John Carter

[blackcauldron85]

Revealed: The $307 Million Cost of Disney's John Carter
http://www.forbes.com/sites/csylt/2014/ ... hn-carter/

[DisneyFan09]

Frankly, I wasn't impressed by this "John Carter"-adaptation. It was a passable, but rather forgettable film. Taylor Kitsch's performance was mediocre and unremarkable, as were the other actors. So I don't care if Disney ditches the franchise completely.

[Sotiris]

In a new report, it's revealed that John Carter was the biggest box office flop of all time.

Hollywood History Questions Answered: What Movie Was the Biggest Bomb Ever?
https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/ ... ed-1235693

[blackcauldron85]

My first thought when I saw this thread revived was, Is WeGotThisCovered saying there will be a remake?!

A really interesting book on the movie (previous incarnations in the works, production history, marketing, etc.) is by Michael D. Sellers, "John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood." I read it a few months ago .

I still think that this is a good movie, and it's a shame it did so poorly.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

As mentioned in another post, I find it a huge mystery how Avatar could do so well, and how John Carter, which I think was a better movie, was such a flop.
Modern audiences are getting spoiled with special and visual effects. The 1933 version of King Kong was the most amazing thing many had seen in their entire life. But that was then. Just the other say my grandmother was zapping through the channels and ended up in the middle of a movie where two giant carnivorous dinosaurs were fighting in the jungle. It could have been Kong Island or one of the newer Jurassic Park movies. She looked at it for about five seconds before she lost interest and continued her channel surfing, being completely unimpressed. Effects alone is not enough anymore. Movies that says "look what we can do" usually need to offer something more.

[JeanGreyForever]

I'll have to check out that book you mentioned blackcauldron85. I had no interest in John Carter when the film came out but a few years later, when I finally did end up watching it, I loved it. It definitely didn't deserve to go down in infamy the way it did. I definitely blame the marketing. I had no idea that John Carter was a product of Edgar Rice Burroughs alongside Tarzan, nor the fact that it inspired Superman and Star Wars. If I had known all this when the film was being promoted, I wouldn't have dismissed it as a CGI-laden film with nothing new to offer. It's too bad that no matter how much money Finding Dory made, Disney will probably never let Andrew Stanton make a sequel to this film.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

I'll have to check out that book you mentioned blackcauldron85. I had no interest in John Carter when the film came out but a few years later, when I finally did end up watching it, I loved it. It definitely didn't deserve to go down in infamy the way it did. I definitely blame the marketing. I had no idea that John Carter was a product of Edgar Rice Burroughs alongside Tarzan, nor the fact that it inspired Superman and Star Wars. If I had known all this when the film was being promoted, I wouldn't have dismissed it as a CGI-laden film with nothing new to offer. It's too bad that no matter how much money Finding Dory made, Disney will probably never let Andrew Stanton make a sequel to this film.

No offence, but I find it amazing that the audience was not aware that the movie was based on the classic science fiction stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs, which had an enormous influence on the genre.
The fact that Disney failed completely to inform people about this, makes me wonder how that is even possible.

It doesn't help that talkshow hosts like Jay Leno did his best to make the movie look like a flop right from the start, and turned it into a running joke for every new episode of his show. Talkshow hosts can be really toxic sometimes.

Andrew Stanton was actually already working on the script for the sequel(s) before its release, which was supposed to be a trilogy.

More about the book about the movie: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTBfuKkqsHM

[JeanGreyForever]

I find it shocking now as well that something that had such a huge impact on pop culture is completely unknown to most people today, myself included. That unfortunately had the adverse effect of making many people think John Carter was derivative, when in fact, it created the science fiction and fantasy tropes that we all know today. Disney really dropped the ball on this.

All the talk about the film and how it was terrible and a disaster in the making certainly didn't endear the public to it, especially after the box office grosses were announced.

I think Andrew Stanton even released the titles/logos for his trilogy. I really wish Disney would allow him to complete the films, even if they were relegated to Disney+.

Thanks for the link! I'll be sure to check it out.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Disney really needs to use social media better to spread information. They use Youtube for their trailer, but why not use Facebook, Twitter and Youtube, and other webpages for all I know, to release short videos of the projects they are working on to build up the expectations? You could have a video called "The story behind John Carter", there they interviewed the directors and others who told when and where they first discovered the books, and some info about the author himself. And they could have used illustrations from artists like Joe Jusko, who gives us a glimpse of the large and complex mythology of Barsoom (probably partly inspired by theosophy, even if Burroughs never admitted it himself). Or some of the concept art from earlier attempts. There are plenty of opportunities.

