Latest Movie News Headlines

MOVIE POLL: Why do you think John Carter didn't perform better at the box office?

Mar. 11, 2012by: Dave Davis

Why do you think John Carter didn't perform better at the box office?

It wasn't marketed well and/or shouldn't have dropped "of Mars" from the title
A mega-budget sci-fi action movie should be released in the summer or around Christmas, not early March
Taylor Kitsch isn't a big enough star to lead such a big movie
Not enough people are familiar with the source material
It didn't seem to appeal to family crowds and/or female audiences
It probably would have been better as a 100% CG-animated movie
It just didn't look all that interesting
All of the above
Other (tell us below!)
Strikeback
Not registered? Sign-up!
Or

8:54PM on 03/12/2012

Going to see it tomorrow

I think it's too soon to say it has bombed yet. It didn't do amazing 1st weekend but I think word of mouth that it still has a chance to prove itself. I work weekends at a comedy club so I haven't had a chance too see it yet but tomorrow me and bunch of my friends are going to go see it. I love the books and the author of them in general. I think hollywood should be making movies from the classic scifi stories of that age should be brought to audiences of today. Plus there was people who were
I think it's too soon to say it has bombed yet. It didn't do amazing 1st weekend but I think word of mouth that it still has a chance to prove itself. I work weekends at a comedy club so I haven't had a chance too see it yet but tomorrow me and bunch of my friends are going to go see it. I love the books and the author of them in general. I think hollywood should be making movies from the classic scifi stories of that age should be brought to audiences of today. Plus there was people who were just being haters anymore even before they see a movie that haven't something negative and stupid to say.
Your Reply:



1:41PM on 03/12/2012
Saw the movie, liked it. But at times it was hard to follow until the pieces came together. It did make me want to read the books to find out where the characters go.
Saw the movie, liked it. But at times it was hard to follow until the pieces came together. It did make me want to read the books to find out where the characters go.
Your Reply:



+2
11:26AM on 03/12/2012

It was the marketing

From the unnecessary title change to the generic-looking TV spots, Disney totally dropped the ball and didn't give the public any reason to go see this movie. And the worst part is there's a fan-made trailer that's more enticing than any ad Disney ever produced themselves: [link]
From the unnecessary title change to the generic-looking TV spots, Disney totally dropped the ball and didn't give the public any reason to go see this movie. And the worst part is there's a fan-made trailer that's more enticing than any ad Disney ever produced themselves: [link]
Your Reply:



9:21AM on 03/12/2012
The Marketing of this film has been atrocious. Disney have nobody else to blame but themselves. Stanton and Kitsch have done their job and produced a good film, all disney had to do was market it as the sci-fi epic it is. Why they dropped 'of mars' from the title is beyond me, it just smacks of stupidity. If you want the masses to see your big budget film, serve them with things that will leave them curious. Nobody is bothered about seeing 'John Carter' but people will run to see a film call
The Marketing of this film has been atrocious. Disney have nobody else to blame but themselves. Stanton and Kitsch have done their job and produced a good film, all disney had to do was market it as the sci-fi epic it is. Why they dropped 'of mars' from the title is beyond me, it just smacks of stupidity. If you want the masses to see your big budget film, serve them with things that will leave them curious. Nobody is bothered about seeing 'John Carter' but people will run to see a film call 'John Carter of Mars'
Your Reply:



8:45AM on 03/12/2012

I saw JC

Not based on the marketing but on the positive reviews I saw online, plus I took the family out and this seemed like the 'safe' bet that we could all enjoy it. Although JC does have its flaws I found it entertaining and interested in reading the books. I'd say a C+ overall.
Not based on the marketing but on the positive reviews I saw online, plus I took the family out and this seemed like the 'safe' bet that we could all enjoy it. Although JC does have its flaws I found it entertaining and interested in reading the books. I'd say a C+ overall.
Your Reply:



7:41AM on 03/12/2012
The trailer makes it look like a guy fighting cartoons for two hours.
The trailer makes it look like a guy fighting cartoons for two hours.
Your Reply:



+4
3:32AM on 03/12/2012
The problem was in the marketing, especially the trailer. It shows a bunch of really cool sci-fi scenes but reveals nothing of the plot. I saw the trailers and I couldn't even tell you what the movie was going to be about. The trailer had the look but there was nothing for the audience to grab onto.
The problem was in the marketing, especially the trailer. It shows a bunch of really cool sci-fi scenes but reveals nothing of the plot. I saw the trailers and I couldn't even tell you what the movie was going to be about. The trailer had the look but there was nothing for the audience to grab onto.
Your Reply:



11:07PM on 03/11/2012

I saw it, I liked it

I think the biggest problem was bad marketing: I chatted with the film's producers and they were clearly unhappy with how Disney was promoting the flick.

Also, not a fan of Taylor Kitsch. James Purefoy completely obliterated him in one scene.
I think the biggest problem was bad marketing: I chatted with the film's producers and they were clearly unhappy with how Disney was promoting the flick.

