongoloid thought this sounded like a good idea?=...and ONCE AGAIN, we were proven right. Oh you pulled the same shit of falling to the ground, throwing a fit and yelliung through your tears =WAAAAH! You just a hater guy! You8 hate everything! You're life must suck!= Obviously my life is not devastated by a sucky movie tanking and yours is...so what does that tell ya sport?

  • March 22, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    waspfan, i'm going to have to head into the dojo and take out my frustrations on a heavy bag because you are messing with my mind. BLADE RUNNER remains not only a unique and iconic film of itself but as Conspiracy says it also blazed a trail and influenced not just film culture but literature, comics, and genuine real world design. Think of offshoots like manga and cyberpunk. JOHN CARTER looks like the bastard lovechild of STARGATE and 10,000BC. The thought of it influencing anything is impossible because the film is visually already just a bundle of generic nothingness. So please stop fucking comparing the two.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Blade Runner

    by WASPFAN

    Lost funding Four times, preview audiences ripped it that is why we voice overs and a happy ending... There were allegedly 10 scripts ... Fighting between actors .. I saw it on release night myself and thought that was uniquely different... After seeing it over 20 times I can almost see the brilliance in the inconsistency of the filming... Rumors that rugar made most of that speech ad lib ... Sometimes no matter how much shit happens out comes a gem....

  • March 22, 2012, 5:37 p.m. CST

    not being a yankee doodle can I ask..."who the fuck is John carter?"

    by borisdoris

    Nuff said.

  • If that doesn't work, without fail they whip out Children of Men. Blade Runner has FUCK ALL to do with John Carter. It takes a special breed of dumbass to try and connect those dots. I can rip that apart on many fronts, but I'll take a road less travelled. Blade Runner is a difficult film. It's brilliant and I love it just like the rest of you do, but it's hard for a generic audience member to jump right into. It's not always clear exactly what is going on, either to the protagonist or the viewer. Character motivations are muddled, and the film seems to stagnate at times. Also a lot of the backstory is merely alluded to and not shown outright, such as what the fuck the replicants are and why they are being hunted. We never get a very clear sense of who the protagonist is, let alone the antagonist. In fact, it's not clear who the antagonist is, period. Is it Rutger? Is it his inventer? Is it the company that hired Dekkard? Is it society at large? Keep in mind I haven't seen it since the 5-disc BD came out so it's been a few years. And mark me down for loving the narration by the way. But despite all this I do believe it is a masterpiece. Perhaps a masterpiece in UNDERPLAYING things to create an atmosphere of mystery that is difficult to appreciate upon first viewing. Yeah that's SO NOT John Carter!

  • March 22, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Okay...I give up. JOHN CARTER *is* this generations BLADE RUNNER. In 30 years time it *will* be considered a cult masterpiece. People will quote the conversation between Tars Tarkas and Taylor Kitsch where he calls him Virginia in the same way they do Rutger Hauer's Tears in rain soliloquy. Instead of debating whether Deckard is a replicant they will endlessly debate and discuss whether John Carter is of Mars or not of Mars. A wave of movies, TV adverts, books and art will bear the unmistakeable bland sand aesthetic of JOHN CARTER. 8 different versions of JOHN CARTER will be released to an adoring public and the film will play again in theaters in 2025. And with that I am finished discussing this with you crazy fools in denial. As finished as JOHN CARTER is at the box office.

  • March 22, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    John Carter is no Blade Runner

    by Mako

    People laugh when I tell them the JC defenders bring this up....

  • March 22, 2012, 6:07 p.m. CST

    cobra--kai

    by AsimovLives

    Not going to happen. John Carter getting a cult following like Blade Runner, that is.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:08 p.m. CST

    AICN can't get over the fact they made a bad bet.

    by AsimovLives

    bet on the wrong horse, pals. this wasn't the year's dark horse, it was the year's ass.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    The point about comparing JC to Blade Runner...

    by D.Vader

    Its not about comparing the movies' quality (and it shouldn't be) to one another. It should be used as a rebuttal to those that argue a movie is poor and a failure because of its box office returns. People cite Blade Runner bc that didn't do so well at the BO, and now its considered a bona fide classic. But if you want to get into it, Blade Runner didn't get stellar reviews from the critics either. So using Blade Runner as a comparison *is* valid, but only when used against particular criticisms.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:11 p.m. CST

    'bad bet'?

    by tailhook

    At least half a mil of the marketing budget probably went to this site.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST

    A troller who changed to a hater,

    by Hat Man

    I know, I'm repeating this from at least two other threads. Deal if you've read this limerick already.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Said: Of spite, I'm such a first rater!

    by Hat Man

  • March 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    I feel so much smarter,

    by Hat Man

  • March 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Too much plot

    by kenpoh

    I had just finished reading the story for the first time a few days before going to see the movie. The first book was great, I loved it. I think that where the movie failed was in trying to add too many "cool" moments, especially with the blue energy "gods". Take that element (the "gods") out of the movie, and it would have played a lot better, I believe.

  • March 22, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    When dissing John Carter,

    by Hat Man

  • March 22, 2012, 6:23 p.m. CST

    But really, I'm a big masturbator!

    by Hat Man

    John Carter the movie was great fun. The hate for it was incomprehensible, but there you are.

