Did anyone watch it and if you did what di you think of it?

It's pretty clear why it flopped. John Carter might be the precursor to every sci fi film from Star Wars to Avatar, buts it's way too late to the party. The single biggest mistake made with this film is the obscure title. John Carter???? A good title should convey what the film is about, time period, genre and even hint at who the protagonist is. Gladiator - pretty simple. Who is John Carter? A football coach, a lawyer, dad to a troubled teen.

Once you get past the title, the concept is not original, or we have seen it in other guises before. Couple that with a lead actor and cast that's pretty unknown, terrible trailer and poor marketing campaign and it's not hard to see why this flopped.

I agree with everything Eoin said. The one review I read was positive too. But A superhero that was conceived before the age of flight, with little name recognition, and whose power is enhanced leaping ability due to gravity difference...that's not he kind of thing 300 million should be invested in.

That, and the fact that we now know Mars to be uninhabited.

Pretty goofy title.

Yeah, I know it was a book first.  Still a goofy choice for today.

Because I didn't write it.    (Man, you guys got to start thinking more positive about yourselves.)

Spending that much was a mistake. It's actually taking quite a lot of money, but they spent SO MUCH that they're going to have to take about $400m just to break even. The other thing is the marketing's been just awful. Dropping "of Mars" from the title was silly. The trailer was confusing. I doubt many people have read the book, so you can't assume foreknowledge from the audience, which they didn't seem to understand.

It's actually a side issue that the film itself is apparently not much cop. They'd doomed themselves before it had even opened.

When I first heard the title I immediately thought John Connor from the Terminator.  While the story was around decades prior, in the movie world it just seems like any other sci-fi/fantasy adventure story, except with an exorbitant budget.

Quoted from JonnyBoy ....the film itself is apparently not much cop.

Is that a Brit thing?  What does that phrase mean?  I've picked up a good bit around here, but have not heard that one yet.

Quoted from bert Is that a Brit thing?  What does that phrase mean?  I've picked up a good bit around here, but have not heard that one yet.

Ha, yes, I suppose it is a Brit thing. It just means 'not very good'. According to intelligentanswers.co.uk:

"not much cop - this doesn't mean, as one might expect, that it refers to being a bad policemen. Long before cop or copper was a term for a policeman, it was an English colloquial verb. 'To cop' had the meaning of 'to catch' or 'to get'. This first appeared in the English language in the early 1700s.

The ultimate origin of the verb 'to cop' is disputed. It either derives from the Dutch kapen, meaning to take or it derives from the French caper, also meaning to take and ultimately from the Latin capere.

So the expression "not much cop" means something wasn't worth catching or getting."

So yeah, John Carter's not much cop.

I don't know if anyone who posted here so far actually saw it, but I did. Up until the Superbowl, I had no idea this movie existed, so that goes to show what a great job Disney's marketing team did. They really should all be fired. I follow movies pretty closely and for me not to have heard of such a big release is really strange.

Having said all that, I really enjoyed the film. A lot about it was just poorly done, but I enjoyed watching it. I don't know that I saw much of a reason for it to have cost as much as Avatar did, but it was an enjoyable experience for me.

I know the lead actor from Friday Night Lights, but other than that, I was pretty much in the dark on what the film was about going in.

They really should have renamed it. Who cares about the name John Carter?

John Carter...sounds like a guy down the block on a riding mower.  Let's all go spend fifteen bucks to see him.  There were no stars, the cgi looked average at best and the storyline was completely unclear from the trailers.  Other than that, this should have been a big hit.  

The title didn't help, but it obviously wasn't the main (or biggest) reason this has flopped. Disney has a pretty bad record with these live action monster budget flicks. Prince of Persia flopped, and TRON, while a good film, didn't set the box office alight.

The fanboys were never engaged in any kind of metaphorical foreplay that would drive grassroots interest, and there was no compelling narrative in the marketing to get couples and women on board.

I think it's important to debunk this notion that the primary cause of failure here was the title. Subscribing to such an idea undervalues Joe Public. The average cinema goer isn't 'stupid', they just go to the cinema for different reasons than SSers, and don't care as much. They don't avoid a film 'cos it's titled John Carter - they avoid it 'cos they've been given little narrative stimulus in marketing.

I think the title was one of the biggest issue with this. Totally uninspiring and non intriguing. I saw the trailer in the theaters, but it made no impression on me. All I remember thinking was, WTF is John Carter.  At least with Indiana Jones, we had a memorable name. Of course it turned out to be a great film too, but I think you know what I mean.  

Quoted from Ryan1 John Carter...sounds like a guy down the block on a riding mower.

That's actually his cousin, Mike Smith.

I completely agree with the title issue. I'm not a comic book person, and I certainly had no clue that was a comic book character. I thought maybe Jimmy Carter had a cousin, and we know how those Carter missions work out.

300 million seems like too much unless there is a built in crowd, like for Harry Potter.