Also, not a fan of Taylor Kitsch. James Purefoy completely obliterated him in one scene.
Your Reply:



10:48PM on 03/11/2012
Budget was too big.
Budget was too big.
Your Reply:



10:20PM on 03/11/2012

wrong marketing

It wouldve made twice as much money opening weekend if "From the director of FINDING NEMO" appeared anywhere in those trailers
It wouldve made twice as much money opening weekend if "From the director of FINDING NEMO" appeared anywhere in those trailers
Your Reply:



1:51AM on 03/12/2012
or maybe "From the director of FINDING NEMO and WALL-E". But no, just the name John Carter and a C-level actor surrounded by CGI with no context.
or maybe "From the director of FINDING NEMO and WALL-E". But no, just the name John Carter and a C-level actor surrounded by CGI with no context.
9:36PM on 03/11/2012
Well poor marketing is one thing but what a horrible release date it had also, it's like Disney wanted it to steer clear of the Summer or at least around thanksgiving should have been released.
Well poor marketing is one thing but what a horrible release date it had also, it's like Disney wanted it to steer clear of the Summer or at least around thanksgiving should have been released.
Your Reply:



6:41PM on 03/11/2012

Another exciting, original, non-remake/non-reboot gets ignored by audiences more entertained by dumb shit elsewhere.

Have to go w/ the choices of: A mega-budget sci-fi action movie should be released in the summer or around Christmas, not early March, Not enough people are familiar with the source material & It didn't seem to appeal to family crowds and/or female audiences. I saw John Carter on opening day, thought it kicked ass (hoping that there would be a sequel) & will be 1st in line to buy the Blu-ray when it comes out.

You know, Disney can spin just how much of a semi-hit/non-failure JC "Of Mars" was
Have to go w/ the choices of: A mega-budget sci-fi action movie should be released in the summer or around Christmas, not early March, Not enough people are familiar with the source material & It didn't seem to appeal to family crowds and/or female audiences. I saw John Carter on opening day, thought it kicked ass (hoping that there would be a sequel) & will be 1st in line to buy the Blu-ray when it comes out.

You know, Disney can spin just how much of a semi-hit/non-failure JC "Of Mars" was but it doesn't change the fact that they've made, @ least, 3 billion dollars over the last 2 years thanks to Alice In Wonderland, Toy Story 3, Tron: Legacy, Tangled, On Stranger Tides & Cars 2...so I don't think they'll be hurting *that* much over the loss of recouping John Carter's budget.

@ any rate, if JC's fallout has an effect on anything...it'll become troublesome for the currently shooting (& oft-problematic) "The Lone Ranger".
Your Reply:



6:42PM on 03/11/2012
Not exactly original as the source material is 100 years old and is the basis for pretty much every successful sci-fi franchise in Hollywood history.
Not exactly original as the source material is 100 years old and is the basis for pretty much every successful sci-fi franchise in Hollywood history.
6:20PM on 03/11/2012

It looked like crap...

Though I wanna see it now cause I heard good things about it, but seriously, it looked like something from the 80's. It was obviously aimed at boys. But what boy today thinks he-man is cool? The lead character just doesn't look cool enough. He looks cheesy. Like Conan and He-Man. That may have been cool in the 80s but not for kids today. The older crowd who liked He-Man and Conan... Conan last year proved not enough are interested in the type of movie it looked like.

So bad marketing and the
Though I wanna see it now cause I heard good things about it, but seriously, it looked like something from the 80's. It was obviously aimed at boys. But what boy today thinks he-man is cool? The lead character just doesn't look cool enough. He looks cheesy. Like Conan and He-Man. That may have been cool in the 80s but not for kids today. The older crowd who liked He-Man and Conan... Conan last year proved not enough are interested in the type of movie it looked like.

So bad marketing and the lead character needed to be more stylized. The trailers they did have just gave it a bad vibe... like a left over from the 80's cheesy fantasy films...

Now apparently that wasn't the case and people really like it... so either this could have been marketed better to show what the people liked about it or make the lead character look like a badass and not like a wannabee...
Your Reply:



6:14PM on 03/11/2012

For me it was a few things:

1) Taylor Kitsch doesn't appeal to me. I saw Friday Night Lights. He was good. But he doesn't have that "it" factor for me that other stars have.

2) John Carter isn't a distinguishable enough character. He doesn't have an interesting defining factor the way super heroes have, or the way Jack Sparrow has, or John McClane had, etc.

3) Despite the lore of the John Carter character, Disney did a piss-poor job of marketing the story. They basically ignored the fact that Carter is a Civil War
1) Taylor Kitsch doesn't appeal to me. I saw Friday Night Lights. He was good. But he doesn't have that "it" factor for me that other stars have.

2) John Carter isn't a distinguishable enough character. He doesn't have an interesting defining factor the way super heroes have, or the way Jack Sparrow has, or John McClane had, etc.

