John Carter Gets Animated
What happens now that Pixar's in charge of Mars?
A film version of John Carter of Mars had been in the planning stages for about two years before Paramount Pictures gave up on it, deciding that the new Star Trek would be their main sci-fi focus for now. The property came up for grabs, and Disney decided to bite.
Now, it seems that Pixar, the incredibly successful CG animation studio recently purchased by the Mouse House, may be put in charge of John Carter of Mars. So, it'll be a computer-animated adventure? Not exactly.
A Pixar rep has reportedly spoken with the IESB.net Web site and states that the movie will be both live-action and animation. What that means, exactly, is hard to say for now. The project is still in the early stages, with no director or cast attached. Nevertheless, Pixar's involvement is a dream come true for fans.
John Carter of Mars is based on a series of pulp adventure novels written by Edgar Rice Burroughs almost one hundred years ago. The story follows a Civil War cavalry captain who is transported to Mars amidst a war over dwindling Martian resources. Carter, with his swordsmanship and fighting skills, becomes a hero in his new world, altering the course of Mars's history.
Pixar's Plans for John Carter
Burroughs' Mars tales to become toon trilogy.
Pixar reportedly intends on turning Edgar Rice Burroughs' John Carter of Mars books into a trilogy of CG-animated features for Walt Disney Pictures. Pre-production is said to be under way with a projected release date of "sometime before 2012."
According to an October 2nd posting at ERBzine.com, "The Pixar creative team spent Tuesday morning exploring the massive Edgar Rice Burroughs archives in the ERB, Inc. offices on Ventura Blvd. Pixar's Jim Morris (vp), Andrew Stanton (director), Mark Andrews (script) discussed the John Carter of Mars film project with Burroughs representatives, Danton Burroughs, Sandra Galfas and Jim Sullos."
ERBzine adds, "All six members at the meeting expressed a deep commitment to the project, acknowledging that they had been inspired by Burroughs' creations from a very early age. This is evidenced in the excitement held for the John Carter property and the plans for a film trilogy faithful to the Burroughs books."
Burroughs also provided the Pixar peeps with "a wealth of resources" for the project.
WALL-E helmer Andrew Stanton talks John Carter of Mars
WALL-E director Andrew Stanton told SCI FI Wire that he is working on a new draft of his proposed live-action John Carter of Mars movie and is aiming for a realistic feel to the live-action movie, his first.
"[I'm] deep into it," Stanton said in an exclusive interview at the Los Angeles Film Critics Association award ceremony in Century City, Calif., on Monday, where he accepted the award for best picture of 2008 for WALL-E. "I'm on my next draft of it. We're in preproduction art-wise and we're starting to talk to actors. So it's full bore."
Stanton confirmed that Carter, based on the books by Edgar Rice Burroughs, will be live action. "Yeah, I think that's the only way," he said. "I mean, there are so many creatures and characters that half of it's going to be CG whether you want it to be just to realize some of these images that are in the book. But it will feel real. The whole thing will feel very, very believable."
Following is an edited version of the rest of our interview with Stanton. John Carter of Mars is slated for release sometime in 2012.
What inspiration did you take for your art concepts?
Stanton: Well, we're going very authentic I guess is the way to put it. I don't want to give too much away, but it's such a foundational story to so many films and stories and sci-fi ideas that have come since the '30s and 1912 and stuff. So the trick is how to not make it seem cliché and derivative because it's such an archetype story now.
How would it feel to be the guy who finally got it done?
Stanton: It would feel awesome, because I spent most of my life just being a fan of those books and being a cheerleader from the sidelines of anybody that was trying to make it. I never thought I would be lucky enough to be one of those guys associated with it, let alone helming it. I would love to break the curse.
How do you even approach that adaptation?
Stanton: Well, I've surrounded myself with a couple key people that are just really smart, really talented, and we just keep saying the same thing we've always said about any other films. What would I want to see? Or what would I not want to see?
How many pages is your latest draft?
Stanton: Oh, it's just like a regular movie. It'll be a two-hour film. ... You don't want it more than 120 [minutes], because it only grows, those films.
Is developing a live-action movie the same process as developing a Pixar animated films?
Stanton: Well, it's not being done by the Pixar crew. It's being done by Disney, and I'm sort of being loaned out. We're sort of using any element that we need to to make the film right. We're not being purist with Pixar, but Pixar's a brand that you have to trust that's for all ages. This story of John Carter is not going to be an all-ages film.
Are you thinking PG-13?
Stanton: Well, if you do the story right, there's no way you couldn't.
I like how casually he mentions it's being produced by Disney and not Pixar, thereby crushing all hope of it being any good.