  • Same argument as the Star Wars prequels. That's the core issue with these, they don't know what they want to be so the tone falls apart. Kill babies and children? FUCK YEAH! Animated super fast dog and retard alien that does fart jokes? Sure, kids will love that!

  • March 22, 2012, 6:35 p.m. CST

    buckethead50

    by AsimovLives

    you made me remind of the latest movie adaptation of the book THE TIME MACHINE, and what a piece of shit that one was.

  • but to each his own. JC is not exactly a bad movie. but hardly one to write home about either. bland, milquetoast and banal on it's own, a poor show of the original work it's supposed be based upon. the most byzarre complain or support of the movie is the claim it's so close and faithful of the original novel, which it bloody hell isn't!

  • March 22, 2012, 6:44 p.m. CST

    Didn't think I could be less interested in this movie...

    by c_soms

    ...but this trailer proved me wrong. THIS is representative of the movie? Thank God I didn't waste my $13 or three hours...

  • March 22, 2012, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Sorry Harry, this trailer was fucking lame.

    by notcher

    That opening text screamed amateur, and what the text was saying was corny as fuck. Had Disney released this trailer first, I would've tuned out even sooner than I did with it's horrible campaign it had in the first place.

  • ...of movies come out with no marketing to speak of, and they gather word of mouth and build. Where's the positive word of mouth on JC? Nowhere. Stanton made a dull movie about a "hero" that no one can relate to or cares about. And the green dudes? Oh brudder! B-O-R-I-N-G

  • March 22, 2012, 7:42 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Well you are entitled to your opinion. I found John Carter to be delightful. And a good feel for the burroughs stories. Sorry but I guess just not your kind of movie. The lastest version of the Time Machine by the way was a bust. It's almost like the movie was made by two different people. The first half was promising ( even good in parts ) but when he arrived in the future with the Eloy and the Moorlocks it totally fell apart.

  • My paperback copy of A PRINCESS OF MARS is 159 pages long. JOHN CARTER is 132 minutes long. You'd think, then, that they must have really put the book on screen, but you'd be dead wrong. JC is that long, has it's dry spells, a convoluted and sometimes confusing story, and characters that can be hard to keep track of, not because of Burroughs' novel, but because these guys chose to grab plot and character and elements from later novels in the series and force them into the over all story of the first. There are no Therns in A PRINCESS OF MARS. And their John Carter is not Burroughs' John Carter. Theirs is a war weary widower who goes prospecting in Arizona to get away from the world and when he actually does has a "I don't wanna get involved attitude," takes a good deal of time to gather that he's on Mars, and longer still to get over the ache of a dead wife and fall for the charms of the fetching Dejah Thoris. Burroughs' is single and penniless man after the war who goes prospecting in Arizona seeking wealth and adventure, who never questions that he has been transported to Mars, who leaps into battle with a smile on his face, and who falls immediately in love with Dejah Thoris. Had these three written a faithful adaptation of A PRINCESS OF MARS we would have a rip roaring action adventure romance clocking in at about 105 minutes in theatres right now. And Disney, even if the movie suffered from the same awful title and marketing, would have a money making first of a series.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:43 p.m. CST

    Re : planetran_fan

    by Real Deal

    There were plenty of good reviews if you really wanted to see them. Sorry but I found it anything but boring.

  • March 22, 2012, 7:53 p.m. CST

    Re : d.vader About Box Office Failure

    by Real Deal

    Yes Blade Runner, The Wizard of OZ, It's A Wonderful Life and many more absolute box office failures. So Box office failures doesn't say anything about the quality of the film or how it will be looked at in the future. Her's a small list : http://blog.moviefone.com/2010/08/31/popular-movies-box-office-bombs/

  • ...do not make a move "big". In fact these diminsh every character, and detach the film from any human connection. When I look at modern films I feel like I am looking at an abstract painting. Lovely in it's own right sometimes, but mostly you just say "what is it?" because you really can't tell what's going on. And because it's so distant, confusing, and off-putting, you really don't care. Worst example I've seen of this wasn't even a sci-fi film - it was Quantum of Solace. Desaturated, seizure inducing, confusing, and filmed with that annoying staccatto motion technique that started with "Gladiator". WTF is that?

  • March 22, 2012, 7:58 p.m. CST

    Re : wrath_of_fett

    by Real Deal

    Hey! You liked the Traci Lords version! You have about as much credibility as a brick. What parts did you like? Maybe the way the Tharks ( with only two arms ) tusks wiggled when they talked? LOL!

  • March 22, 2012, 7:59 p.m. CST

    planetran_fan

    by SnootyBoots

    I think whoever made this trailer is stretching the blanket a bit there. Reading Edgar Rice Burroughs in her youth was, in fact, an influence on her going to Africa, but it was TARZAN OF THE APES that she read, not A PRINCESS OF MARS.

  • March 22, 2012, 8:02 p.m. CST

    Really Great Fan Trailer By The Way!

    by Real Deal

    I really do think that this film could have been sold differently. At least it wouldn't have been the easy prey the Trolls around here seem to love.