3) Despite the lore of the John Carter character, Disney did a piss-poor job of marketing the story. They basically ignored the fact that Carter is a Civil War soldier and downplayed his literary roots.

4) No other big name actors mentioned. Sure, Willem DaFoe is a Mo-Cap Barsoomian, but I didn't know that until I saw his interview on Colbert.

There was simply nothing to care about. Bottom line is, I'm not gonna feel beholden to Disney to shell out $10-15 to see a movie just because it's got CGI monsters in it and cost a quarter of a billion to produce. That's their own damn fault for gambling with an unproven property and an unproven "star".
Your Reply:



6:06PM on 03/11/2012
It just didn't look that interesting. My first impression was that it looked like another generic, CGI-filled summer blockbuster wanna-be.

It certainly didn't help that Disney sank $250+ million into an unproven property.
It just didn't look that interesting. My first impression was that it looked like another generic, CGI-filled summer blockbuster wanna-be.

It certainly didn't help that Disney sank $250+ million into an unproven property.
Your Reply:



5:56PM on 03/11/2012
The marketing of the movie was poor.
The marketing of the movie was poor.
Your Reply:



5:24PM on 03/11/2012
This reminds me of a simple rule that hollywood should always follow. Never try to immitate james cameron. No matter who you are you will never match his movies. This one tried to immitate avatar and failed miserably.
This reminds me of a simple rule that hollywood should always follow. Never try to immitate james cameron. No matter who you are you will never match his movies. This one tried to immitate avatar and failed miserably.
Your Reply:



6:37PM on 03/11/2012
You do realize that this story is over 100 years old, and that Cameron stole...excuse me...'borrowed' heavily from it, right?
You do realize that this story is over 100 years old, and that Cameron stole...excuse me...'borrowed' heavily from it, right?
9:23PM on 03/11/2012
Do your research before opening your flaps dumb sh!t. Cameron borrowed the material from Edgar Rice Burroughs novels as did George Lucas and Tolkien as well....
Do your research before opening your flaps dumb sh!t. Cameron borrowed the material from Edgar Rice Burroughs novels as did George Lucas and Tolkien as well....
+13
3:44PM on 03/11/2012
It has the worst posters for a blockbuster film, with the most simple title design since... Prince of Persia. Disney should fire its marketing team.
It has the worst posters for a blockbuster film, with the most simple title design since... Prince of Persia. Disney should fire its marketing team.
Your Reply:



+0
3:41PM on 03/11/2012
It looks too much of a CGI-crapfest... and to make things worse, it resembles extremely to the terrible Attack of the Clones.

When are directors going to realize that relying too much on CGI is something no one wants anymore?

Practical effects combined with a subtle use of computer effects is the way to go. Or just go straight to CG-animated IMO
It looks too much of a CGI-crapfest... and to make things worse, it resembles extremely to the terrible Attack of the Clones.

When are directors going to realize that relying too much on CGI is something no one wants anymore?

Practical effects combined with a subtle use of computer effects is the way to go. Or just go straight to CG-animated IMO
Your Reply:



3:13PM on 03/11/2012
Shitty time to release it and terrible repetitive marketing. End of story.
Shitty time to release it and terrible repetitive marketing. End of story.
Your Reply:



+6
3:09PM on 03/11/2012
As someone who was a victim of it's poor marketing, that's what I went with. This should have been a summer flick, but instead, it was dumped in early March, had a lackluster trailer, and Disney really didn't do much to push it. It's almost like they just really didn't trust it. I guess now they have good reason, since this blockbuster couldn't beat out a Dr. Seuss movie in it's second week. That said, I'm still somewhat interested in seeing this, mostly because of the review from this site.
As someone who was a victim of it's poor marketing, that's what I went with. This should have been a summer flick, but instead, it was dumped in early March, had a lackluster trailer, and Disney really didn't do much to push it. It's almost like they just really didn't trust it. I guess now they have good reason, since this blockbuster couldn't beat out a Dr. Seuss movie in it's second week. That said, I'm still somewhat interested in seeing this, mostly because of the review from this site.
Your Reply:



+16
2:53PM on 03/11/2012
The movie was a lot of fun, not the strongest story wise, but Disney really seemed to not give a shit about even though it had such a huge budget, doesn't make sense. If I were Stanton, I'd be pissed, since Disney should be kissing his ass for his Pixar work.
The movie was a lot of fun, not the strongest story wise, but Disney really seemed to not give a shit about even though it had such a huge budget, doesn't make sense. If I were Stanton, I'd be pissed, since Disney should be kissing his ass for his Pixar work.
Your Reply:



+29
2:37PM on 03/11/2012

It's absurd...

... that Disney torpedoed this movie in the way that they did. Put simply, if you're stupid enough to be put off by "Of Mars", you're not going to be hugely interested in a movie called "John Carter" either.
... that Disney torpedoed this movie in the way that they did. Put simply, if you're stupid enough to be put off by "Of Mars", you're not going to be hugely interested in a movie called "John Carter" either.
Your Reply: