PDA

View Full Version : Why did you as a 3D artist not see JOHN CARTER?



Dexter2999
03-30-2012, 12:23 PM
The Disney mega millions/mega flop, JOHN CARTER, was the first time live action effort by PIXAR director, Andrew Stanton. By all accounts the movie is visually stunning. The movie is based a pivotal Sci-fi work, so the story is there. So, why aren't people going out to see it?

For me personally, I felt the trailers conveyed a jumble of action set to "dub-step" soundtrack. Coming from a place where "story first" is the motto, I saw all but no story in the trailer. I also felt the alien designs to be one step up from generic.

What were your reason?

BigHache
03-30-2012, 12:32 PM
I actually did see it, but from the onset of the initial trailer I wasn't going to. The trailer told me, "this is going to be just like anything else". I wasn't familiar with the story and I'd wager most people weren't either. 'Oh, more green aliens from Mars' is probably what a lot of people got from the marketing.

I enjoyed the movie, it wasn't OMGWTFBBQ the bestest thing evar, but I enjoyed it.

Greenlaw
03-30-2012, 12:44 PM
I just don't see movies any more, not even at home. I know that sounds weird because I work in the FX and animation business but I honestly don't have the time or the will to watch movies anymore.

As for John Carter, I had a great fondness for the ERB books when I was a young teen but I just didn't warm up to what I was seeing in the trailers. However, I have to say that fan edit almost changed my mind and made me want to go.

Maybe I'll see the sequel. Oh, wait. ;)

G.

shrox
03-30-2012, 12:47 PM
I just don't see movies any more, not even at home. I know that sounds weird because I work in the FX and animation business but I honestly don't have the time or the will to watch movies anymore.

As for John Carter, I had a great fondness for the ERB books when I was a young teen but I just didn't warm up to what I was seeing in the trailers. However, I have to say that fan edit almost changed my mind and made me want to go.

Maybe I'll see the sequel. Oh, wait. ;)

G.

Me too. I used to make games but rarely played them, too busy making them!

Dexter2999
03-30-2012, 12:48 PM
I actually did see it, but from the onset of the initial trailer I wasn't going to. The trailer told me, "this is going to be just like anything else". I wasn't familiar with the story and I'd wager most people weren't either. 'Oh, more green aliens from Mars' is probably what a lot of people got from the marketing.

I enjoyed the movie, it wasn't OMGWTFBBQ the bestest thing evar, but I enjoyed it.

Interesting. So, is it safe to say that you saw the trailer and had low (or no) expectations and were pleasantly surprised?

And was there anything in the movie you felt would have made the trailer more enticing?

shrox
03-30-2012, 12:51 PM
I think a major reason people don't care for the earlier works is now we just know it's not possible. When Mars was a complete mystery that hung enigmatically in the sky, those stories just might have been true. Now we've all but set foot there ourselves, and found relatively nothing.

Even Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" moved the aliens from Mars to far, far away...

Dexter2999
03-30-2012, 12:52 PM
I just don't see movies any more, not even at home. I know that sounds weird because I work in the FX and animation business but I honestly don't have the time or the will to watch movies anymore.

As for John Carter, I had a great fondness for the ERB books when I was a young teen but I just didn't warm up to what I was seeing in the trailers. However, I have to say that fan edit almost changed my mind and made me want to go.

Maybe I'll see the sequel. Oh, wait. ;)

G.

I could say something like that but if I said it, it would be a lie. I work nights so that cuts way down on the opportunity to see movies, sure. But even on my day off (I often work 6 days a week) I just couldn't be bothered to leave the house and go the movies. AND, if I am completely honest, if I were to get up off my fat, lazy, tuchus and go to the cinema, I would more than likely have gone to see THE LORAX, rather than JOHN CARTER.

shrox
03-30-2012, 12:53 PM
... my fat, lazy, tuchus ...

Isn't that a character from The Lorax?

Dexter2999
03-30-2012, 12:54 PM
I think a major reason people don't care for the earlier works is now we just know it's not possible. When Mars was a complete mystery that hung enigmatically in the sky, those stories just might have been true. Now we've all but set foot there ourselves, and found relatively nothing.

Even Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" moved the aliens from Mars to far, far away...

So, if JOHN CARTER had been on a parrallel dimension's Mars and not ours, you think that would help the audience suspend disbelief? Or if they had just said "another planet" rather than Mars which has lost most of its mystery?

souzou
03-30-2012, 01:07 PM
Interesting. So, is it safe to say that you saw the trailer and had low (or no) expectations and were pleasantly surprised?

And was there anything in the movie you felt would have made the trailer more enticing?

I didn't see the trailer but did read some reviews which were bad. So I went to see it with really low expectations and was pleasantly surprised. For me there was nothing particularly bad in it - VFX was good, story was ok, acting and script were ok, some funny moments. I walked out feeling really sorry for the director, as it felt like bad publicity had financially ruined an otherwise ok film.

bazsa73
03-30-2012, 01:09 PM
I lost my interest.

stiff paper
03-30-2012, 01:14 PM
Because if you work on movies you get to understand how they're made these days. And as well as understanding how they're made you understand the people that make them these days. And also why they're made these days.

And once you've understood those things, it's pretty much impossible for somebody with reasonable intelligence and any self respect at all to carry on having the same level of respect for movies as before.

Some movies are worth a little respect. Most these days aren't. Most movies these days are flattered by the description "Corporate Product." It makes them sound better than they really are.

I know it's not commercially sound to return to having people with "Vision" deciding what movies to make, or to have people who can actually write writing the screenplays, just like it's not feasible to have directors with any clue at all what direction even is. But it would be nice to move things back a little bit in that direction. You know, so that not every single thing out there is quite so soulless.

Edit:
Here's a review of John Carter:
http://filmfreakcentral.net/screenreviews/johncarter.htm
I haven't seen the movie, but I suspect that if I do I'll probably agree with this review.

shrox
03-30-2012, 01:20 PM
So, if JOHN CARTER had been on a parrallel dimension's Mars and not ours, you think that would help the audience suspend disbelief? Or if they had just said "another planet" rather than Mars which has lost most of its mystery?

Very possible. When potential audiences hear the name Edgar Rice Burroughs, most people think of Tarzan or Victorian era sci-fi I would guess. If Avatar was branded as Pocahontas in Space, it just would not have done as well.

MarcusM
03-30-2012, 02:03 PM
I plan go to cinema soon to see John Carter. I read about loss of millions and am curious why.
I think in Poland this movie have bad advertising...

Local ticket price info.
ticket 2D version - 23 zł = 7.42 USD
ticket 3D vesion - 25 zł = 8,07 USD
How it looks in your places?

Next on the list is Wrath of a Titans and Battleship :]

rcallicotte
03-30-2012, 02:22 PM
LOL Quite reasonable. :thumbsup:


I know it's not commercially sound to return to having people with "Vision" deciding what movies to make, or to have people who can actually write writing the screenplays, just like it's not feasible to have directors with any clue at all what direction even is. But it would be nice to move things back a little bit in that direction. You know, so that not every single thing out there is quite so soulless.

bobakabob
03-30-2012, 02:29 PM
So many of these CGI films are beginning to look terribly homogenous like they're all made by the same committee. Where's the originality and invention? Call me nostalgic but I'd rather watch Jason and the Argonauts. Ray Harryhausen had a signature style, instantly recognisable. Sadly that individual artistry has gone along with the dramatic power and sense of wonder. Harryhausen started out as an actor and it shows in his economy of style: less is more. Ridley Scott is also a master of dramatic storytelling, crediting the audience with imagination. Now the vfx crews just seem to be rehashing gaming cliches, trying way too hard to impress with meaningless displays of technique. Those four armed walrus ape hybrids look ridiculous, their movements are over exaggerated and design just plain daft. Andrew Stanton made Finding Nemo, a beautifully crafted artistic masterpiece, so maybe this is another example of too many suits calling the shots.