'John Carter Of Mars' To Be 'Perfect Definition' Of Live-Action, CGI Hybrid
Source: MTV
'John Carter of Mars'In an exclusive interview with MTV News, "WALL-E" writer/director Andrew Stanton dished the most details yet about the progress of his next feature, "John Carter of Mars," an adaptation of a nearly hundred-year-old serialized novel about a Civil War vet mysteriously transported to the Red Planet, where he encounters all manner of alien adventures.
"It's real," Stanton assured us. "We're full bore on it right now. We're over the hump of the writing phase, and we're certainly far from rewrites."
Before he could even get to that point, Stanton had to solve a problem that had stymied filmmakers for eighty years: How do you turn the six separate installments of the novel into a coherent whole?
"I don't want to be dissing it," he said, "but it almost had an absence of a story for a feature film because it was very episodic. In its day it was a comic book. I mean, this book was written in 1912. It was the comic book you got in the time before there was such thing as comic books. So, it was really just about the next fight, the next adventure, the next romance."
"The key was putting a story into it and creating characters that had to grow and real basic stuff that we all know a movie needs," he explained.
Messing with a classic of the fantasy genre is always risky, but Stanton believes the passage of time is on his side. "Fortunately it's an old enough story," he said. "There isn't such huge allegiance to it that people won't mind that we muck with it a bit to hopefully amplify the essence of what made me interested in it as a young kid and hopefully will keep me interested in it as an adult."
Another vital realization, Stanton told us, was that "John Carter of Mars" could not be a strictly computer animated feature like past creations "Finding Nemo" and "Monsters, Inc." "There's so much in it that can't be real," he said. "It's the perfect definition of a hybrid movie," utilizing both live actors and computer-based animation.
With the script in good shape, work has now begun on preproduction, production and casting. The question of who will play the title character is still up in the air. "I know everybody wanted Hugh Jackman forever," admitted Stanton. "But he's only getting older and more exposed now, so it's a tough call. I'm your typical filmmaker, I want to find the next best unknown."
More details about John Carter of Mars from WALL-E's creator
Source: SciFi Wire
Ain't It Cool News has reported a few more details about writer/director Andrew Stanton's upcoming live-action Disney movie John Carter of Mars, confirming some details we reported a couple of weeks ago and last September and adding a few new ones.
Based on Stanton's presentation at this past weekend's Santa Barbara Film Festival, the site reported that the movie will be "huge; it is exciting; it scares the crap out of me. It's either going to make me or break me," Stanton (WALL-E) said.
Stanton added that the style of the movie is going to be very real, not highly stylized. Since Star Wars and a glut of science fiction and fantasy films have ripped off giant portions of John Carter over the years, the only option Stanton sees is doing a straight, realistic version of the story, as if a National Geographic crew stumbled across a preserved civilization while exploring a cave: Very real, but awe-inspiring, AICN reported.
As we reported, Stanton reiterated that he wants to avoid 3-D but thinks that Disney might want to push him toward it.
Stanton is on the second draft of a script and will begin casting soon. And John Carter WILL be a Civil War soldier, as in Edgar Rice Burroughs' Barsoom novels, on which the film will be based, the site confirmed.
Last September, we reported that Stanton said in a group interview in Emeryville, Calif.: "I'm going to do what I remember more than what they exactly do" in the books.
In a separate interview last September, Jim Morris, general manager at Pixar Animation, promised that the movie will not look like previous attempts to adapt the franchise for the screen. "Everything that's been out there has been an attempt to kind of capture this Deco-esque, [Frank] Frazetta vision of John Carter, which I think feels old and stale," he said. "And where Stanton is going—from what we've seen so far—is very different than that. And I think that the people who really love the essence of the books will really dig it, but so will audiences in general."
The film is based on the early-20th-century Barsoom series of books by Burroughs, the California author of the Tarzan series. It centers on a Civil War veteran who finds himself transported to the Red Planet and caught up in various battles and intrigues involving giant green creatures and an alluring princess. John Carter of Mars is slated for release sometime in 2012.
Michael Chabon Joins PIXAR's 'John Carter of Mars'
by Elisabeth Rappe; Cinematical
John Carter of Mars news always seems to fly under the radar, and this delightful little blurb was no exception. Hidden in a Deadline Hollywood Daily post about Michael Chabon switching agencies was far more interesting little footnote that he was now writing the script for Andrew Stanton's Mars.
The Amazing Website of Kavalier & Clay (a very dedicated Chabon fansite) decided to just do the obvious and ask the man himself. Surprise! It's true: "I've been hired to do some revisions to an already strong script by Andrew Stanton and Mark Andrews. I wrote my original screenplay The Martian Agent back in 1995 because I wished I could do [Edgar Rice] Burroughs's Barsoom. So this is pretty much a dream come true for me."