  • http://www.erbzine.com/mag28/2875.html

  • March 22, 2012, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Re: Domi'sinnerchild

    by Yukon Cornelius

    The hatchling killing scene wasn't simply included in the film to up the "badass" quotient; it was used to show how brutal and savage life is among the Green Martians before JC arrives on Mars to show them "The Way". I thought it was a pretty great moment in the film and was way more convincing in establishing character than Anakin's turning to the darkside on a dime and killing a bunch of younglings in ROTS. Oooooh, he's a murderer!! OK, so he's like the John Wayne Gacy of outer space--that doesn't really make him the Dark Lord of the Sith that hunted down and destroyed the Jedi that was established in the original Star Wars. In one scene the great cinematic villian Darth Vader is basically reduced to being just a sociopathic, spoiled child killer. And there's no way you can compare Woola the Martian pug/road runner to Jar-Jar! One actually has a winning personality (despite not actually speaking a word) and makes you laugh at his antics, while the other simply makes you cringe at the craptasticness of it all.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:03 p.m. CST

    The marketing was crap, but...

    by Van_Dammes_Forehead_Lump

    ...the film also sucked. End of line.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Nobody in this whole thread ever heard of Jules Verne??

    by Arcadian Del Sol

    That guy was writing science fiction about spaeships to Mars while cowboys were still fighting indians in the uncharted West.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Saw the movie with two friends on Sunday

    by ellid

    One is a big ERB fan, the other isn't. I'd read the books in high school and recently reread the first one. We all loved it, flaws and all, and were sorry to see how Disney has basically pulled a David Lynch "Dune" on this film and dumped it. My prediction? Just like Blade Runner, which was flayed by the critics in the early 1980s and lost a lot of money, this movie is going to be a lot more influential (and profitable) than anyone can foresee now. Just watch.

  • March 22, 2012, 9:44 p.m. CST

    lv 42 - agree about trailer for Prometheus vs JC

    by sportsguy88

    first off - when Alien was released the ONLY way anyone saw a trailer was at the theater or when it finally hit the TV. That's it! Internet did not exist or any other medium. No discussions to take apart every scene frame by frame or over analyze it. No way to tape/record preview to watch over and over again. Ridley and CO. are super smart with that trailer. Plus, they waited until only 3 months before the release date, another smart move. Personally, it's one of the best trailers for any movie in a long, long time. Re: JC - I can remember back to when Disney announced they were making this and how much everyone knew THEN it was going to suck. No R rating (most ranted) and it was in Disneys hands who completely ruined Prince of Persia and the few others that were DOA.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:28 p.m. CST

    Shocked at those accusing Harry of, basically, payola.

    by Lenny Nero

    I loved the movie. I have no connection to the makers of it. I paid for it opening weekend, a matinee, saw it, and loved it. I'm sorry you don't have room in your head to believe that others may disagree with you. Sheesh.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    sportsguy88...DISNEY DID NOT RUIN JOHN CARTER...

    by conspiracy

    Andrew Stanton was given a blank check...he controlled the script, the shoot, had final cut, and even controlled, up until January, the Marketing. In fact he went over budget into the double digit percentages..all without a whimper from Iger or Ross. In fact..the real problem with the Disney suits is that they DIDN'T jump in and grab the reigns of this runaway wagon.

  • March 22, 2012, 10:52 p.m. CST

    rkdn...Jules Verne was in a whole different league...

    by conspiracy

    ...really, his insight as a futurist, and the true Father of Science Fiction stands apart from pulp writers like Burroughs..who in my opinion was more an adventure writer than a true science fiction scribe.

  • March 22, 2012, 11:14 p.m. CST

    I second Jules Verne.

    by Zurge

    Seriously, the fan who made this clearly can't Google Search enough to not give credit to Jules Verne. Oh, and you know the Hindus also had a bunch of Star Wars battles, perhaps you might want to look into that because I hear it's far older and grandiose.

  • March 23, 2012, 3:47 a.m. CST

    Marketing wasn't terrible, it was the buzz that killed it...

    by A. F. Litt

    I was psyched to see this from the first trailer way back... I think what really killed it was just the buzz that it was going to be the next Waterworld and the epitome of "everything that is wrong with Hollywood." Almost ever piece I've read, seen or heard about how awful this movie is has been put together by people who have not seen it. It is like they are talking about an entirely different movie that the one I saw. And these stories all have one thing in common, they all talk about how this movie is an example of everything Hollywood gets wrong, which is terrible for movies in general. This movie was a big risk, and its failure is not going to lead to any improvements at all in the current studio system, it is only going to scare people away from taking risks. Get ready for Pirates V: Beating Rented Mules, Clash of the Titans III, and more great, future classics that make your eyeballs bleed... Whatever faults this movie had, it is getting beat up for all of the wrong reasons. As for Avatar, the writing for this movie was twice as strong, the acting no better or worse, and the CGI/3D just about equal. If this movie came out first, it would have been a whole different story. This probably would have taken Avatar's place as "The Wizard of Oz" of 3D and CGI filmmaking.