YaGfXg33k
03-30-2012, 03:06 PM
I produce content. I don't consume it.

JeffrySG
03-30-2012, 03:09 PM
I would never choose to see a film because of the effects alone. I want the story to entertain me. I only choose to see something if I feel that I'll enjoy the film.

BigHache
03-30-2012, 03:27 PM
Interesting. So, is it safe to say that you saw the trailer and had low (or no) expectations and were pleasantly surprised?

And was there anything in the movie you felt would have made the trailer more enticing?

Hard to say. The trailers didn't impress, but then I read comments where people enjoyed it. I think more than anything I just said, "heck with it, Ima go enjoy this thing."

Anything from the film to make the trailer more enticing... hmm. One particular thing/scene, no? I'm tempted to just say, "tell a story with the trailer, don't just berate us with a bunch of WOW CG images." But I think that goes against the cookie-cutter that has become Hollywood. We laughed at the movie poster joke that I think Shrox linked, but it's true. Hollywood execs. and producers will simultaneously tell you there's no formula for a successful blockbuster, yet stick to formulas that generally make them money. And I get it, they're business people and are just looking at money. But that doesn't help.

There's the argument of this is what people buy so that's what we produce. Well, there's an easy fix for that. Stop producing crap, and people can't buy it. :thumbsup:
On par with sex sells. Well, don't sell sex, and people can't buy it. Really simple.

The movie industry is becoming (has been?) laughable. Battleship, really? "Based on a Hasbro board game that you hated because you never had the electronic version! You loved Transformers and Bay-splosions, right? You're gonna LOVE all this CGI, splosions, and Rihanna!" Um... whatevs.

G-Man
03-30-2012, 04:47 PM
Andrew Stanton has talent obviously, but it's really hard to have the movie trailer voice guy say, "From the director of Finding Nemo..."

I wonder why Hollywood decided not to just rip off the plot like they always do, and set the story in a more distant world and go from there? They didn't play up Edgar Rice Burroughs, and the majority of the public doesn't know who he is anyway, at least the majority of what they need to pay back the 250 million dollar price tag.

BeeVee
03-30-2012, 04:47 PM
I think part of the problem that has been well-publicised was the idea to shorten the name to just JOHN CARTER, like it was some biopic of Jimmy Carter's son (or dad, or somesuch). Our son Finn wasn't keen to see it although he really enjoyed it when he had. If it had been called John Carter of Mars, he would have been begging us to go.

B

BeeVee
03-30-2012, 04:49 PM
They didn't play up Edgar Rice Burroughs

Without wishing to spoil, they kinda did, but that's just like the first book anyway (Princess of Mars).

B

Ernest
03-30-2012, 08:25 PM
I enjoyed the movie, it wasn't OMGWTFBBQ the bestest thing evar, but I enjoyed it.

Ouch! That sounds like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXGFb3R3Mw&feature=related (it's nice)

I've been trying to build up the strength to go see this movie, and I think that tomorrow I finally will but, right from the first trailer, it's been painful to try to force myself to want to go. It's the art direction. It just screams "The Scorpion King VII: Redux again!"

Really, driving all the way to the theater to watch what looks like the 94th remake of "The movie whose look led to the Scorpion King" requires more force of will than I have.



The movie industry is becoming (has been?) laughable. Battleship, really? "Based on a Hasbro board game that you hated because you never had the electronic version!
When I read that Hasbro was making yet another generaton of My Little Pony... in Flash!, I reacted just like that. I never expected it to be, like it has proven to be, the best half hour of TV for 2 seasons straight.
After that, I'm willing to give Hasbro the benefit of the doubt, no matter how ludicrous the project may seem.



If it had been called John Carter of Mars, he would have been begging us to go.It should have been called John Carter: Warrior of Mars. Hey! It worked wonderfully for Game of Thrones!

geo_n
03-30-2012, 09:39 PM
It just screams "The Scorpion King VII: Redux again!"


Yes and the title was really boring to me because I don't know the history it has. John Carter, who is that? When we saw the posters,etc, the title didn't interest us to take a closer look. The actors were a little unknown, too. Sorry but as much as people don't like to believe actors sell a movie, they do especially for people who just want to be entertained and not engrossed with the story.

BigHache
03-30-2012, 10:27 PM
Ouch! That sounds like: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UbXGFb3R3Mw&feature=related (it's nice)

LOL no not like. But that reminds me in school working on design projects, when asked by another student what we thought of their work, the joke was to say, "It's cute", a euphemism for it's not quite there.

Mr Rid
03-30-2012, 11:17 PM
Too old for this s***. If you saw the first Star Wars, you pretty much saw every fantasyfy schlockbuster regurge made since. Bad guys, the chosen one, some girl, explosion, we win.

I just watched a much more interesting and humorous antithesis to John Carter- a 1986 Russion sc-fi called Kin Dza Dza! about a coupla modern guys who also suddenly find themselves transported to a desolate planet where they have to contend with alien customs and racism. Must be the first movie to feature steampunk tech.
http://coilhouse.net/2008/01/kin-dza-dza-1986-soviet-steampunk/

Someone was supposedly working on an animated version but it doesnt appear to have ever been released.
http://www.behance.net/gallery/Kin-Dza-Dza/278816

I read JC is actually doing well in China.

jeric_synergy
03-31-2012, 02:08 AM
I wasn't excited because it looks boring. The name is boring. The trailers are incoherent. Deserts are visually dull. Feh.

Now, in contrast, "Wrath of the Titans" looks FUN. Crazy fun!

Iain
03-31-2012, 03:47 AM
I wasn't excited because it looks boring. The name is boring. The trailers are incoherent. Deserts are visually dull. Feh.

Agree :thumbsup:
The most interesting comparison might be Tintin. Not everyone has heard of either source yet Tintin was made to look fantastic from the word go in posters, trailers and marketing.
In the end it fell just short of fantastic but it drew the audience.

Marketing isn't everything and I'd probably have encouraged my kids to see John Carter despite the dull trailers had it not been for lacklustre reviews.

Add unappealling concept to bad marketing and poor reviews and you have yourself a turkey.

eagleeyed
03-31-2012, 04:55 AM
I wasn't excited because it looks boring. The name is boring. The trailers are incoherent. Deserts are visually dull. Feh.

The trailers initially really put me off, seeing them on TV gave me nothing what the film was about. Just seemed to be a jumble of action. Were not good at all.

I dont have a clue what John Carter is about, and I just thought from the name it would be about a guy called John Carter who kills things, is respected by everyone at the end and blows stuff up.

Although, I think I am now tainted. On the topic of Tintin, I loved Tintin as a kid, still like the Cartoon series, everyone was raving about the film, I just didn't like it, even though I wanted to like it.

I got more of a kick in that film finding modelling mistakes than the storyline, which is kinda upsetting. (I got detached from the film after he had OVER 9000 bullets shot at him in one sequence and not one of them hit him).

Now I am more ashamed in myself that I just did a OVER 9000 joke.

sandman300
03-31-2012, 08:51 AM
I hadn't been to the movies in a good while but when the kids were both off doing their own things, the wife said she wanted to go. between the choices that were available; kids movies, chick flicks, ooh what's this John Carter, whats that about, (check trailer) action movie, looks cool, I don't know what it's about but hey I never trust trailers anyway.

Anyway, I enjoyed it, although I think I would have enjoyed it more without the 3D, that is just tiring no matter what movie it is.

fazi69
03-31-2012, 09:40 AM
Movie made by marketing department can`t be good. It is a rule of any creative business.

djwaterman
03-31-2012, 11:02 AM
I'm not sure this film deserves to be totally dismissed, some are saying it's pretty good. Problem is it cost 1000000 billion dollars or something so it's never going to make that back in it's opening week and then inherits the golden turkey studio buster award.
I'm not defending it or anything, generally I agree with all the CGI hate thoughts on the thread. I really liked the CG alien mating ritual scene in 'Monsters', all done by one guy, so it can still be effective when done right.

