http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53922

Gut feels tells me it will be bad simply because they are REALLY over saturating the market with advertisements for it.

Also, not one trailer has ever said why this angry dude from earth has these amazing abilities. You would think you at least need to establish this to an unfamiliar audience so it makes some sense.

And what danger can he possibly get into? He jumps around like hes freaking superman. Untouchable.

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 9:52 PM. Reason : adsad]

2/28/2012 9:52:10 PM

read the book, less gravity on mars

also its an action movie from disney, no thanks

[Edited on February 28, 2012 at 9:58 PM. Reason : .]

2/28/2012 9:53:28 PM

Riggin is pissed he's not banging bitches in Texas, watching the FB, and hanging out with 7.

super pissed powers.

TEXAS FOREVER!

2/28/2012 10:19:04 PM

It's going to be one of the biggest flops in recent memory. Disney really botched the marketing campaign for it.

2/28/2012 10:23:34 PM

This looks terrible.

2/28/2012 10:24:45 PM

Fuck you guys if you don't see this. John Carter of Mars was so fucking baller, I will go see anything with the name on it. I'm wary of it being Disney, but comon', JOHN FUCKING CARTER.

I'm curious as to how they're going to depict John Carter winding up on Mars. In the stories he just... appears there, randomly, and it's never explained, because pulp sci-fi never does.

2/28/2012 10:24:47 PM

that always pissed me off

2/28/2012 10:25:43 PM

Andrew Stanton has never made a bad movie. I'm hoping he holds form with this. If it bombs, they'll never give him another shot at live action.

2/29/2012 2:59:41 AM

I really don't think it looks that bad, it's just that the budget is out of control (at least $250 million) and Taylor Kitsch is anything but a bankable star. The early word from critics is actually pretty positive, but I would be surprised if that overcomes a mind-boggling budget and an abortion of a marketing campaign.

2/29/2012 3:14:36 AM

First couple times I saw the commercials I thought they were saying "John Connor" and thought it was another Terminator movie. Then the commercial went on, and I became more confused. Then the commercial finished and I was thinking...

who the fuck is John Carter?? I like mindless action films...but I'm not even thinking about seeing this.

2/29/2012 8:49:19 AM

When I first saw this advertised (this summer maybe?) It was John Carter of Mars. Now it's just John Carter? But still rocks the JCM logo?

I don't plan on seeing this one at all. It feels pushed back and re-edited to try and salvage something from the project to me.

2/29/2012 10:34:23 AM

They should have kept "Of Mars" in the title.

The title makes it sound like some boring legal drama.

2/29/2012 10:55:21 AM

Can someone explain why this character is supposedly a must-see?

2/29/2012 11:08:21 AM

anyone who doesn't think taylor kitsch is a "bankable star" clearly hasn't been in the same room with heterosexual women when he takes his shirt off

2/29/2012 2:19:37 PM

I think women feel the same way about Ryan Reynolds, and that didn't stop Green Lantern from bombing.

2/29/2012 2:44:04 PM

generally positive reviews form the early screening

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/blog/2012/02/28/john-carter-reviews-tweets-from-the-burbank-hero-complex-screening-last-night/

2/29/2012 3:41:12 PM

Quote :

"Can someone explain why this character is supposedly a must-see?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(character)

Pulp Sci-Fi badass.

2/29/2012 4:39:15 PM

so far this movie reminds me of Chronicles of Riddick. like a weird, high budget sci-fi movie that people don't know much about... and it probably won't do GREAT but will find an audience who will really like it and recommend it to others.

2/29/2012 6:37:31 PM

I plan on watching this in theaters.

3/1/2012 4:52:13 PM

^^^^

Quote :

"JOHN CARTER is amazing. Space Lawrence of Arabia. This generation’s Star Wars."

HA

Lets see about that.

[Edited on March 1, 2012 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ^]

3/1/2012 9:26:35 PM

Not great, not terrible. I'd probably watch a sequel as a matinee, but not going to go around recommending the movie to anyone.

3/13/2012 12:01:02 AM

i went in with low expectations and would recommend it if someone is just looking for something fun and light. Maybe not a good choice to go with a lady friend. I think you just have to have managed expectations. It's a Disney adventure/"sci fi" movie.... what are you really expecting anyhow?

It's not winning any awards, but it's pretty entertaining, has a coherent plot, none of the actors are bad, the effects are all pretty good. it's a little slow getting started, then there's a lot of action. Slows down for just a little bit, but picks back up.

I'd probably lean toward matinee too.

3/13/2012 12:51:56 AM

I was entertained, but I feel they overdid the melodramatic love scenes. Too much of her looking at him and whispering John Carter with longing in her eyes...and vice versa.

The action scenes were awesome though, especially the one in the middle of the flick with the flashbacks.

3/13/2012 8:08:06 AM

They dropped "of Mars" because he didn't start the movie as one "of Mars," but rather developed as the story progressed to become "of Mars."

3/13/2012 9:41:29 AM

I saw the matinee at MV; it was fun. I would have loved it as a kid. Afterwards, my buddy and I were discussing it and basically came to the conclusion that it was a fun movie to see at the matinee price. Not amazing but definitely not terrible, just a lot of fun.

3/13/2012 9:52:00 AM

Had a night out with the wife for the first time in months...

Decided to see Chronicle instead of this and was thoroughly entertained. I'll rent this though.

3/13/2012 12:55:44 PM

I enjoyed it. I enjoyed it even more after learning that the origin of the character dates back to 1912. Some fairly impressive sci-fi/fantasy concepts here to have been created so long ago.

3/13/2012 9:48:38 PM

Jules Verne did it first. [/hipster]

How big was the special effects budget for this between the airships and the Tardak (sp?)?