  • How so? Its visually an extremely bland movie, the 3D added nothing and its CGI is basically on par with stuff we've already seen in LotR and the prequels. Avatar was a visually rich movie that had 3D and CGI that created an immersive world and visual experience that we hadn't seen up to that point, and still haven't really seen since.

  • March 23, 2012, 5:41 a.m. CST

    AICN, this is turning into hater-baiting

    by Ciderman

    Procedure to bait haters and generate TB posts... 1- Post another story about John Carter. b- Watch the usual suspects come along and spout the same bile as they did on all the other TB's about the film, more often as not, not even having read the original story. iii- I get bored and want to read something else. Oh, and seeing as I did read the original story at the top of the page here, the trailer is pretty good, the later official trailers weren't bad, and I really enjoyed the movie, in fact I wouldn't mind watching it again. Here's hoping a sequel will be coming, something a little cheaper to make, but just as entertaining. The books were on the cheap side after all, pulp in every sense, the movie doesn't have to try to be high art, just fun. And yes, the buzz did kill the film, and sad it was too, because the buzz was generated by idiots who hadn't seen it.

  • March 23, 2012, 6:19 a.m. CST

    Disney/Stanton tried to force a multi-film LOTR/Harry Potter

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    style series, when it should've just been a pulp adventure romp.

  • March 23, 2012, 7:26 a.m. CST

    Give Me This Over Batman Anyday

    by Langalot

    The Dark Knight wears his underwear outside of his clothes. JC was fucking awesome. I hope The Avengers flops just so we quit getting these stupid superhero movies.

  • March 23, 2012, 8:39 a.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    my problem with th efirst half of the latest THE TIME MACHINE is that they turned the motivations of the scientist hero into some risible personal tragedy melodrama bullshit. Instead of him being driven by natural curisosity, a trait all scientists always have in ther past, present and future. And the second time the bride snuffs it, i actually broke down laughing. It's so bloody stupid! Yeah, you said it, that movie is a bust. Waste of good special effects. And i'm not even going to coment on possibility of words in stones surviving hundreds of thousands of years uneroded, or future people from that distant future being able to correctly pronunciate modern day english just from reading words in stones.

  • March 23, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    Take it easy boy

    by Ruth Keane

    The film sucked and not many people liked it, GET OVER IT. Anyways the only people that lost money is Disney and eh .. Ya know .. Fuck Disney

  • March 23, 2012, 10:15 a.m. CST

    yeah that was good. good poster too. i might have gone.

    by FleshMachine

    oh well.

  • March 23, 2012, 10:41 a.m. CST

    Happy Fudgepack Friday!

    by Robert Evans

    Today's subject is ... *Rude Boy* lover and Barbados' favorite daughter, RIHANNA!! So, CHOPlings, does she REALLY let you fall in love in a hopeless place?

  • But enough people who actually DID see it are pointing out a lot of the flaws in the film beyond just the marketing that poorly promoted the film, and guess what, folks are choosing to line up to see HUNGER GAMES instead. Good word of mouth saved TITANIC and that was in an age before social media. Will it have a long cult life? Maybe. But not the way Blade Runner did -- in my opinion, there just isn't enough new or compelling in John Carter to merit that. And let's face it, the weakest links in the whole mess were the story and the bland, forgettable lead actor, two factors that are often to blame for many cinematic failures.

  • March 23, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    COSMOPOLIS trailer on Collider. Looks fucking insane.

    by scrote

  • March 23, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Blame Stanton

    by BestBoy

    From what I've read, Stanton has to share the blame for the bad marketing of this film: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html I saw the film. It has it's flaws, but I enjoyed it well enough to get the blu-ray when it comes out.

  • March 23, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    imagine if disney had thrown

    by foree forehead

    250 million at a philip k. dick book instead. the three stigmata of palmer eldritch for example. holy fuck. charlie kaufman can direct it

  • March 23, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    It wasn't bad marketing, just a REALLY Bad Choice in your Lead

    by Jack Desmondi

    Zero charisma Taylor Kitsch buried this film. When you hear MONTHS before a film is released how shitty it is and how many fuck ups they are having with it and how many countless reshoots...you blame this on "poor marketing"? right.

  • March 23, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    yeah snootyboots, I agree with you

    by soma_with_the_paintbox

    Why must modern scifi blockbusters have pseudoscience exposition to make fantasy feel like sci-fi? Why must male leads have angst and guilt-driven motivations? Why does admittedly pulpy material have to reach for profundity? Why is JC so goddammned long? Why does narrative plausibility also necessitate "scientific" plausibility? (this shit is obviously shoehorned in to make morons feel better--e.g. Inception in its entirety--why are they the most cynical of all?) THIS SHIT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE MAN!!

  • March 23, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    by Adexsi

    Very little of the movie looked like what I was expecting from the book. Woola did not look like a hound. It looked like a Disney-fied space dog made to sell toys to kids! Leaving out "of Mars" from the title also another big mistake. They should have made a movie for teens and adults. Instead it seems like it was made for 5-13 year olds so Disney could sell toys. Epic fail! Can you imagine how horrible LOTR would have been if Peter Jackson did that?