MAUROCOR
03-31-2012, 11:06 AM
I have seen the movie and I have to tell you I expected more. I knew the story and that was the reazon I decided to see the movie.
One thing is bothering me a lot lately is the fact they are showing too much in the trailers. There are no much more surprises when you see the movie. A lot of spoilers and pictures and trailers 1, 2, 3, etc.
The best thing to me is when I donīt know what to expect from a movie and it surprises in a good way.
And yes, doesnīt matter how many fantastic VFX effects there are in a movie, please, give me a very good story as a basis.

The worst movies that I saw recently and I hated so much was the last Conan:cry: and Clash of the Titans:(. Why did they do that, why?

KurtF
03-31-2012, 11:39 AM
I'll go see it when it comes to the second run movie house. They have a Wednesday date deal where $10 buys two entry tickets, two small drinks, two small popcorns.

We don't go to the first run cinema's anymore, too expensive.

jeric_synergy
03-31-2012, 12:07 PM
We're not really discussing the actual worth of the movie, but why we weren't motivated to go see it. (I assume that it's a tiny bit better than the p.r. campaign.)

Someone above said it well: the trailers didn't tell a story. Trailers shouldn't just be samplers, they should say "This is why you should see this movie." Otherwise it's just a SIGGRAPH show reel.

I'm not sure how much is actually in the movie, but if I were editing a trailer, 1/3rd would have been JC wondering "Where the hell....what the f***...who the WHOA!". Instead, it was just a mishmash of monsters.

Also, dropping "Mars" from the title was idiotic. --I think someone should make a short indie-style film about the Curse of Mars--- a movie about challenging the fact that almost all Mars movies suck, i.e. a movie about making a movie about Mars.

++
Seattle=$3 second run houses. Popcorn extra.

Greenlaw
03-31-2012, 01:32 PM
...Also, dropping "Mars" from the title was idiotic..
I'm glad you brought that up. I mentioned this in another thread, and yeah, dropping 'Mars' from the title was an immediate turn off for me. The title is otherwise very generic (no offense to people who are actually named 'John Carter'.)

Funny thing is, they changed the title twice...the first time because the studio decided that after The Princess and the Frog failed to meet their box office expectations 'princess' movies were dead, and then after the recent Mars Needs Moms disaster 'Mars' movies became taboo too.

I guess misguided marketing decisions are what really killed my interest in this film (and movies in general.) Sadly for me, because I've worked in commercials for so long, I've come to expect these kind of decisions.

I wonder what the Robert Rodriguez (the film's first director) version would have been like had that production gone through. I imagine the cost would have been a fraction of this film's budget, and the movie would have been a whole lot of crazy fun. (Hmm...maybe CafeFX would still be around too.) :question:

G.

Dexter2999
03-31-2012, 01:43 PM
I wonder what the Robert Rodriguez (the film's first director) version would have been like had that production gone through. I imagine the cost would have been a fraction of this film's budget, and the movie would have been a whole lot of crazy fun. (Hmm...maybe CafeFX would still be around too.) :question:

G.


Interesting, because Robert Rodriguez would have shot digital. Which means they could have shot the movie using dual cameras. Whereas the movie was shot on film (because the director wanted the experience of shooting film). Then it was made stereoscopic in post and grain was contended with. None of this made the movie any cheaper. That can be certain.

But cost aside, I appreciate the different views people have posted about why they didn't go see the movie.

The only one that struck me wrong was the "I create content. I don't consume it." By extension if you were a cook you wouldn't eat? Or if you were a writer, you wouldn't read? Or a driver, you would never leave home (unless walking or as a passenger...etc...)

I can see part of the argument however, as when I worked in nightclubs, I never went to nightclubs on my days off...much preferred the bookstore.

shrox
03-31-2012, 02:02 PM
...Whereas the movie was shot on film (because the director wanted the experience of shooting film)...

Oh boy! Did the director get the experience of mixing chemicals in a dark room, developing it, color correcting it, editing it and generally wishing the future would finally get here with this thing called a toaster?

Mr Rid
03-31-2012, 02:56 PM
...
Now, in contrast, "Wrath of the Titans" looks FUN. Crazy fun!

Again- bad guys, the chosen one, some girl, explosion (pixel blitzkrieg), we win.

Sequel- more bad guys, the chosen one, some girl (and maybe an offspring), bigger explosion (more pixels flying at camera), we win again.

Dexter2999
03-31-2012, 03:16 PM
Oh boy! Did the director get the experience of mixing chemicals in a dark room, developing it, color correcting it, editing it and generally wishing the future would finally get here with this thing called a toaster?

I will say that I didn't pull that out of a hat. It was in the podcast at fxguidetv. They showed some of the footage and I thought "Huh, if I had seen that shot in the trailer I might have been interested in seeing this."

And as a wannabe director, knowing that film is a dying medium, I'd probably want to make a movie on film while I could. Then again, I wouldn't be making a 3D movie either, especially knowing that the film would work against the process.

shrox
03-31-2012, 03:28 PM
I will say that I didn't pull that out of a hat. It was in the podcast at fxguidetv. They showed some of the footage and I thought "Huh, if I had seen that shot in the trailer I might have been interested in seeing this."

And as a wannabe director, knowing that film is a dying medium, I'd probably want to make a movie on film while I could. Then again, I wouldn't be making a 3D movie either, especially knowing that the film would work against the process.

I am through with film, darkrooms, chemicals, etc. They were important in their time, but such a pain they were. That's why someone made something better and easier. Once you get to enough megapixels it's better...

sandman300
03-31-2012, 04:19 PM
I've seen reviews before that blame the failure on Mars. This one goes on to talk about good movies that didn't do well at the box office.

http://www.awardscircuit.com/tag/box-office-failures/

Serling
03-31-2012, 07:36 PM
I saw it. It wasn't great but it didn't suck, either.

I simply couldn't suspend disbelief because Mars is about as cold and dead as it gets. The other thing that really bothered me is that while a human on Mars would have almost superhuman strength (low-g), he would also be incredibly hamstrung by the oxygen-poor, very thin (and cold) Martian atmosphere. Think Superman gassed after 10 seconds needing a hit off the O2 bottle.

Can't have the good without the bad.

Effects were good, plot twist at end was good. Lynn Collins is major hawtness (I could watch her read a phone book!), but the story - written almost a century ago - had too many holes in it for a modern audience.

Were I grading it, I'd give it a C minus.

jeric_synergy
03-31-2012, 08:43 PM
The title is otherwise very generic (no offense to people who are actually named 'John Carter'.)
The most famous 'person' named John Carter was Noah Wylie's character on "E.R.". Every time he said "I'm John Carter" I expected ", of Virginia."

jeric_synergy
03-31-2012, 08:45 PM
Sequel- more bad guys, the chosen one, some girl (and maybe an offspring), bigger explosion (more pixels flying at camera), we win again.
Maybe so, but the bad guys this time seem be played by balrogs! :D

Also, Perseus seems to do some scrambling in this one. Anyway, better ads than "JC".

VictoryX
04-01-2012, 12:52 AM
I only saw it because I got to go to a free screening of the 3D version at the Disney backlot in Burbank. If it wasn't for that I wouldn't have gone to see it. The trailer looked like a VFX demo reel. Also it reminded me alot of Prince of Persia for some reason which turned me off the movie even more. The movie itself was okay, but I wouldn't suggest anyone go pay to go see the thing or buy the DVD. I can say I was surprised by how much I laughed while watching it, which is nice, but that's still not enough to warrant paying mondey dollars to go see it.

colkai
04-01-2012, 04:06 AM
Couldn't disagree more, for me, enjoying a film that puts a smile on my face consistently means it is more than worth the price of a ticket. I've paid good money for a film with so called "in-depth characters and storyline" which has left me wondering by what definition folks defined storyline. :p
Oh, and not only did I and the wife pay to watch it, we will happily fork out for the DVD too.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 10:42 AM
I plan go to cinema soon to see John Carter...I think in Poland this movie have bad advertising...