Back in January, Stanton was pretty candid about how difficult the story was to adapt, but insisted they were past the writing stage, and into pre-production and casting. Clearly they've backtracked a little, but can anyone really be worried that they've stopped work to bring on Michael Chabon? This is a win-win situation all around, particularly since Chabon still hasn't managed to see any more of his work on the big screen. If John Carter spawns a Kavalier and Clay film, how happy the world will be!
Bo-fucking-ner. Hard on. Woody. Erection. Daddy's Little Princess Coming Up For Air. The Devil's Pogo Stick Going Bouncy Bouncy Bouncy. All those things.
Kitsch, Collins to star in 'John Carter'
Andrew Stanton helming Disney's fantasy epic
Source: Variety
Walt Disney Pictures has set "Wolverine" stars Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins to star in "John Carter of Mars," a fantasy epic that marks the live action directorial debut of "Wall-E" helmer Andrew Stanton.
Kitsch, a member of the "Friday Night Lights" ensemble who made his screen breakthrough as Gambit in "X-Men Origins: Wolverine," will play the title character, a damaged Civil War veteran who finds himself mysteriously transported to Mars where his involvements with warring raced of the dying planet force him to rediscover his humanity.
Collins will play Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Mars. Collins worked with Kitsch in "Wolverine," playing Hugh Jackman's character's love interest Kayla Silverfox. She also co-stars in the HBO vampire drama "True Blood."
Pic will begin filming early next year. Jim Morris and Colin Wilson are producing. Stanton wrote the script with Mark Andrews.
Willem Dafoe goes to 'Mars'
Joins Taylor Kitsch, Lyn Collins in Disney adaptation
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Willem Dafoe is on his way to Mars.
The actor has joined Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins in "John Carter of Mars," Disney's adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs book series that Andrew Stanton is directing.
In the story of a Civil War soldier transported to the red planet where warring races vie for control, Dafoe will play Tars Tarkas, a leader of the Thark race who knows that the only way his people can survive is if they turn away from war, a position that may cost him dearly.
Stanton wrote the screenplay with Mark Andrews. Jim Morris and Colin Wilson are producing "Carter," which is eyeing a start in early 2010.
Brigham Taylor is overseeing for the studio.
Threesome on journey to 'Mars'
Samantha Morton, Dominic West, Polly Walker join pic
Source: Hollywood Reporter
English actors Samantha Morton, Dominic West and Polly Walker have joined "John Carter of Mars," Disney's adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs book series that Andrew Stanton is directing.
Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins and Willem Dafoe already are on board the production, which centers on a Civil War veteran (Kitsch) who finds himself mysteriously transported to Mars, where he becomes embroiled with the planet's warring people.
Morton plays Sola, the daughter of Dafoe's Tars Tarkas, who must hide her softer side from her warmongering race.
West plays Sab Than, prince of the Zodangans who believes he is entitled to rule Mars.
Walker plays Sarkoja, a merciless, tyrannical Thark.
Stanton wrote the screenplay with Mark Andrews. Jim Morris and Colin Wilson are producing "Mars," which is eyeing a start early next year. Brigham Taylor is overseeing for the studio.
Morton, repped by WME and Wishlab, next appears in the ensemble war drama "The Messenger."
West, repped by WME and United Agents, starred in HBO's "The Wire" and appeared in "300."
Walker might be best known for her work on HBO's "Rome," in which she played the conniving Atia of the Julii. The actress, repped by Gersh, Hamilton Hodell and Authentic Management, recently wrapped production on "Clash of the Titans," in which she played Cassiopeia.
This project keeps getting more and more interesting.
'John Carter of Mars' nets three more actors
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Thomas Haden Church, James Purefoy and Mark Strong have joined the cast of joined "John Carter of Mars," Disney's adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs book series that Andrew Stanton is directing.
Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins topline the production, which centers on a Civil War veteran (Kitsch) who finds himself mysteriously transported to Mars, where he becomes embroiled with the planet's warring people.
Church plays Tal Hajus, an ambitious and vicious Thark warrior who is biding his time to be a ruler.
Purefoy plays Kantos Kan, the captain of the Xavarian, the kingdom of Helium's grand warship. Strong is Matai Shang, the ruler of the Thems with godlike status.
Also in the movie are Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Dominic West, and Polly Walker.
Stanton wrote the screenplay with Mark Andrews. Jim Morris and Colin Wilson are producing "Mars," which is eyeing a start early next year. Brigham Taylor is overseeing for the studio.
Church, repped by WME, has "Easy A" from Screen Gems in the can while Purefoy, repped by CAA and Brillstein Entertainment Partners, recently starred in TV's "The Philanthropist." ICM-repped Strong will next be seen as the villain in "Sherlock Holmes."