I think Peter Jackson had something called a production diary, where he now and then released videos about what was going on behind the set as the movie progressed. During the making of King Kong, there was even a whole discussion board dedicated to the movie, which was in direct contact with the studio regarding news and info. John Carter was not an original creation, the books are all there for fans to read, so it's not like more videos about this very expensive project could have given away anything that wasn't already out there, except from Disney's personal take on the story.
But you know Disney; there is a tendency that not a single shred of information about a movie is allowed to leave the studio before the first trailer is ready, beyond some poster or concept art from D23. But even when the first trailer was released (which was probably confusing for most people who were not familiar with the source material), they could have released some additional information that made you more curious about this world and its origin.

In 1936 Bob Clampett made an attempt to create an animated version: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rr9dClaSw7Q

The fact that it came after Avatar, another movie with tall humanoid aliens and animals with extra limbs, probably didn't help. And again, Disney did nothing to correct those who assumed it was stealing from Avatar (reminds me about The Shadow, which a lot of people believed was a Batman rip-off). When the first stories were published, the ideas were so new that Burroughs wasn't sure how it would be received and what the readers would think about the author, so he decided to hide behind the pseudonym "Normal Bean", as a way to tell everyone he was perfectly sane and grounded. As you may be aware, the publishers accidentally wrote "Norman Bean" instead. But he didn't need to worry, since the story was a huge success and inspired not only other writers, but also scientists like Carl Sagan.

Making the first movie was an old dream come true for Stanton. From an interview:

https://thejohncarterfiles.com/2011/12/ ... an-novels/

In the late 1970’s, when I was still a wide-eyed kid watching TV series like “Six Million Dollar Man” and “Space: 1999,” as well as movies like “20,000 Leagues Under The Sea” and the early James Bond entries at the cinema, a very good buddy of mine visited me one day. With a knowing smile, he lifted a set of well-worn books from his school bag. I must’ve been around 12 years old at the time, with testosterone, fears and dreams kicking on overdrive. My buddy was 14, and he’d already turned me on to J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings.” But how on Earth could the Tarzan author’s pulpy sci-fi fantasy series even dream to compete with Tolkien’s mastery?

Well, it rocked my world. Maybe it wasn’t as cultured or finely tuned as Tolkien’s, but I’m telling you: I’m still reeling from the experience, at the age of 45. If you love fantasy, pulp sci-fi and yarns crammed with all kinds of derring-do and swashbuckling, these books have it all – and then some.

[JeanGreyForever]

Even if Disney had been using social media way back in 2012 to heavily promote their films, I don't think this is one they would have bothered much with. I really like your ideas though especially to explore the mythology of Barsoom and/or create a production diary. Even if Disney wouldn't release that before the movie, it would make a great bonus feature. The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe had an extensive bonus feature like that and I think the new Aladdin does as well. Basically anything to show that John Carter wasn't an Avatar knockoff since the 3D craze was starting to go overboard around this time would have been really useful.

I think Disney became a lot more secretive with their films around the time Lasseter took over. I don't know if there was a direct correlation to him or not but it's possible that it was because of his influence.

I've heard about the animated version before but I've never seen that video. I wonder if Disney ever considered making an animated film on this after the success with Tarzan. I guess since their other science fiction films flopped (Atlantis, Treasure Planet), it might not have ever been deemed a great choice for a project.

I had no idea that Burroughs wrote under a pseudonym. Nor had I read that Andrew Stanton interview so thanks for posting that as well as well as all the tidbits of information you've provided!

[Sotiris]

Taylor Kitsch talks John Carter in a new interview.

Q: Jumping back a bit, I’ve heard a surprising number of people celebrate John Carter in recent years and how it deserved a much better fate. Have you noticed how well Carter has aged?

Taylor Kitsch: I think it got another life when it went on Netflix not long ago, maybe a year ago or something, but, yes, to be blunt. People stop me all the time for that, especially in Europe. It’s had a little mini-resurgence. Maybe, at the time, it was more of a knee-jerk reaction of “Let’s see how we can bury this and everyone that has a part in it.” Over time, I think you take a breath and understand that it is what it is... I guess people who watch it now for the first time can take a lot more away from it than people did at first. It’s always flattering, and I learned a ton on that movie. I honestly don’t see it as a failure. I have great memories from it, and I still talk to a bunch of the cast. It is what it is, right?

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat- ... er-1257967

[JeanGreyForever]

I love the fact that the film has developed a new following over the years. It really deserves a better rep than what it gets and I just hope that someday in the future, Andrew Stanton may be allowed to complete his planned trilogy.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Just realized that I posted a link to the same video in the first post. It appears the pseudonym fact is also mentioned on Wikipedia, but here an article says:

His first story was a Martian romance which ran as a six-part serial from February to July, 1912, published under the pseudonym of “Norman Bean.” The story had been retitled by the editor as “Under the Moons of Mars.” Burroughs had used the pseudonym of “Normal Bean” to convince readers that he was not off his rocker by writing a fantasy of little green men from Mars. But the editors thought it was a typo and changed the name to “Norman Bean” when they published it. This ruined Burroughs’ little joke, so he dropped the alias and submitted all future stories under his own name.

