John Carter : A Princess of Mars - Part 3

[dark_b]

Originally Posted by Shifty

I'm just surprised no one at the studio told Stanton or even Stanton himself knew to shoot the 'eye catching' sequences first so they could get finished sequences/CGI done in time for a trailer, apparently that was the problem with the first trailer. They had nothing to show because it wasn't ready and that was a wasted opportunity.

Originally Posted by Shifty

Stanton being difficult with the marketing team, he got final say on trailers and didn't like what they were doing to sell this unknown character to the masses. Stanton thought everyone would want to go see this except that there is only a niche audience or the audience is 80+ years old. This is why studios like to have control because they can point to disasters like this and point to 10 successes they had control over (and ignore the dozen of failures they had) and say "we know what we're doing."

Originally Posted by flickchick85

I had no problem with the teaser trailer. I was way more intrigued by that than the later ones with the more "eye catching sequences."

i would like to remind everyone that that they started filming in januar 2010. until may. this is 5 months. then months later they had reshoots. its important to understand that JC is a movie where they had enough time for everything. it was in no way rushed.
so its hard for me to belive that in summer 2011 they didnt have enough footage and effects for a different trailer.

[Rac]

I think the Japanese trailer is pretty good, and the best of the official ones.

VIDEO-CLick to Watch!:

[Parker Wayne]

Originally Posted by Shifty

Stanton being difficult with the marketing team, he got final say on trailers and didn't like what they were doing to sell this unknown character to the masses. Stanton thought everyone would want to go see this except that there is only a niche audience or the audience is 80+ years old. This is why studios like to have control because they can point to disasters like this and point to 10 successes they had control over (and ignore the dozen of failures they had) and say "we know what we're doing."

You know, people complain when the studio interferes with movie projects, but they also forget that there is the other extreme where the director has too much control and you end up having a disaster.

http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-...t-trailer.html

Here's one of the quotes from the article that Stanton said:

Originally Posted by Andrew Stanton

“felt like if anybody had a chance of making this without it being ****ed up by the studio, it might be me. They’re too afraid of me – they want me happy at Pixar. So I thought, ‘I should use this for good, and make the movie the way I always thought it should be made.’ If at any one of these points [Disney] were going to push back, I would have pulled out. It’s the best way to buy a car — I don’t mind walking away.”

So yeah, Nikki Finke was correct in her article about Stanton and how it was handled.

It also reinstates my opinion that John Carter would have been better off if it was animated film in terms of selling the movie.

[dark_b]

yeah this part is scary. and one of the reasons why i for years have been saying that the biggest fans will never make the best movie. the best adpatation? yeah sure. but a movie is different.

[Parker Wayne]

It's Bryan Singer with Superman Returns situation all over again, except with bad marketing.

You don't want a fan who's obsessed with the stories to make a movie because nostalgia and loyalty takes over their ability to make a good movie. This is why you have a series of checks and balances with producers and execs. Contrary to popular belief, studio interference doesn't destroy every movie.

[dark_b]

Cinemablend
http://www.cinemablend.com/new/John-...ops-29907.html

[DarthSkywalker]

Both John Carter and Superman Returns are good movies though...

[Doctor Jones]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

It's Bryan Singer with Superman Returns situation all over again, except with bad marketing.

You don't want a fan who's obsessed with the stories to make a movie because nostalgia and loyalty takes over their ability to make a good movie. This is why you have a series of checks and balances with producers and execs. Contrary to popular belief, studio interference doesn't destroy every movie.

Indeed. This is what happens when the director has too much control. People always complain about the studios being greedy controlling bastards but I don't blame them for what they do. They're businessmen who need to make money. How dare they! I respect Disney for taking such a huge risk, but they poured too much damn money into such an unmarketable film. You got to be smart.

I was told about this with Stanton and how he wanted and did the makreting his own way. That's just plain arrogance right there with him.

[rogue trooper]

It's the same way 21 years ago Disney messed up another good movie, The Rocketeer, with a feebled promotion.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

It's Bryan Singer with Superman Returns situation all over again, except with bad marketing.

You don't want a fan who's obsessed with the stories to make a movie because nostalgia and loyalty takes over their ability to make a good movie. This is why you have a series of checks and balances with producers and execs. Contrary to popular belief, studio interference doesn't destroy every movie.

Except when that studio is Fox with Rothman at the helm.

But I agree, I think the studio should allow directorial freedom but also have the ability to step in when needed, because it is their money that is being used so they should a decent level of control, otherwise it will indeed turn into Bryan Singer's Superman Returns.

[terry78]

I think we only care when it's not a director we love. If they're a fanboy fave, we say give them total control.

[WildcatNC]

Originally Posted by dark_b

or maybe the problem is that a lot people who watched the movie only think it was decent? you know how many posts and internet comments i read where they writte that they liked it but its nothing special? this is poison. this movie right now doesnt only have a problem with marketing. right now the biggest problem is that people dont like it enough to go back and to tell their friends that its THE movie that you need to see in march.
they need to go back and start a new promotion.

Yea, but I think most people are idiots as it is. There are PLENTY of bad movies that have done well because all the idiots came out in droves due to marketing. I'm not saying your wrong, who knows? I think the GA are not very bright and are generally swayed by what they are told to think if done properly.

What perplexes me are the critics. They should know better. This is FAR from a bad movie.

[roach]

Originally Posted by terry78

I think we only care when it's not a director we love. If they're a fanboy fave, we say give them total control.

this times ten

if it came out that Joss Whedon has this kind of control over Avengers and Marvel is pushing back on his decisions...how many people would be taking the studio's side?

[roach]

Originally Posted by WildcatNC

Yea, but I think most people are idiots as it is. There are PLENTY of bad movies that have done well because all the idiots came out in droves due to marketing. I'm not saying your wrong, who knows? I think the GA are not very bright and are generally swayed by what they are told to think if done properly.

What perplexes me are the critics. They should know better. This is FAR from a bad movie.

I don't think the GA are idiots. People like what they like.

[TheVileOne]

At the end of the day it really just depends on clout and track record at the negotiating table I guess.

Once again, most kids today who grew up reading Harry Potter, Hunger Games, or Twilight or whatever they don't know John Carter from Adam.

This story being the story that invented "modern sci-fi" literature or inspired all our favorite movies means NOTHING to general audiences. So riding on that alone was hugely misinformed.

[Octoberist]

Originally Posted by roach

I don't think the GA are idiots. People like what they like.

. but the GA can be ignorant as all hell.

[WildcatNC]

Originally Posted by roach

I don't think the GA are idiots. People like what they like.

I think they are. I think the majority of the whole human race are idiots too though.

The bolded can be true and the GA still be idiots. Even morons like what they like.

[TheVileOne]

Sometimes they are but it's not necessarily their fault. Like it or not, Princess of Mars is 100 year old sci-fi literature. I'm not saying it's obscure, but a lot of people simply haven't read it or aren't familiar with it in our current generation.

It's one thing for Stanton to say that John Carter is his Harry Potter series, however . . . that means literally nothing to the general audience who has read or seen nothing of John Carter in forever.

[LostSon88]

Well...is it safe to say that Stanton Is eating crow right about now?

[roach]

Originally Posted by Octoberist

. but the GA can be ignorant as all hell.

i will agree with this
i just don't see why the GA are idiots

[squeekness]

Originally Posted by LostSon88

Well...is it safe to say that Stanton Is eating crow right about now?

I don't know. I am still shaking my head over how such a fairly decent film is garnering such harsh criticism from critics. The film simply wasn't THAT bad, you know? He's probably happy with his work even if critics aren't.

[zanos]

Originally Posted by Parker Wayne

It's Bryan Singer with Superman Returns situation all over again, except with bad marketing.

You don't want a fan who's obsessed with the stories to make a movie because nostalgia and loyalty takes over their ability to make a good movie. This is why you have a series of checks and balances with producers and execs. Contrary to popular belief, studio interference doesn't destroy every movie.

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. The only reason why Superman Returns failed is because Singer has a very finite imagination. His view of Superman doesn't go beyond the Superman films. He's also awful with casting and doesn't do well with characters. These are the reasons why SR failed.

[C. Lee]

Originally Posted by roach

i will agree with this
i just don't see why the GA are idiots

They spend all their time watching the Khardasians and Jersey Shore.

[Raiden]

Originally Posted by TheVileOne

Sometimes they are but it's not necessarily their fault. Like it or not, Princess of Mars is 100 year old sci-fi literature. I'm not saying it's obscure, but a lot of people simply haven't read it or aren't familiar with it in our current generation.

It's one thing for Stanton to say that John Carter is his Harry Potter series, however . . . that means literally nothing to the general audience who has read or seen nothing of John Carter in forever.

Well, The Hobbit was published back in 1937, only ahead of John Carter by about 20 years, but the LOTR trilogy has been a massive hit and this prequel looks to follow the same pattern of success. And fantasy is arguably harder to adapt than science fiction. I think it was a mistake to have drop the "from Mars" title, because John Carter as a literature is just not a household name. And even with the marketing claiming that it preceded Star Wars and Avatar, that doesn't really make people wanting to check it out. In terms of marketing, I think Disney had missteps and this is an extremely expensive mistake to have.

With the international box office and subsequent release on DVD and blu-ray, Disney may recoup most of its investment, but any profit from this movie will likely to be modest at best.

[Figs]

Originally Posted by roach

i just don't see why the GA are idiots

It's fanboy bull ****. Them trying to sound cool and smart by knocking down the rest of society who aren't uber nerds.

Aside from the types that C. Lee pointed out, which is mainly tweens, a lot of the GA is made up of hard working adults who just want to relax at the movies since they actually have lives that of course involves a fair amount of stress. They have more going on in their lives than being overly obsessive about movies down to the smallest stupidest details.