Did anyone see John Carter?

[DVCDad]

The movie was good, the marketing was horrific.

[supernova]

From the looks of the numbers, I'm not sure anyone within the Disney company saw the film, either.

[WDW4Ever]

The movie was good, the marketing was horrific.

I can agree with that. The previews really didn't help make the case to go see it. I watched 2/3 of Avatar last night for the first time and I thought that John Carter, storytelling wise, was far superior to Avatar.

[supernova]

I think the title of this thread sums it up pretty well. "Did anyone see John Carter?" With a budget of 250million and a box office of 68million to date, the overall answer seems to be on. NO ONE saw John Carter.

[StewbotTalborg]

I think the title of this thread sums it up pretty well. "Did anyone see John Carter?" With a budget of 250million and a box office of 68million to date, the overall answer seems to be on. NO ONE saw John Carter.

We know that's not true, there are 4 people on this thread so far who have confessed to seeing it.

[supernova]

Quite a few times each, then, for the movie to make 68 million

[ohiodisneydad]

I haven't seen it yet but I was planning on it this week but it's gone from my local theater. I'll go see it at the dollar saver theater. Besides my local cinema was only playing it in Disney 3D. I hate this 3D craze. Aside from the fact that it gives me headaches, it annoys me that I have to pay to "rent" a set of 3D glasses.

The marketing on this was terrible. The first commercials made no attempt to tell the "of Mars" side of the story. C'mon Disney, this was John Carter OF MARS. The books alone inspired great sci fi writers. I still remember my dad giving me his copies to read when I was younger. I do believe the DVD/Bluray sales and over sees market will help Disney make it's money back but I still think they wanted it to fail. Where were the big tie ins ot toys? I mean you can't walk through a toy department right now without tripping over an Avengers display.

[supernova]

I haven't seen it yet but I was planning on it this week but it's gone from my local theater. I'll go see it at the dollar saver theater. Besides my local cinema was only playing it in Disney 3D. I hate this 3D craze. Aside from the fact that it gives me headaches, it annoys me that I have to pay to "rent" a set of 3D glasses.

3D for the sake of 3D is pitiful. Although I think now the concept of 3D has changed a bit. In the 80s, 3D meant thinks popping out at you from awful and obvious camera angles (Jaws 3D is a prime example of cut-away camera angles and cheesy 'frog in your lap' 3D scenes). Today, 3D is more about depth perception which, in reality, you can do with any movie. Titanic was just released in 3D and nothing about it was intended to be in 3D. However, they take a huge film, make it 3D, and increase the ticket price by anywhere between four and ten dollars on top of the original ticket. Suddenly, your box office is inflated.

The marketing on this was terrible. The first commercials made no attempt to tell the "of Mars" side of the story. C'mon Disney, this was John Carter OF MARS. The books alone inspired great sci fi writers. I still remember my dad giving me his copies to read when I was younger. I do believe the DVD/Bluray sales and over sees market will help Disney make it's money back but I still think they wanted it to fail. Where were the big tie ins ot toys? I mean you can't walk through a toy department right now without tripping over an Avengers display.

Toys are a different story. Some movies did well in that area. As mediocre as the film was, Cars toys are big money for collectors, which is making it difficult for me to find anything fun for my nephew, who is two and just discovered the movie within the past year. Now it's all he plays with. He has traded his old cars and trucks for ones with eyes, and at such a young age knows every single car's name. But for every Cars, there are ten Pirates of the Caribbean 4 and Tron 2 films. I'm still passing these in the aisles.

As for DVD sales, I figure good publicity from the people who DID see the movie will help them to spread the word and boost home sales. From my vantage point, Disney saw that they had a less-than-stellar film set to be released (as I posted above, any time you're offering free showings, you've got a problem on your hands) so they figure if enough people see it for free and they enjoy it, then they will help get the word out there for us. So in that way, you can afford to cut back on your ad campaign. I saw the trailer online and was turned off to it. So maybe it was how they presented it. Still, I guess in a way it's worth having an embarrassing 68M box office take to begin recouping losses on your 250M project and hope that worldwide DVD and online rental sales will make up the rest. It works for other studios that are creating direct-to-video projects (though perhaps on a smaller budget than 250M).

[Mo Noyz]

The first Cars was very good, IMO.

I still refuse to watch the second one.

[supernova]

Good choice. Certainly one to avoid. The first Cars was better than I expected it to be. I didn't see it in the theater but enjoyed the story at home (though I did have to fast forward through a few slow parts). But definitely a good story. Pixar didn't have much faith in it and it was one of their weaker performers. On the other hand...

Cars 2 put me to sleep. Literally. Wonder how they'll do with Planes.

[Mo Noyz]

Once I heard how "Mater heavy" the second one is, I was out.

Even before that it didn't look like it would be any good. The whole foreign spy thing looked terribly forced and completely out of place.

[supernova]

I think because they've overdone Mater now with Mater's Tall Tales and the other spin off shorts, they realized that they've done the car angle to death.

I once read that they were disappointed with how limited they were working with characters without arms, so their interaction would be limited. So they wanted to do more with them the second time around and try an action movie. They pulled it off, to a point, but they were so caught up in the sequences that they forgot to write a worthwhile script and story.

[ohiodisneydad]

Cars 2 was all about Mater. Lighting McQueen was a secondary character throughout the whole movie. My kids liked it but I'm not a fan of the Larry the Cable guy character. I've seen some of his earlier stand up where he's just a regular guy. Funny the accent just wasn't there.

Disney kneecapped John Carter early. That first preview was pitiful. The main character standing in an environment that looked straight out of the American Southwest never carried the importance of the original story. I can't argue for the strength of the story. I haven't seen it but I have friends who have. The ones who are scifi fans loved it. The ones who aren't thought it was ok.

And toys certainly help. That's why you usually see the toy aisles packed full of movie tie ins months before the film releases. As a toy collector I peruse the action figure aisles frequently. The Thor line was up and ready to go way before the movie hit the theaters and is in fact still in the aisles.

[supernova]

And toys certainly help. That's why you usually see the toy aisles packed full of movie tie ins months before the film releases. As a toy collector I peruse the action figure aisles frequently. The Thor line was up and ready to go way before the movie hit the theaters and is in fact still in the aisles.

That's the problem... too many of these toy lines are dying on the vine. Or store shelves, in this case. Pirates 3 toys didn't sell well. Why would you come out with Pirates 4 toys? Maybe it's to keep the Thor toys company.

[ohiodisneydad]

Maybe so, but in John Carter, Disney had what could have potentially been the start of a huge franchise. There are a number of books to pull from in the Princess of Mars chronicles. So why not go all in and take a chance with all the tie ins? I bet we'll be stumbling over Lone Ranger toys when it comes out.