Bryan Cranston heading to 'Mars' for Pixar
Source: Hollywood Reporter
"Breaking Bad" star Bryan Cranston has joined the cast of "John Carter of Mars," the first live-action feature from Pixar.
Andrew Stanton is directing the production, which goes before cameras next week.
The adaptation of the Edgar Rice Burroughs book series centers on a Civil War veteran (Taylor Kitsch) who finds himself mysteriously transported to Mars, where he becomes involved with the planet's warring people.
Cranston plays a Civil War colonel who comes into conflict with Carter.
Lynn Collins, Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton and Polly Walker are among the cast.
Stanton wrote the screenplay with Mark Andrews. Jim Morris, who produced "WALL-E," and Colin Wilson are producing "Carter."
The movie will be a hybrid of live action and CGI.
Disney sets 'Frankenweenie,' 'John Carter of Mars' release dates
Source: Hollywood Reporter
Disney is shoring up its 2012 movie calender, planting release-date flags for Tim Burton's "Frankenweenie" and "John Carter of Mars," directed by Andrew Stanton.
"Frankenweenie," which had initially been aiming for a 2011 release, will open March 9, 2012.
The movie is based on the comedic horror short that Burton made in 1984 while a film school student. The story centers on a man who brings his dog back to life after it is killed by a car.
While the original "Frankenweenie" was a live-action project, the new one will be made using stop-motion animation and be in Disney Digital 3-D. Like the original, the feature version is to be shot in black and white.
"Mars," which is based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs books, was always eyeing a 2012 date, but now the official date is June 8, 2012. It too will be in Disney Digital 3D.
Trailer here. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rf55GTEZ_E)
Normally, I would see that trailer and go "meh". But come on. Tim Riggins and Andrew Stanton. Of course I'll see that shit.
Not a fan of dropping "of Mars" from the title, though. There's a major trend in Hollywood right now that leans toward genericizing titles as much as possible. I think the theory is that the more boring a title, the more people can be tricked into seeing it. Worked for Avatar.
I agree this really needed to keep the full title.
I can understand studios finally becoming hip to the fact a title like the invention of Hugo cabret sound too much like the fantabulous contraption of professor horatio hufnagel.. but here a simple dumb name says nothing of the film, especially when its already so reminiscent of avatar.
It really needs all the help it can get in establishing its own identity.. removing of mars does pretty much literally the oppsosite of that.
Just makes it sound like it's a movie about Noah Wyle's character from E.R.
has anyone read the novel? thus far the trailer looks mighty generic.
lengthy interview with andrew stanton
http://www.slashfilm.com/interview-andrew-stanton-talks-john-carter/?
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.onlinemovieshut.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F11%2Fjohn-carter-poster.jpg&hash=48cef81e345bfddbb629b34abff853f62c059775)
New Trailer here. (http://youtu.be/X4jfd3mW9B0)
Andrew Stanton Explains 'John Carter' Name Change, Says Girls Won't See A Movie With 'Mars' In The Title
Source: Playlist
Many fanboys and literary fanatics became ruffled when Disney (and director Andrew Stanton) changed the name of this spring's Edgar Rice Burroughs adaptation "John Carter of Mars" to, simply, "John Carter." Apparently Stanton was in London to screen twenty minutes of footage from the hotly anticipated film and during the presentation he explained to assorted journalists (including someone from Bleeding Cool) why the film had undergone a surgical title snip. And, well, it's not exactly going to silence those that feel Pixar (which was unofficially involved in "John Carter") is a boys club.
"Here's the real truth of it. I'd already changed it from 'A Princess Of Mars' to 'John Carter Of Mars.' I don't like to get fixated on it, but I changed 'Princess Of Mars'... because not a single boy would go," Stanton told the journalists.
Keep in mind that Pixar, the studio where Stanton wrote and directed "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E" (and where he serves as part of the secretive, highly influential Brain Trust), has been loudly criticized for its perceived lack of interest in telling stories with strong female characters (or, really, any female characters at all). The studio came under fire again when they fired Brenda Chapman, who was set to be the studio's first female director (on next summer's "Brave"), severing her ties with a highly personal project (and, indeed, forcing her out of the studio, including her own position on the Brain Trust, completely). Disney is trying to claim that Pixar had very little to do with "John Carter" but from what we understand it was conceptualized and developed almost wholly at Pixar (and when selected journalists were invited to preview footage out of the editing bay earlier this year, well, they didn't go to Disney, they went to Pixar). Basically, if you called "John Carter" "Pixar's first live action film," you wouldn't exactly be wrong.
