"John Carter" tracking could indicate a massive flop

[doconeill]

Did they officially drop "Mars" from the title, or is that just your interpretation? Is this an internal change or an external one? How do you know?

don't bite...don't bite...don't bite...

But in case anyone else asks, they dropped "of Mars" from all marketing materials some time back.

 

[EverestSherpa]

Did they officially drop "Mars" from the title, or is that just your interpretation? Is this an internal change or an external one? How do you know?

Yes they officially dropped "Of Mars" from the title. Disney changes a lot of movie titles so this was not surprising. Rapunzel to "Tangled". The Bow and the Bear to "Brave", The Snow Queen to "Frozen". It is a marketing gimmick, anything with "Mars" sounds too sci-fi. Anyway, as another poster has commented, this is Andrew Stanton we're talking about. Director of "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E". He is a top-notch guy that knows good filmmaking. It may look incredibly dumb, but I have 100% in this guy. He has never worked on a poorly reviewed film in his entire career (according to Rottentomatoes.com). And as how do we know the title was changed? Just google it, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia have all been updated with the new name, "John Carter". This isn't a Prince of Persia repeat, guys. This is PIXAR filmmaking goes Live Action, similar to December's "Mission: Impossible 4" by Brad Bird. And that was spectacular.

 

[Peter Pirate 2]

Yes they officially dropped "Of Mars" from the title. Disney changes a lot of movie titles so this was not surprising. Rapunzel to "Tangled". The Bow and the Bear to "Brave", The Snow Queen to "Frozen". It is a marketing gimmick, anything with "Mars" sounds too sci-fi. Anyway, as another poster has commented, this is Andrew Stanton we're talking about. Director of "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E". He is a top-notch guy that knows good filmmaking. It may look incredibly dumb, but I have 100% in this guy. He has never worked on a poorly reviewed film in his entire career (according to Rottentomatoes.com). And as how do we know the title was changed? Just google it, IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes, Wikipedia have all been updated with the new name, "John Carter". This isn't a Prince of Persia repeat, guys. This is PIXAR filmmaking goes Live Action, similar to December's "Mission: Impossible 4" by Brad Bird. And that was spectacular.

This seems like an awfully serious post for this site. Just sayin'.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

This seems like an awfully serious post for this site. Just sayin'.

yes...and koolaid laced.

John Lasseter had an impeccable record too...

have you had a chance to see Cars 2?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I think there's a lot riding on "Avengers."

yikes...i hope that they aren't counting on the box office take from that to cover their balloon payment on the Disney Fantasy...

If they try to pawn disney dollars off on the Germans in lieu of cold, hard deutchmarks....there are gonna be some kneecaps broken

 

[Nancy F]

Well... I intend to see it.
Nancy

 

[doconeill]

I hope to see it (I have an SF news/review site, so I really should) but it depends on schedule.

The tracking info doesn't mean it really is a bad movie - it could reflect marketing more than anything.

 

[Figment632]

What is thus based on is it an original story?

 

[doconeill]

What is thus based on is it an original story?

Serious question: are you joking? I would have thought you'd know about it.

If you are being serious, it's based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs series of stories, commonly called the "Barsoom" novels, based around the character of John Carter. The first story is called "A Princess of Mars", but was retitled "John Carter of Mars", and then "John Carter", for the film adaptation to give it a franchise name.

 

[Figment632]

Serious question: are you joking? I would have thought you'd know about it.

If you are being serious, it's based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs series of stories, commonly called the "Barsoom" novels, based around the character of John Carter. The first story is called "A Princess of Mars", but was retitled "John Carter of Mars", and then "John Carter", for the film adaptation to give it a franchise name.

lol nope I was serious I'm a huge Scfi fan too

 

[Rabid Nick]

I think there's a lot riding on "Avengers."

lol "Avengers" has nothing to worry about. Will fight Batman for best box office of the year. And that would make a fun comic too...

 

[lockedoutlogic]

Serious question: are you joking? I would have thought you'd know about it.

If you are being serious, it's based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs series of stories, commonly called the "Barsoom" novels, based around the character of John Carter. The first story is called "A Princess of Mars", but was retitled "John Carter of Mars", and then "John Carter", for the film adaptation to give it a franchise name.

I too am a fan of literature, sci fi, pop culture, and generally anything that i can try to pack into my grey matter....

...and i had to google it when i saw the first commercial.
And herein may lie the problem. It can be an incredible, fantastic series....but the advertising sucks and it is based on a serial that was all the rage back during WWI...where people generally had no idea that millions of 20 year olds spent their days attempting to run head on into machine gun fire and gas...and survive.

so perhaps the times may have shifted on this...or it could be the greatest story/movie ever.

But the marketing still sucks.

 

[lockedoutlogic]

lol "Avengers" has nothing to worry about. Will fight Batman for best box office of the year. And that would make a fun comic too...

It probably will make money...but at the end of the day, it will be a crumbled heap at the feet of the Bat...

The Dark Knight made like 700 mil US...which means that even if Rises it blows it will still make 500 mil domestic.

The "jar jar binks effect"

And the Bat is the coolest Superhero by a factor of like 8000...you heard it here

 

[Cogswel_Cogs]

Hey maybe they could drop the Mars change his name and title to to Jimmy Carter Alien Hunter, and try to to go with the Abe Lincoln Vampie Hunter fad.

 

[Golf4food]

It probably will make money...but at the end of the day, it will be a crumbled heap at the feet of the Bat...

The Dark Knight made like 700 mil US...which means that even if Rises it blows it will still make 500 mil domestic.

