Skip to comments.‘Ishtar’ Lands on Mars ('John Carter' a colossal bomb for Disney, $165M writeoff, layoffs...)
Posted on 03/11/2012 1:32:54 PM PDT by jimbo123
John Carter, a big-budget science fiction epic from Walt Disney Studios that opened Friday and flopped over the weekend. Disney spent lavishly (some say foolishly) on the movie in large part to keep one of its most important creative talents happy: Andrew Stanton, the Pixar-based director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E.
John Carter, which cost an estimated $350 million to make and market, and was directed by Mr. Stanton, took in about $30.6 million at the North American box office, according to Rentrak, which compiles box-office data. That result is so poor, even when factoring in about $71 million in overseas ticket sales, that analysts estimate that Disney will be forced to take a quarterly write-down of $100 million to $165 million.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So women are done by 34 in your book, eh?
Well, you must admit that she's seen above average wear-and-tear, eh?
Maybe. Is there a 3D version? That could be very cool.
*** The characters and creatures and Barsoomian world were *exactly* like I pictured them from the books. Very well done, in my opinion. Captured the spirit of the books to a T. ****
Naturally such a movie would be a box office flop, considering the character and sensibilities of today’s theater audience.
I saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good. Might even go see it again. It has really, really good cgi, not a bad story and no really obnoxious Jar-Jar Binks type characters. Overall, I’d give 4 stars out of 5.
Yes, there is. It was at 3:35 and I didn’t finish up work until 3:25. The 2D was at 4:05 and the next shows were after 6:00PM.
Ticket prices for 2D before 5 were only $5.50
I picked the 2D with a large buttered popcorn and drink :-).
Loved the “dog”!
Or even better, "Darth Vader"...
Think below the neck...
Check your PM...
One small shot with literally seconds of Screen Time can take months. The shots are much more complicated than ever before and the advent of CGI has just raised expectations from the Writers, Directors and Producers of what can be put into the final product.
The work on Star Wars was very simplistic in comparison and still took hundreds of people and thousands of man hours to accomplish. It does take less work than before, just as any improvement in productivity will, but it is far from easy.
Just an example. Our Friend was one of the guys working on the big scene in Serenity where a fleet of Military Space Ships followed the Firefly Ship out of a cosmic cloud. The scene was very impressive and lasted all of ten seconds. It took him over three months just to set it up. Tough work...
He has a couple of Emmy's from the Firefly and BG work. Now he is “between projects” and you can't eat an Emmy.
Said old tumblindice, “I’m humble,
And maybe too old for a tumble,
..But produce me a blonde,
..And I’m still not beyond
An attempt at an interesting fumble.
On second thought: Vienna sausage/Versaille Hall of Mirrors
these stories were written more than 50 years ago
True...they were written almost exactly a century ago (serious started in 1912).
I doubt I’ll spend $ to see it, but I’ll catch it on cable.
Those are worth money to certain collectors...you know why.
I saw it yesterday and thought it was pretty good. Might even go see it again. It has really, really good cgi, not a bad story and no really obnoxious Jar-Jar Binks type characters. Overall, Id give 4 stars out of 5.I agree. A story! Yes it has A STORY. What an idea, telling A STORY!
My boys and I like the SciFi movies. They are soo bad they are good.
Megan Ward? I don’t she ever did porn.
Serenity was a terrific movie, and was another of those heartbreaking examples of how the studios can completely blow the promotional strategy.
Like naming this movie simply “John Carter”, which means nothing to those not familiar with the books, the promotions and TV ads for Serenity told absolutely nothing about what the movie was about. The Browncoats turned out to see it of course, but people unfamiliar with the Firefly TV series were given no reason to go see it.
Saw it with the kids and liked it. It actually didn’t portray all humans as evil, and actually heroic! The native 4 arm guys were pretty cruel, shocking to say the least coming from Hollywood these days!
John Carter ten minute clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HaE5Zs8dAY
Wow. We didn’t go see it because of the weak reviews, but this ten minutes looks really cool.
You know, maybe I will go see it after all.
The reasoning was that the last 3-5 movies with "Mars" in the title flopped like fish out of water.
