Badmovies.org Forum

The second film to see in theaters this year, though I am disappointed that it wasn't The Secret World of Arrietty.   Regardless...

The film centers on John Carter, a civil war vet, that comes to Mars admist a civil war.  There, due to gravity, he finds himself stronger and able to leap great heights with a single bound (Superman story).  He may hold the key to ending this war and stopping the bad empire from wiping out the rest of the planet's civilization.  Meanwhile, in the background, a bald headed figure, played by Mark Strong, seems to be pulling the strings for the bad empire.

Let's start from the top.  John Carter is based off a series of book by Edgar Rice Burroughs, with this movie being based off A Princess of Mars.  This series was made all the way back in 1912 and to 1942.  The series helped inspire lots of classic sci-fi films we know today and we can clearly see the inspiration for a lot of that stuff within this movie, like Star Wars for example.

The good parts of this movie was the fact that the action was incredible and was a joy to watch.  The effects were pretty solid, the story was fun, and the acting & voice acting was decent.

Sadly, this movie suffers from a lot of problems.  We get good backstory for John Carter and all, but it barely comes into play with this film.  The film slows down at times to allow you take in the world the characters are in and have some dialogue scenes, which can ruin some of the pacing.  The 3D was utterly pointless and didn't add much to the experience (In a film like this, you think 3D would be great too).  A lot of the villains had anti-climaxes with them, like they were beaten too quickly or they were killed off by some other person.  There were a couple of hammy points that reminded me of Reb Brown's acting for some reason.  Also, the film ends on a bit of a cliffhanger and the fact that the film isn't doing too well probably means this won't lead to anything.  So, the ending may not satisfy.

However, the biggest and saddest problem is that the film came out at this point in time.  We have had tons of great sci-fi and epic films for a long time now, so we have seen almost everything this film has.  Desert planets, unique alien species & cultures, alien gladiator battles, post-apocalyptic settings, futursitic vehicles, etc.  This book series this film is based off of may have come up a lot of this stuff first, but by now, we've seen it all.  If we had films based off this series back in the 70's, around Star Wars, they would have been awesome and probably well recieved.  It would have been hard to pull off a lot of the effects or giant aliens, but still.

I still like the classic sci-fi feel of the movie, but that won't help it with general audiences.  John Carter is an enjoyable movie that suffers from a few issues and that it came out at this day and age.  I recommend seeing it, but it would probably work best as a rental, even though it looked good on the big screen.  I give it a 3.5 out of 5.

I love the books that this is based on, and am interested in the film because of that.  However, they are such works that I think you'd need a good quality 1950s to 1960s era director using modern day effects technology to create a film that would properly convey the story from the books.

Going to wait for it on DVD, but I'll admit that I'll be impatiently waiting.  Just hope that it washes "Princess of Mars" (2009) out of my mind.

Oh yeah, Asylum tried making a film based of the books... nothing else to say about that.  It speaks very well for itself.

I enjoyed it, but thought it was a little overlong and did feel like it missed some opportunities.  It was neat seeing the old school designs, for the most part as I'd imagined them while reading the books.  You can kind of tell it was written in the era when automobiles were a new-fangled concept just getting started.  I mean that in a good way.

I saw it in 2D, and was glad for it.

It's a 7/10 in my book.

Precisely.  I adored the books.  Great fun.  As films they would benefit from being handled in the spirit in which they were written.

I found the film actually highly similar to Stanton's Pixar movies. There is no decipherable personality or vision behind the picture, akin to Finding Nemo and WALL-E; just slick movie-making. Where it fails is not having the Pixar brand and marketing campaign that made as empty and dumb a film as WALL-E seem as poignant as Kubrick.
That said, the reviews are a little overly harsh. I thought it was as entertaining a "sci-fi" movie as any and as unpretentious. It was a better film by far than Avatar. Of course, when your budget is as high as John Carter's, perhaps you should aspire a little higher - but isn't that true of any $250+ million picture?

Okay, you are Armond White.  You can't hide it.  We are on to you.

I saw it today.  It was pretty good but you've seen it all before.

I say wait for the $1.50 theater.  3D adds nothing to the movie.

I saw it.

That was New York City of 1881.
That was the Arizona Territory of 1868.
That was the Mars of fiction.
That was surprisingly well acted for a film of that type. Maybe because most of the names in the cast were more or less recognizable.
That was the best action film I have seen, or, at least, one of the best. And I knew it in the first five minutes of the film with the collision between the two airships.
And that, except for the reviews here on this website, I don't read most film reviews. The critics and I aren't going to agree, so why waste my time getting my dandruff up.

I did see five new trailers before the film began, and my opinions of the five.

