#1  
Old 10-07-2012, 11:10 AM
Why didn't John Carter earn more money?

It wasn't that bad. I mean, why did people ignore it so much to the point it became a bomb? I wish it earned a lot more money. I think it was because of poor marketing. Maybe they shouldn't have had the ads focus on the battle with The White Apes a lot.

Now, Disney spent money for nothing. I love Disney, and I wish this earned more money. What did they do wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-07-2012, 11:56 AM
I don't know. People blame the marketing campaign for the movie's failure. Whatever the reason it's a real shame. I love the movie. It still currently sits on top 5 of the year thus far.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-07-2012, 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovemovies View Post
I don't know. People blame the marketing campaign for the movie's failure. Whatever the reason it's a real shame. I love the movie. It still currently sits on top 5 of the year thus far.
They should've focused on something OTHER than the White Ape fight.

I always felt the same way for Battleship. Even though that had good marketing, why did that do not that good?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-07-2012, 02:32 PM
John Carter was dull, it needed too much exposition, it had too many different camps (the four armed aliens, the good guys, the bad guys, the weird godlike aliens who wanted Mars destroyed), plotpoints that didn't go anywhere like the bad guy wants to marry the princess and have here killed right away, so why marry her in the first place?

I liked Battleship better even though it was predictable from start to finish. Shame the movies Taylor Kitsch starred in all tanked, I do like him as a lead.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-07-2012, 05:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
John Carter was dull, it needed too much exposition, it had too many different camps (the four armed aliens, the good guys, the bad guys, the weird godlike aliens who wanted Mars destroyed), plotpoints that didn't go anywhere like the bad guy wants to marry the princess and have here killed right away, so why marry her in the first place?

I liked Battleship better even though it was predictable from start to finish. Shame the movies Taylor Kitsch starred in all tanked, I do like him as a lead.
I understand. In my opinion, Battleship was great. Sure, it wasn't as faithful to the board game as it should've been, but it was still fun.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-08-2012, 01:04 PM
The problem is that despite the marketing that any film receives the number 1 form of marketing is word of mouth. If lots of people who see a film don't think much of it then they will tell other people that it wasn't good and not to see it. Most of the public trust their friends' opinions of films far more than they trust any professional film reviewer.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-08-2012, 01:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kandesdad View Post
The problem is that despite the marketing that any film receives the number 1 form of marketing is word of mouth. If lots of people who see a film don't think much of it then they will tell other people that it wasn't good and not to see it. Most of the public trust their friends' opinions of films far more than they trust any professional film reviewer.
OK. I can buy that. Nobody probably has even heard of the character anymore. He was around since 1912.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-08-2012, 10:12 PM
I saw most of the movie and fell asleep about 90 mins in. I hated it.

From a marketing standpoint, it looked like a cross between Star Wars and Avatar and people do not like seeing cheap bad looking rip offs unless it is a wannabe horror movie.

Many blockbusters these days are failures. Way more than used to be.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-08-2012, 10:33 PM
If a movie's title could kill it's chances, it'd be this one's.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-09-2012, 12:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaw2929 View Post
If a movie's title could kill it's chances, it'd be this one's.
I wonder if people thought they were going to see a movie version of TV's E.R. !?
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 10-09-2012, 03:41 PM
because it sucks
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:03 PM
It was a lousy made film imo.

But the reason it didnt do well was because it had no name director behind it and no name stars. Plus the whole premise was silly. A Confederate solider sent to Mars? GTFO of here. Disney was stupid to put so much money behind it. No way was it gonna do Avatar numbers.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 10-09-2012, 10:05 PM
I've never felt more out of touch with every other moviegoer/general public I guess. Because I personally loved the movie. It still remains in my top 5 of the year so far.

And I think it's way fucking better than Avatar!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 10-10-2012, 02:26 AM
I really enjoyed John Carter. I saw it on bluray dvd. Not at the cinema. The story of John Carter of Mars was written by Edgar Rice Burrows many many years ago.
A Princess of Mars. Mars was also known as Barsoom. The book is pretty cool. And there are differences. But overall, I feel the film captured alot of the feeling.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 10-10-2012, 10:19 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by echo_bravo View Post
But the reason it didnt do well was because it had no name director behind it and no name stars.
Which implies a known director and known actors can't make flops?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 10-11-2012, 01:31 AM
I also thought it wasn't very good. Weak story, weak lead, and predictable ending. I would put some of the blame on the marketing campaign, which I thought did a poor job of showing what the movie was.

Not that it had anything to do with the poor box office performance, but losing the "of Mars" from the title was moronic too.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 10-11-2012, 03:38 AM
I haven't seen it yet,
but for those that say it failed b'cuz it was lousy;
I know that there are a bunch of movies out there that failed because they were lousy,
but still,
there are also a bunch of movies that were are lousy & yet still made a lot of money.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 10-11-2012, 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Herald View Post
Which implies a known director and known actors can't make flops?
You're correct. Big name directors & actors can make flops as well. But lets be honest here, Disney made a 250 million dollar sci fi film starring an unknown. Still cant believe what they were thinking, Maybe if james Cameron directed it, it would of made a profit but that wasnt the case here.

Bottom line, it just wasn't a good film imo.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 10-14-2012, 01:54 PM
.

Last edited by SS-Block; 03-31-2014 at 05:22 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 10-15-2012, 10:40 AM
Andrew Stanton was actually in charge of all of the marketing for John Carter. He cut the trailers, picked the music, etc. It's one of those rare times when a director screwed up the marketing of the movie instead of the studio.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 10-17-2012, 10:50 PM
I have found movies that tanked at the box office were not that bad when I watched it on DVD. "John Carter" however was baaaad... Could not relate to anything that was going on in the movie. I can see why this movie loss $$$ big time.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 05-15-2013, 01:08 AM
If I recall the preview correctly it said something like "Before there was (something I'd already seen) and before (another thing I'd already seen) there was John Carter". To me that says "Hey, I'm going to jump on this genre bandwagon and try to cash in". Movies made under such a pretense are rarely ever worth watching in my experience. Maybe that's not how the movie came off, but it's how the preview came off and it turned me off.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 05-16-2013, 09:49 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BorderEevilIII View Post
"John Carter" however was baaaad
I wouldn't say John Carter was bad because it really wasn't. Believe me , i saw tons of shitty movies. The main problem with this movie is the forgetability of it all because nothing stands out . You are never surprised because everything seems borrowed from other sci-fi classics while the thruth is that John Carter is the most likely inspiration to alot of modern sci-fi movie (** cough cough ** AVATAR *cough*. )
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 06-03-2013, 09:32 AM
Movies that have a name as they title often suffer unless there is other marketing that surrounds it and makes that name interesting. The name "John Carter" means nothing, so why would people want to see it? If the title had been something else that would have been a good start.

Same thing happened for me with Jack Reacher. I never heard of that name before, and therefore had no interest in seeing it. (I know sometimes these names are from novels, but still, if you don't know the name, why should it hook you?)

In fact, except for some Stallone movies, I can't think of many films that had a person's name as the title that were any good... hmm.

Oh, and it doesn't help that the movie was bad.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump