Andrew Stanton has demonstrated such good storytelling instincts in the past, what do you think caused him to stumble with this one? Maybe the need for big CGI battles at regular intervals (I didn't see it--just judging by the epic-looking commercials) overpowered his ability to build a grounded, human(martian?) story? Since the story wasn't his to begin with, maybe he couldn't fiddle with it as much as he would have liked to make it better (i.e., he had to hit certain points and have certain scenes that he might otherwise have axed or significantly changed?) Maybe the whole process was irrevocably tainted by the apparent "merchandising, branding, marketing" culture of the studio? All of the above?

To be quite honest, when I saw the _John Carter_ trailer and saw the movie poster, I though of _Prince of Persia_. Heck, they look as though they could have been shot at the same time. When I saw the original trailer for _Prince of Persia_, I thought of the Middle East, Iran, etc. When I think of the Middle East, Iran, etc., well, you get the idea... Unpopular by association. Sure, John Carter takes place on Mars. But the main character looks like he's straight out of a sword and sandal movie set in Egypt.

Here's a great take on the unfortunate marketing, from Emily Blake: http://www.bambookillers.blogspot.com/2012/03/thought-on-whole-john-carter-ad.html I will see this because I am a fan of Stanton/Pixar, but the trailers just didn't do it for me. Does anyone think the script should've been less literally adapted? Maybe an Iraq War vet rather than Civil War?

I haven't seen it yet, but I question whether Stanton's storytelling is the real issue here -- every person I know who has seen it (quite a few at this point) thought it was a good movie. I think the cryptic marketing campaign (not to mention the absurd title) is an issue. To someone not familiar with the stories, it does look a little silly.

Wow, 1 movie greenlit this whole year? What in the world are they going to playing at El Capitan? They can only show Beauty and the Beast in 3D so many times.

I'm smiling because my 7 year old watched the JC trailer with me and said, "Did the same people make Prince of Persia?" Yes. Yes, they did.

Ha! Great minds think alike, lol! Though I see I must have thought I was posting on google+... erg, too many message boards to keep track of format.

Prince of Persia was actually a lot more fun. John Carter could've used a little more tongue inserted in cheek.

I do think Stanton's story-telling instincts went haywire during the production of this movie. I wasn't familiar with John Carter other than references in other science fiction works I've enjoyed over the years. So two weeks ago I downloaded Princess of Mars for my Kindle (reading books of movies doesn't ruin the experience for me). It only took me a few hours to read. Pretty good, not brilliant, but there's some really great alien culture in Burrough's work (I think the movie missed most of the Thark culture, a shame. Tharks are a really unique creation in science fiction annals). The book and the movie have pretty much the same plot (I read some stuff from a later novel is added to the movie, I haven't read beyond Princess so I don't know personally). I think the fundamental problem is that the John Carter of the book and the John Carter of the movie are two completely different characters. In the book, John Carter falls unconscious in a cave in Arizona and wakes up on the surface of Mars. He has no idea how he got there and no idea how to get home. John Carter of the novel is a man trapped in a new world who has to deal with creating a new life. He can't go back. In the movie, John Carter shoots a bald man in a cave in Arizona, grabs his amulet, says Barsoom, and is on Mars. The amulet is retrieved and John Carter knows that if he can get the amulet back and figure out how to use it, he can go home. John Carter of the movie is a man on an alien planet who has the means to return home if he can just figure out the magical amulet. The John Carter of the movie is pushed down the same story as the John Carter of the novel. I think that presents the fundamental flaw in the movie. If they'd completely rewritten the story to reflect the journey of a man trying to desperately get home, only to finally decide to stay and fight, it would work brilliantly. But they made that man follow the story of the John Carter who was trapped and threw himself into a new life without looking back. It's not a match (unless you don't think character determines story). I would also point out that parts of the movie only made sense to me because I'd read the novel. I guess audiences are used to stuff just happening in movies to serve the plot, so they glossed over those things in their minds. A 71% audience rating (if you believe Rotten Tomatoes) is a C. I think that's about right. I'd give the novel a B or B+ myself and the movie managed a passing grade. I had hoped the movie would have been an A- or better.

I think it is very simple. People just do not want to see evil aliens stories any more. As well stories based on battles and fighting.

The brand is more important than the work in Hollywood these days. It's sad and depressing (unless you're a brand or working on a branded project) A big reason this problem exists is because of the success of the actors unions and agents. When stars are taking dollar one gross and literally participating in the studio's revenue stream then all moves become more risky and expensive to make. There's limited financial resources and the Hollywood 1 percent devours the 99 percents future. The irony is so thick it's not even funny. Also - movies are being crushed by video games. Studios are envious and want a part of that pie but they back into properties and it doesn't connect with gamers. The story line in Mass Effect 3 is way more immersive and fun that John Carter. Basically studios are the old kids and not as cool as the new kids in the eyes of the audience. As Edward Jay Epstein said "More people know who Stephen King is than Steven Spielberg" and he's right. I think the only solution is a purging of the old guard and some lower budget, high risk storytelling from a new crop. The catch is the studios need the new talent to have literally no demands. A soft return of the studio system is what's needed. I could make One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest for around 50K. Amazing script, cast great actors, simple locations -- that's the problem Hollywood has on it's hands. Even the dream factory can dream too big.