  • March 23, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Yes the marketing was bad...but that didn't KILL it!

    by Jaster Mareel

    Shit The original Matrix had pretty understated marketing, and then it hit theaters and blew everyone the fuck away and created a worldwide phenominon. You know....because it was ACTUALLY GOOD!

  • March 23, 2012, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Rhianna is a Pure Joy....

    by conspiracy

    Turtles dude...Turtles..." said Rhianna when asked about the inspiration for her most note worthy talent. The Barbadian Beauty is lounging near the pool at Disney's Alona resort when we met, her panther like face glistening in the afternoon humidity as pale skinned childen from the mainland scamper about; she is radiant, beautiful, and not the least bit shy about telling her secrets... "See...growing up in Barbados...its a small place...we all know each other...and there be more guys than girls, so a woman has to set herself apart early ya know. One day...I was about 10-11, I be down on the beach..and we gots lots of these motherfuckin turtles see...them fuckers be everywhere, like fucking sea roaches...anyway, I go down there and one of these fuckers be shitting out some eggs ya know...so I think, "Girl...if you could do that, these motherfuckers would stand up and notice. So..being 10 and not knowing fuck about anything...I gets me one of them eggs, head out behind some sand dunes, and put it up my ass. I mean...shit took some fuckin effort...and at first it hurt like a bitch...but I got that mother up there...and well...here we are on this movie..right?.

  • March 23, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    One More time....

    by conspiracy

    I knew I wanted Liam for the film…” say’s Battleship Director Peter Berg; “…but it was casting Rhianna that sold him on the project.” “Getting someone like Liam Neeson isn’t easy…there is the scheduling, there are the usual questions with script and of course cost, but what can kill a casting of Liams caliber is access to anal, quite simply…in this business …it can come down to ‘no anal, no Liam’. Rhianna was the best casting decision I’ve ever made…she is amazing…trust me, Rhianna will have a career in front of the camera as long as her ass wants one…or can take it”. Berg isn’t the only person praising Rhianna, the Barbadian pop singer, tabloid regular and long time rudeboy punching bag , as she makes her acting debut with ‘Battleship’; a $200 Sci-Action Epic some are calling Transformers at Sea, cast and crew alike seem taken with the 24yr olds dedication and professionalism on set. “She’s the reason I bothered to show up…” replies award winning actor and world reknown Swordsman Liam Neeson, “…Honestly…at this stage in the game it’s about ‘experiences’, not the money, I really had my heart set on some reflective time in Cambodia…then Peter says to me, ‘well…I just cast Rhianna’, …at that moment I totally forgot about the near hairless slit around Angkor Wat and booked the soonest fuckin flight...in coach mind you…to Hawaii.” When pressed about the Rhianna casting, an unknown quantity in the acting world, Neeson is quick to praise her talents, “I first heard of Rhianna when I ran into Chris Brown…the singer…lovely fellow; he was still with her at the time…and the conversation turned to women as it always seems to do, I related a story about hanging with Jim Cameron back when he was in his ocean exploring phase, and how we both loved the Icelandic Ass we encountered in Reykjavik while in the North Atlantic.” Liam at this moment takes a pause, as if gathering a memory; “…so Chris say’s to me, ‘Brother…you ain’t had shit till you dipped your ship in some Barbadian …my bitch, Rhianna, girl got a ass deeper than the fuckin Marianas Trench…I ain't fuckin lying either...the fuckin Trieste would get lost down there...shit aliens might be livin there like them bitches in Abyss for all I know..I ain't reached bottom yet’…I knew right then and there I had to work with such a talent, this film was a godsend.” "Turtles dude...Turtles..." said Rhianna when asked about the inspiration for her most note worthy talent. The Barbadian Beauty is lounging near the pool at Disney's Alona resort when we met, her panther like face glistening in the afternoon humidity as pale skinned childen from the mainland scamper about; she is radiant, beautiful, and not the least bit shy about telling her secrets... "See...growing up in Barbados...its a small place...we all know each other...and there be more guys than girls, so a woman has to set herself apart early ya know. One day...I was about 10-11, I be down on the beach..and we gots lots of these motherfuckin turtles see...them fuckers be everywhere, like fucking sea roaches...anyway, I go down there and one of these fuckers be shitting out some eggs ya know...so I think, "Girl...if you could do that, these motherfuckers would stand up and notice. So..being 10 and not knowing fuck about anything...I gets me one of them eggs, head out behind some sand dunes, and put it up my ass. I mean...shit took some fuckin effort...and at first it hurt like a bitch...but I got that mother up there...and well...here we are on this movie..right?." Rhianna laughs heartily at relating the tale; "...you shoulda seen my pops when I get home...face all pinched up cuz I couldn't get that shit back out...he took one look and he knew what I done; so he takes me and smacks me across the face...hard..that shit popped right out this shit.." she continues lifting her sundress and exposing her perfect black ass; her dark chocolate ring blacker than Pu'u O'o lava and to this reporters eyes twice as hot. "..After that...pops said no more fucking sea turtle eggs...and tossed me a plantian..shit man..I was in heaven from then on. Shit...when I be singing, if I think of them plantains of hom I don't even need no fucking auto tune.". "A real joy...ass firmer than the bite of a Gecko and full of sweet molten mudhoney; Plus, she kept a smile on Liam the whole time" replies co-star Alexander Skarsgard when asked about the Carnal Carmel Caribbean Cutie, "...I'm just happy Liam threw a fuck my way...he's a sport like that though, and Rhianna was a total professional about it, anything for the production ya know." When asked about a particular memory involving the Songbird Sodomite, Skardgard smiles, and related the following, "Liam is hung like an god damned Silverback Ape, when we were filing on the Mighty Mo for a few days, Rhianna walked up the gangplank and said...'I could take Liam, I sure as fuck could handle this bitch', so we called him Mighty Mo the rest of the shoot. Anyway...Rhianna earned her points on this shoot, but she was up too the challenge...always ready day or night, the crew loved her. But I guess they grow Banannas bigger in barbados cuz that girl had people running all over the Island looking for fucking Plantains....I guess she tried a Pineapple but the little prickly spines weren't too her liking...bitch is really fuckin particular about her fruits Battleship opens May 18th.

