John Carter bombs at the box office. $200 million loss for Disney

[heisenberg]

I wasnt too shocked when I read this:Ross, 50, had taken the job just two and a half years ago with a mission to cut costs and develop new hits. He had brought "High School Musical" and "Hannah Montana" to TV audiences as the former head of Disney Channels Worldwide.But the studio's losses continued under Ross despite major restructuring efforts.A month ago, Disney booked a $200 million loss on "John Carter," a special-effects-laden movie based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs book series. The movie starring Taylor Kitsch had an estimated budget of $250 million, matching what 20th Century Fox spent on "Avatar."They spent what was spent on Avatar on this thing? REALLY?I saw this movie myself.* Hmmm. Where to start?Initial ImpressionThe movie opens with AWESOME visuals of alien looking skyships fighting a war with guns (yes, the kind that shoot bullets), aas well as some other interesting energy weapons. The scene is exciting and promises to deliver a wild, spectacular story. But the promise is horribly broken. After all of this, we are taken to the dusty Civil War South and confronted visually with....get this....Confederate soldiers. I am sure this is in the book even though I have not read it, but they overdid it.



First of all, I immediately formed a dislike for this John Carter character, who seemed hellbent on getting to his cave of gold. Although I have not read the book, I understood that this movie could be "enjoyed" by anyone even if they had not read the book, which was written a hundred years ago. The Civil War backdrop seemed odd, and I just could not connect with it. It seemed that this movie was the vision of a much older person, say in their 80's. Civil War banter, spitting of tobacco and shooting of "Indians" by the Confederate soldiers struck me in a very negative way. I already did not like John Carter, and then they pile on the Confederate soldiers, and within minutes of encountering Native Americans, one of the Confederates shoots first without provocation. This is most likely how things happened during that time. But why would ANY modern, progressive audience want to see that in their blockbuster scifi-saga? I certainly didnt.The movie went on to get John to Mars in a magical way which made no sense to me at all. You can read more if you dont mind spoilers, in the GateFans Forums HERE. I tried to find ways to appreciate it, but failed completely. The men on horses chasing John in the desert-like Utah plain was shortly followed 10 minutes later with green aliens riding alien animals. Why did this scene look familiar? Because the "aliens" and "alien animals" moved and ran EXACTLY like horses, and the "aliens" looked like men riding the horses. Reskinning men on horses with CGI and making them aliens



does not hide what they are. The gait of the alien animals and the movements of the aliens (despite them having two sets of arms) did not allow me to suspend belief. BORING. And why did Mars look like Utah?The story on Mars began with these green four-armed aliens who wear loincloths and carry weapons that look and sound like rifles (groan). They are obviously supposed to be the alien version of "Injuns", with the rich and powerful Helios people as the ruling elite. This thing goes on and on and towards the end it sorta comes together, but still remains unfulfilled and lackluster.How could they get it wrong for $250 million dollars? They could have hired 100 people at $1000 each to review the movie at regular intervals to see how they liked it. They could have just NOT MADE THE MOVIE IN THE FIRST PLACE. Why would they pick that story to tell in 2012 and with such a large budget? I do not pretend to know the machinations of the Gods. Perhaps they were so high on their idea they couldn't see the ground? Enough on the finger pointing.The Good (there was good?):The quality of the visuals was top notch. I mean from the technology side. I am a tech professional, not a CGI guy, but I noticed how fluid the movement and the seamless integration of CGI with live footage looked. The wardrobe of the actors was well executed, and the cinematography was good. Even the musical score was okay.* Not much else to say good about the movie without thinking more than 60 seconds.I cant finish this piece without mentioning how I was once again disappointed at the telling of the SAME tired story of the angry rebel white man who encounters natives who show him the ways of honor and truth, only to become their leader and lead them to victorious battle. Of course, he gets the princess/native princess/kings daughter/OMG stop doing this. How many times will this be done? Pocahontas, Avatar, Dances with Wolves, a Man Called Horse, Enemy Mine. Stop it already. Disney took it deeply on this one, and I think it is safe to say that any future John Carter endeavors with Disney will not be explored.