This title change, and the reasoning behind it, especially put into the terms Stanton uses, sounds like the big money equivalent of "ewww girls are icky," but Stanton tries to put on a brave face. With a move from "Princess of Mars" to "John Carter of Mars," well, apparently that still sounded too manly for little girls who can't handle things associated with the red planet (or the Roman god of war) and presumably only want to play with dolls and wear pink bows in their hair.
"And then the other truth is, no girl would go to see [a movie called] 'John Carter Of Mars'. So I said, 'I don't want to do anything out of fear, I hate doing things out of fear, but I can't ignore that truth,'" Stanton explained at the London presentation. We wonder if he's referring to "Mars Needs Moms" too, since that was a costly animated flop for Disney earlier this year (one that effectively ended their relationship with Robert Zemeckis and his ImageMovers Digital company).
While the move was clearly a nakedly commercial one, he also dug down and tried to explain it away thematically, "All the time we were making this big character story which just so happens to be in this big, spectacular new environment. But it's not about the spectacle, it's about the investment. I thought, I've really worked hard to make all of this an origin story. It's about a guy becoming John Carter. So I'm not misrepresenting what this movie is, it's 'John Carter.'" Right.
If there are more films (and, given the amount of cash Disney has sunk into this sci-fi money pit, that's a pretty big IF), Stanton promises that "of Mars" will be part of the title. "Mars is going to stick on any other film in the series. But by then, it won't have a stigma to it." Andrew Stanton - clearing Mars' good name! Well we can all get a good look at the Mars-less "John Carter" when it opens March 9th, 2012. Get your ass to Mars!
that is so ridiculous. of mars is interesting, john carter is the most boring name ever created.
he says he hates doing things out of fear and then that he just couldn't "deny the truth" that girls apparently would never see a movie with the word mars on the title. well fuck that, you just did something out of fear and not out of love which is supposed to be the pixar way. i don't think things will go well for this wannabe franchise. it might be a good movie but i would have no interest in it if i didn't know the pixar backstory.
also what's this about a falling out with brenda chapman.. i wanna know more about that. has pixar turned evil? i know they kicked one guy off a personal project already when they replaced that outsider who was directing Ratatouille and put Brad Bird in charge instead.. but what was the deal with Brave? hope it worked for the best, at least the title change on that film was sensible because Brave is obviously more powerful than "the bow and the whatever the fuck".. sigh, pixar just couldn't hack being the kubrick of animated films (ie. makers of utter perfection).
i guess that kind of pressure would drive almost anyone crazy/evil.
I've heard mumblings of people being kicked off personal projects at Pixar before. It would be interesting to learn more about this good/evil issue. When Matt and I heard Lasseter talk at AFF this year he talked about the Pixar creative process and how every work in progress is regularly screened to the Brain Trust and how there is always a lot of feedback given, but that the writer/director is ultimately left to decide which notes they want to take. Could it be that this is not the case? He also made mention that sometimes artists don't want to show their unfinished work saying that "it's not ready" - but that that's not how they do things at Pixar.
Usually, everything we hear about Pixar is great, but I think you're right, P; there must be some seedy underbelly. We know there is at squeaky-clean Disney. Surely there must be at Pixar. Of course, this discussion is completely irrelevant if we don't know the details of Ratatouille and Brave's production history. (And of course it's completely off-topic here too). I hope to think that it's because Pixar just wants to tell the best stories possible, but I'd be interested to learn of how the chasm of vision led to the original creator being cast off (or casting off their original vision) because of "creative differences" with the studio. As it is, Ratatouille is one of my favorite Pixar films. I just hope Brave is good too.
(On a side note: has anyone significant ever become a key part of Pixar - since it's forming - who wasn't a member of Lasseter's infamous Cal Arts class? The only person that comes to mind is Michael Arndt, and I get the impression he's hardly a key member of the studio).
And now back on topic... I really don't know much about the John Carter origin material, but if you have a book you're going to adapt which is called Princess of Mars, well hell that's a far better titled that either John Carter or John Carter of Mars. That's the title you should have kept. Devolving the titled into the bland irrelevance it is now seems to be a crap yet popular trend in Hollywood these days: take away everything unique about a project in order to make it as mulch-quadrant as possible. The emphasis always seems to be on making everything as inoffensive to as many people as possible, rather than crafting something people will actually like. It's a preference for blandness because of this sense of fear which Stanton poorly argues against. From the bits and pieces I've seen, there is a chance that this could actually turn out to be a good film, but I think it's gone off in completely the wrong direction. Maybe it's just the horrendous marketing campaign, but I don't have high hopes for this at all. I really want it to be a good film, but that's what happens when you eliminate "Pixar's first live action film" in favor of "from the studio that brought you The Prince of Persia..."