Local ticket price info...ticket 3D vesion - 25 zł = 8,07 USD

How it looks in your places?

You guys are getting a 'bargain.' :)

Okay, so this is another reason why we don't go to the movies anymore: it's simply not a good value.

A couple of months ago, we did try to see Tin Tin but when we looked up the ticket prices in Hollywood, the movie cost $18.00 per adult! We passed. Just for kicks, I checked on John Carter tickets this morning and, yup, $18.00 per adult. I figure with popcorn and drinks for two, add another $20. Oh, yeah, there may be a parking fee too.

Granted, that's on the 'high end' (Arclight), but we can think of many ways to spend $56.00 that are lots more entertaining.

G.

Dexter2999
04-01-2012, 11:49 AM
$18 was the 3D price? Just for my own curiosity as in another thread I started last year about 3D tapering off if it was a fad or if economics played a roll.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 12:46 PM
$18 was the 3D price? Just for my own curiosity as in another thread I started last year about 3D tapering off if it was a fad or if economics played a roll.

Yes, $18--at Arclight anyway, which admittedly is a premium theater. Here's the link for Arclight (https://www.arclightcinemas.com/). John Carter isn't playing at the one near us (Hollywood) but it is playing at the one in El Segundo (where I work.)

Just now I took a quick look for John Carter in 3D at local 'mainstream' theaters like AMC, and it doesn't look like it's currently playing in 3D at these theaters. Interesting, considering this would include Burbank where Disney Studios is located. I only spent a minute looking though, which is more time that I care to spend on this. :p

G.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 12:54 PM
BTW, an interesting article about theaters charging a premium for 2D to offset the cost of 3D appeared in Boing Boing this week:

Theaters will charge premium on 2D movies in order to lower the cost of 3D movie tickets (http://boingboing.net/2012/03/24/theaters-will-charge-premium-o.html)

Is that crazy or what? Now I REALLY don't want to go to the movies. :screwy:

G.

Dexter2999
04-01-2012, 02:13 PM
BTW, an interesting article about theaters charging a premium for 2D to offset the cost of 3D appeared in Boing Boing this week:

Theaters will charge premium on 2D movies in order to lower the cost of 3D movie tickets (http://boingboing.net/2012/03/24/theaters-will-charge-premium-o.html)

Is that crazy or what? Now I REALLY don't want to go to the movies. :screwy:

G.

Well, theaters are looking to offset the expense of the 3D glasses. Apparently studios originally ate the cost of the glasses to get the the theaters to install new digital 3D projectors. But more recently, studios have said that they will not continue to supply glasses.

So, exhibitors will either have to charge more for the glasses or find other ways to subsidize the 3D movies. And I don't think anyone is ready to pay over $20 a head to see movies. As was pointed out earlier even current rates add up quickly. Tickets and concessions for a couple can be $50. Imagine a family of four...that is coming close to the cost of basic cable for a month.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 02:53 PM
Well, theaters are looking to offset the expense of the 3D glasses.
Yes, but to penalize customers who don't want to see it in 3D is a bit nuts.

Of course, if you ask the studios why movies are so expensive these days, "It's the pirates be taking yer money, not us. Aaargh!" ;)

G.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 03:02 PM
...even current rates add up quickly. Tickets and concessions for a couple can be $50. Imagine a family of four...that is coming close to the cost of basic cable for a month.
Which I also gave up about 12 years ago when the bill hit around $50 in my area. To be absolutely honest, I don't miss cable TV at all. I still complain about having too little time for my personal art projects but at least TV isn't sucking it away anymore.

G.

Greenlaw
04-01-2012, 03:02 PM
...these forums on the other hand. :p

stiff paper
04-01-2012, 03:09 PM
If you'd asked me 20 years ago, I'd have said this day could never, ever come... but it has. The movie biz has finally used up every last shred of my inbuilt good will towards it.

I seriously think it's possible I might never pay to see a current movie in a movie theater ever again. What a sad, strange feeling that is...

shrox
04-01-2012, 03:21 PM
I don't own a TV. I have a little video player with a 7 inch screen.

Dexter2999
04-01-2012, 03:22 PM
When I was a kid, I'd go the movies nearly every weekend.
Then in college it was more like every other weekend.
After college it got to be more like once a month...then every other month.
Now, I go to the movies maybe six times a year as a max.

The combination of "old age" where I just dislike the aggravation of going out combined with a big screen TV with surround sound in my home... mean I can enjoy many movies without leaving home.

Those few times a year when I do go to the theater it is to see movies that I know need to be seen on a big screen to get the entire impact. Movies like JURASSIC PARK or TRANSFORMERS need to be seen on a big screen. Whereas other movies like SUPERBAD, BRIDESMAIDS, THE HANGOVER, even the TWILIGHT movies are all movies that don't really gain anything from being on a big screen. (Maybe the TWILIGHT movies do, but I can't say for sure because I haven't seen them in theaters.)

JOHN CARTER is very probably one of those movies that should have been seen in theaters. The idea of seeing a giant moving city will most likely lose the sense of enormity and awe when translated to the home cinema.

cresshead
04-01-2012, 03:30 PM
i thought john carter of mars was okay...certainly not worthy of being slammed by so many 'critics'...it lost money...so what..tron did and tron is now held in hi regard.

i'd like to see a sequel or 2...probably not from disney now though...i'd like a more gritty version as a sequel..less glam more grit.

Lightwolf
04-01-2012, 07:03 PM
I suppose for me it's simple to sum up: No interest.
Certainly not in the character or the story (I only heard about the novel when the trailer came out, and I suspect most people outside of the english speaking sphere did as well).
The visual? Well, been there, seen that. The last time I went to the cinema for visuals (not only for them though) was Tron Legacy. And that's because I really wanted to see them on a big screen (unfortunately I saw the stereo version).

Somehow I find myself rather bothering to go out to see a flick for the story/actors/director only - and it's usually movies with no or very little cg generated content (maybe a few matte painting and set extensions).

Probably just me getting old... ;)

Cheers,
Mike

shrox
04-01-2012, 08:14 PM
I am old.

I knew about Burroughs already...

Phil
04-02-2012, 07:51 AM
I will wait for the Rifftrax edition, I think. It looks like prime fodder.

biliousfrog
04-02-2012, 10:04 AM
I've felt extremely disappointed with almost every Sci-Fi film I've seen in recent years and the bigger the budget the more likely it seems that VFX are being used to hide a poor story. Unfortunately you can't even rely on the VFX much of the time, no matter how much money has been spent on them they are often punching above their weight and fall short in some way - compositing being the biggest culprit in my experience.

With John Carter there were several things which put me off.

The trailer itself felt like a kids film. This isn't a bad thing, it's the kind of film I would have loved to watch when I was 8-14 but it wasn't quite tongue-in-cheek enough for me to want to watch it as an adult. My tastes aren't quite at 'half naked muscle-man battling monsters in a pit' level any more.

Obviously this is based on a book from 1912. Often people complain that a film deviates too far from the original story but, in this instance, I think that a film loosely based on themes from the book would have worked better. As has been mentioned, Mars is no longer a mysterious speck in the night sky. Many of the themes from the original book are irrelevant or outdated.

I couldn't see anything new or extraordinary. I felt like I was watching a mashup of the Conan remake, the Star Wars prequals, Avatar and various other Sci-Fi films from the past 10+ years.

