Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-27-2013, 02:07 AM
Jack the Giant Slayer did worse than John Carter, so why no heads rolling over it?

Side by side box office numbers for Jack the Giant Slayer vs John Carter show that Jack was easily the worst performer of the two. John Carter cost slightly more, but it also made a lot more.

So why isn't the press that covers Hollywood freaking out over this big budget bomb the way they obsessed over John Carter last year? People got fired over John Carter. Endless articles spelling doom and gloom for Disney were written, with the press taking on a near universal finger-wagging tone as if to say "How dare you spend so much money on a movie like this." Then Jack the Giant Slayer does even worse and no one bats an eye?

WTF?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-27-2013, 02:37 AM
I'm not sure how much was spent on marketing for Jack, but I barely saw any ads for it, whereas with John Carter, I was constantly seeing commercials for it on tv.

I'm thinking that the expectations weren't as high for Jack The Giant Slayer, so it's not as big of a deal as it was last year with John Carter.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2013, 12:17 PM
Damn, this has got me scratching my head as well. Jack sits at 52% on the Rotten meter, and John is sitting at 51%.

I didn't realize that Jack was such a box office failure. Out of the two films though I see John Carter being viewed more favorably by the general audience in the long run.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-27-2013, 01:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matchbox225 View Post

I'm thinking that the expectations weren't as high for Jack The Giant Slayer, so it's not as big of a deal as it was last year with John Carter.
See, but that was one of the biggest knocks against John Carter - few people under the age of 40 were aware of its place in sci-fi history. I remember several stories that came out well before the movie's release criticizing Disney for there decision to make the movie at all and questioning it's relevance.

Maybe it's just that Disney has a bigger target on it's back. Similar criticisms have been leveled at them for spending so much money on The Lone Ranger.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-27-2013, 01:36 PM
probably because Bryan Singer has a proven track record (with the success of those X Men films) and the studio exes are probably letting it slide.

I had no idea that Jack the Giant Slayer did worse than John Carter, thats crazy. I didnt think anything could do worse than Carter or Battleship. Poor Taylor Kitsch lol.

And I think The Lone Ranger is gonna be a big hit. Might almost make 200 million domestically since Depp is starring in it.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2013, 04:22 PM
Maybe it's because John Carter was supposed to be the birth of a brand new mega movie star?

It was as much about the movie hype failing as it was about Taylor Kitsch hype failing.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2013, 04:50 PM
Because the media had it out for John Carter long before it released. There was a strong anti-hype against it, and it became a big story that everyone covered. People had it out for Disney, Kitsch, and even Stanton.

Jack didn't have nearly as much coverage leading up to release and thus nobody covered it to any extent after it bombed.

There was clearly a media agenda against John Carter and it ended up as a self fulfilling prophecy.

For what it's worth, Carter is a far more enjoyable movie in my mind too and didn't deserve its fate. Jack was just meh.

Last edited by SpikeDurden; 04-27-2013 at 04:54 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-28-2013, 02:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpikeDurden View Post
Because the media had it out for John Carter long before it released. There was a strong anti-hype against it, and it became a big story that everyone covered. People had it out for Disney, Kitsch, and even Stanton.

Jack didn't have nearly as much coverage leading up to release and thus nobody covered it to any extent after it bombed.

There was clearly a media agenda against John Carter and it ended up as a self fulfilling prophecy.

For what it's worth, Carter is a far more enjoyable movie in my mind too and didn't deserve its fate. Jack was just meh.
I agree with all of this. It was just getting piled on and everyone wanted a piece of the action. I reminded me of the summer of 2005 when everyone was hammering Tom Cruise over everything, no matter how small.
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