"Prometheus" No.
"The Avengers" Not interested.
"Battleship" If I had any idea of seeing this, the trailer killed that idea.
"MIB3" Probably the best looking of the films so far, but it is a sequel, and I make it a point not to watch sequels, as I want to encourage filmmakers into doing something other than another unoriginal sequel.
And then there was "Brave." One of the few films I have seen where the more you look at it. The better it becomes. For one reason, unlike the filmakers of today, but like the filmmakers of yesterday, the people at Pixar realize the importance of having a strong secondary cast. And "Brave probably has the strongest secondary cast next to the "Toy Story" series. And of the five, the only one I plan on seeing.

It wasn't the Grand Adventure that I'd hoped it would be, but it was alright. Seemed to me that they were just kind of rushing from one cool FX piece to another.

News reports are this movie is heading towards being one of the biggest financial disasters in the history of cinema.  Apparently, the last movie that even came close was CUTTHROAT ISLAND. 

 

I saw it last night and enjoyed it overall, but it is kind of bland overall.  There just doesn't seem like there's anything really holding it all together; we jump from one scene where the princess is all 'I don't want to marry him' with the king saying 'there will be a wedding' then there's some stuff with John Carter, then all of a sudden its the princess and she's escaping and being chased!!! The action was fun but the slight jump in time threw me and annoyed me, since there were really no good character motivations and everyone of them seemed a bit too forced when they were there...

Overall the effects and general fun action bumped this up to a 3/5.  Good fun and worth seeing in the big screen if you love your effects movies and want to take it in its glory, but overall its not an urgent watch...

Yeah, definitely one of the bigger ones.  In terms of ratio to budget, Cutthroat Island will probably be worse though...  Total take on John Carter is around $180 million, think it'll clear $300 million total without too much issue.  Add on at least $50 million from DVD/Blu sales, and so forth.  Minus the theatres cut, production costs of DVD, etc, total cleared take of at least $250 million.  Budget plus marketing/distribution probably in the $350 million range, my guess.  So a $100 million loss. 

Yeah, that's pretty terrible alright.  Cutthroat Island made like $10 million with a $115 million cost (with marketing/distro costs).  It's worse in raw numbers, worse in ratio, and MUCH worse with inflation.  Adjusted for inflation, Hudson Hawk is also a bigger loss.

But yeah in raw numbers it'll still probably be one of the worst losses ever.  Any other bigger losses?  Can't think of one at the moment.

I believe Mars Needs Moms is a pretty big box office bomb, alongside Delago (Though that movie's budget was nowhere as big as these two).

Mars Needs Moms
John Carter


If Disney does this too much, they'll need to resurrect Roy Disney.  That man could talk people to giving them more money no matter how much they lost. :wink:

I think Roy can rest in peace.

For to think of the Walt Disney Company solely as a film company is to severely underestimate the company, as they are also into . . .

01. Consumer products. (Both for home and office.)

02. Cruise ships. (Including their newest, the "Disney Fantasy.")

03. DVDs and Blu-rays.

04. Film distribution. (They actually distribute films made by other studios.)

05. Foreign entertainment. (They recently bought into entertainment companies in India and Russia.)

06. Ice shows.

07. Internet groups.

08. Marvel comics. (The comic book characters soon to appear at a theme park near you.)

09. Meetings. Unproductive meetings. They can show you how to have a more productive meeting.

10. The Muppets.

11. Music. (Both publishing and recording.)

12. Pixar.

13. Publishing. (Both books and magazines.)

14. Radiio networks.

15. Radio stations.

16. Real estate development. (Part of Walt Disney World is to be given over to building million dollar homes.)

17. Resorts. (Both on-site and off-site, including their newest in Hawaii, which looks to be the next great travel destination.)

18. Retail stores. (Both domestic and foreign. Bath, Chester, Edinburgh, London, Plymouth, etc. And they just opened their first storie in Belgium.)

19. Stage shows. (Both on- and off-Broadway. "Beauty and the Beast," "Jake and the Neverland Pirates," "The Lion King," "Mary Poppins," "Newsies," "Sister Act," and "Tarzan," have been or are on stage. And there is talk about bringing "Aladdin" and/or "Finding Nemo" to the stage.

20. Thme parks. (Both domestic and foreign, including the newest one, which has yet to open, in Shanghai.)

21. Travel.

22. TV networks. (The Disney Channel is seen in over a hundred countires worldwide. Only The Comedy Channel and Nickleodeon are seen in more countires. And it is thought that the Disney Channel will surprass one or both this year.)

23. TV shows. (You have not seen Tim allen till you have seen Tim Allen dubbed into German for the German broadcast of "Home Improvement" on the German TV station RTL, which has the exclusive rights to show anything made by Disney and/or Pixar.

24. TV stations.

25. Videogames.

226. Weddings. (Exluding Las Vegas, Walt Disney World is the top wedding destination in the U.S. And believe me it is lot cheaper to get married in Las Vegas, then Walt Disney World and Disneyland, where the cost of a wedding begins at $5000 and can go into the six figures.

And for a company that earned over 40 billion dollars during the last fiscal year, any money lost from "mars Needs Moms" and/or "Princess of Mars" is chump change, which can then be written off onto films that earn a profit at the boxoffice.

