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.

John Carter is not a comic book character.  It's a character created in a series of sci-fi books from around 1912 by Edgar Rice Burroughs... the same guy who wrote Tarzan.

They are very early sci-fi so that is why it seems like an average sci-fi story.  However, it wasn't when it was introduced.   Why Disney would want to do this material now, good question.  

EDIT: Looking back at what I wrote, maybe because it's the 100th year anniversary.  But that is still no excuse.

It's like when someone watches all of cinema and then goes back and watches Citizen Kane last. While it is still a good film, a lot of the genius of it is lost because you've seen it before. What you must realize is that you've seen it before because someone else saw it in Citizen Kane.

Apparently Disney held off on JC because the technology needed to make the film didn't exist (which pertains to the CGI of course)

Burroughs' novels were a precursor to everything we know and love about sci-fi today. but that's just it. they were a precursor. the stories that were inspired because of it were better than the source material itself. the books are very pulpy and campy. and john carter isn't a very interesting character. mix that in with the fact that JC received mix reviews, and you have a flop. not a flop for a film with a normal budget but when you spend that much f ucking money on a film, it could be #1 three weeks in a row and just break even. then again you also have international markets, home release, and the biggest money maker of them all...merchandising. which JC lacks COMPLETELY. no one wants to play with a john carter action figure. you're not selling a story line, you're selling an alternative universe.

Wow...I thought *everyone* was at least passingly familiar wth the 'John Carter of Mars' series.  Then again, I'm an old-timer SF reader...

That said, I haven't seen the film and don't plan to until it's free on cable or netflix.  The graphics looked fine from the trailer (and the alien designs look very close to the book illustrations that I remember.)  But I *sincerely* doubt that the story is anything I haven't already seen a million times before.  And therefore not worth the price of a ticket.  And - as someone already mentioned - the movie came "too late in the game".  Ten years ago, it might have been impressive.  Now?  Meh...

Hey - one great thing about this thread?  I now know what "not much cop"  means in British slang...  

The set up was bad. The characters were bad. The creatures were lame...special effects were mediocre....

The only thing good about it was the lil bit of love story.

ME didn't like it much at all that movie!

Quoted from leitskev 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.

You agree that the title was the single biggest issue? If so, why? No doubt it was not a great title - and I agree with Jon that dropping of Mars was unnecessary, but to attribute the title as a major reason seems unlikely to me.

Huge budget, poor marketing and Disney's inability to handle live action vehicles are all bigger factors, IMO. I think audiences are more savvy than avoiding a movie based on title. Avatar was hardly inspiring as a title or indicative (for non-gaming/cartoon/computer-types) of plot. They just marketed that movie incredibly well based on 'the experience', PR, energising the fanboys and having the Cameron card.

Disney should've made more of the director's CV and created a unique hook to garner interest in the plot.

I think the main problem is they went overboard with the budget. You don't blow 250 million on a property people aren't  familiar with unless you're James Cameron. Save the big money for sequels and use the first film as a kind of pilot to see if it all works. Disney was far too confident in a hundred year old story hardly anyone knew about and because of it they paid the price, literally.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/ishtar-lands-mars-163104773.html

Sooooo happy that John Carter flopped.  I hope more of these dumbass big-budget adaptations fall flat on their face.  That's what you get for spending hundreds of millions on a B movie.  

"If Disney gave Mr. Stanton rope, he certainly ran with it. Accustomed to reworking scenes over and over at Pixar, he did not take well to the usual constraints of live-action — nailing it the first time — and went back for at least two lengthy reshoots. “The thing I had to explain to Disney was, ‘You’re asking a guy who’s only known how to do it this way to suddenly do it with one reshoot,’ ” he told The Los Angeles Times. “I said, ‘I’m not gonna get it right the first time. I’ll tell you that right now.’ ”"

What a freakin' joke.  Learn to do your job!

I'm not saying the title is the main reason. It's one reason. The main problem is it's a 300 million dollar film on something few people have heard of.