The many names and terms used were complex bordering on the ludicrous.

I think that simply showing more of the era in which the film is set in the trailer along with moving the action to another planet could have helped...if only a little bit.

Serling
04-02-2012, 11:22 AM
I think that simply showing more of the era in which the film is set in the trailer along with moving the action to another planet could have helped...if only a little bit.

I agree. Loosely basing the film on the book and updating its antiquated elements for a modern audience would've helped.

Anyone else notice that the flying machines looked like a rip-off from those in Cowboys vs. Aliens?

Yeah, John Carter (couldn't get past the obvious religious overtones in the movie, either: JC? Really.) was a muddled mess of a story.

jeric_synergy
04-02-2012, 02:04 PM
I think it would be ludicrous to try to make "Princess of Mars" scientifically accurate. It's a fantasy. Not even "Raiders of the Lost Arc" was scientifically accurate, and it was set on Earth.

I'd like to see a good Mars movie that involved canals and tragic doomed civilizations. Part 3 could be how "Mars was saved". I'm thinking comets, skyhooks, Phobos captured as an anchor, etc. Hire Kim Stanley Robinson as a consultant.

And with better marketing. >;^D

shrox
04-02-2012, 03:17 PM
How did Carter get to Mars in the movie?

biliousfrog
04-03-2012, 02:03 AM
How did Carter get to Mars in the movie?

A magic amulet or something I think.

colkai
04-03-2012, 05:16 AM
Yep, an amulet, which probably sits better than "dying" all the time.

Qexit
04-03-2012, 06:57 AM
Call me nostalgic but I'd rather watch Jason and the Argonauts. Ray Harryhausen had a signature style, instantly recognisable. Sadly that individual artistry has gone along with the dramatic power and sense of wonder. Harryhausen started out as an actor and it shows in his economy of style: less is more. Hm, actually, he didn't start out as an actor. He famously saw the original King Kong in 1933 when he was 12 or 13 and decided that he wanted to find out how the effects were done and made a career out of it. He built models and animated them in his garage with the help and support of his parents. His father was an engineer who was able to manufacture the armatures he used in his models. Very early on he was fortunate enough to meet and impress Willis O'Brien, the genius behind the animation in King Kong, who became his mentor. O'Brien looked at his models and film work and advised him to study art and anatomy so that his models would be more accurate and believable and to study acting so that he could give them more realistic performances. Everything he did was aimed towards becoming a film animation and special effects person, never an actor.

However, I do agree with you about Ray Harryhausen's very distinctive style. All of his creations had an individual personality on screen which goes a long way towards explaining why they were so memorable. I think the last time I can remember seeing anythng similar in a modern film was way back in Jurassic Park when one of the Raptors was seen to tap its claws impatiently.

ianr
04-03-2012, 09:47 AM
I heard that when Rob Zemekis was asked he said quote ' i think i might pass on this, cos George has pretty much pillaged it already' [smart cookie,him mr.z.]
Also the marketing floundered cos of THREE major staff replacements, nothing sadder than a unloved film in marketing.
It's a shame that it bloated up, cos the front end is very Lucasie.
To rercap, the title who cared? why look at a cheap 60's graphic in red tone ?
All to un-eyegrabbing for the boygamers demographic me feels.
Here my business partner summed it up with new title ' Barzoom- captive between 2 worlds'
Or ' Barzoom- warrior 'tween worlds'
And that reveal didn't cos 100 Mill either!
A great shame,now Apple can buy Disney with their warchest after this sinker.

kopperdrake
04-03-2012, 10:35 AM
Because if you work on movies you get to understand how they're made these days. And as well as understanding how they're made you understand the people that make them these days. And also why they're made these days.

And once you've understood those things, it's pretty much impossible for somebody with reasonable intelligence and any self respect at all to carry on having the same level of respect for movies as before.

Some movies are worth a little respect. Most these days aren't. Most movies these days are flattered by the description "Corporate Product." It makes them sound better than they really are.

That pretty much sums up the nail in the coffin when it came to seeing the latest Sherlock Holmes film. I saw the first, got past my personal distaste at Guy Ritchie's rendition of Mr Holmes, and saw it for the action film it was - nothing great, but nothing offensive.

Then I saw a snatched interview with Guy Ritchie as he walked down the street - the reporter asked why make a second film - standard question. Guy Ritchie, and I'm paraphrasing here, replied something about development of characters and effects, blah blah blah, and ended on a cheeky grin to the camera with "and it'll make me a whole lot of money".

I like getting older - it makes me stick to my ideals more, though my wife calls it 'stubborn' :devil:

Titus
04-03-2012, 11:52 AM
Never felt sucked by the hype, but did go to see John Carter. Haven't read the novel (novels?), didn't know what to expect and felt a little dissapointed and as Mr Rid explained this was the same SW, Dance with wolves, Avatar, monomyth kind of story.

Maybe if you are 5, the story appears as something interesting.

jeric_synergy
04-03-2012, 12:00 PM
Never felt sucked by the hype,.....
That was part of the problem: it was very inferior hype.

LW_Will
04-03-2012, 03:48 PM
The reason the movie died? Marketing. If the market is clearly defined and easy to figure out, maketing wins. Yea, marketing!

If the movie is different (like, oh, say... the source material is 100 frakking years old) or quirky or just a little "off", can't be marketed. (ie, can't hang a bucket out and have tons of money fall into it... see Titanic or Avatar)

The movie? I liked it. Had a great amount of fun. Make no apologies.
The odd thing about Disney "taking a loss" on the film, not so much.
So, they lost $250mil... and will take $250mil+ loss on the film. The loss they would normally take on this film? Around $250mil... if it made cash like Avatar? Hmm... around $250mil+. Lies, damn lies, and Hollywood accounting...

jeric_synergy
04-03-2012, 05:58 PM
Disney seemed AWFUL eager to take that loss, so yeah: chalk it up to the MOST creative people in Hollywood. The accountants.

shrox
04-03-2012, 07:07 PM
Maybe it's the Aspergers, but covering some science details while blowing off the rest always bothers me. Carter can jump high on Mars because of the lower gravity, but that same low gravity means Mars can't retain oxygen for breathing.

Mars movies need spacesuits. Even something like a Victorian diving suit is passable.

dwburman
04-03-2012, 10:55 PM
I actually saw it today. I don't go to movies often, but I had some extra time.

I wasn't familiar with the books, so I didn't have expectations for the story. When I first heard the title I was confusing it with John Connor from the Terminator franchise. It definitely has that old scientifiction feel to the story and has to be taken on those terms, but not everyone can make that mental leap. There are still physics problems even within the world of the film. The guy has trouble walking so he throws a rock in frustration. Somehow, he maintains his balance when throwing the rock, but can't take a few steps?

In a sense if felt like the Chronicles of Riddick for me. It was an epic story, the visuals were striking (though with a muted color palette), and the movie was better than the negative hype.

When the cost of a soda at the concession stand costs more than an on-line HD rental, the "theater experience" just isn't super appealing. And when I'm at home I don't get the mystery guy behind me making various sounds and bumping my seat.

shrox
04-04-2012, 12:56 PM
...When the cost of a soda at the concession stand costs more than an on-line HD rental, the "theater experience" just isn't super appealing. And when I'm at home I don't get the mystery guy behind me making various sounds and bumping my seat.

...or smelling very, very bad.

JCG
04-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Maybe it's the Aspergers, but covering some science details while blowing off the rest always bothers me. Carter can jump high on Mars because of the lower gravity, but that same low gravity means Mars can't retain oxygen for breathing.

Mars movies need spacesuits. Even something like a Victorian diving suit is passable.

In the books, he travels to Mars sort of without his body.

