A Princess of Mars, the 1st John Carter adventure

[JunkMonkey]

I do wonder sometimes, when a 'huge flop' like this is announced, exactly what is being shovelled into the financial black hole. Does this this 250million include all the planning and development they have put into the sequels and theme parks? I bet it does.

This is a bit (but not a lot) like the sort of economics that 'saves' money by not spending it. I saved £250,000 last week by not buying a Rolls Royce.

 

[iansales]

Most films have to make around three times their budget in order to break even. And success or failure is usually determined by opening weekend box office. Which is completely dumb, as many films that failed at the cinema went on to make a fortune via merchandising and sell-through DVD.

As for John Carter, I don't understand the vitriol levelled at it. I enjoyed it. It's a better film than Avatar. Perhaps it simply doesn't appeal to people who don't know the books (you don't have to like the books to like the film, however.) The film's lack of success seems to be a result of a lack of champions at Disney. The people who commissioned it and would have curated it through marketing, release and distribution no longer work there. And no one else wanted to take responsibility for it. Hence the lack-lustre marketing campaign, the lack of merchandising, the feeble defence to negative reviews, and Disney's own press release stating they're effectively writing it off as a loss.

I suspect the film will do really well on DVD, and will eventually pick up the acclaim it didn't receive while at the cinema. Like Blade Runner.

 

[clovis-man]

Most films have to make around three times their budget in order to break even. And success or failure is usually determined by opening weekend box office. Which is completely dumb, as many films that failed at the cinema went on to make a fortune via merchandising and sell-through DVD.

As for John Carter, I don't understand the vitriol levelled at it. I enjoyed it. It's a better film than Avatar. Perhaps it simply doesn't appeal to people who don't know the books (you don't have to like the books to like the film, however.) The film's lack of success seems to be a result of a lack of champions at Disney. The people who commissioned it and would have curated it through marketing, release and distribution no longer work there. And no one else wanted to take responsibility for it. Hence the lack-lustre marketing campaign, the lack of merchandising, the feeble defence to negative reviews, and Disney's own press release stating they're effectively writing it off as a loss.

I suspect the film will do really well on DVD, and will eventually pick up the acclaim it didn't receive while at the cinema. Like Blade Runner.

2001 A Space Odyssey got poor reviews at first. But that changed after it had been out for some time.

I finally got around to seeing John Carter today. It was melodramatic, somewhat sexist, and not terribly "deep" in terms of the overall story. But then, this was also true of ER Burroughs novel and all of its successors. What interested me was that Disney (which can always be relied upon for excellent production values, BTW) seemed to strive for a modicum of faithfullness to the original text. As such, it was bound to elicit criticism as a retelling of a 100 year old story in semi-modern terms (It was a tad steam-punky here and there). And yes, a tad corny here and there as well: the playful calot, Sola's "hurray for our side" cheering. But all that was easily absorbed into the telling of the tale. The only thing that really bothered me was the expanded villainy of the Therns. Not sure why that seemed necessary. Overall, I found it enjoyable and I didn't visualize Burroughs spinning in his grave. I hope that's not damning with faint praise.

 

[Jeffbert]

I am reading the last book in the series

I recently watched both John Carter & an earlier 21st century version of the story titled A Princess of Mars. The Disney version JC, was a joke! Everything that made Carter what he was, was changed. Carter was a man who loved to fight, was the best swordsman on two worlds, & yet, Disney's John Carter made him a pacifist, who was unfamiliar with a sword. Dejah Thoris was the one who saved him, & she was both a warrior & her nation's best scientist. I know the ERB's stories were anything but PC, but this thing just went too far. [Pukes]! There are just too many plot elements that are backward, upside down, inside-out, or fun house mirror reflections of what they should have been.

On the other hand, A Princess of Mars, was fairly accurate to the novel of the same name. Its fault was also the Disney version's only redeeming feature. A Princess of Mars had modest special effects, & most of the creatures / beings were physically very different from ERB's descriptions of them. the Disney version, while having accurate physical representations of beings & creatures, offered nothing else worthwhile. If only they had used the screen play of A Princess of Mars when they made John Carter! I had though that the film's failure was because of a poor advertising campaign; few people had any idea of who JC even was. But I was very wrong.

Anyway, I am now reading the last story SKELETON MEN OF JUPITER, & I can safely state that none of these stories would make it in our age, they are pure chauvinism; all the women are abducted, or fall into enemy hands & need the big strong heroes (not always John Carter) to save them.

There are some elements that may have inspired other SF tales. In SYNTHETIC MEN OF MARS, there is an ever-growing blob-like (for lack of a better description) creature that may have inspired THE BLOB.

 

[BAYLOR]

I read it long ago and loved it. It's still a great book and Burroughs influenced more than a few writers.

 

[Guttersnipe]

If it's a good predictor of the quality of the rest of the series, I must read more.