• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

JOHN CARTER (OF MARS!) |OT| (dir. Andrew Stanton)

Status
Not open for further replies.

bengraven

Member
I always thought they should've went the Indiana Jones route and called it "John Carter and the Princess of Mars". Sounds pulpy and tells you all you need to know. They could have even made "John Carter" the most prominent part if they thought Princess and Mars were too alienating. But I don't think the title is the problem it's the marketing. No one can really get a grasp of the movie from any of the marketing.

That's great.

That also could bring in the female crowd, not because of the "princess" part but because of the "John Carter and the Princess" part. It's showing them as equals in the title and even hints at their possible romance.
 

SteveMeister

Hang out with Steve.
That's great.

That also could bring in the female crowd, not because of the "princess" part but because of the "John Carter and the Princess" part. It's showing them as equals in the title and even hints at their possible romance.

If the movie sells, you can bet that's how the sequels will be named.
 
That last trailer there was the first I've seen of this. That looks laughably bad. At least, the way it's being portrayed is terribly unappealing. Dudebro Warrior Within + God of War in space or something? And a personal pet peeve in showing a scene for long enough that you have essentially spoiled it. Yikes.
 
It's going to be a black hole from whence GL will be ejected!

I see John Carter becoming the Speed Racer of this year. Many critics will hate it, and it will bomb horribly. I mean epic level of failure here, the likes of which have not been seen in a while.

But the people who do see it will love it, and sing its praises for years after as the cult audience slowly grows.
 
I see John Carter becoming the Speed Racer of this year. Many critics will hate it, and it will bomb horribly. I mean epic level of failure here, the likes of which have not been seen in a while.

But the people who do see it will love it, and sing its praises for years after as the cult audience slowly grows.

I agree with this synopsis. Except the cult will have a slightly larger membership with slightly less fanaticism. It will be the Romney to Speed Racer's Santorum.
 
I see John Carter becoming the Speed Racer of this year. Many critics will hate it, and it will bomb horribly. I mean epic level of failure here, the likes of which have not been seen in a while.

But the people who do see it will love it, and sing its praises for years after as the cult audience slowly grows.

The lead is far too douchy and too terrible of an actor for this movie to create an enthusiastic cult following.

Even if the movie doesn't do well, all the John Carter merchandise Disney is going to sell to kids will ensure a sequel.

Found this bit kind of funny:

"They are doing an extraordinary job of not selling what they think it is," snipes a rival studio marketing head.

Observers also have taken aim at the studio's decision to drop "of Mars" from the title, arguing that the property loses definition and scope without it. Insiders say the title change was hotly debated a year ago when the word "Mars" was verboten in the wake of Disney's March 2011 bomb Mars Needs Moms. According to several sources, the studio conducted a study of how the word would play with potential audiences. The results were pointed enough -- Disney's 2000 sci-fi film Mission to Mars and Warner Bros.' 1996 sci-fi comedy Mars Attacks! weren't hits, either -- that the studio stripped out mention of the red planet. ("It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard," says one person who was privy to the research.)

"You lose any kind of scope the movie has," says another insider of the generic title. "John Carter of Mars gave the movie context."

At the same time, the trailer campaign has showcased the film's Mars setting rather than risk turning people off with shots of star Taylor Kitsch in Civil War-era garb (he's a soldier transported to a battle on Mars). Critics say the fear of Carter being labeled a period film also has muddied the property's core identity and sacrificed an opportunity to explain its narrative arc that could have hooked fans.
Source
 

Scirrocco

Member
So I just found out that Michael Chabon, one of my favorite modern writers, worked on the script. I had absolutely no interest in this movie before because of the awful marketing, but now I might go see it. Everything i learn about this movie from this thread makes it seem like a movie should at least be interesting. I have no idea how it can look this bad.
 

bengraven

Member
The lead is far too douchy and too terrible of an actor for this movie to create an enthusiastic cult following.

That's not true. Paul Hogan's Peter Pan from 2003 or 4 has a big cult following despite that it's titular star is a fucking atrocious actor.

It's still a beautiful film and has the best Hook (Jason Isaacs) ever.
 

Dead Man

Member
I think this will be a case where a great source material ended up being an average film (not terrible, just average) and then the marketing kills it completely. They better be praying for good word of mouth about now.
 

raphier

Banned
A friend of mine asked me today: "Are you going to John Connor?"

Whoever thought the title worked, may step forward and be stripped of rank and soul and then be dismissed into lava porridge.
 

Mr_eX

Member
Could this be another Prince of Persia where it doesn't do well in the US but makes up for it in the rest of the world?
 

Daft_Cat

Member
I see John Carter becoming the Speed Racer of this year. Many critics will hate it, and it will bomb horribly. I mean epic level of failure here, the likes of which have not been seen in a while.

But the people who do see it will love it, and sing its praises for years after as the cult audience slowly grows.

Critics panned Speed Racer, though.

The majority of critics who've previewed their thoughts on the film seem to have really enjoyed it. Haven't seen anything lower than average, and those are by far the odd ones out.
 
I haven't seen any commercials for this movie, whether on television or on the Internet. About the only thing I've seen and heard of it is here on NeoGAF. Mass Effect 3, a video game, is getting more attention than this movie.

Either more proof that video games are outselling (and outdoing) movies and/or the marketing department has done a shit poor job of promoting this.
 

Gloam

Member
Went to see this a couple of weeks ago. It's very good, the trailers really aren't doing the film justice. Sure, the dialogue is a little overwritten and the comedic aspects of the film fall flat but there's plenty of thrills and spills to keep the interest up. The best part of the film is the cartoonish aspect of the fight sequences, with John jumping around the place like a flea. There's a bit of a Daffy Duck as Errol Flynn feeling to the choreography and staging of fights. Would recommend people check it out, not as dumb as it may appear.
 
Giving away the first 10 minutes to your film for people to watch on their laptops. Worst marketing idea ever. I hate the fuckhead who thought that up.
 

JGS

Banned
I'm totally on the hype train for this movie. My plan is to be there on Friday night/Saturday afternoon after work.

I feel the marketing is masking the perfect storm of a 3+ star action adventure. It's got too much going for it except buzz. Fortunately I don't see movies on the basis of "buzz" anymore since I'm a high school graduate.
Large Professor said:
The ten minute scene is pretty horrible.
No it wasn't unless you thought it was horrible before you saw it.
 
I still don't understand why Disney is so ashamed to market it as a sci-fi movie. The Sci-fi genre is bigger than ever right now with Star Trek, Avatar, and even the phantom menace re-release being HUGE hits in the past few years. In gaming, Mass Effect 3 is like one of the biggest games of the year you can't even preorder the $80 CE! People are starving for sci-fi after the 00s neglected the genre so why not feed the hunger? And it is such BS that "girls don't like scifi" I'm sure a good 40-50% of the audience that saw Star Trek and Avatar in 209 were women.
 
What the heck made it "horrible"? Feelings of indifference I get.

The disappointment of not seeing anything of mars. I was hoping that somewhere around the 5 minutes mark he would be teleported to mars or something.

Ok maybe "horrible" is a bit of an exaggeration but I was looking forward to some exotic footage and cool fights against extraterrestrials.
 

JGS

Banned
The disappointment of not seeing anything of mars. I was hoping that somewhere around the 5 minutes mark he would be teleported to mars or something.

Ok maybe "horrible" is a bit of an exaggeration but I was looking forward to some exotic footage.
That actually makes sense. One should expect to see a glimpse of Mars in a movie largely about it.
 
What the heck made it "horrible"? Feelings of indifference I get.

I liked it. It's hardly a masterpiece but it established the character pretty quickly and I thought the repeated escape attempts were pretty funny.

If anything it confirms this should be an entertaining adventure movie.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
The disappointment of not seeing anything of mars. I was hoping that somewhere around the 5 minutes mark he would be teleported to mars or something.

Ok maybe "horrible" is a bit of an exaggeration but I was looking forward to some exotic footage and cool fights against extraterrestrials.
Okay, so it was horrible for promotion, not horrible in terms of actual quality
 
This isn't the first time Disney's shitty marketing has dumbed down a title too:

The Frog Princess was changed to "The Princess & The Frog" for fear of being racially charged
Rapunzel was changed to "tangled" to be more hip and appeal to boys
The Snow Queen is being changed to "Frozen" to try and repeat Tangled's success
The Bear & The Bow was changed to "Brave"


It goes on and on. These people need to be fired.
 

JGS

Banned
Okay, so it was horrible for promotion, not horrible in terms of actual quality
Marketing wise, it wasn't great because you are left with the feeling that this is going to remain a film about the US vs. Apache.

Production wise, it comes across as an opening of an Indy film.
 

alazz

Member
I'm happy that this movie is finally coming out.
First ten minutes isn't loading for me, but the trailers do look good. There is a fairly long sequence in the book before he arrives on Mars, though. There's the chase and the uncle's (John's) back story, and then finally the descent into the cave (if my order is right). Is that how the movie opens too?

I can see how it'd seem derivative or confusing if one isn't familiar with the books, though I hope people don't skip it because the trailer doesn't distinguish or reveal itself very much. It's a fantastic series.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom