You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, view attachments, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us. Forgotten your password? Click here!
NOTE: Once you register and are logged in this welcome section will no longer be visible.
When the budgets get as large as they're getting on these tent pole films, no one studio can pull 'em all together, so one studio takes the heavy lifting of actually making the movie, another handles the domestic distribution, another handles foreign distribution, and possibly a third gets the home video rights.
I'd say it's fair to hang Ross with the totally bolloxed up ad campaign for John Carter (the fact that two fanmade trailers on YouTube made the marketing geniuses at Disney look like a bunch of drooling morons who couldn't sell water to a man dying of thirst in the Sahara is a prime example). The sheer budget made it an uphill climb to even break even at the box office, but to go out and talk down your own movie and all but guarantee a flop? The dumbass was practically begging to be fired.
How much do you think changing the name from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter cost them at the box office? I thought it was a pretty obvious mistake when I heard about before the film's release. Nearly everyone I know who saw it seemed to think it was "pretty good" (probably about a B to a B+ based on their tones of voice); it didn't come off as a "dud" to my friends.
When the budgets get as large as they're getting on these tent pole films, no one studio can pull 'em all together, so one studio takes the heavy lifting of actually making the movie, another handles the domestic distribution, another handles foreign distribution, and possibly a third gets the home video rights.
That can happen, but it isn't what happened here. Paramount had made a distribution deal with Marvel prior to the latter being bought by Disney. Disney made a deal to buy back those rights from Paramount, but part of that deal was that Paramount got a certain amount of money from two or three forthcoming films (which they had planned to distribute) and got their logo on the movie. Other than that, they aren't doing anything on Avengers.
How much do you think changing the name from John Carter of Mars to just John Carter cost them at the box office? I thought it was a pretty obvious mistake when I heard about before the film's release.
I think calling it John Carter of Mars would have probably hurt the film more, to be honest. It's a title that would mean something to a pretty limited number of people, unlike ERB's Tarzan. To other people, I think including "of Mars" in the name would have connotations of 1950s sci-fi, which seems pretty goofy to the average person. The difference, as I've written before, is that when the story was originally written Mars was almost a blank canvas with little more than a wash of color on it. Nowadays showing us the world pictured in the film (and the book) is like trying to convince me the Mona Lisa is a landscape -- or a road map. We know that isn't Mars.
Now, perhaps it might have helped to give it a different title altogether; I don't know and no one can really say. I have heard people say that a simple name like that is a stupid idea for a title to a movie and that a title has to be more descriptive ... to which I can only say that yes, it's too bad the makers of that flop Forrest Gump couldn't come up with a better title.
Nearly everyone I know who saw it seemed to think it was "pretty good" (probably about a B to a B+ based on their tones of voice); it didn't come off as a "dud" to my friends.
I loved the flick, but objectively speaking, it was a 'pretty good' movie. Worth a viewing at the theatre.
"John Carter" is a STUPID title.
Gimme something old fashioned, like "John Carter and the Princess of Mars".
it's too bad the makers of that flop Forrest Gump couldn't come up with a better title.
THAT title had two things going for it- it's a VERY unusual name, and, anyone who ever saw the movie "Legend" got a tickle in their subconscious by that name ("Can you be a child of the forest, and not know the Gump?").
I think calling it John Carter of Mars would have probably hurt the film more, to be honest.
There's no question about it.
Disney tested and re-tested a dozen or so variations of the MARS title (John Carter of Mars... John Carter and the Princess of Mars... John Carter: Warlord of Mars... etc.), and the results confirmed what both Disney Marketing and Andrew Stanton already suspected: Audiences unfamiliar with the source material (i.e. the vast majority of those tested) did not respond favorably to titles featuring the word MARS.
I'm not saying John Carter is a brilliant film title, but at least it's neutral (a la Jerry Maguire, Michael Clayton, Annie Hall, or any number of other character-based titles to successful feature films. I mean, "Dracula" was not exactly a household word in 1933, but a simple name-based title didn't hurt that film's prospects).
In any event, the decision to name the film John Carter ultimately rested with director Andrew Stanton.
Location: I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me there.
Posts: 3,196
I think the bottom line is, if the film had been stronger it would have drawn a bigger audience. And the blame for that goes deeper than the title. There are a lot of hits with odd titles. Didn't hamper the positive audience reception.
But the studio did NOTHING to properly promote this film. Disney is usually in your face when it comes to promoting their stuff, and there was next to nothing about this film. And what little their was was lacklustre. A good portion of the blame goes directly to them for dropping that ball.
It certainly looks like a lot more was done (or not done) to make sure the film bombed. And it didn't deserve to.
Location: I live in my own little world, but it's OK, they know me there.
Posts: 3,196
Sure, it's a lot of things. Not just a stinky title. Lackluster trailer, not enough push in places that I saw, failure to generate enough interest in the target audience - namely ME! I'll see this on DVD, but all the promo material I saw left me uninterested.
The movie "Serenity" was a GREAT film, and it cost just 40 mill- it fell flat.
"John Carter" was a good film, costing upwards of 200 mil- it fell flatter.
"Avatar" was okay. It raked in the coin, pricey as it was.
"The Lorax" was, well, what it was, and it RULED.
