John Carter reviews

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Sunday, April 1, 2012 14:03
VIEWED: 18231
PAGE 8 of 10

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 11:03 AM

Hmmmmm.. who benefits from the movie's failure...?

The Mal-like Chrisisall

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 2:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Hmmmmm.. who benefits from the movie's failure...?

I think it's more, "who pays the price for the movie's failure." And that's Disney - I think they are trying to distance themselves from even worse press (if it can get worse than "Ishtar in space.")
I liked the movie, thought the acting was great (how often do you say that with scifi?), the air ships were beautiful, lots of things to like (Dejah, omg), but it felt like Disney maybe wasn't a great match for the content. I agree that this will be a must-have BluRay, looking forward to seeing it again.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

HKCAVALIER

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:23 PM

See, Pizmo, that's the thing I don't get at all. The movie is good, full of fine actors, classically constructed, all manner of charming characters. Ishtar (which I actually did see in theatres) was terrible in all manner of ways (my quip review: an unintentional Jim Jarmusch movie). JC, here in Seattle, is getting all kinds of good word of mouth. Seems entirely possible that the audience for this movie could grow.

Yes, the internet is the Land of Snark and a Negativity Sink for the Masses, but that's no reason for Disney to get onboard. "Our movie is getting mugged in print--let's join in!" Jeez marie, they could start a viral FB campaign or something. Think out of the gorram box, Disney!

And I'm sorry, they sank some 350 million into this movie, they don't--by any measure of reason--have the luxury not to like it. Because, obviously, they, the suits at Disney, didn't like it. Had absolutely no clue how to market the thing--which boggles the mind! The movie sells itself. (Now, I know, there's a lot of critics who said it was "too complex" and the actor playing JC was "too stoic/wooden," and then, of course, the richly ironic accusation of the piece being "deriviative," but a lot of these perceptions, unfathomably, were actually seeded by the marketing itself!) This has the aroma of Fox/Firefly all over it.

Anyway. Yeah. I will own this movie when it becomes available, no question.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

PIZMOBEACH

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 3:52 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
See, Pizmo, that's the thing I don't get at all. The movie is good, full of fine actors, classically constructed, all manner of charming characters. Ishtar (which I actually did see in theatres) was terrible in all manner of ways (my quip review: an unintentional Jim Jarmusch movie). JC, here in Seattle, is getting all kinds of good word of mouth. Seems entirely possible that the audience for this movie could grow.

Yes, the internet is the Land of Snark and a Negativity Sink for the Masses, but that's no reason for Disney to get onboard. "Our movie is getting mugged in print--let's join in!" Jeez marie, they could start a viral FB campaign or something. Think out of the gorram box, Disney!

And I'm sorry, they sank some 350 million into this movie, they don't--by any measure of reason--have the luxury not to like it. Because, obviously, they, the suits at Disney, didn't like it. Had absolutely no clue how to market the thing--which boggles the mind! The movie sells itself. (Now, I know, there's a lot of critics who said it was "too complex" and the actor playing JC was "too stoic/wooden," and then, of course, the richly ironic accusation of the piece being "deriviative," but a lot of these perceptions, unfathomably, were actually seeded by the marketing itself!) This has the aroma of Fox/Firefly all over it.

Anyway. Yeah. I will own this movie when it becomes available, no question.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

I agree with your sentiments HKC, seems rather premature and unthinking, but these studios have all of these metrics that tell it what to do when x theaters return y dollars in z days so they can stave off even worse financials. "Disney shares fell 43 cents to $43.01 in extended trading Monday." So that's in addition to the box office losses.

Worse for us fans, it probably means no more from the ERB JC series. That is damn near as tragic as no more FF - there's lots of great drama and scifi wonderousness to be had in those stories.

Something else to consider: "Disney hopes to overcome the setback with other big-budget movies this year, including "The Avengers" from its Marvel subsidiary in May and Pixar's "Brave" in June."

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

ECGORDON

Tuesday, March 20, 2012 8:15 PM

I suppose I missed the memo, but when did Disney acquire the Marvel contract? It used to be with Paramount, right? At least it was for the Iron Man movies, Thor and Captain America.

GEEZER

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 2:17 AM

Quote:
The movie had the WORST ad campaign I can remember (hey, at least people got as far as "Buffy in space" with Firefly), where most people I talk to about it say, "I had no idea what that movie was about!" And now, because they did such a shitty job of preselling it they're throwing in the towel? Cut a new trailer! Do something! Anyone know what the they are thinking here???

I know!!

I saw reports that Disney spent $100 million on the promotion for John Carter, but I'm finding that hard to believe. I saw about two commercials on TV, and they were both the "whacking the white apes with a chunk of rock" scene. Looks like the publicity folks just didn't 'get it'.

ZZETTA13

Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:27 PM

Hello everybody,

It’s been a long time (way before the internet and web hosting) but if I’m thinking right, when reading the ERB Mars novels I got the feeling that John C was teleported to the red planet. Almost the same as when the soul leaves the body at one’s death.
Whatever power(s) were used to get him there wasn’t really explained. The reader just had to release their grip on reality and visualized that it happened…..science fiction/ fantasy.
Once, JC landed in the red sand of Mars, and all the weird stuff started happening, well that’s when it got fun!
I agree that the superman-ish leaping from here to there was a bit of a stretch, literally, but I didn’t dwell on it, as my wife seemed to be enjoying it more that I thought she would. She kept asking questions about the books, and I found it fun explaining to her.
All in all I think the film was used to, …. stay friends with the masses of loyal ERB’s population, and at the same time create new fans with a well formed introduction between the connection of two worlds. I think it succeeded in doing both!

Z

“The only one who can kill Barnes is Barnes!”

HKCAVALIER

Thursday, March 22, 2012 7:14 AM

Here's a fan-made trailer that could still sell the movie.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

STORYMARK

Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:03 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Okay, this is completely nuts. Just 10 freakin' days into the movie's run, the production company responsible for it, is telling the world: you aren't going to see this movie???

What now, are they gonna pull it? This is unbelievable. The movie had the WORST ad campaign I can remember (hey, at least people got as far as "Buffy in space" with Firefly), where most people I talk to about it say, "I had no idea what that movie was about!" And now, because they did such a shitty job of preselling it they're throwing in the towel? Cut a new trailer! Do something! Anyone know what the they are thinking here???

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

There is no precedent for a movie flopping on release, then coming back and turning into0 a hit. And what you suggest would cost several million more in ad buys - putting them further in the red in a move that has almost no chance of paying off.

Spoon!

STORYMARK

Thursday, March 22, 2012 8:04 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Quote:
The movie had the WORST ad campaign I can remember (hey, at least people got as far as "Buffy in space" with Firefly), where most people I talk to about it say, "I had no idea what that movie was about!" And now, because they did such a shitty job of preselling it they're throwing in the towel? Cut a new trailer! Do something! Anyone know what the they are thinking here???

I know!!

I saw reports that Disney spent $100 million on the promotion for John Carter, but I'm finding that hard to believe. I saw about two commercials on TV, and they were both the "whacking the white apes with a chunk of rock" scene. Looks like the publicity folks just didn't 'get it'.

Your not seeing ads merely means they were not targeting shows you watch. I myself, saw dozens. And they had a superbowl spot - that right there is millions upon millions alone. There were three official trailers, as well.

The ads were, as others have pointed out, terrible - but they were out there.

Spoon!

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE