John Carter reviews
POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, April 1, 2012 14:03
VIEWED: 18231
PAGE 10 of 10
You too..........Robinson Crusoe of Mars......so you're the other fan.
As far as the wide shots of Mars atmo - I'm right there with ya. Loved it! It does give scope and sense of wonder, awe and excitement. It's like we're approaching the planet, or making our descent on the good ship Serenity.
That's what gets me all geekafied whenever I watch sci-fi. Those wide shots in Star Wars, Stargate, etc.
One of the things that had me hesitating to go see this film was the fact that Disney was involved. But then I saw that Stanton was the director and thought better of it.
Which brings me to the million dollar question?
Who poo-poo'd this movie so much that had critics and other film pundits declaring it a disaster? This was an excellent movie with very few flaws. Was it purposefully sabotaged? And by whom?
When I left the theatre the audience was cheering. The last time I experienced that was at a "Dreamgirls" screening at the Ziegfield Theatre (where I first saw Star Wars many years ago). You just don't get that these days.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
*ouch*
It made only a paltry 236 mill so far.
At least the chickens will be fed.
The Mal-like Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey EC,
Your review hits on many points, both positive and negative, that I found. Although I think that for me the confusing part was that of the bad guys who were helped by the Thurns. It was revealed that they were from an opposing city on Barsoom, but not much more info was given.
Pretty much happens again with the opposing tribe to the Tharks (I actually don't recall their names), and that's where the confusion became somewhat annoying for me. I couldn't keep track of the bad guys. But then I decided to sit back and just enjoy. And enjoy I did.
I'm not going point by point here, but I do agree with your overall take on this (Disney made this?) gem of a movie. Yes, I said it, gem.
Why? Because it hit it's mark on almost every point, and it was entertaining. Fun is the operative word here. I came into this completely oblivious to the story other than it was based upon a set of ERB books from the 30s, so no bias.
But I agree that for them to make truckloads of cashy money they had to tighten up the story a bit. The actors who lent their voices to this project gave the movie it's weight, but the 2 leads were both credible and served the movie well. The sound, visuals, cinematography and editing were rock solid. So was the direction. Just needed a few tweaks to the script maybe.
Which brings me to who said this movie was bad? I wonder about that, because I felt the way I did when I saw Stargate many years ago, thoroughly entertained, if not blown away.
By the way, Dejah Thoris is awesome.
I will be getting the blu-ray when it comes out later this year. Oh, and I saw it in 3D......don't bother, it's not worth the extra bucks.
SGG
Tawabawho?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
With all the bad reviews of the film I said I'd still give it a go.I remember something of the books but not much but I still walked away a little disappointed and I'm not sure why,old fashoined or disney or something else,but then on the other hand, where did the time go,I wasn't bored .Maybe on some level I knew that there wasn't going to be a sequel with all the bad reviews and so I didn't invest myself totally into the film.More confusing still is I'll buy it when it comes out on dvd but as I write this I remember saying to myself I hope theres a directors edition when it does come out.Would I recommend it,Yes,so the rest is all woffle.
anyway
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Shinygoodguy:
...it was based upon a set of ERB books from the 30s, so no bias.
Try 1917-41, eleven books in all.
Quote:
Which brings me to who said this movie was bad?
I think the major consensus is that the movie was a victim of a change in management at Disney. The new guy could not let the old guy's project succeed.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Did Disney do some anti-marketing exclusively within the USA? The Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic is a low 27%. Compare with The Hunger Games where Total Lifetime Grosses Domestic is high 78%.
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I think the major consensus is that the movie was a victim of a change in management at Disney. The new guy could not let the old guy's project succeed.
It does look as if Disney sabotaged their own John Carter, at least within the USA, for inscrutable reasons. It's FOX versus Firefly, all over again.
www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
John Carter Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $66,713,331 26.2%
+ Foreign: $188,300,000 73.8%
= Worldwide: $255,013,331
www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hungergames.htm
The Hunger Games Total Lifetime Grosses
Domestic: $258,330,642 69.2%
+ Foreign: $115,000,000 30.8%
= Worldwide: $373,330,642
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I have no doubt John Carter will recoup its production budget but it will still be considered a flop. Consider that its budget is estimated at $250 million, then add maybe another $100 for promotion, it won't break even until the video release. Contrast that with The Hunger Games budget of about $78 million, maybe double that for promotion (which wasn't as necessary with its built-in audience), and you can see it is already into the black.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Other recent top weekend movies's Total Lifetime Grosses - Domestic %
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I have no doubt John Carter will recoup its production budget but it will still be considered a flop.
69% The Hunger Games www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=hungergames.htm
85% 21 Jump Street www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=21jumpstreet.htm
90% Dr. Seuss' The Lorax www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=lorax.htm
97% Act of Valor www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=actofvalor.htm
65% Safe House www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=safehouse.htm
72% The Vow www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=vow.htm
54% Chronicle www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=chronicle2012.htm
72% The Grey www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=grey.htm
Did you notice how all the above numbers are more than 50% ?
And then we have John Carter
26% John Carter www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm
Why is it 26% ? What went wrong with Disney's marketing for John Carter inside the USA?
If John Carter had received a paltry 50% of its gross inside the USA, then it would have done
Domestic: $188,300,000 50%
+ Foreign: $188,300,000 50%
= Worldwide: $376,600,000, which is bigger than The Hunger Games, the smashing success, so far, of 2012. www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2012&p=.htm
The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME