"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.