Not only Stanton, but one of the credited screenwriters if Michael Chabon who is a terrific writer [The Amazing Adventures of Kavalier & Clay, Wonder Boys]. I have to withhold commenting on the film per se because I still haven't seen the movie, but targeting Wednesday night. Two general comments based on the advertising campaign: * The various trailers confused me. I understand the concept of starting with a teaser that's all visuals and no narrative, then rolling out other trailers that do give some sense of story specifics, but the JC trailers never gelled together into anything coherent, at least not to my eyes. * This has been mentioned elsewhere but in a world of 'similar but different,' just based on the preponderance of superhero type movies in the last decade, I'm not sure there was enough in the marketing of the movie to delineate itself from predecessors. In other words, JC may have felt too similar, specifically to Prince of Persia as others have suggested. I look forward to seeing it. Given all the negative press, I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised.

Gabe, thanks for that link to Emily's post. I'll update the OP with that link as she does a great job assessing the marketing campaign.

Thanks for that analysis, Matthew. My guess is most GITS readers will have not read the novels, so it's good to hear the thoughts of someone who did. Adaptations are the hardest single screenplay to do as it really spotlights the point that what you choose to omit is as important as what you retain in the script. Each choice can't be arbitrary, they have to be tied to an overall take on the story you want to tell. It sounds like Stanton wasn't lacking for a clear take on the story, just one that may not be particularly satisfying per your comments or could have been more satisfying.

Michael said, "I think the only solution is a purging of the old guard and some lower budget, high risk storytelling from a new crop. The catch is the studios need the new talent to have literally no demands. A soft return of the studio system is what’s needed." I thought where you were headed was to suggest a revitalization of the approach the studios had in the 70s when they took chances with young, daring filmmakers who spoke to contemporary, young sensibilities. I'll bet if you asked studio execs, they'd claim that defense in decisions to make "Scott Pilgrim vs. the World" and "Prince of Persia," figuring graphic novels and videogames should speak to youth market. Each studio has its own unique culture. And if Disney is having a difficult time now, if you look at Warner Bros., Sony, and Paramount, you see three studios who are doing very well. Amy Pascal's regime at Sony, named President of Columbia in 1996 and co-chair of Sony Pics in 2006, is almost unheard of in the modern era. And then there's the fact that this year looks to be a big rebound B.O. compared to last year. Would I love to see movies like One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest, low-budget, great cast, strong story? Hell, yeah! The indie world also appears on something of a rebound especially compared to 3 years ago when experts were sound its death-knell. In the end, John Carter may say more about itself as a movie phenomenon, than any widely applicable lessons for Hollywood.

You hit the nail right on the head when referencing the 70's, Scott. Now consider that the average cultural cycle is around 30 years. We are way past the end of that cycle and those who rose up in the 60's and told their stories are hanging onto and hoarding the assets that will allow the studios to make bold movies again. Consider all the vanity deals that have been dropped in recent years. (Side theory - I think reality TV was a way to neutralize the whole idea of "celebrity" and to devalue it....) The way I describe my generations relationship to the baby boomers is like this - we are in a cultural baton race and they refuse to pass the baton back. We keep reaching but they won't release. There is no reason for the 1960's culture to last 50 years. Change is good. Change is needed. Change is not more of the same. Regarding Scott Pilgrim and Prince of Persia - those are properties that were backed into. Graphic Novels are the new backdoor and it may work to a point. I first played Prince of Persia on my nintendo in like 1993. Bottom line is a video game franchise can make $500,000,000 in two days and a movie just can't. The take away for writers is huge though because most agencies have relationships with the video game companies and they seek out writers. Story is important to the committed gamer who is willing to pay $59.00 for a game and spend countless hours immersed in the experience. We're accustomed to seeing movie studios as the tip of the cultural spear. I think that is changing because the desire to control content is more powerful than the willingness to take risks and produce good content. (Not to mention that the cost is too high for the risk, again, due to entrenched success and deals that syphon cash out of the system) I for one would like to see Microsoft buy Universal, or EA to buy Fox or Pixar to take over Disney...er wait....

Well, you don't know me, but I've seen it and I think it was bad. Bad to that extent that I was trying hard not to laugh out loud in the cinema. And I'm not sure the marketing campaign is much to blame! The thing is - the only audience I can see the film appeal to is children and early teens. I personally went to see it purely from a professional reason - as it will be one of the talked-about films this year and I have a cinema subscription, so I don't have to pay for the individual tickets.

[...] ‘John Carter’ Debacle: Inside the Fallout for Disney (gointothestory.blcklst.com) Rate this: Share this:TwitterFacebookLike this:LikeBe the first to like this post. This entry was posted in Movie Ruminations and tagged $184 million, $250 million, Andrew Stanton, Animation, bizzam, Disney, John Carter, movies, news, Pixar, Walt Disney Company. Bookmark the permalink. [...]

[...] 'John Carter' Debacle: Inside the Fallout for Disney | Go Into The Story [...]