Quote from: Sleepless on December 06, 2011, 12:28:49 PM
(On a side note: has anyone significant ever become a key part of Pixar - since it's forming - who wasn't a member of Lasseter's infamous Cal Arts class? The only person that comes to mind is Michael Arndt, and I get the impression he's hardly a key member of the studio).
Brad Bird, but that's the only one I can think of off the top of my head.
He wasn't at Pixar at the beginning, but I'm pretty sure he was a classmate of Lasseter, Stanton, et al.
Wikipedia says you're right. Never mind, then.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi35.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fd179%2Fpolkablues%2Fjohn_carter_ver12_xlg.jpg&hash=b521f381573b4d0b529c65c24229f41def54848e)
This is a great poster, but why, if they dropped Mars from the title, do they still have the M in the logo?
Quote from: polkablues on February 23, 2012, 12:46:10 AM
This is a great poster, but why, if they dropped Mars from the title, do they still have the M in the logo?
And why are they still showcasing the Mars setting in promotional materials?
It's not Mars. It's Arizona. No martians. Hell, no Hispanics either.
Damn the ads for this are dumb.
"Before there was Star Wars, before there was Avatar" ...you kind of covered that when you said "before Star Wars".
Haha, they assume kids these days only know Star Wars from this year's 3D re-release.
They must be aiming this at 5 year olds.
My p-rediction: this will be a good movie that has been butchered through studio interference and market research, why else get rid of "mars". It will appear pretty bad but with glimmers of what could have been. There is no way they will get a franchise out of this.
^ Good companion piece to Lynch's Dune then?
The only good companion piece to Dune is a bottle of Absinthe.
Quote from: Pubrick on March 01, 2012, 10:29:46 PM
My p-rediction: this will be a good movie that has been butchered through studio interference and market research, why else get rid of "mars". It will appear pretty bad but with glimmers of what could have been.
Dear Disney,
Give Andrew Stanton $250 million dollars, then BACK THE FUCK AWAY.
Thank you.
Quote from: ddiggler on March 01, 2012, 08:23:13 PM
Damn the ads for this are dumb.
"Before there was Star Wars, before there was Avatar"
Honestly, they tried to use that to sell "Beowulf", saying it was the beginning of all adventure tales. Still doesn't make me want to see it a few years after the fact.
I caught that TV spot last night. They're definitely hoping to ride Avatar's coattails given the closing shot is John Carter painted blue with his black hair down. It's just a shame they're probably too late to ride Avatar's coattails.
there's no coattail for avatar to ride on; it was its own backlash, and no one, either for nor against Avatar, had any interest in movies like it.
He's saying avatar was a hit and therefore it has coattails.
Whether anyone even cares about that movie anymore is another thing, but since it was released there has definitely been a trend of films trying to emulate its success.
The only reason to mention avatar in relation to this movie would be in their similar plots. I was going to make a post about this archetype actually but it doesn't look like this movie will be worth that much discussion.
i thought the first 10 minute thing they released looked really good. it was beautifully shot and that whole sequence of him trying to escape and getting pinned was good.
(https://xixax.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcontent.screencast.com%2Fusers%2FDavidMAA%2Ffolders%2FJing%2Fmedia%2Ff05fde39-6cbe-41b2-9d52-4f9c172ae335%2FJC%2520BLUE.png&hash=270b4fde1ca6e96e209aea67c5986ca75e312c3d)
Will John Carter see his own movie? (http://news.moviefone.com/mike-ryan/john-carter-john-carters_b_1333299.html)
I saw this today. I'll try and write more on it later (I liked it), but for now I just want to state that it has a surprise twist ending, and the surprise twist is that the movie really was titled "John Carter of Mars" all along! I am actually not kidding about this.
Quote from: polkablues on March 09, 2012, 06:12:01 PM
the surprise twist is that the movie really was titled "John Carter of Mars" all along! I am actually not kidding about this.
so someone forgot to take out the 'Mars' in the end credits?
It's actually even more fantastic than that: as the movie ends, it shows a big shot of Mars with the title "JOHN CARTER" plastered in big letters across it. After like half a second, "OF MARS" fades in (FADES IN!) below it, like Stanton decided to have a little last-second title rebellion against Disney. I laughed out loud, which I'm sure confused literally everyone else in the theater.
Its good, I had way more fun with this than any other film of its kind from recent memory. It has its problems, but give a little bit of yourself to it, and it will be good to you.
Hey, John Carter lovers. Filmspotting (http://filmspotting.net/reviews/828-fs-389-w-andrew-stanton-top-5-animated-films.html) did an interview with Andrew Stanton yesterday. Check it out!