 

[shavedape]

OM1 recently did a really good review on this dog of a movie. (I'm too lazy to find the link today lol) You two touched on many of the same issues which makes me wonder how the producers couldn't see the problems from their perspective. It's unbelievable that they could spend so much money producing this and not see how bad it was. That's just crazy.

 

[Bluce Ree]

OM1 recently did a really good review on this dog of a movie. (I'm too lazy to find the link today lol) You two touched on many of the same issues which makes me wonder how the producers couldn't see the problems from their perspective. It's unbelievable that they could spend so much money producing this and not see how bad it was. That's just crazy.

I think this movie deserves a fair balance of positivity.

Many people positively disliked it because it was very nicely put together to be a bad movie. Disney, which is well known for very positive childhood greats like Cinderella and Snow White, put a lot of effort and other people's hard earned money into John Carter and they should be applauded for having made such a fine, respectable mess of things. It's always a very good idea to not update the context of an old, old book to modern times when making what they hope to be a modern blockbuster and, to that, I tip my hat in a very positive manner. In the spirit of positivity, I would like to present them with a trophy for being on the bottom end end of the IQ scale which, if you turn that line upside down, they're way out front.

 

[shavedape]

I think this movie deserves a fair balance of positivity.

Many people positively disliked it because it was very nicely put together to be a bad movie. Disney, which is well known for very positive childhood greats like Cinderella and Snow White, put a lot of effort and other people's hard earned money into John Carter and they should be applauded for having made such a fine, respectable mess of things. It's always a very good idea to not update the context of an old, old book to modern times when making what they hope to be a modern blockbuster and, to that, I tip my hat in a very positive manner. In the spirit of positivity, I would like to present them with a trophy for being on the bottom end end of the IQ scale which, if you turn that line upside down, they're way out front.

You can take your "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay My, oh my what a wonderful day!" positive attitude and shove it right up your small world after all, m'kay! Uncle Reamus died in prison and Brer Rabbit has been sliced, diced and fricasseed years ago! Look where a positive attitude got them with the Disney execs!

 

[Bluce Ree]

You can take your "Zip-a-dee-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay My, oh my what a wonderful day!" positive attitude and shove it right up your small world after all, m'kay! Uncle Reamus died in prison and Brer Rabbit has been sliced, diced and fricasseed years ago! Look where a positive attitude got them with the Disney execs!

View attachment 7256

Well I'm getting mixed signals from your post. So ...

 

[shavedape]

Well I'm getting mixed signals from your post. So ...

View attachment 7257

I find your "talk to the hand" stance to be anything but positive. In fact, it's downright passive/aggressive in its negativity. That's not very John Carter of you!

 

[Bluce Ree]

I find your "talk to the hand" stance to be anything but positive. In fact, it's downright passive/aggressive in its negativity. That's not very John Carter of you!

OMG! You're soooooooooo right! Here, lemme give ya a big hug!

 

[shavedape]

OMG! You're soooooooooo right! Here, lemme give ya a big hug!

View attachment 7258

Now give me $250 million dollars! :glee:

 

[Bluce Ree]

Now give me $250 million dollars! :glee:

There's a fine line between being positive and being massively delusional.

 

[shavedape]

There's a fine line between being positive and being massively delusional.

Fine line yes, but a clearly defined line and the Disney execs seemed to have willingly crossed that line despite the obvious fact that the movie would fail based on what they had budgeted and were paying out for production.

 

[Bluce Ree]

Fine line yes, but a clearly defined line and the Disney execs seemed to have willingly crossed that line despite the obvious fact that the movie would fail based on what they had budgeted and were paying out for production.

Hollywood seems to have a lot of throw-away money for bogus projects these days. Few movies that come out of there lately are worth their salt and I'm thankful there are still artists who actually care about the quality of what they put out vs churning out bullshit just to make a fast buck.

 

[Illiterati]

The screenwriters changed a lot of the original book for the movie. Dejah Thoris was never a kick-ass kind of character. She was more of the stand back and swoon while her fighting man defended her.