It would probably be more correct to call the Martians "tall green men" (of both genders).

Regarding the Taylor Kitsch interview, it sounds like a reminder what the public thinks about a movie might change was some years have passed, and they base the impression on their own opinions rather than the tabloids and social media. It was just one of those movies that never got a chance during its original run.

Also, it now appears that Disney+ is planning a John Carter TV-show:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/john-ca ... y-tv-show/

[JeanGreyForever]

Just realized that I posted a link to the same video in the first post. It appears the pseudonym fact is also mentioned on Wikipedia, but here an article says:

His first story was a Martian romance which ran as a six-part serial from February to July, 1912, published under the pseudonym of “Norman Bean.” The story had been retitled by the editor as “Under the Moons of Mars.” Burroughs had used the pseudonym of “Normal Bean” to convince readers that he was not off his rocker by writing a fantasy of little green men from Mars. But the editors thought it was a typo and changed the name to “Norman Bean” when they published it. This ruined Burroughs’ little joke, so he dropped the alias and submitted all future stories under his own name.

It would probably be more correct to call the Martians "tall green men" (of both genders).

Regarding the Taylor Kitsch interview, it sounds like a reminder what the public thinks about a movie might change was some years have passed, and they base the impression on their own opinions rather than the tabloids and social media. It was just one of those movies that never got a chance during its original run.

Also, it now appears that Disney+ is planning a John Carter TV-show:

https://wegotthiscovered.com/tv/john-ca ... y-tv-show/

Lol, I had no idea about the pseudonym. Funny how it backfired on him. I actually read Norman Bean as well instead of Normal Bean at first and I had to reread to see where the editors messed up.

I know that John Carter had such a negative stigma attached to it in the media that, especially after the lackluster marketing for the film and not knowing about the story's origins, I had no interest in giving it a chance. I think what made me reconsider was reading the accounts of some people who genuinely gave it a chance and ended up loving it so I did the same and it became a fast favorite of mine from the recent live-action films Disney has released. So I'm glad that overtime, the public has learned to give the film a chance beyond how it was initially presented. I could see it becoming a cult film in the future and maybe even garner enough of a fanbase or audience for Disney to consider doing more with it.

We Got This Covered is a website notorious for making anything up and hoping 1/100 articles they publish might come true. Probably the latest interview with Taylor Kitsch inspired them to write this. However, I really hope Disney would consider John Carter as a TV Show or even a set of Disney+ films if they don't have enough desire to release them theatrically. I think it would make a great streaming exclusive and hopefully Andrew Stanton would be up for it, even without a theatrical release.

[estefan]

As an example of how We Got This Covered doesn't know a thing, their article doesn't even bring up the fact that Disney returned the John Carter rights to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate a while back.

Disney+ is still testing the waters at this stage with their original series. The Mandalorian is a success, but that doesn't mean future shows will attract the same amount of viewers. They're not going to spend money on a series based on a recent box-office flop. Not yet, anyway.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Lol, I had no idea about the pseudonym. Funny how it backfired on him. I actually read Norman Bean as well instead of Normal Bean at first and I had to reread to see where the editors messed up.

I know that John Carter had such a negative stigma attached to it in the media that, especially after the lackluster marketing for the film and not knowing about the story's origins, I had no interest in giving it a chance. I think what made me reconsider was reading the accounts of some people who genuinely gave it a chance and ended up loving it so I did the same and it became a fast favorite of mine from the recent live-action films Disney has released. So I'm glad that overtime, the public has learned to give the film a chance beyond how it was initially presented. I could see it becoming a cult film in the future and maybe even garner enough of a fanbase or audience for Disney to consider doing more with it.

We Got This Covered is a website notorious for making anything up and hoping 1/100 articles they publish might come true. Probably the latest interview with Taylor Kitsch inspired them to write this. However, I really hope Disney would consider John Carter as a TV Show or even a set of Disney+ films if they don't have enough desire to release them theatrically. I think it would make a great streaming exclusive and hopefully Andrew Stanton would be up for it, even without a theatrical release.

It also says something about society back then, that the author of a sci-fi/fantasy story felt the need to assure the readers he was not a nutcase. Even if it probably wasn't meant that seriously, the public opinions about speculative fiction was not the same as today. Or at least that's what was assumed, since it turned there were no reasons to worry (and E. E. Doc Smith's "Skylark of Space", completed in 1921, was rejected by every publisher for several years because it was "too far out. Or course the readers loved it when it was finally serialized in 1928).