Quote from: polkablues on March 09, 2012, 08:44:18 PM
It's actually even more fantastic than that: as the movie ends, it shows a big shot of Mars with the title "JOHN CARTER" plastered in big letters across it. After like half a second, "OF MARS" fades in (FADES IN!) below it, like Stanton decided to have a little last-second title rebellion against Disney. I laughed out loud, which I'm sure confused literally everyone else in the theater.
Haven't seen it yet, but it could also reiterate the transformation he makes from being regular old John Carter at the start of the movie to John Carter of Mars by the end. It was shitty weather here this weekend, so hopefully this had a better box office weekend than people were predicting.
I'm pretty sure that was the intention, but with all the pre-release hemming and hawing over the title, it took on a whole different meaning.
And from what I've heard, it had a pretty disastrous weekend for a movie that cost $250 million to make. It's sad, but they did such a shit job marketing the thing that they only have themselves to blame.
Yeah this article sums up (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html) the failed marketing campaign which was doomed from the very first trailer. Apparently Stanton is kind of a dick too.
Quote from: ©brad on March 12, 2012, 01:43:04 PM
Yeah this article sums up (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html) the failed marketing campaign which was doomed from the very first trailer. Apparently Stanton is kind of a dick too.
This was interesting. I have no knowledge of the book. Like the article talked about parts of the book being plundered, when I saw the trailer I was thinking how it seemed to be stealing elements from the movies mentioned
I still like Stanton's trailer better.
Why John Carter flopped: 6 theories
http://feed2.theweek.com/article/index/225458/why-john-carter-flopped-6-theories
The bloated $250 million sci-fi epic tanked at the box office this weekend, grossing a meager $30.6 million and finishing behind The Lorax. What went wrong?
As expected, the ambitious sci-fi "fever dream" John Carter tanked at the box office this weekend, earning just $30.6 million on its estimated $250 million budget and finishing behind the The Lorax (which is in its second week). By comparison, four recent films with similarly out-sized budgets — Spider-Man 3, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Avatar, and the most recent Pirates of the Caribbean sequel — averaged $99 million in their debut weekends. Observers had predicted that John Carter would flop, based on its poor performance in audience tracking studies. But now that the film has fulfilled those low expectations, they're enumerating the reasons. Here, six theories:
1. There was no star power
John Carter is a rarity: A massively-budgeted tent-pole film without a single recognizable name in its cast, says John Young at Entertainment Weekly. Producers cast a completely unproven lead, Friday Night Lights' Taylor Kitsch. And while Avatar starred a similarly untested Sam Worthington, "James Cameron's name is as big as any movie star," and Worthington was joined on screen by known-quantities like Sigourney Weaver and Michelle Rodriguez. "The most familiar face in John Carter was... Mark Strong?"
2. The marketing was a misfire
The movie is the victim of some "really rotten marketing," says Nikki Finke at Deadline. A series of bland, confusing trailers — "as generic" as the film's title — failed to convey the scope of the Civil War-to-Mars story or build interest around the characters. Though you wouldn't know it from the trailers, the film features a compelling love story, which could have snagged female audiences. Shortening the title from the original John Carter of Mars also turned the film into "a sphinx," says Young. "Who is John Carter? Where is he? Why can he leap great distances?" The marketing answered none of these questions.
3. The young guys didn't show up
John Carter is the kind of effects-heavy, action-adventure sci-fi film that's supposed to appeal to the young male demographic that flocked to Transformers or Clash of the Titans, says Amy Kaufman at the Los Angeles Times. Yet the audience that turned out this weekend was surprisingly older; 59 percent were over age 25. Blame the marketing again, says Finke. The studio mistakenly catered to the fanboys of the source material instead of the general public. See exhibit A, says Young: The Super Bowl commercial that "wrongly assumed audiences were so familiar with the John Carter brand that simply seeing the movie's title would excite them."
4. The reviews didn't sell any tickets
Critics were largely polite to John Carter, says Robert Fure at Film School Rejects. Apart from a few hyperbolic raves and pans, most reviews fell into "it's alright" territory. "Consensus is you'll probably think the movie is okay, but you might want to wait for the DVD" — a death knell for a film that cost $250 million to make.
5. It never overcame the initial negative buzz
The movie was "doomed by its first trailer," says Claude Brodesser-Akner at New York. That first action-less and effects-less trailer in July was so "disastrously impotent [and] muddled" that audiences were simply left thinking, "What was that?" Later attempts to refine the marketing campaign came too late. The film "had become a punch line — to those on whom it managed to register at all." Once the "established simplistic narrative that the film is a big-budget flop started to take hold in the press," says Mark Hughes at Forbes, the negative buzz spread so quickly and so loudly that John Carter never stood a chance.