I thought the Chronicles of Riddick was very good except that they did not have time to develop the main villain and everything suffered for that. I would have made it as 2 movies and kept Pitch Black as a prequel, instead of part of the trilogy.

sandman300
04-04-2012, 02:48 PM
I agree that the theaters charge way too much to make it worth it. But that has nothing to do with what movie they're showing. That's why I ended up buying a video projector. Just think backyard movie night. :hey:

Dexter2999
04-04-2012, 03:08 PM
I don't know if I pointed it out here (and I can't be bothered to go look...yeah, I'm that lazy) but there is a chart showing that over the last 10 years ticket sales in theaters are down an average of 250,000 per year. Yet revenues are higher than ever. One can only conclude that movie prices have been "inflated" in order to prop up an industry that is over spending in its efforts to compete with home theater.

The problem is that this inflation compounds the reasons people don't go to the movies and explains the continued decline in ticket sales.

shrox
04-04-2012, 04:01 PM
In the books, he travels to Mars sort of without his body.

I thought the Chronicles of Riddick was very good except that they did not have time to develop the main villain and everything suffered for that. I would have made it as 2 movies and kept Pitch Black as a prequel, instead of part of the trilogy.

Yes, I am familiar with books, I am old remember? In the books he willed himself there, although I don't remember what he expected to find. The aliens just seem like "first generation" aliens I guess, either big bugs or rhinozebra things. Like designs made easier for claymation.

jasonwestmas
04-04-2012, 04:08 PM
was it as boring as wrath of the titans? I think I would have see JC just so I wouldn't have to see WOTT.

jwiede
04-04-2012, 09:45 PM
and Battleship :]
Speaking of soulless cruft that didn't deserve to be made...

"B5?! You sunk my..." <smack> "Waaah!"

...15 years later...

"...and we'll call it 'Battleship' because 'Random Plot Element Soup' is too long! Ya know, B5?! You sunk..." <snikt><thump>

Ernest
04-04-2012, 09:53 PM
I don't know if I pointed it out here (and I can't be bothered to go look...yeah, I'm that lazy) but there is a chart showing that over the last 10 years ticket sales in theaters are down an average of 250,000 per year. Yet revenues are higher than ever. One can only conclude that movie prices have been "inflated" in order to prop up an industry that is over spending in its efforts to compete with home theater.

The problem is that this inflation compounds the reasons people don't go to the movies and explains the continued decline in ticket sales.

"Price your main product out of most people's reach, and the few who are able to afford it will more than compensate for the loss in both profit and loyalty." It became the fashionable model after it made some company the most valuable in America.

jwiede
04-04-2012, 09:58 PM
was it as boring as wrath of the titans?
On the plus side, from the looks of it, WotT will require little editing in its inevitable conversion to theme park ride.

jasonwestmas
04-04-2012, 10:01 PM
On the plus side, from the looks of it, WotT will require little editing in its inevitable conversion to theme park ride.

hahaha! Man I wish it was like a theme park ride, then my heart rate would have went up at least a little bit.

jeric_synergy
04-05-2012, 12:51 AM
".... because 'Random Plot Element Soup' is too long! "
I'm very excited to see 'Random Plot Element Soup'.



:hey:

wesleycorgi
04-05-2012, 04:18 AM
I wanted to see JC because I had read the books and comic books as a kid and I thought my son would enjoy an effects-laden film. But by the time we got around to watch two weeks after release, it had already been pulled from our local theater.

As a father, I tend to enjoy films that I can bring my kids and that are not the same animated morality plays. Wrath of the Titans wasn't high art and was predictable but I thought it was fun. My son loved it because he has read most of the Percy Jackson books and is fascinated with Greek gods — much like how I was reading John Carter when I was his age. And if there had been a JC movie in the 70s/80s, I would have been all over it.

Disney's John Carter can't be as bad as the B-movie "Princess of Mars" that starred Antonio Sabado Jr. and Traci Lords a few years ago? I caught it on cable and I thought WTF?

colkai
04-05-2012, 05:27 AM
Disney's John Carter can't be as bad as the B-movie "Princess of Mars" that starred Antonio Sabado Jr. and Traci Lords a few years ago? I caught it on cable and I thought WTF?

Gawd, not by a long chalk.
I loved it personally and am gutted it was handled so poorly as I would certainly of been inline to watch a sequel.

dickbill
04-06-2012, 10:58 AM
Hi, I am new here but i might come more often. Lost my jobs and try to see if there is a future for me in freelance graphic...

Regarding this topic and like said shrox, to me the scenario for John Carter stopped to be believable and created a cognitive discrepancy since NASA sent its probes in the 70s (Mariners, Vikings, couple of orbiters and of course the Rovers). Then, JC became heroic fantasy and should have been treated as such with no references to real world or historical facts (the civil war?).

Spielberg's Tintin on the other hand was a near prefect adaptation and i consider it a Masterpiece. The historical background was well done and the scenarists avoided a few traps, avoiding to stick to the books too close. But it's still cg-animation and therefore completely consistant with the spirit of Tintin. Bottom line, nobody else than the Speilbergs and Jacksons could have done it that well and the europeans, if they had tried another adaptation, would most likely have used a live set with real characters, like they've done in the past. Not that these european adaptations of Tintin were bad (i've seen them as a kid, i'm french) but Spielberg's version is WAY superior. Hats down to the Tintin team!

Going back to Mars, there is still a potential for good Marsian fiction movies. First, the last 'Red planet' and 'Mission to Mars' were not THAT bad, as opposed to what said bad mouthed critics. The potential resides in an adaptation, again I say 'adaptation', of the Kim Stanley Robinson trilogy that takes place on Mars. It reminded me of Jules Vernes who based his stories on real science. In the KSR trilogy, there is actually almost no fiction, all it's build from today's real science with there is enough material for a TV series, or a first movie, that could, on the long run, build a fan base similar to movies like Star War's.
I say go for Mars again!

jeric_synergy
04-06-2012, 11:35 AM
Hmmm, I think a KSR adaptation would work, IF given a really good framing story. Like, shot from the viewport of a historian living/working in the era of "Blue Mars", interviewing participants of "Red Mars" and "Green Mars".

The fall of the space elevator would be extremely cool to animate. Like a balrog's whip wrapping around the planet.

By framing it that way, you get some relief from "desert desert desert tin-can desert".

dickbill
04-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Hmmm, I think a KSR adaptation would work, IF given a really good framing story. Like, shot from the viewport of a historian living/working in the era of "Blue Mars", interviewing participants of "Red Mars" and "Green Mars".

The fall of the space elevator would be extremely cool to animate. Like a balrog's whip wrapping around the planet.

By framing it that way, you get some relief from "desert desert desert tin-can desert".

I see what you mean. The risk, in a TV serie, is to see the KSR trilogy transformed in 70% nonsense chat within the 'tin can', 20% 'exteriors' in studio and 10% cheap cg. A better way, but more expensive, would be to paint a patch of arizona desert with red latex paint, witch is the way they did for 'red planet' if i recall and it was not too bad. 'Tin cans' (Robert Zubrin's desert station) and biosphere already exists, red filters for the sky... that's possible.

jeric_synergy
04-06-2012, 12:44 PM
Well, I'm mostly thinking story dynamics: KSR's epic is certainly not a pop culture item, it's for the chemistry wonks mostly.

I'd try to keep the chemistry AMAP, but play up the politics and ideology, as that will prevent viewers from going into a coma. That one character, the ANGRY conservationist? She'd be the boogie man of the series. She was, after all, a terrorist.

BUT, by making it 'historical'*, it allows the story to have radically different looks. One of the reasons JC didn't interest me was the SCENERY looked boring.

