John Carter

I read the books when I was a kid, so cool they're finally making a movie. Especialy since coming out on the 100 year anniversary of the first book.

But I dunno, it looks too "Disney"

Looks epic to me, didn't realize it was coming out in March, will have to catch this in the IMAX.

IGN gives it 4/5

Spoilers !!!

It's getting great reviews, be prepared for a franchise. An action adventure movie that parents and kids can enjoy? This movie will be very big in both theaters and DVD/Blu Ray release.

hardcorebee24 wrote:It's getting great reviews, be prepared for a franchise. An action adventure movie that parents and kids can enjoy? This movie will be very big in both theaters and DVD/Blu Ray release.

I can't wait to catch it in the theater next week.

Looks good to me. Like to check it out

Saw it. I liked it. It was a fun popcorn movie

GrantZilla wrote:Saw it. I liked it. It was a fun popcorn movie

Can't wait to catch it.

hardcorebee24 wrote:It's getting great reviews, be prepared for a franchise. An action adventure movie that parents and kids can enjoy? This movie will be very big in both theaters and DVD/Blu Ray release.

It's under performing here in the states. The budget was 250million. That's a very high bar to try and recoup. They've made 114 million back so far. I think internationally it will break even but still not do what was expected. It's amazing that a movie that does over 100million is under performing.

I think there are a few reasons why it hasn't done well. From what I've read, Disney did a horrific job marketing the movie. And I got to agree.They did nothing to show that this story was written a hundred years ago and is what inspired pretty much every sci-fi/fantasy story since. Instead, I can see how uninformed moviegoer would see the movie as a Avatar knock off.

Add on, no big name director or big name stars. No marketing of the characters.

GrantZilla wrote:I think there are a few reasons why it hasn't done well. From what I've read, Disney did a horrific job marketing the movie. And I got to agree.They did nothing to show that this story was written a hundred years ago and is what inspired pretty much every sci-fi/fantasy story since. Instead, I can see how uninformed moviegoer would see the movie as a Avatar knock off.

Add on, no big name director or big name stars. No marketing of the characters.

Evidently they're willing to eat it because this will be a trilogy and it looks as thought they are going forward with the other two films.

I know how they can make the money back...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvmZ9SPcTzU

What's funny is, I read a few years back in the Wallstreet Journal on how Disney is trying to appeal to boys and young men. Stating how they now got to compete with franchises like Transformers. The new head of Disney animation stated they will not do any more "Princess" cartoons, because they feel they alienate boys. Why they changed the title name "Rapunzel" to "Tangled."

Yet I think Disney's name even being attached to a movie will scare a lot of guys off. You don't exactly put Disney and "hardcore, manly" movies together.

GrantZilla wrote:What's funny is, I read a few years back in the Wallstreet Journal on how Disney is trying to appeal to boys and young men. Stating how they now got to compete with franchises like Transformers. The new head of Disney animation stated they will not do any more "Princess" cartoons, because they feel they alienate boys. Why they changed the title name "Rapunzel" to "Tangled."

Yet I think Disney's name even being attached to a movie will scare a lot of guys off. You don't exactly put Disney and "hardcore, manly" movies together.

Right, and then give it a PG-13 rating. You're right, that logo alone probably scared off a few folks.

hardcorebee24 wrote:Right, and then give it a PG-13 rating. You're right, that logo alone probably scared off a few folks.

For sure. But I think main culprits was no big names and poor marketing. Yeah, Avatar starred a then unknown Sam Worthington, but James Cameron is a HUGE fucking name director. The hype around him finally doing a new movie alone was massive.

GrantZilla wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:Right, and then give it a PG-13 rating. You're right, that logo alone probably scared off a few folks.

For sure. But I think main culprits was no big names and poor marketing. Yeah, Avatar starred a then unknown Sam Worthington, but James Cameron is a HUGE fucking name director. The hype around him finally doing a new movie alone was massive.

Poor marketing is to blame. No budget for it. 250 million used for special effects.

hardcorebee24 wrote:Poor marketing is to blame. No budget for it. 250 million used for special effects.