6. Nobody, it seems, wants to go to Mars
Disney now has three relatively recent films set on Mars that have flopped. See previous box office duds Mission to Mars and Mars Needs Moms. "Avoiding the red planet for the next few decades might be a smart move for the Mouse House," says Gregory Ellwood at HitFix.
the Vulture piece seemed like disney's market department aggressively reaching out. I thought the first trailer looked fine, and the film's biggest problem is probably the film itself - it looks like ten movies that have come out in the past year.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 13, 2012, 01:50:50 PM
6. Nobody, it seems, wants to go to Mars
Disney now has three relatively recent films set on Mars that have flopped. See previous box office duds Mission to Mars and Mars Needs Moms. "Avoiding the red planet for the next few decades might be a smart move for the Mouse House," says Gregory Ellwood at HitFix.
I have a really bad feeling that this is going to be the only lesson Disney gleans from the experience.
Quote from: polkablues on March 13, 2012, 04:11:48 PM
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 13, 2012, 01:50:50 PM
6. Nobody, it seems, wants to go to Mars
Disney now has three relatively recent films set on Mars that have flopped. See previous box office duds Mission to Mars and Mars Needs Moms. "Avoiding the red planet for the next few decades might be a smart move for the Mouse House," says Gregory Ellwood at HitFix.
I have a really bad feeling that this is going to be the only lesson Disney gleans from the experience.
The problem is, they gleaned that lesson before the film was even released.
At least there won't be a backlash.
'John Carter' Will Cost Disney $200 Million in Operating Losses
As a result of the catastrophic performance of the action film on Mars, the studio should lose up to $120 million in the quarter.
Source: THR
John Carter will cause Disney to write down about $200 million, the company said Monday.
During the period ending March 31, Disney's second-fiscal quarter, the studio segment will post a loss of from $80 million-$120 million, the company said.
"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31," Disney's statement issued Monday said. " As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter."
I love that Reuters cites Wikipedia 3 times in 4 paragraphs...
Megabomb 'John Carter' may be Hollywood's biggest loser
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-johncarter-boxofficebombsbre82j19r-20120320,0,756258.story
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Ultra competitive movie studios rarely want to sit atop this box office list. When the Walt Disney Co said on Monday that it expected its sci-fi movie "John Carter" to lose about $200 million, it very likely shot the intergalactic box office bomb to the top of Hollywood's biggest loser chart.
If so - and box office math is always a little tricky in Tinseltown - the megaflop would achieve iconic status by surpassing the 1995 Geena Davis-Matthew Modine pirate flick "Cutthroat Island" that the Guinness Book of World Records lists as the biggest bomb of all-time. That movie lost $147 million, according to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which also puts the MGM film at the top of its list.
Infamous misfires like director Ron Howard's "The Alamo," Eddie Murphy's "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", the Matthew McConaughey-Penelope Cruz action film "Sahara" and director Robert Zemeckis' 2011 animated film "Mars Needs Moms" all passed the dubious $140 million loss threshold, according to Wikipedia.
Of course, any movie box office list is subject to serious interpretation. The Wikipedia list, for instance, has converted the film's ticket sales to inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars, but includes only worldwide box office and not DVD or TV sales.
Quote from: Jeremy Blackman on March 20, 2012, 07:37:57 PM
I love that Reuters cites Wikipedia 3 times in 4 paragraphs...
Megabomb 'John Carter' may be Hollywood's biggest loser
http://www.chicagotribune.com/entertainment/sns-rt-us-johncarter-boxofficebombsbre82j19r-20120320,0,756258.story
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - Ultra competitive movie studios rarely want to sit atop this box office list. When the Walt Disney Co said on Monday that it expected its sci-fi movie "John Carter" to lose about $200 million, it very likely shot the intergalactic box office bomb to the top of Hollywood's biggest loser chart.
If so - and box office math is always a little tricky in Tinseltown - the megaflop would achieve iconic status by surpassing the 1995 Geena Davis-Matthew Modine pirate flick "Cutthroat Island" that the Guinness Book of World Records lists as the biggest bomb of all-time. That movie lost $147 million, according to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which also puts the MGM film at the top of its list.
Infamous misfires like director Ron Howard's "The Alamo," Eddie Murphy's "The Adventures of Pluto Nash", the Matthew McConaughey-Penelope Cruz action film "Sahara" and director Robert Zemeckis' 2011 animated film "Mars Needs Moms" all passed the dubious $140 million loss threshold, according to Wikipedia.
Of course, any movie box office list is subject to serious interpretation. The Wikipedia list, for instance, has converted the film's ticket sales to inflation-adjusted 2012 dollars, but includes only worldwide box office and not DVD or TV sales.
Ron Howard made an Alamo movie?