The "jar jar binks effect"

And the Bat is the coolest Superhero by a factor of like 8000...you heard it here

I think you are grossly underestimating The Avengers. Joss Whedon directing and writing with that cast and all the build-up from the previou Marvel movies? The Avengers is going to kill the box office. Each Iron Man cleared $300+ million, and Avengers should pass that quite easily.

Will it pass Dark Knight Rises? Probably not. However, I do think part of the draw for the Dark Knight was the dead Heath Ledger effect - which won't be part of the new movie, so there may be some drop off from 2-3 in sales because of that. TDK had a $500 mill domestic gross. I can see the Avengers approaching or reaching that range.

Either way, the Avengers will be a cash cow for Disney. Not just box office, but merchandising as well.

I could really care less which one "wins", however, because the real winner will be the fans - two awesome movies from two great franchises. I love Nolan, I love Whedon.

John Carter I think is just a victim of too little, too late. Too many similar movies already, in spite of the John Carter concept being very old. I have no doubt it will be entertaining, but like Prince of Persia, I also doubt I will rush out to buy it and will wait for a $10 bluray sale if ever. Hopefully its performance turns out better than we expect.

 

[nytimez]

I think you are grossly underestimating The Avengers. Joss Whedon directing and writing with that cast and all the build-up from the previou Marvel movies? The Avengers is going to kill the box office. Each Iron Man cleared $300+ million, and Avengers should pass that quite easily.

I don't think it's a lock that it'll pass that easily. It's not like each film has had a different audience, and "Avengers" is going to unite them. The same people will turn out to see it -- but will more people turn out to see it? I'm not so sure.

And I think you're overestimating the appeal of Joss Whedon. Outside of the fanboy community, I don't think he has any draw at all.

I think "Avengers" will do well. But I don't think it'll reach "Batman" levels or even "Pirates of the Caribbean" levels. Although I hope it does -- the films leading up to it have been surprisingly enjoyable and I'd be pleased if this one was even better.

That said, I'm not planning to see it in the theater. I'll wait for the rental since the DVDs now come out, what, six days later?

 

[lockedoutlogic]

I don't think it's a lock that it'll pass that easily. It's not like each film has had a different audience, and "Avengers" is going to unite them. The same people will turn out to see it -- but will more people turn out to see it? I'm not so sure.

And I think you're overestimating the appeal of Joss Whedon. Outside of the fanboy community, I don't think he has any draw at all.

I think "Avengers" will do well. But I don't think it'll reach "Batman" levels or even "Pirates of the Caribbean" levels. Although I hope it does -- the films leading up to it have been surprisingly enjoyable and I'd be pleased if this one was even better.

That said, I'm not planning to see it in the theater. I'll wait for the rental since the DVDs now come out, what, six days later?

yeah...i was think the same thing...

You can't base a domestic box office gross of the geek community that shows up first night in costume...

becasue they all show up first night...and then they're gone.

Blockbusters are made by the legs of the movie...not opening night. And the legs are built on your average run of the mill 16 year olds now. The ones that always waste cash...and do it over the course of several months. If its a good movie...middle age former GI Joe Fanclub members like myself...and grandpas with 10 year olds follow suit.

that's why the dark knight made so much...legs. not batboys. it was also the best comic book movie ever made by a factor of 2...and also possible one of the best overall movies made over the last 20 years.

The avengers movie will do very well if it is good. If it's crap...it might still make 200 mil on domestic bloated ticket sales and spawn sequels.

But what i'm saying is...don't count on it.

And officially - Dark Knight made 533 mil domestically (3rd all time) and a total of 1.01 billion total with foreign

Iron Man and Iron Man 2 made roughly the same 320 mil domestically and 575 mil worldwide. not really close.

The first pirates made 303/658...the best movie by far. But the sequels made slightly over or under 1 billion. Because they were bad sequels to a good original movie that started a franchise.

both batman begins and the dark knight were excellent movies. So even though the trailers for dark knight rises don't look very good (even though it has my football team in it)...it will do 1 billion worldwide and blow the avengers away...no question.

 

[doconeill]

yeah...i was think the same thing...

You can't base a domestic box office gross of the geek community that shows up first night in costume...

becasue they all show up first night...and then they're gone.

It used to be that you could count on that group to see a movie again, and again, and again...but that only tended to happen with certain franchises...Star Wars, Star Trek...more recently Potter and Lord of the Rings. Not even sure Batman has gotten that level of following.

 

[doconeill]

So...apparently my supposition that they might have dropped Mars from the title to avoid any connection with "Mars Needs Moms" might not have been wrong...Disney's record with Mars movies hasn't been good:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-from-mars-taylor-kitsch-budget-box-office-294822

Observers also have taken aim at the studio's decision to drop "of Mars" from the title, arguing that the property loses definition and scope without it. Insiders say the title change was hotly debated a year ago when the word "Mars" was verboten in the wake of Disney's March 2011 bomb Mars Needs Moms. According to several sources, the studio conducted a study of how the word would play with potential audiences. The results were pointed enough -- Disney's 2000 sci-fi film Mission to Mars and Warner Bros.' 1996 sci-fi comedy Mars Attacks! weren't hits, either -- that the studio stripped out mention of the red planet. ("It was the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard," says one person who was privy to the research.)

 

[nytimez]

So...apparently my supposition that they might have dropped Mars from the title to avoid any connection with "Mars Needs Moms" might not have been wrong...Disney's record with Mars movies hasn't been good:

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/john-carter-from-mars-taylor-kitsch-budget-box-office-294822

Wow. So the conversations and arguments studio executives have really are as dumb as I always thought they were...

SPLUNGE!