For the record I jsut got back from seeing John Carter, and enjoyed it. I am 1/3 of the way through the first book so i can't say how well they stuck to the original by ERB.
In the foreword, which is part of the fiction, Burroughs describes him as a “tall, dark, athletic man” with black hair. When he sees him for the first time since he had gone off to war he says, “I was much surprised to note he had not aged apparently a moment.”
So you guys are all wet. I felt the casting was right on. The movie drew a lot from the book, and followed it in outline. The biggest deviation they made was the Thune business, but they made this work pretty well.
Overall the movie was pretty good. Everything looked good, and the opening airship scene drew me into it. There were a few draggy parts, but the plot moved well and had some twists. Its biggest problem is that the whole conception is so familiar to the public in so many other treatments, notably Star Wars, of course. I think this greatly reduces its pull and the action and dialogue are in the same familiar mold. I guess they weren’t going to commit $250 million to some kind of retro treatment.
These stories were actually written in 1911 and 1912, more than 100 years ago.
“John Carter was the lead character in the first novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, set on a fictionalized version of Mars known as Barsoom. Written between July and September 28, 1911, the novel was serialized as Under the Moons of Mars in the pulp magazine The All-Story from February to July 1912. It later appeared as a complete novel only after the success of Burroughs’ Tarzan series. For its October 1917 hardcover publication by A.C. McClurg & Company, the novel was retitled A Princess of Mars.”
Mars Attacks! was great, though.
That’s what is so nice about anonymous forums...no one really needs credibility.
Looks pretty compelling to me as well.
Just saw it at our Movies10 theatre.Where every single movie always cost just4.00 and popcorn,hotdogs,and soda costs only 1.00.Very good movie,and the theatre was standing room only,showing on 2 screens,,both full.Im a fan of ERB,and thought they did an excellent job.Fantastic story,showing heroism,and the values this country used to support.Shame on most of you for badmouthing it without seeing it.
Please tell me you forgot the /sarc tag.
She’s 43 (I guess 40-41 in that movie photo).
Yes it was great, when the Martians fired on Congress, everybody in the theater cheered.
Yeah. She was only 16,,,, but very,,,,errrrr, very talented!
“Shame on most of you for badmouthing it without seeing it.”
I am with you there. Since when did the NY-Slimes become a trusted source. geez
We saw it last night and had a full theater. It was a great movie probably go see it again.
-——John Carter...whos that and whats the movie about?-——
Exactly right. I knew nothing about it, but caught the commercial today.
Lots of special effects.
Oh well, who cares.
And that would have been my last impression if I hadn’t read this.
Critics and the media are chewing on this movie, but most people that actually SAW it seem to like it...it DID make $100 million world-wide in three days...disappointing, perhaps, but bomb? Not so sure. Word of mouth may give this movie some legs...
I just got home from watching it with Lil. Pretty good flick.
I didn’t say anything at all about the title...I was pointing out that the stories were 100 years old, not just 50.
But since you brought it up, maybe they should have used the proper title, Under the Moons of Mars.
Except woola did not look like a calot at all, more like a cabazon with legs.
Get the SCIFI Channel mini-series “Dune” and “Children of Dune” DVDs
Much better than the movie (I know, it’s SciFi Channel, but they really do follow the books better.)
The director has said that “Princess” was nixed because they thought no boys would go and see it. I’m not buying that it would matter that much, but the term has gotten a little more pink and frilly since ERB wrote it. So then it was going to be John Carter of Mars. “Of Mars” was then nixed because they thought no girls would go and see it, because girls hate sci-fi and planets or something. We are just lucky it wasn’t Get Carter’s Princess Diaries. I thought WALL-E was one of the best Sci-fi movies in a long time, so I hope this movie is cool.
The clips of Barsoom don’t look like what I was picturing in my head all these years. It looks like an earth desert. Of course I heard Pixar/disney and all I was picturing was Frazetta’s paintings coming to life. But it just doesn’t seem as exotic as I remember from the books.
I thought it looked good in the previews, and am mildly interested in seeing it.
Also this year: Hunger Games, and the Hobbitt.
Wasn’t John Carter Jimmy Carter’s grandddfather?
Except for wardrobe I assume.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.