  • March 23, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Most expensive B movie ever?

    by Yukon Cornelius

    I really don't get why the sharpened knives are out for John Carter of Mars. Is it simply the 250 million dollar budget? Compared to other recent expensive crap movies mostly based on toys, video games, or remakes of earlier flicks like Transformers, GI Joe, Prince of Persia, 10000 BC, The Thing, The Day the Earth Stood Still, the Star Wars prequels, The Matrix Sequels, 2012, Clash of the Titans, et al., John Carter of Mars is a veritable masterpiece of cinema fantastique. Yes, a lot of the material in it has been mined by others in the past 100 years and yes, it's not Star Wars, 2001: A Space Odyssey or even Avatar, but it's SO much better than most of the shite that comes out of Hollywood passing for sci-fi. I went in without a ton of expectations and enjoyed it for what it WAS--a big budget, Harryhausian B movie based on a 100 year old pulp novel--and I ended up loving it a lot more than I ever thought I would. But to each his own, I just don't get the ghoulish glee some appear to have over the disappointing box office/critical success of this particular genre film.

  • I mean, $250M was about 5 years of budget for Miramax! Look how many great films came out of that company. I want my fucking New Line Cinema back. I mean teh OLD New Line, before they decided to be big shots and produce LOTR (not that I'm complaining mind you). But the guys who did A Nightmare on Elm Street, The Mask, Blade, The Cell, Magnolia, American History X, etc. They haven't really made anything worth a shit since 2005's A History of Violence.

  • March 23, 2012, 2:18 p.m. CST

    What *really* doomed JOHN CARTER:

    by Orbots Commander

    No, it wasn't just the admittedly shitty marketing campaign. It was the decided lack of positive word of mouth from those that have seen the film. If the best thing viewers were saying about JC were, "Eh, it's okay, not terrible, not great", then yeah, that won't do a lot for your $300 Million movie.

  • March 23, 2012, 2:22 p.m. CST

    And let's remember....

    by Orbots Commander

    ...per the recent NY Times piece, all the marketing went through Andrew Stanton. Disney gave him approval power, and he pushed for the original lackluster ads and the 'John Carter' title. Only in the final few weeks prior to its release, did the Disney marketing department take over and release the action-heavy trailer, along with the above poster.

  • March 23, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    Correction....

    by Orbots Commander

    the piece about Stanton was in the New Yorker, not the Times.

  • March 23, 2012, 2:45 p.m. CST

    One of the few scenes that really shined in JC...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...was when James Purefoy showed up, whispered 'Take me prisoner' and with some Errol Flynn type pizazz, rescued JC, bringing him to Lynn Collins' Deja. If the movie had more sequences like that, it would have had a different fate.

  • March 23, 2012, 2:47 p.m. CST

    This Talkback=proof that AICN is visited by bitches

    by Drath

    Fuck naysayers. John Carter was a good movie, the critics are wrong--they weren't about Transformers and that DID make money, so no one listens to them in the first place. Most people, like you fuckers, made up their minds not to see it, based on the ads and the marketing campaign. The word of mouth has largely been GOOD. Rotten Tomatoes is bullshit.

  • And I'm a sucker for these movies. I'll definitely see this. Galactically stupid title, though.

  • March 23, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    Poor Drath you sound deeply hurt by this...

    by nobbythehappyelf

    I probably would have paid to see this if it hadn't been for the awful cack handed pushing by AICN. As for Goofy's Codpiece (Beaks) telling us that a big scifi film would never again be made if we failed to pay up... Fuck him. I might borrow a BD off a chum in the future - but I'll never pay to watch this movie. Oh and the Tracy Lords version is a giggle!

  • March 23, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    Somewhere up there someone accused me of =liking= the Tracy Lords version

    by Jaster Mareel

    Um, no. I didn't even finish it. I just said I was impressed they actually got a coherant story on a 12 day shoot and that I appreciated the fact that they actually tried to make it relevant to modern audiences. But yeah, it's still shit. That shouldn't really require clarification.

  • March 23, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Drath -- you are WRONG, sir...

    by Kikstad

    We "naysayer" geek fanboys are brobably the only ones who DID shell out money to see "John Carter." The problem is, no one else did.