(*It would make writing it more challenging-- you'd want to keep certain things unsaid. But obviously, the fact that its historical shows the project was a success. The story is in the human cost.)

dickbill
04-06-2012, 02:55 PM
Jeric,
Actually, back to 6-8 years ago, I believe there was some competition between the KSR trilogy and the JCarter proposals. JC won, for the result we now know.
The 'heavy' science in KSR is definitely scarrying producers away. But if the KSR had to be adapted, i wouldn't remove the science, i would just adapt it. A little bit of chemistry, level 6th grader, is actually enough to make sense of the story.
Remember the first 'Jurassic Park' ? the DNA cloning was explained in a cartoon inside the movie to explain the mosquito/amber fossils thing, that was done without distracting too much from the story.

jeric_synergy
04-07-2012, 01:23 AM
If I were King of the World ("paging James Cameron, paging James Cameron"), I'd keep as much of the chemistry as possible, but not at the expense of pacing. But, like John Galt's speech, I think you can skip the pages of chem without too much loss.

A mini-series is a better format for KSR anyway.

IMO, a good "movie book" is usually a pretty thin book. None of KSR is what one would call thin. (We lucked out with LOTR.)

JamesCurtis
04-09-2012, 03:56 PM
I saw John Carter [of Mars] and enjoyed it for what it is.

Still prefer the movie experience.

BTW, for us, in Ohio, movie prices are roughly $8.00 for 3D and $6.50 for 2D per person at Matinee pricing. We never go to movies in the evening. Ican't tell you how many movies we've seen where we've been nearly the only ones in the theater then. Plus, often we get 2 for 1 admission passes for movies on certain days of the week. Also, we bring in our own candy. That does keep prices down.

shrox
04-09-2012, 04:32 PM
...Also, we bring in our own candy. That does keep prices down.

Get a letter from your doctor about your phobia of eating candy that you didn't buy at the store in case you get busted by the theater staff.

DrStrik9
04-09-2012, 05:25 PM
But that reminds me in school working on design projects, when asked by another student what we thought of their work, the joke was to say, "It's cute", a euphemism for it's not quite there.

How about, "That's not half bad." :D

DrStrik9
04-09-2012, 06:05 PM
Also, we bring in our own candy. That does keep prices down.

I was going out to mow the lawn once, and smelled something terribly bad. I checked around, but couldn't find it right away. It was almost as though the smell was following me around. Eventually, I found an old Taco-Bell taco in the pocket of my sweatshirt jacket -- a little left-over prize from sneaking food into the theater a month or so earlier. :D

shrox
04-09-2012, 06:12 PM
I was going out to mow the lawn once, and smelled something terribly bad. I checked around, but couldn't find it right away. It was almost as though the smell was following me around. Eventually, I found an old Taco-Bell taco in the pocket of my sweatshirt jacket -- a little left-over prize from sneaking food into the theater a month or so earlier. :D

Did you eat it? Homer Simpson would have eaten it. Mmmm, old taco...

DrStrik9
04-09-2012, 06:33 PM
Did you eat it? Homer Simpson would have eaten it. Mmmm, old taco...

LOL No, it smelled too much like the other stuff on the lawn. :)

jeric_synergy
04-09-2012, 06:58 PM
A taco??? Or a burrito?

dwburman
04-09-2012, 08:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigHache
But that reminds me in school working on design projects, when asked by another student what we thought of their work, the joke was to say, "It's cute", a euphemism for it's not quite there.
How about, "That's not half bad."


How about, "That's not half bad." :D

The best one I've heard was, "You must be proud." :D

Mr Rid
04-09-2012, 09:04 PM
John Carter is hardly the disaster it is being made out as. I dont know why the media was so quick to trounce on it. Maybe due to 'schadenfreude'- http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/03/john-carter-and-big-budget-schadenfreude-or-how-100m-gross-in-the-first-3-days-gets-instantly-labeled-an-iconic-hollywood-flop/ As reminded here, we dont know the actual budgets.

Golden Compass, a more somber affair, purportedly cost $264mil (prints & ads included), it had a similar weak domestic opening weekend of $26mil, and no one was exactly raving about it with 42% on RT, yet it went on to make $372mil worldwide, plus $42mil on video. So at $264 worldwide to date, JC appears to be headed in a similar range. Hardly Pluto Nash territory- $120mil cost vs $7mil gross, and 6% on RT.

Unlike most certified flops, JC isnt a 'bad' or unpopular movie. There are turning out to be a lot of satisfied fans. Its certainly better than Prince of Persia (zzzzz), the Star Wars prequels(wth?), or the Transformers franchise (why does anyone keep buying tickets to those). So I dont get why all the condemnation. Its not a 'flop.'

KurtF
04-09-2012, 09:25 PM
Thanks for the link Mr. Rid. From that web site, a fan edited trailer that looks much better than anything from Disney:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxeHQY1NuM&feature=player_embedded

sandman300
04-09-2012, 09:28 PM
Also, we bring in our own candy. That does keep prices down.

Back in college I used to bring beer.

Anyone remember this.
http://liquidtelevision.com/video/crazy-daisy-ed-3-of-4/

Dexter2999
04-09-2012, 09:36 PM
Its certainly better than Prince of Persia (zzzzz), the Star Wars prequels(wth?), or the Transformers franchise (why does anyone keep buying tickets to those). So I dont get why all the condemnation. Its not a 'flop.'

The US production company will see around 30% of foreign box office. (They are lucky if they see 50% of domestic box office after exhibitor and distribution take their cut.)

There is still a "window" of $100 million, in production budget, and possibly another $100 million in prints and advertising.

This movie may well be better than some that you mention (ESPECIALLY PRINCE OF PERSIA) but it will be a failure. Then again if you read here:
http://craphound.com/images/harry-potter-net-profits.jpg

HARRY POTTER ORDER OF THE PHOENIX lost money.

And as to WHY people buy tickets to Transformers movies...because if giant fighting robots are ever going to be good it will be on the big screen.

Mr Rid
04-09-2012, 09:57 PM
What I didnt like about the trailer was it was apparent they were stretching believability of the action into cartoon ridiculous, again. Am really tired of the ongoing one-up exaggeration in FX movies for the sake of spectacle, when it too often results in distancing the audience and strains suspension of disbelief. Good action contains strategy and an emotional investment in the fate of characters, not 'look how big that explosion was!' The white apes appear way overcooked at TEN times bigger than in the book, and JC is portrayed as too superhuman, leaping too fast while carrying people and dispatching monsters with ease. By keeping the hero's abilities a little more realistically restricted, awkward, plausible, and vulnerable (key), the human audience relates more. An example that comes to mind is how Superman has difficulty in this scene from an old Fleischer cartoon- http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=OYMynm63A-k#t=453s A 'bullet to the eyeball' (too much in Returns) would have actually hurt him at least a little, then you start to relate more, 'thats gotta hurt!' When he's too super, and its too easy, you dont care because you know his fantastic abilities will stretch to fit whatever is convenient for a contrived plot. Unengaging and predictable.

Ernest
04-09-2012, 10:06 PM
OK, I went.

Some directors are great with images but can't tell a story to save their lives; I'm not a fan of those. I actually came out of the movie thinking that the story was very well told. It's just that the visuals were as bad as expected and I've realized that I can't be a fan of that either, at this point in my life.

At one point the princess said something like, "Come with me to Helium so you can see why it's worth dying for!" We got to Helium and i was like... "i don't see it." The creatures were pretty Delgo-ish. The only good one was the white ape that had a pretty short screen time.

I hated how the jumps looked in Hulk 1 and I still hated them here, where they copied those to the T.

I honestly can't see where all the money went. The costumes were generic and all-around horrible. They really could and should have just rented the leftovers of any desert fantasy wardrobe. The populations were not epically huge in any of the cities. Nothing in the scenery will make me remember this Mars. It's already meshed in my memory with all the deserts of all the straight-to-DVD desert fantasies. There were 2 good actors in the entire film: the princess and the main Thern guy. I'm not saying that they would have made Lawrence Olivier tremble in fear, but they did have screen presence and personality. Everyone else was so bland that they might as well have been doing their first read-through of the script, before hair and makeup.

