I thought it was pretty good. Why did it flop so hard?

Because it was pretty bad.

>>83189658
>Because it was pretty bad.

well, it tame version of John Carter made by Disney...

Also, didn't they release this on the same week as Avatar blue ppl?

>>83189724
Nah pretty sure this came out years later

>>83189610
It got very little marketing support from Disney around the time it came out. The general public showed barely any interest in the IP as well. I liked it too though and feel bad for Taylor Kitsch

Because what the fuck is a John Carter? Never heard of it

>>83189610
I liked it as well.

>>83189610
They didn't know how to advertise it. All I know about this film is the trailers and ads. They had no coherent theme to sell. It looked like a flintstones-museum piece. It felt unapproachable in a way.

>>83189610
Bad mrketing. Everything from the trailer made it look like a subpar fantasy movie: muh strange world/muh badass warrior/muh princess/muh random cgi monster/muh save the world.

Granted the original novel was a precursor to a lot of these tropes but the movie didn't manage to give it a modern spin.

some bland action sci-fi about some dude bouncing around in a desert? sign me up!

File: 1460750168056.jpg (222KB, 937x524px) Image search: [Google]

222KB, 937x524px

>>83189610
The directors and producers bet too heavily on the name "John Carter" equaling strong brand recognition, when the books are actually fairly obscure now

While it had good elements, it also suffered from some "Disney syndrome" like the really cliched love story and the use of overly grandiose "epic" music in scenes where it didn't make sense

>>83189610

Really fucking shitty name.

It was OK and I'd certainly watch it again or a sequal, but it's not mind-bendingly awesome.

>>83189610

Title sank this. No-one knows who John Carter is, they should have called it "Warlord of Mars".

>>83189610

The barsoom novels are the reason starwars is so popular. Princess of Mars and a lot of other elements from Burroughs books went into Lucas's ideas.

That is why disney thought it would be popular but most people don't know lucas got ideas from these books so there ya go

>>83189610
this thing was bad, they didn't even bother with a basic law of physic called gravity

I liked this film. I had never heard of any of the books before watching the film. It was disappointing to hear that the sequels weren't coming.

As for why it failed, I'd say poor marketing is the main reason (barely saw any adverts for it, and the name meant nothing to me).

Another lesser reason was probably the use of new terminology. I found it made it more immersive, but I think it'd probably have put a lot of people off.

>>83189610

200 million dollar budget plus 200 million dollars dumped into marketing for a movie that no one wanted to see.

>>83189828
>Because what the fuck is a John Carter? Never heard of it


not alot of ppl had, you have to be like in your 40s or older to know

>>83189610
Because Disney can't sci-fi. Tomorrowland flops, better cancel Tron 3.

Actually loved this film, was pretty sad no one else gave a shit about it. Glad /tv/ loves it too

>>83190366
Prince of Mars* would've attracted more while raising eyebrows from people who know the source material.

>>83189828
the original superman

File: 400761_10200502389033943_824181562_n.jpg (86KB, 720x960px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 720x960px

It was a good movie, like the animal pet very much

Because it was utter shit

>>83189610
zero marketing

literal who main actor

literally what source material

etc

>>83189610
much failure in general
the film need more meat in the front and trimmed up of time filler.

>>83189610
Hollywood is afraid of the word "Mars."

File: john_carter_of_mars009__120311093352.jpg (233KB, 1224x730px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 1224x730px

It felt like an insanely low budget version of Avatar and since Avatar was a very meh movie then what chance did this have?

It was probably just to weird of a concept for the mass market. And definite Disney syndrome. Older people wouldn't go see it because they would think its for kids, and I'm pretty sure that any kids seeing it would of fucking hated it.

The Economist blames the marketing. Not the lack of it but the quality of it.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/prospero/2012/03/disneys-john-carter

I also remembered at the time that Disney had to make a special announcement to the stock market as to how much money they were going to lose of this fiasco.

>>83190366
Some idiot at Disney decided that since "Mars Needs Moms" was a flop it meant people hated Mars.

>>83194295
>literally what source material

11 book series that was started in 1912 and concluded in 1964 by the same author who created Tarzan

World as well defined and explained as Tolkien did with Middle Earth.

>>83189610
Unappealing aesthetic and CGI. I agree that it was good movie, but it felt like a deviantart fan fiction of a movie no one can recall.

>>83194955
>World as well defined and explained as Tolkien did with Middle Earth.


Well that sure as hell wasn't apparent in the movie

>>83189610
Disney decided there was no way to avoid a flop so they basically pulled all marketing support and began cutting their losses before the movie even hit theaters.