  • but you are right...after 15-20minutes you're over it and ready to have a smoke.

  • Admit it - some of you even said Meh, or "WTF, he only shoots the women?"

  • March 23, 2012, 5:05 p.m. CST

    John Carter was pretty decent

    by apersonofinterest

    i thought the movie was pretty good. They could have saved themselves a hell of a lot of money by trimming the fat on some of those shots. Seemed like a lot of unnecessary sweeping panaramic scenes of battle going on. I think they were going for an "epic" feel like lord of the Rings or Clone Wars. Lord of the Clone Ring Wars.

  • The marketing for that was phenomenal, showing us incredible images but building a mystery around it - What is the Matrix?- and then telling us that no one can be told what the Matrix is. We have to experience it for ourselves (this is what Morpheus told Neo). That created an intense anticipation for what it all meant and why those unbelievable images and action were taking place. So no, this is not comparable to The Matrix's ad campaign in the slightest.

  • March 23, 2012, 7:56 p.m. CST

    Oh, look how much money they spent!

    by Guj19

    I think there was already a negative connotation with this movie, the moment the money was spent and the troubles it had getting made. The media focused on the money and not what it was actually spent on, which was an absolutely amazing film! As for "the middle dragged" excuse, I never really felt that way once throughout. Alas, we won't get to see Carter jumping across the screen for probably another 100 years...

  • Two totally different things. People are saying people didn't go to John Carter because the trailers didn't show big action shit. My point was that the Matrix didn't either, and it was a huge hit. So people can't blame the marketing for the film bombing, they can only blame the film itself. By the way, the international market which was supposed to be this film's saving grace fell 55% in it's second week.

  • March 23, 2012, 9:34 p.m. CST

    And I said the ABYSS IS A PIECE OF SHIT!

    by TheKiller7

  • March 23, 2012, 9:35 p.m. CST

    A HATEFUL BITCH at that

    by TheKiller7

  • March 23, 2012, 9:38 p.m. CST

    Wrath of Fett, I still disagree with that about The Matrix

    by D.Vader

    I don't think it was understated. I remember seeing Trinity's air kick, her swinging from the helicopter and slamming into the building, Neo and his bullet time... In fact, the ads *were* all about action, but they framed it as being a mystery. Why and no is this action possible? I certainly wouldn't call it understated. What's your definition of the word in regards to film marketing?

  • March 23, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    Matrix just looked like a generic sci fi action film in the trailer

    by Jaster Mareel

    Like Virtuosity or Timecop or something. The ammount of restraint WB showed in their marketing was fucking flabberghasting. I will never forget the audience reaction when the matrix was revealed. A room full of gasps. It was fucking incredible. I was completely stunned myself and I remember being so joyful that a movie could still surprise me. Maybe it's an obtuse point, but I'm just saying that the Matrix trailer wasn't making anyone jump up and down, but WB definitely had the goods and COULD have made jaws drop for the trailer. Thank fucking God they didn't of course.

  • March 23, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    The only thing that looked generic to me about The Matrix...

    by D.Vader

    Was Keanu Reeves, and that's bc the distaste of Johnny Nemonic was still so fresh in my mouth. Otherwise, the visuals, to me anyway, looked outstanding. As for the ads making people jump up an down... Eh. Guess we'll have to disagree on our memories. The way I remember it, people were very excited about the film. They couldn't wait to find out what The Matrix was.

  • March 23, 2012, 11:44 p.m. CST

    Based on that, I guess LisaB didn't really watch The Matrix

    by D.Vader

    Shocking.

  • March 23, 2012, 11:57 p.m. CST

    LisaB, displaying ignorance at every step once again

    by D.Vader

    My, this is fun. 1. "it's a property beloved by a very small but very vocal minority of people whose relevance is pretty much zero in modern society. " Completely irrelevant. And also false. I guess Carl Sagan has zero relevance to modern society. 2. "It's a classic example of a studio making the mistake of listening to the internet, which has historically never, ever paid off. " Also irrelevant. But also, not surprisingly, false. There is no correlation between this movie and "listening to the Internet". Once again, LisaB lies and makes shit up. 3. "But, yes, there's a delight in seeing people scream from the rooftops how this was going to change the face of cinema" Nobody said this. Nobody (other than a few, irrelevant, minorities, and there I'm just accounting for a margin of error). Again, you are completely deluded and living in a fantasy world where none of the bullshit you believe or think occurred ever actually happened. 4. "sci-fi as we know it will be back to the days before STAR WARS when it was regarded as box-office poison and relegated to the role of worthless kid's films." I didn't realize films like 2001 were considered kids' films. And after the success of AVATAR, you can bet you're wrong on the point about sci-fi failure as well. 5. " A lot of my venom comes from people posting their claims the film would be amazing, would do well, etc. We all knew it wouldn't. Anyone who thought otherwise was being wretchedly optimistic, rose-tinted and all that sort of thing. You simply had to look at reality, at how the film looked." So you admit you're basically just a very vindictive and immature child? Impressive. Thanks for proving us all right; that was easy. And that's the way it is. Good night.