And all this is  connected, which is why, when "Fortune" asked analysts, executives, and writer which American companies they most admired, only about a dozen companies were more admired that the Walt Disney Company.

No, the company was there long before any of use were born and will be there long after all of us are dead. No matter what results show at the boxoffice.

And, oh yes. Which Roy did you want? Roy E. Roy O. or the newest Roy who was named after his father and grandfather, but has a different middle initial.

Yes, Disney is much larger than they were in the 30's and 40's.  They can afford a few big losses; I was trying to make a joke.  I failed.  Sorry if it was in poor taste.

P.S.  I looked it up.  I was thinking of Roy O. Disney. 

I was really excited about John Carter, especially when it was called 'John Carter of Mars'.  The trailers look fabulous.  But the reviews have been less than complimentary.  A friend who shares similar tastes in movies with me said that it would be a great 2 hour film, but at 3 hours it's tedious.  Too much dialogue that doesn't move the film along.

So I have yet to see it, opting for Wrath of the Titans on the weekend.  Someone else told me that it was more fun than Avatar, but I found Avatar as much fun as having a lukewarm hot dog inserted into my backside, so that would not be hard to top in the fun stakes.  With a bit of planning I will catch John Carter in the cinema before it is claimed by the abyss of ignominy.

There used to be rules regarding production costs and grosses, not sure if they still apply these days. A movie must make twice its budget to come clean. Whatever it pulls in after that is pure profit for the studio.
After three weeks John Carter has made $254m worldwide (technically that covers production costs, but studios only get 55% from grosses), but a total of $500m is needed.


You might wanna triple (or even higher) that number if you count Worldwide figures from DVD/Blu-ray sales/rentals.

For example, Showgirls made most of its money from sales and rentals. $100m (unadjusted) alone in the US, most likely twice worldwide. And this was back in the '90s.

Yeah, you're right about me underestimating Blu/DVD sales.  Thinking about it again...  I'd say in the long run that yeah, it does stand a chance at making money, with slow residual sales and TV/on demand licensing and so forth.  BTW, the budget of $250 million is the production - there's still marketing, which for a picture that big was probably in the $50-$100 million range.  So gross of $600-$700 million to break even.  And yeah, the rule of thumb is still the theatres overall take is around 50% of the box office.  Can vary a bit depending on how they do the release though, but that's the average.

But...  Then again, it's around $250 million total right now, and the domestic take is sinking FAST.  Looks like a world wide total under $400 million is likely to me.  We'll see though, not sure if all markets have opened for it yet.  It could quite possibly crack even or a bit better years from now, all told, but it's still a big disappointment box office wise either way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1H2ZdSbyHhQ

This might belong in another topic, but it is interesting.  Here's test footage for a canceled animated version of John Carter of Mars, made in the 30's.

Um.  Right.

If you just plain don't like these movies, that's your business; but, these blanket statements don't hold water.

Pixar has hit it out of the park so many times and so consistently it's hard to imagine it's just slick movie-making.  Stanton has been an integral part of almost every Pixar production at some level; he's a fixture and part of the core creative team, even in the early "Pre-Disney" days, that ushered in the success that led to later productions possible.  Lasseter gets the Lion's Share of the creative credit, but Stanton, Unkrich, Peterson and a few others get their's as well.

I think you underestimate Pixar's influence in the movie making industry...not only in animated films, but in general.  I'd argue Pixar and John Lasseter moving to Disney pretty much saved their dying film production wing.

I have not seen JOHN CARTER so I cannot comment on the thread's film; sorry for the hijack post.

This was one off the best -if not the best- theatre experiences I've had this year. I haven't read the books, but I knew I was going to watch an old-fashioned adventure / space opera a la "Flash Gordon", and I had a great time. It had me thinking that we may have ended up having more of these kind of films if "Star Wars" (and its cheap knock-offs) hadn't monopolised the trend. I would have loved that.

So yes, it is predictable and there is room for improvement, but the acting and the filmmaking are surprisingly good for a genre film, and the story closes at a very promising moment. I was hoping we would end up having a franchise -how I hate that word-, but since I watched the movie all I hear is how much money Disney is going to lose because of this, so it's not likely. A pity.

This movie might of had the worst marketing campaign ever. Its almost like Disney wanted it to fail.

? It's 132 minutes including credits.

I saw it the other night, and I wasn't looking forward to it. I don't think I had heard anybody talk about this movie, let alone say a good thing about it.

I enjoyed the hell out of it. I don't understand the visceral hatred. I thought it was great.

I had a really good time watching this movie. It isn't going to win any awards or anything, but I thought it was really good.

This is a fun movie. I recommend it quite a bit. It was great.

Neville liked it...Mofo liked it...that's enough for me: no more doubts - I have to see this one.   :thumbup:

Darn, maybe I will track this down at a more regional cinema before it disappears from the big screen completely.