175 replies to this topic

[John Mosby]

(I don't think there's an individual thread for this, but if so, feel free to merge...)

John Carter, the story of a legendary ER Doctor overshadowed by George Clooney and who decides to become a Civil War solider and then to another planet, opens next week.

Here's my piece with a surprisingly snarky Andrew Stanton...

http://www.impactonl...s-and-marketing

[Ogul]

Judging from the trailers alone, John Carter seems to miss the entire point of the franchise, which is Deja Thoris (which I am shocked to discover is in the spell checker already), running around mostly naked.

[jamon g]

i think it's out here. worst name for movie ever, has anyone seen it? my wife says the aliens look too much like jar jar so i'm not allowed to watch it.

[Steve Sensible]

Stanton was on with Mayo and Kermode yesterday, and said they changed the name because "..of Mars" put non sci-fi fans off. Which is like Warners calling a Superman movie "Big City Reporter." Nobody cares about that aspect of Superman, and likewise, this movie is about the "...of Mars" part of the story, so they should be shouting it from the rooftops.

Also, who goes to see a movie without having any idea what it's about? If you've seen a single poster or trailer, you know that this isn't exactly a kitchen-sink drama. By dropping the "of Mars", it suggests that they were hoping to dupe idiots into seeing something that's obviously a sc-fi movie!

No wonder Stanton has come across so cranky in all his interviews - they've sunk his movie before it's even opened.

[Christian U]

It's a shame. What's interesting is this myth that people think they don't like sci-fi that led to the title being changed. Maybe that explains why Avatar hasn't drawn a huge number of emulators.

[brucegray666]

Hold the phone, can we back up to that bit about naked chicks running about...

[steveuk]

Hold the phone, can we back up to that bit about naked chicks running about...

No point, because as noted earlier; that aint happening.

You'll have to wait for 'John Carter: The XXX Parody', which will also feature porn dudes painted a patchy green and sporting two fake arms each. Probably arms anyway.

I've said this about a lot of things but I believe the people behind the name change spent too much time only talking to each other about the film (its all very secret during production) and ended up wandering waaaaaaay off the point.

If this film tanks (and it might) someone's gonna get fired. Probably several someones.

It's a shame. What's interesting is this myth that people think they don't like sci-fi that led to the title being changed. Maybe that explains why Avatar hasn't drawn a huge number of emulators.

Some people who make film and TV don't like the genre. It's odd seeing actors (who tend to do the most interviews) who had a hit in a scifi tv show or movie saying they don't like the genre, but it happens.

To many people its just a job that allows them to use their skillset, that's what they get out of the process. The problem occurs when they apply their personal taste to something they don't like. From there the only way is down.

[Ogul]

Hold the phone, can we back up to that bit about naked chicks running about...

Google image search "Dejah Thoris". For better or worse, pretty much anything you turn up will be more canonical to the books than the movie interpretation. You'll see what I mean.

[Christian U]

Some people who make film and TV don't like the genre. It's odd seeing actors (who tend to do the most interviews) who had a hit in a scifi tv show or movie saying they don't like the genre, but it happens.

To many people its just a job that allows them to use their skillset, that's what they get out of the process. The problem occurs when they apply their personal taste to something they don't like. From there the only way is down.

There's probably a lot of marketing target audience studies and stuff out there that'll prove that people don't like sci-fi, in spite of the great number of enormously successful sci-fi films.

[Dave Wallace]

I've heard very mixed reviews on this - some say it's excellent, whilst most of them are pretty lukewarm at best. I've been really looking forward to it as a fan of Stanton's work in animation, but even so, I think the trailers and marketing haven't really done it any favours.

There's probably a lot of marketing target audience studies and stuff out there that'll prove that people don't like sci-fi, in spite of the great number of enormously successful sci-fi films.

I remember an anecodote told by Rob Grant and Doug Naylor when they were first pitching "Red Dwarf" to the BBC, where they were initially turned down and flat-out told that the public just didn't like science-fiction. They rattled off a list of sci-fi successes (ET, Close Encounters etc.) and the exec said, "You're right, the public do like sci-fi, don't they?" (and then commissioned them to make a sci-fi show that wasn't Red Dwarf. )

I think the point is that there's a certain received wisdom that sci-fi is a turn-off for audiences, when that really isn't the case - which is clear if you think about it for more than two seconds.

[Steve Sensible]

The thing I don't get is that the vast majority of big blockbusters have at least some sci-fi/fantasy elements, so why play that down? Looking at last year's highest-grossing movies, there's only one in the top five (Hangover II) that doesn't.

And why include nothing but spaceships and monsters in the trailer if you're trying to deny that it's a genre movie?

[steveuk]

The thing I don't get is that the vast majority of big blockbusters have at least some sci-fi/fantasy elements, so why play that down? Looking at last year's highest-grossing movies, there's only one in the top five (Hangover II) that doesn't.

And why include nothing but spaceships and monsters in the trailer if you're trying to deny that it's a genre movie?

Odd isn't it?

Utterly contradictory.

One thing that popped up briefly was this;

So what’s Disney’s explanation? “It’s the last leftover from the previous regime of Dick Cook,” an executive who works for successor Rich Ross reminds me. “We’re not running away from the movie. Our job is to sell it.” Then again, Cook also left Ross Alice In Wonderland to sell, too, along with other hits and a few misses.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/john-carter-early-tracking-shockingly-soft-could-be-biggest-writeoff-of-all-time/

New execs often have little enthusiasm for the projects they inherit from a previous regime. That could explain the lack of focus.

[Mike]

I think it looks awful. But then, I've never been a great fan of Burroughs in general.

[jamon g]

they really need to stop with the 'you are the only american that can save the world' schtick. they're spreading it to other planets now!

[steveuk]

I think it looks awful. But then, I've never been a great fan of Burroughs in general.

I think it looks awful too, but according to John (and some others), it's not.

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/john_carter/


I've only read 'A Princess of Mars' and I was probably too old to be blown away by it the way others have been. The book was interesting but I wasn't inspired to pick up the other ten.

[steveuk]

[David Chapman]

Google image search "Dejah Thoris". For better or worse, pretty much anything you turn up will be more canonical to the books than the movie interpretation. You'll see what I mean.

I'll save you the time. Here's the cover of Dynamite's new series, which does not oversexualise Dejah Thoris in any way at all.

[John Mosby]

It's a weird feeling, actually. Seeing the film, I'm genuinely torn. There are some things it does very well indeed, some things that are only less good because they've been diluted by familiarity and some things that just don't work. But all in all, the only problem is the meandering pace and how long various elements need to come together (especially at the start)

I'd recommend seeing it, but I suspect the grades will hover between 7-8 out of 10 in most cases.

One suspects that IF the re-titling doesn't cripple it and Stanton does get a sequel it will be called 'John Carter Does More Stuff' just to be consistent.

[jamon g]

a year for that - thank god for computers!

[David Chapman]

One suspects that IF the re-titling doesn't cripple it and Stanton does get a sequel it will be called 'John Carter Does More Stuff' just to be consistent.

The retitling was specifically done because girls won't go to see John Carter of Mars and boys won't go to see A Princess of Mars, in both cases because they don't know what the movie is really about. A sequel won't suffer that perceived branding problem, so would probably be titled something like John Carter: Warlord of Mars.