It was a decent movie but kind of formulaic and generic. The books by Burroughs were really weird and alien, but the movie never created that atmosphere.

>John Carter
>Ben-Hur

Because they're remaking shit no one knows or cares about at all.

>>83190366
Agreed. "John Carter" somehow actually makes me want to stay away from it. I'm bored just reading the title. The poster is wayyy too blue/orange for me too. I saw advertisements and just had no idea what it was and every aspect of it looked bad. That's probably what a huge demographic thought about it.

>>83191025
That's a nonsensical title though, he becomes a king not a prince and the princess is in it so yea no that title sucks

>>83196038
You can't remake something that never had an original

>>83189610
I really wish the Russians would do it, some joint project with an American studio, apparently the Russians fucking love the books and they'd have the balls to do it right

>>83189827
This. But honestly with even a half decent marketing campaign this could of easily been a very successful movie.

>>83196661
Dropping the 'Of Mars' from the tile killed it worst fucking exec decision ever, hope that retard got fired over it

>>83196761
John Carter of Mars sounds even dumber though

File: frazetta_a_princess_of_mars.jpg (204KB, 905x1200px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 905x1200px

>>83189610
John Carter is essentially Conan on Mars. The biggest problem with the movie stemmed from the director. If memory serves the director was Brad Bird, best known for The Incredibles. The very Disney changes made to the story and tone of the movie reflected Bird's animation background. Dialog and emoting in the film would have worked very well in the exaggerated medium of animation, but seem cheesy in a live action feature. This combined with unnecessary changes, especially in regard to Deja Thoris (they rewrote her character into a typical Disney princess complete with bumbling but lovable father/king), led to a weird, watered down, overly childish movie.

The series needs to have a tone similar to the 80's Conan if it's going to be successful. Nudity isn't important, but at least attempting to stay as close to the source as possible would help tremendously. Swords and Sorcery really doesn't lend itself to a PG treatment. It's all about exaggerated violence and weird adventure in strange landscapes.

>>83196880
At least you know what your going to watch, wtf is 'John Carter'? Could be about a cancer surviour for all you know

>>83197063
>At least you know what your going to watch

Last time I checked Mars was a barren planet devoid of life.

>>83197116
You've just explained to yourself why 'john carter of mars' works better, its about a guy named john carter and he's 'of' mars, what does that mean? Is he martian? Is he an astronaut? Does he rule mars? Is he Mars? So many questions I better watch this fucking movie and find out

File: mission_to_mars_xlg.jpg (207KB, 1029x1500px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 1029x1500px

>>83197226
Yeah but I've already seen a ton of movies about astronauts on Mars and let's be honest, Mars is a pretty boring planet so I'm not really in the mood to see any more. I think I'll give this one a pass.

>>83197466
>a ton
At the time their was 2, that one and red planet, their was also ghosts of mars about zombies, all did pretty well, they should've kept mars in the title

>>83195012
Wasn't in the books either.

>>83189610
I loved this movie. I've seen it a dozen times.
There is a book about the faikure from a fan and little movie producer. I'm too lazy to look it up, but is something like "John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood". At the time it was available for free in amazon.

File: LandThatTimeForgot.jpg (39KB, 301x460px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 301x460px

>>83197809
Title Should have been

"Edger Rice Burroughs - A Princess of Mars"

>>83198110
thats better much better

title should've been

"There won't be another Avatar movie for 10 years so this is the closest you'll get"

>>83197026
Andrew Stanton directed it. His background was animation with Pixar though and it was his first live-action film. He directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E.

>>83198197
Why are you comparing this to avatar? their not even similar

>>83198016
Thanks just got it, looks interesting

>>83190136
It would be practically impossible to tell a good original story based on the books because it's been seen a million times in everything since then. Might have been better to make John a scifi nerd, aware of all the history and tropes, and tell a new story where he goes to mars and winds up in the middle of old John's legacy.

>>83189828
this why the fuck they didn't at least keep the "of Mars" is beyond me

>>83199055
if they had just made it r-rated it would've been fine, theirs some fucked up shit that goes down in the first book when they go to the white-martian stronghold and they skipped it, the other anon was right its Conan on Mars not star wars, or avatar for that matter

>>83189610
Bad costume work.

Writers felt the need to make too much use of the fantasy names.

>>83189658
True but that princess was dead fucking sexy

>>83189827
This is the absolute right answer. Just look at when this movie was released and when the Star Wars deal was publicly announced. When you're about to ready a deal for Star Wars why do you need Kinda Star Wars