As for the colors of the people of Barsoom, there were people of all colors on the planet, from green to yellow to red to black, to white..and others. Over the course of the novels, John Carter eventually got them all to unite against a common foe. He got the green men (and women) of Barsoom to finally accept the idea of love for one another, for example. Before that, they were more Spartan in outlook than the historical Spartans.

It was a big leap from the racism contained in Burroughs' Tarzan novels.

 

[Joelist]

I was going to mention that - the John Carter in the books is far different than the movie one. The books insinuate that he isn't actually human and has been around for centuries if not millennia. And the barsoom/wild west parallels weren't really there.

 

[Overmind One]

OM1 recently did a really good review on this dog of a movie. (I'm too lazy to find the link today lol) You two touched on many of the same issues which makes me wonder how the producers couldn't see the problems from their perspective. It's unbelievable that they could spend so much money producing this and not see how bad it was. That's just crazy.

I WROTE THIS REVIEW. Its on the front page of the site, but the posting bot from Wordpress uses heisenberg's name.

 

[shavedape]

I WROTE THIS REVIEW. Its on the front page of the site, but the posting bot from Wordpress uses heisenberg's name.

Sweet! :beckettu:

 

[cymon]

To heisenburg:

Please before you post, perhaps check your history. Like read more than what is told to you via movies.

"It seemed that this movie was the vision of a much older person, say in their 80's. Civil War banter, spitting of tobacco and shooting of "Indians" by the Confederate soldiers struck me in a very negative way." --- heisenbug

"Confederate" soldiers did not exist in the segment of the movie you address. They lost that war. It was done. Guess who wears blue? Humm...

Also, it's too bad that you can't understand why a man who lost everything to him.. oh sorry..... a soul mate, wife and child can mean more than a car or house, or job.... Family.... I wish that you would really know what the word "family" actually meant.

So. To reply to my comment, you should try to actually understand what happened in this country over 150 years ago or you should chose to not comment on it. Also, people didn't talk the same way as they do now. People then actually understood the meaning of language and didn't require the use of slang to get their point across. Read some letters from a 100 years ago and see if you know all the words. Good luck.

I am posting only to get people to actually read on the subject they are typing about since it is too obvious that so many are ignorant of the past. I am glad folks are posting since it brings discussion, but please do research and spell check is good too.

 

[Bluce Ree]

To heisenburg:

Please before you post, perhaps check your history. Like read more than what is told to you via movies.

"It seemed that this movie was the vision of a much older person, say in their 80's. Civil War banter, spitting of tobacco and shooting of "Indians" by the Confederate soldiers struck me in a very negative way." --- heisenbug

"Confederate" soldiers did not exist in the segment of the movie you address. They lost that war. It was done. Guess who wears blue? Humm...

Also, it's too bad that you can't understand why a man who lost everything to him.. oh sorry..... a soul mate, wife and child can mean more than a car or house, or job.... Family.... I wish that you would really know what the word "family" actually meant.

So. To reply to my comment, you should try to actually understand what happened in this country over 150 years ago or you should chose to not comment on it. Also, people didn't talk the same way as they do now. People then actually understood the meaning of language and didn't require the use of slang to get their point across. Read some letters from a 100 years ago and see if you know all the words. Good luck.

I am posting only to get people to actually read on the subject they are typing about since it is too obvious that so many are ignorant of the past. I am glad folks are posting since it brings discussion, but please do research and spell check is good too.

So is proper punctuation. If you're going to come in and lecture people on their posting style and content then you should, at the very least, make sure your post is impeccable so that you're lecturing from a firm, solid foundation on high ground instead of half-way down in quicksand wagging your finger upwards at everyone.

God help you if you piss off shavedape. That dude will have you for breakfast then pick his teeth with your bones.

On a lighter note, welcome to the club. Try a softer approach for your second impression. You'll make more friends that way.

 

[Overmind One]

To heisenburg:

Please before you post, perhaps check your history. Like read more than what is told to you via movies.