3/13/2012 9:50:31 PM

Saw tonight and thought it was very entertaining. I hope they make a sequel but it doesn't look like it's gonna happen.

Quote :

"They dropped "of Mars" because he didn't start the movie as one "of Mars," but rather developed as the story progressed to become "of Mars.""

And then everyone saw The Lorax instead because they thought it was some legal drama they never heard about.

3/13/2012 9:51:28 PM

^^you mean edgar rice burroughs?

3/13/2012 9:57:59 PM

Nope, Verne. Sci-fi and whatnot

3/13/2012 9:59:04 PM

ok...you could probably say that about every sci fi movie/book

also I think I read the budget was 250 million

[Edited on March 13, 2012 at 10:04 PM. Reason : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/22/john-carter-producers-on-budget-rumors-creating-mars_n_1293]

3/13/2012 10:02:09 PM

Only $400 million away from profitability.

3/13/2012 10:09:01 PM

Ya, I was mostly referring to the 1912 comment. Jules Verne was writing sci-fi style stories in the 1800s

3/13/2012 10:13:38 PM

yeah, i saw that that the budget was around 250. I also saw that it bombed. Hopefully it gains a little traction going into next weekend based on word of mouth because it actually was pretty entertaining.

They could make a fair amount of that up overseas too.

3/13/2012 10:57:59 PM

Quote :

""John Carter" is now officially a flop of galactic proportions. The Walt Disney Co. said Monday that it expects to book a loss of $200 million on the movie in the quarter through March. That'll cause Disney's movie studio to post a loss of $80 million to $120 million for the quarter. The movie, about a Civil War veteran who is transplanted to Mars, has brought in about $184 million in ticket sales worldwide. But its production budget is estimated to be about $250 million with an estimated $100 million more spent on marketing."

http://www.hitfix.com/articles/disney-admits-defeat-after-john-carter-loses-200-million

3/19/2012 5:21:33 PM

$350 million spent on a story that no one fucking knows about? Disney deserves the loss on this one. Unless they could have gotten a big start to carry this movie (I don't think there is a young gun that could have pulled this off enough to make them any money...and the guys who can fill the seats are too old for this role)...then shouldn't have undertaken something like this.

Ridiculous.

3/19/2012 6:46:15 PM

Thats a shame, I actually enjoyed the movie as well.

3/19/2012 7:21:12 PM

Is this the new Waterworld?

3/19/2012 7:59:37 PM

for the time being it is. It's still about $165 million from turning a profit.

including production and marketing costs, Waterworld made like $26 million in the box office. Let's assume theaters keep half, that's 13 million to the studio. That may not be a lot in respect to blockbusters movies... but it's something and anyone complaining about a profit of 13 million is a douche bag in my book.

and that's not counting video/dvd, tv, the rides at the theme parks (which were still running in 2011 according to wikipedia), etc.


So right now, I have to assume it's the worse of all time and is facing an up hill battle considering some of the stuff being released in the next month or so.

3/20/2012 12:31:23 AM

^your math seems fuzzy to me. John Carter has made $180 million at the box office, the studio keeps roughly half of that so they've made $90 million back on a $350 million investment.

3/20/2012 12:42:37 AM

John Carter sounds like the name of a gas station attendant.

3/20/2012 12:49:31 AM

^^ you're right, i didn't take into account what the theaters keep for John Carter. And while I did for Water World, I didn't follow the proper order of operations.

WaterWorld cost 175 to make and 60 to market for a total of 235M. It made 264 in the box office (I subtracted the total cost here and then divided instead of dividing and then subtracting). So the studio took in 132million from the box office. So roughly 100 million shy of breaking even.

John Carter needs to make like another 516million at the box office to break even if theaters keep half...... they're hosed.

[Edited on March 20, 2012 at 1:38 AM. Reason : .]

3/20/2012 1:35:57 AM

i was under the impression that theaters keep a small fraction of ticket sales, which is why they charge $100 for popcorn

3/20/2012 3:40:12 AM

There are other avenues for them to make up their investment.

After the box office there are DVD sales, then pay per view and online rentals, then premium channels, then a few showings on (disney owned) ABC, then finally endless airings on USA, FX, and TNT.

I predict they eventually make up most if not all of their investment, but not enough to make a sequel unless this somehow becomes a cult classic.

3/20/2012 8:50:27 AM

Oh, for sure. But making up the money years down the road isn't typically considered "successful" since many movies make the majority of their investment back through the box office.and Disney can afford to wait for the rti, not all studios could necessarily.

3/20/2012 10:28:27 AM

Quote :

"I predict they eventually make up most if not all of their investment"

They aren't going to make up $260 million in dvd sales and tv licensing.

Quote :

"but not enough to make a sequel unless this somehow becomes a cult classic"

You're really going out on a limb by saying one of the biggest flops of all time isn't going to get a sequel.

3/20/2012 11:54:54 AM

This movie should have been so much better

It has, however, encouraged me to find and read the source material.

3/20/2012 12:50:05 PM

^^ They aren't kicking the movie out of theaters today.

And saying there won't be a sequel wasn't supposed to be a bold statement, don't know why you are assuming I thought it was.

[Edited on March 20, 2012 at 12:50 PM. Reason : ]

3/20/2012 12:50:33 PM

Quote :

"They aren't kicking the movie out of theaters today."

They might as well be with The Hunger Games coming out this weekend. It's got some legs left overseas but that's about it.

Quote :

"And saying there won't be a sequel wasn't supposed to be a bold statement, don't know why you are assuming I thought it was."

I wasn't assuming it was a bold statement, I was pointing out that it's so obvious you shouldn't have even bothered posting it.

3/20/2012 1:18:45 PM