Considering how much of an impact the stories had on many people, such as Carl Sagan as already mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQbGs11PWU), I still find it incredible that Disney failed in letting people know that after hundred years, the old classic was finally adapted into a movie.

Must admit I haven't heard much about We Got This Covered, but since I found it on Google news, I'm curious why Google just doesn't filter out websites like that. Not that I would mind if it was true.

As an example of how We Got This Covered doesn't know a thing, their article doesn't even bring up the fact that Disney returned the John Carter rights to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate a while back.

Disney+ is still testing the waters at this stage with their original series. The Mandalorian is a success, but that doesn't mean future shows will attract the same amount of viewers. They're not going to spend money on a series based on a recent box-office flop. Not yet, anyway.

How can Disney return the rights to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate? John Carter the character and the world of Barsoom may belongs to the estate, but the first three (or probably five) books are already in the public domain. Maybe we're talking about merchandise here. On January 1st 2021, all of Burrough's work will end up in public domain in Europe and other parts of the world, so perhaps a British version would be possible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ht_lengths

[JeanGreyForever]

Lol, I had no idea about the pseudonym. Funny how it backfired on him. I actually read Norman Bean as well instead of Normal Bean at first and I had to reread to see where the editors messed up.

I know that John Carter had such a negative stigma attached to it in the media that, especially after the lackluster marketing for the film and not knowing about the story's origins, I had no interest in giving it a chance. I think what made me reconsider was reading the accounts of some people who genuinely gave it a chance and ended up loving it so I did the same and it became a fast favorite of mine from the recent live-action films Disney has released. So I'm glad that overtime, the public has learned to give the film a chance beyond how it was initially presented. I could see it becoming a cult film in the future and maybe even garner enough of a fanbase or audience for Disney to consider doing more with it.

We Got This Covered is a website notorious for making anything up and hoping 1/100 articles they publish might come true. Probably the latest interview with Taylor Kitsch inspired them to write this. However, I really hope Disney would consider John Carter as a TV Show or even a set of Disney+ films if they don't have enough desire to release them theatrically. I think it would make a great streaming exclusive and hopefully Andrew Stanton would be up for it, even without a theatrical release.

It also says something about society back then, that the author of a sci-fi/fantasy story felt the need to assure the readers he was not a nutcase. Even if it probably wasn't meant that seriously, the public opinions about speculative fiction was not the same as today. Or at least that's what was assumed, since it turned there were no reasons to worry (and E. E. Doc Smith's "Skylark of Space", completed in 1921, was rejected by every publisher for several years because it was "too far out. Or course the readers loved it when it was finally serialized in 1928).

Considering how much of an impact the stories had on many people, such as Carl Sagan as already mentioned (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXQbGs11PWU), I still find it incredible that Disney failed in letting people know that after hundred years, the old classic was finally adapted into a movie.

Must admit I haven't heard much about We Got This Covered, but since I found it on Google news, I'm curious why Google just doesn't filter out websites like that. Not that I would mind if it was true.

As an example of how We Got This Covered doesn't know a thing, their article doesn't even bring up the fact that Disney returned the John Carter rights to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate a while back.

Disney+ is still testing the waters at this stage with their original series. The Mandalorian is a success, but that doesn't mean future shows will attract the same amount of viewers. They're not going to spend money on a series based on a recent box-office flop. Not yet, anyway.

How can Disney return the rights to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate? John Carter the character and the world of Barsoom may belongs to the estate, but the first three (or probably five) books are already in the public domain. Maybe we're talking about merchandise here. On January 1st 2021, all of Burrough's work will end up in public domain in Europe and other parts of the world, so perhaps a British version would be possible?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... ht_lengths

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.

Honestly if I had been aware of John Carter's legacy I would have been way more interested like I eventually was when I learned the truth but it wasn't thanks ot Disney. From the marketing I thought it was another science fiction ripoff and films like that continue to tank today.

Disney had to do the same with Tarzan which is why we never see them market it anymore or even create merchandise.

[Sotiris]

I have a hard time buying this. Then again, yesterday's flop is tomorrow's Disney+ original.

‘John Carter’ Project Reportedly In Early Development
https://fullcirclecinema.com/2020/10/19 ... nt-disney/

John Carter Of Mars Series In The Works For Disney Plus
https://www.small-screen.co.uk/john-car ... sney-plus/

[estefan]

I doubt it. Disney gave the rights back to the Edgar Rice Burroughs estate a few years ago and with how much money they lost on the film, why would they even think of going back to "John Carter"?

[nomad2010]

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.