"It seemed that this movie was the vision of a much older person, say in their 80's. Civil War banter, spitting of tobacco and shooting of "Indians" by the Confederate soldiers struck me in a very negative way." --- heisenbug

"Confederate" soldiers did not exist in the segment of the movie you address. They lost that war. It was done. Guess who wears blue? Humm...

Also, it's too bad that you can't understand why a man who lost everything to him.. oh sorry..... a soul mate, wife and child can mean more than a car or house, or job.... Family.... I wish that you would really know what the word "family" actually meant.

So. To reply to my comment, you should try to actually understand what happened in this country over 150 years ago or you should chose to not comment on it. Also, people didn't talk the same way as they do now. People then actually understood the meaning of language and didn't require the use of slang to get their point across. Read some letters from a 100 years ago and see if you know all the words. Good luck.

I am posting only to get people to actually read on the subject they are typing about since it is too obvious that so many are ignorant of the past. I am glad folks are posting since it brings discussion, but please do research and spell check is good too.

First, I will point out that you are addressing the wrong individual. I am the actual author of this review. Second, if you are old enough to have personally lived 150 years ago, I respectfully defer to your wisdom. Otherwise, you may want to straighten up that posture and show us some respect here, mkay?

Third,
See, that would have been FIRST, but you came in here bustin the place up, so you get your welcome wagon third. Welcome to GateFans.

I really don't believe that I was writing about history or the Civil War as much as much as I was giving my critical opinion of this movie. After re-reading it, I am not inclined to change a word of it. But thank you for your interest.

 

[Illiterati]

Overall, the movie rewrote a lot of stuff that made it different than the original books, and studios have never been particularly careful to reflect history when presenting a fantasy to the entertainment-gobbling public.

Yes, it bombed. Bigtime. A lot of that was due to the very poor marketing that Disney did for the thing. I didn't hate it. It was a diversion on a long lazy afternoon. I happened to like that three of the actors (at least) were from the old HBO series, "Rome", so that gave me something to giggle about.

cymon, I fairly sure you're just trying to be helpful and point things out, but when it's your first post to the forum, it can come off as offputting. We're into science fiction and fantasy for the fun of things. We COULD get all technical about stuff (and yes, we have those who are members who can and will break things down to the nth degree), but they've been here awhile and we know them well enough to give them some room when they do it.

Please, take part in other discussions on the forums so we can get to know you, too. Perhaps then, we can revisit your comments here, when we know you better and you don't just come off as a blowhard.

No offense meant. Just pointing things out to someone who isn't as old as this forum, so you don't know what we're like here.

 

[shavedape]

To heisenburg:

Please before you post, perhaps check your history. Like read more than what is told to you via movies.

"It seemed that this movie was the vision of a much older person, say in their 80's. Civil War banter, spitting of tobacco and shooting of "Indians" by the Confederate soldiers struck me in a very negative way." --- heisenbug

"Confederate" soldiers did not exist in the segment of the movie you address. They lost that war. It was done. Guess who wears blue? Humm...

Also, it's too bad that you can't understand why a man who lost everything to him.. oh sorry..... a soul mate, wife and child can mean more than a car or house, or job.... Family.... I wish that you would really know what the word "family" actually meant.

So. To reply to my comment, you should try to actually understand what happened in this country over 150 years ago or you should chose to not comment on it. Also, people didn't talk the same way as they do now. People then actually understood the meaning of language and didn't require the use of slang to get their point across. Read some letters from a 100 years ago and see if you know all the words. Good luck.

I am posting only to get people to actually read on the subject they are typing about since it is too obvious that so many are ignorant of the past. I am glad folks are posting since it brings discussion, but please do research and spell check is good too.

Let me get this straight, you woke me up from my nap to piss and moan in favor or this butt chunk of a movie??? Listen kid, if I wanted to wake up to the cyber equivalent of a whiny, deflating balloon I'd look up an old post by a member here named Stonelesscutter (limited time only -- act fast!). As it is John Carter sucks a bag of excised dog sphincters -- you know it -- I know it -- we all know it, so let's just cut the crap. Now make yourself useful and go get me a pack of smokes!