  • March 24, 2012, 2:28 a.m. CST

    Yeah... I dunno

    by thebearovingian

    I had no interest in seeing this but I'm kinda on the fence. I may go see it out of pity. This fan trailer has stirring music but the film footage is still uninteresting and overly CGI.

  • March 24, 2012, 3:55 a.m. CST

    lisab

    by AsimovLives

    you realised that all the impossible things that happened in the movie THE MATRIX happened inside a computer simulation of the real world which the protagonists could hack into and bend the rules, right?

  • March 24, 2012, 3:56 a.m. CST

    thebearovingian

    by AsimovLives

    it's an average movie.

  • March 24, 2012, 6:47 a.m. CST

    Hunger Games is making bank because you can't lose

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    pandering to whatever shiny new tween/YA series is all the rage. Exceptions are also-rans like, say, Spiderwick.

  • April 20, 2012, 7:29 p.m. CST

    Best trailer

    by Johnny

    This is the best thing I've seen in a long time. http://youtu.be/TNqEJczNf4g

  • 1st, here's a link for the absolutely epic scene where Carter and Woola take on the Thark Army by themselves. If your inner child has been strangled to death long ago, and you cant respond to anything that isnt packaged as "edgy & cynical", then dont read any further... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ZeptdPPrU&feature=related If you think that various forces within Disney, Inc. has inexplicably buried the production of a LONG-awaited adaptation of THE classic science-fiction epic that launched science-fiction epics, then could I have a few minutes of your time? There are a growing number of fans who are not only questioning the marketing expertise, but the basic business motives behind what is called the "biggest financial disaster in Hollywood in decades" at a time when financial disasters turn out to be even bigger financial schemes for people who dont deserve a penny more for their ill-gotten gains. Some of these fans are organizing with petition sites like thejohncarterfiles.com. Others like Harry Knowles are sending out the word about John Carter of Mars like "Voices in the Wilderness" ... more power 2 them. I saw John Carter twice, and that scene with Carter & Woola vs the Tharks made me weep. actually weep.I got a little misty-eyed when Frodo and the Elves sailed to the Western lands in LOTR. But that scene in John Carter of Mars made me cry. I even questioned myself when I saw it again, and asked " Why am I crying?"...the answer is " Because John Carter of Mars is a really, REALLY good movie ." Now why is that film somehow the one "flop" that lost Disney $250 million? Why were critics pissing on the movie even before the trailers were DONE? So why do I care? I was 8 years old when I saw 2001: A Space Odyssey with my dad, and I ended up explaining it to him because I had just read the Jack Kirby adaptation that he put out in 1976. Pulp sci-fi taught me how to read. How to imagine. I actually thought John Carter of Mars was more i actually thought the movie was more in the vein of pulp sci-fi than the Star Wars prequels were. I recall the 1970s original Marvel comic adaptation of John Carter , Warlord of Mars by Roy Thomas, Gil Kane, and Dave Cockrum. I remember tracing out bicep muscles from JCM when I was teaching myself how to draw comics at age 14 . Now, at age 47, I've finished 2 graphic novels (www.thelegendofjowlung.org) HENCE, I care. It took decades for science-fiction to be respected as a literary genre, well before the CGI blockbusters of the 21st Century. Fans like me had 2 write, annoy, and piss off critics & haters before the George Lucases and the Stanley Kubricks could even get their feet in the door. But , in the end, we succeeded. Sci -fi is a popular, wonderful teaching tool that can get kids interested in math, sciences, AND the arts . So that makes the world a better place. I say where there's smoke, there's fire. There's a $250 million cloud coming out of the Disney penthouse right now. Andrew Stanton can be "blamed" for making another great film, maybe his best so far. Fans got movies like the Avengers made. Fans got continuity into Marvel Productions. Somebody @ Disney Corporate wants 2 bury John Carter. Fans can resurrect it. The 21st Century is the Age of the Fanboy/Girl. Im not done yet. Here's my last bit. Everybody here at AICN puts their time & energy into the Fanboy culture that we all help 2 create everyday just by talking 2 each other. So here's 2 or 3 ideas if anybody out there wants to build on it: 1)post sincere, fan-made reviews praising John Carter of Mars. That part wont be hard because its really a great film. Refer to it at all times as John Carter of Mars. A big reason that Avengers exploded was because of fan-made reviews on youtube. They came in faster than the critics from the industry press. The fans can MAKE IT HAPPEN. 2) create a John Carter scene/convention/enviroment for JC fans REGARDLESS of how Disney packages, or markets it . Shout down the haters with love..... Dont engage in pissing matches with every crank out there, and dont try 2 blame EVERYONE at Disney 4 failing John Carter of Mars because somebody there wanted it made in the 1st place. 3)Start petitions to investigate the snakes who stole its profits through shady marketing...if its Hollywood's biggest failure, then somebody's pocket is light. And that somebody is gonna come back looking their damn money. Do like Deepthroat. Follow the Money.$250 million is $250 million. So here's my John Carter recap 4 everybody: strategy: 1)love the film. 2)talk 2 fans. 3)expose the fraud. who's with me? who will pledge their metal to mine? clyhrrs letuzsee@gmail.com