The first several times I heard trailers on this, I could not understand why they chose the name John Carter. It wasn't til I read a review that I found out it was based on an old work, apparently the original sci fi novel.

The problem with the name, besides limited recognition, is that it sounds very pedestrian.

It's not  that people "avoid" a movie based on the title. It's that the title does not add any appeal.

As far as live action vehicles, I don't actually don't know what that means. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know what it means, and not sure how it effects peoples perception of the movie when considering whether to see it.

For 300 million, you better create a lot of demand. Based on a novel that few are aware of, with a pedestrian title name, and a plot that doesn't sound plausible to a modern audience(a civilization on Mars), you're asking for trouble.

As of today, boxofficemojo is reporting that John Carter has grossed over $180 million.  While it may have disappointed stateside, it's bumping against or breaking records in China and Russia.  By any accounts, this movie would have been a giant success if not for an outrageous budget and all the things people have been saying are accurate:  poor title recognition, small fan base, familiar tropes (that were original when the books were written but have since been co-opted by numerous sci-fi and fantasy films), muddy marketing.  All that said, it's still going to lose money for Disney, but it's not hurting their bottom line much (Disney's film division accounts for less than 20% of its bottom line).  It was a gamble, perhaps an inadvisable one, but I think this serves as more of a warning about budgets than it does about trying first-time live-action directors or trying to generate an new cinematic IP with John Carter.  All of that stuff should be tried, Stanton should direct again, Disney should take another stab at a lesser-known IP again, just with a budget that reflects the roll of the dice a movie like this is.    

Quoted from leitskev As far as live action vehicles, I don't actually don't know what that means. Not saying you're wrong, just that I don't know what it means, and not sure how it effects peoples perception of the movie when considering whether to see it.

Sorry, my background is marketing and I sometimes slip into marketing speak. What I mean is that Disney have had great success utilising their animated films as vehicles to enrich other products (i.e. Disney Stores/Disneyworld) and broaden and strengthen the appeal of their brand. However, they've found it difficult to replicate that success with their live action (i.e. non-animated) films. Other studios cleverly create offshoots (such as Fox Searchlight as vehicles for more independent-spirited productions) to diversify. That said, Disney have obviously made huge mistakes in their attempts to diversify (Miramax; though made a profit in selling it) previously. It just seems they appear to have a real blind spot when it comes to live action and fitting this under their umbrella. It's interesting as they're usually very good with branding and maximising returns from their properties. As Boin says, their filmmaking arm actually represents a secondary focus in total operations, but this kind of performance will spook shareholders and likely prompt changes somewhere along the accountability line.

There are fundamental differences with an animated production, of course, (including generating interest to actually get bums on seats) and they seem a bit naive to how best combat the loss of their animated expertise, and the fact people view them as an animation company. Live action movies are not a new thing for Disney, but with the impressive track record of Pixar, they are being forced to reconsider their animated position, and this is perhaps partly what results in such risky productions as JC and Prince of Persia. As Boin says, they're able to develop further live action projects with their clout - I just think they need to reevaluate their approach (particularly with marketing) and their budgets when making live action. Where Boin and I seemingly differ, is that I think the problem is entrenched in how Disney manage live action. They need, IMO, to diversify the appeal of the Disney brand (in a filmmaking context, so perhaps an offshoot) to extend potential audiences and tackle the loss of competitive advantages enjoyed when producing animation.

So, yeah, when I saw the first post regards the name being the single biggest mistake (and in this context read reason as the failure is largely self-inflicted), I just felt it was necessary to highlight the simplicity of the explanation. We all agree it's a poor name and inflicted some damage on box office take, but as part of the bigger picture, I'd argue its impact was actually negligible. It's a very interesting discussion, though.

Chris, that's interesting re: the director. Especially so when you juxtapose it with Brad Bird and Mission: Impossible. I can't help but think the relative inexperience of the producers on JC (as well as poor Disney management) compared to MI was a significant factor.

I was driving with my dad the other day. Man, talk about a live action vehicle! We're on a fairly main road, and he starts swerving all over the place. So I looked at him with concern. "What?" he says. I asked if he was having a stroke. "No, why?" I mentioned the swerving. He said he was avoiding the manhole covers!

And you wonder why I'm not right in the head.

Ok, I know what you mean now, Andrew. Non-animated. What I would add to that is that I doubt people are much aware who made the movie. I don't think people sit there and go, "Disney only does animation," and then skip the film. Most wouldn't know it was Disney.

Sometimes people... producers, politicians, sports team managers...end up in a bubble. They start down a line of thinking that really doesn't make sense, but for some reason they are cut off from feedback. No one says, 'Hey, what are you crazy?"

As soon as someone proposed a 300 million project based on a very old sci fi novel that had very low public awareness, there should have been red flags. I mean this was written so long before the space age, that the idea of a civilization on Mars was cutting age. To the modern audience, it seems silly. I mean the people in the modern audience have been to Pandora. Mars isn't interesting. Any thirteen year old could've told them that.

And jumping doesn't appeal as a super power. In fact, the whole concept of what is heroic about this guy is pretty hard to quickly sum up. I thought movies were supposed to be high concept?

I think the real issue is spending 300 million. If they could have done this for something more reasonable, and connected with the time period, maybe it could have had an almost vintage quality, like Captain Nemo. I don't no. I'll wait til it comes on tv and check it out.

Agreed re: groupthink. There's always need for provocateurs, agitators, dissenters (as well as the many other synonyms!) and the downright disagreeable! There's definitely an argument to be put forward that groupthink applied here.

The Disney logo is very prominent on the poster and advertising - and it's the expectations of what a Disney film engenders that's likely to dissuade punters. This is largely the reason Hollywood likes to pigeonhole writers when they write a comedy, for example, and then expect their output to stick to comedy; Hollywood assumes audience expectation of a writer/director/actor/production company is set in stone, and the marketing challenge in circumventing these expectations is difficult, and adds extra risk to the bottom line.

Look at someone like Wes Craven, and it's an easy example of audience expectations. I don't think it's a conscious decision (nor a major reason for this film's failure) on the audience's part to dismiss films based on preconceived notions, but the psychology does play a part, IMO.

With the budget, though, it was like they were playing roulette and sticking to red or black. Now when big budget films pay off, it's inspired (i.e. Titanic and Avatar), but absolutely disastrous when it fails. The line is, of course, fine, but when there's an endemic problem (as I think there is with Disney producing live action), the odds are always weighted against success.

Everyone's right here, actually.  BoinT is dead on the money - After 13 days of release, it's pulled in over $180 Million WW, which may be a disappointment to the studio, based on the investment, but it ain't all that bad, either, considering how badly it has performed here in the states and how poor the reviews have been.

I haven't seen it, but I did read the books when I was a wee one.  As a matter of fact, I read pretty much all the ERB books, and I thought they were pretty cool - but that was a long fucking time ago, and it's just downright foolish of Disney or anyone to not tweak the source material so that it makes some semblance of sense.

Bottom line is that anytime you throw more than $150 Million into a film, you're taking a serious gamble...a gamble that rarely should be or needs to be taken on anything other than a product with built in interest, big star power, and the ability to bring in north of $500 Million.

All around poor decision and effort from Disney throughout the planning, filming, and marketing.

The title certainly wasn't the overriding factor as to why this film bit the dust so hard.  There have been successful films with lousy titles.  It was that all of the elements of the JC marketing campaign were so...generic.  Some unknown guy with the most incognito name possible jumps around in a loincloth battling lame cgi monsters.  Throw in a princess, a bad guy, etc.  You could pretty much finish the whole story from there.  What was really missing was some kind of hook, and that's because the source material is a hundred years old and countless other sci-fi movies have borrowed and stolen ideas from Rice during that time.  

According to an article I read on this, "Several different filmmakers had claimed that the movie was unfilmable before Stanton got his hands on the project."

Which makes Disney's missteps all the more baffling.  Take an inexperienced director, put a shaky script based on ancient material in his hands, cast actors with no box office power and give the production a blank check.  This thing was a disaster long before it hit the theaters.