The first modern science fiction story in my eyes is H. G. Wells' Time Machine from 1895. Everything that came before doesn't feel like "real" science fiction, which is probably why it is called proto-science fiction (the only possible exception I can think of is J.-H. Rosny, but I haven't read him yet, so it's hard to say).JeanGreyForever wrote:To be fair, science fiction was very new in the early 1900s. We didn't have things like Star Trek, Star Wars, Superman, Flash Gordon, superheroes in general really, etc. Tarzan was sort of first in that era also created by Burroughs.
I wouldn't hold my breath, but who knows? If Disney notice that John Carter is streamed a lot on Disney+, perhaps they would be willing to take a chance again?nomad2010 wrote:Interesting! I don’t know this site, so I’m doubting this is true. However...
From all I’ve read, the original has picked up quite a following, especially after hitting streaming services. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Disney enter the territory again, not unlike Tron, and go for a sequel or a series. So I wouldn’t be shocked if this were. I love the film, and the property, and I think it has so much potential to be something truly special.
As for rights; in Europe and several other countries all the Edgar Rice Burroughs works will enter public domain in a couple of months (take that, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.). Would it be possible for Disney to make some material in Europe and show it on their streaming service? Not sure how it works.
An article from a few years back have some good points:
https://thejohncarterfiles.com/2017/03/ ... denfreude/
Our old friend Mr. Webster defines schadenfreude as enjoyment obtained from the trouble of others and it would seen that Andrew Stanton, Disney, and Edgar Rice Burroughs fans have all found themselves on the receiving end of an epic convulsion of schadenfreude as journalists, media analysts, and gleeful internet “trolls” trip over themselves to label a film that brought in 100m in its first three days a “bomb”, a “flop”, and the “new Ishtar”.
A pre-established narrative prior to the release
The truth, most reasonable observers would agree, is, the flop/bomb/epic fail label had already been taken out, prepped, and was ready to be affixed to John Carter before opening day ever arrived. Report after report of “soft tracking” led to pre-release headlines like: “John Carter set to crater”, “Bomb in the making John Carter set for anemic opening”, and so on. But why such gleeful delight in announcing the projected weak domestic opening?
John Carter is the kind of movies that requires a huge budget, and the only ones that can afford it are the major studios. Maybe some of the largest streaming services (Netflix, Amazon or Apple) could invest in it as well in the future, but nobody else.So, what happens when a major studio actually takes a chance, rather than spending money on a sequel to a tired franchise with no creative vision? We pounce on it. We mock it. We turn it into a joke as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m not a box office prognosticator, but I am genuinely worried about the box-office returns on the film – but those numbers are so uncertain precisely because it’s not a safe bet, precisely because it’s an”out there” choice. I think that producing John Carter was a very brave move from an institution that we tend to mock for being staid and conservative, and I just find it odd that we are so quick to preemptively punish that sort of bold creativity and risk-taking, especially when we claim that’s exactly what we want.