You think this is a case Disney having no clue on how to market a movie to men? Usualy Disney is pretty solid at marketing their shit. Why they are Disney. But since trying to do "guy movies" they've failed.

GrantZilla wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:Poor marketing is to blame. No budget for it. 250 million used for special effects.

You think this is a case Disney having no clue on how to market a movie to men? Usualy Disney is pretty solid at marketing their shit. Why they are Disney. But since trying to do "guy movies" they've failed.

Dunno. Movies like any other form of art are like catching lightning in a bottle. More movies fail than are successful. Disney is a brand that is associated with Mickey Mouse and amusement parks and kids movies, not typically action adventure/fantasy. I don't however think that the branding is what turned people off. I think there was no boost to the film as far as marketing or it could just be a flop, plain and simple. People probably didn't know what or who John Carter is/was. This movie really isn't directed to men per se. It's really a family film for adults to enjoy with their teenage kids, but how many teenaged kids want to watch a movie with their parents? They didn't make this appeal to the 18-34 demo or to the single digit child demo. So who does this product appeal to? It's a very small demographic that may see this film, that demographic has proven to spend 114 million on a movie with no marketing or bankable A-list star. 114 million in it's first week is nothing to sneeze at but recouping 250 million in a week is almost an unrealistic number for a film like this. Also, the Barsoom series isn't part of middle school required reading like Lord of the Rings or The Hobbit. It also isn't a recent pop culture phenomenon like Harry Potter or Twilight. This franchise has a lot going against it and it still did 114 million. It was also released a week after The Lorax. I think the movie will eventually make money it's just going to take time.

Very good points. Yeah, really is hit or miss with movies. People be surprised how many classics today were bombs when they first came out. Wizard of Oz, It's a Wonderful Life, ect.

Poor marketing, and changing the name was silly.

GrantZilla wrote:

hardcorebee24 wrote:Right, and then give it a PG-13 rating. You're right, that logo alone probably scared off a few folks.

For sure. But I think main culprits was no big names and poor marketing. Yeah, Avatar starred a then unknown Sam Worthington, but James Cameron is a HUGE fucking name director. The hype around him finally doing a new movie alone was massive.

You don't need stars anymore to really sell a movie, guys like Will Smith and Tom Cruise are a dying breed. People today are more interested in intriguing story lines and crazy special effects.

Hagler's Bald Head wrote:You don't need stars anymore to really sell a movie, guys like Will Smith and Tom Cruise are a dying breed. People today are more interested in intriguing story lines and crazy special effects.

Which Disney failed at showcasing. From what little advertising I saw of the movie, I could easily see how people would see it as a Avatar or Clash of the Titans knock off. People unfamiliar with Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan, stories.

And names people are familar with, whether they are actors or directors, certainly helps.

GrantZilla wrote:

Hagler's Bald Head wrote:You don't need stars anymore to really sell a movie, guys like Will Smith and Tom Cruise are a dying breed. People today are more interested in intriguing story lines and crazy special effects.

Which Disney failed at showcasing. From what little advertising I saw of the movie, I could easily see how people would see it as a Avatar or Clash of the Titans knock off. People unfamiliar with Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan, stories.

And names people are familar with, whether they are actors or directors, certainly helps.

I agree Disney screwed up with the marketing. I liked the casting of Taylor, he's on the cusp of breaking out after making his name with Friday Night Lights.

Hagler's Bald Head wrote:

GrantZilla wrote:

Hagler's Bald Head wrote:You don't need stars anymore to really sell a movie, guys like Will Smith and Tom Cruise are a dying breed. People today are more interested in intriguing story lines and crazy special effects.

Which Disney failed at showcasing. From what little advertising I saw of the movie, I could easily see how people would see it as a Avatar or Clash of the Titans knock off. People unfamiliar with Edgar Rice Burroughs, creator of Tarzan, stories.

And names people are familar with, whether they are actors or directors, certainly helps.

I agree Disney screwed up with the marketing. I liked the casting of Taylor, he's on the cusp of breaking out after making his name with Friday Night Lights.

Tim Riggins was a great character. I premiered that show back in '06. Its the best show NBC had in 30 years.