As I said, I came out thinking that the story was well told, but I couldn't tell you if I still think it or not because i already forgot it.

Titus
04-09-2012, 10:32 PM
Golden Compass, a more somber affair, purportedly cost $264mil (prints & ads included), it had a similar weak domestic opening weekend of $26mil, and no one was exactly raving about it with 42% on RT, yet it went on to make $372mil worldwide, plus $42mil on video. So at $264 worldwide to date, JC appears to be headed in a similar range. '

Golden Compass, I actually liked that movie and was expecting the next part. A money loser, that's a shame but that kind of budgets are really exagerated.

Mr Rid
04-10-2012, 12:10 AM
Golden Compass, I actually liked that movie and was expecting the next part. A money loser, that's a shame but that kind of budgets are really exagerated.

I liked that Compass was a little different, and wanted to see a sequel (my former wife worked on it). But I could have told them it was too much to spend on such an odd tale, and that religious folk would boycott.

Many positive follow up reviews for JC, and 'better than Avatar' comments. "Why John Carter Is Loads Of Fun & You Should Ignore Cynics Who Can't Have Fun At Movies" http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/03/09/why-john-carter-is-loads-of-fun-you-should-ignore-cynics-who-cant-have-fun-at-movies/ Forbes states that on April 2, preorders for the John Carter bluray/dvd was the #1 selling item in Amazon’s Science-Fiction Movie list, #2 in the Action & Adventure and Fantasy Categories, and #13 over all in the Movies & TV. It may pick up more acclaim and cult following on video. Not much merchandising- a few books. 'Take me back to Barsoom' campaign- http://backtobarsoom.com/

Yet to hit Japan on April 13.

Avengers and Brave ought to compensate well for Disney.

erikals
04-10-2012, 05:12 AM
...Good action contains strategy and an emotional investment in the fate of characters, not 'look how big that explosion was!'...
not entirely true, remember we were all teens once...
for a teen a big explosion is well worth the money...
even for a grown up, a new effect can sell the movie, Avatar was somewhat that for me, hey, who liked the story of Avatar anyway...??
one of the reasons the 3rd Transformers movie got such a high rating, the 3D and sound effects...

Mr Rid
04-10-2012, 10:08 AM
not entirely true, remember we were all teens once...
for a teen a big explosion is well worth the money...
even for a grown up, a new effect can sell the movie, Avatar was somewhat that for me, hey, who liked the story of Avatar anyway...??
one of the reasons the 3rd Transformers movie got such a high rating, the 3D and sound effects...

I dont see 35% as a high rating, although theres twice the audience rating at 67%. Revenge of the Fallen has an even more impressive gap in sense with 20% critics and 76% audience. And these bimbos each raked in over a billion.

But if the promise of big FX spectacle is all it takes to lure in the prime teen demographic, then why is Wrath of the Titans sinking? Why did Battle L.A. do so measly? Or why didnt Tron Legacy or JC make a billion where theres even better characters and story? If its just about robot violence, then how come Real Steel made less than John Carter has so far? Or why did Terminator 3 or 4 make half as much as a Transformer? Even Iron Man 1 & 2 each grossed less. For some reason giant robots that morph into cars while mindlessy smashing stuff is magic, even though you just dont give a s*** why anything is happening. I cant even come up with another such vapid action movie, yet that was so popular. Transformers are an anomaly. But then John Carter is also a bit of an anomaly for how poorly it was received in the U.S. Its even faring better overseas than Hunger Games. If JC had the same budget as Games, it would be a resounding success at this point.

Empty flash and noise isnt 'good action' nor is it normally financially successful. If Bay actually made more sentient moviegoers care why things are blowing up, how much more money might Transformers have made? I was bored to death in the first one. For me its like staring at a strobe light while someone blows smoke in your face and screams at you for two hours. After awhile, you just kinda shutdown and go numb. My brother has the same catatonic reaction to mindless sensory overload on screen and we start falling asleep in the middle of aliens toppling a skyscraper. Might as well watch a playlist of controlled demolition clips with expensive pixels whizzing around them. I dont get the mass appeal.

Transformers 3 audience rates 67% on RT and 6.3 in IMDB, while JC rates 70% on RT and 7 on IMDB. So if public opinion is better for JC, why arent sales near the same? Yeah, JC marketing fumbled (Stanton's fault it seems)- maybe should have played up Stanton's credits but then it might have been perceived as a kids movies, but definitely should have associated with the Tarzan creator- then the media began joyously bashing it, even though many critics and most moviegoers like (even love) it just fine. It deserved better treatment.

jasonwestmas
04-10-2012, 10:25 AM
I too am astonished that they continue making transformers movies and not because the story is paper thin. I can't even follow the camera work it's so disconnected from shot to shot that even that isn't enjoyable but frustrating to watch. Good camera work goes a long long way with my eyeballs, mindful and heart felt story needs aside.

jeric_synergy
04-10-2012, 10:33 AM
I can't even follow the camera work it's so disconnected from shot to shot that even that isn't enjoyable but frustrating to watch. Good camera work goes a long long way with my eyeballs, mindful and heart felt story needs aside.

Oh good, it's not just me. :D

As to "explosions RAWK!!!1!", I too disagree. Pure action is boring: I remember just being DISGUSTED at the climatic fisticuffs in a Batman movie (#2?) 'cuz it just didn't make any fracking SENSE.

A good action sequence should be like a well-construced symphony, building up to a big finale.

DrStrik9
04-10-2012, 10:35 AM
My guess is that timing accounts for a lot. When a film is released, competing films, talent fame-arcs, games, toys, social and other media, world events, etc., are in the collective mind, all make a difference.

jasonwestmas
04-10-2012, 10:40 AM
My guess is that timing accounts for a lot. When a film is released, competing films, talent fame-arcs, games, toys, social and other media, world events, etc., are in the collective mind, all make a difference.

That's another thing, is the amount of time that we are allowed to view a certain camera perspecitve/subject. That's what bugged me the most in wrath of the titans, there was no emotional engagement for me because every cut was like a slide show and each cut felt like it was only 2 seconds long with no focus on anything in particular. It was remarkably like a video game rail shooter I would play back in the day. Move along, move along! :D

But man those models and voxel effects were kinda neat.

Dexter2999
04-10-2012, 12:18 PM
IMO REAL STEEL, had lackluster box office results because it wasn't promoted as a Summertime tent-pole release which is a shame because with Hugh Jackman and fighting robots it had the elements it needed to be released in either Summer or at a minimum May (Spring break). A fall release shows little confidence by the studio. The only record breaking box office returns for a fall film that I can recall is HARRY POTTER films and it didn't matter when those were released. I also don't recall a huge promotion campaign for REAL STEEL.

Also, comparisons of JOHN CARTER to TRANSFORMERS is skewed for a couple of reasons.
First, JC is 3D meaning they are earning an extra $3-$5 per ticket sold. Meaning their box office reports indicate fewer people seeing the movie but paying more to see it.
Second, overall attendance has been declining for the last 10 years. The financial crisis is what it is and shows its effects in our discretionary spending.
Third, TRANSFORMERS had a built in audience far outnumbering JC. Sure some people may be familiar with the book...but research has shown only 20% of the population read for recreation. What percentage do you think watched the Transformers cartoon as kids, and played with the toys, and now have families that they will take to see TRANSFORMERS in live action in theaters? What I am getting at is that the translation of a treasured (and long running reinforced) of a childhood memory to live action also asserts itself as a father buying multiple tickets to relive this childhood joy and share it with his children. That is why they are PG-13. The studio knew it wanted a kid friendly movie. (It is also why I find the masturbation and pot humor inappropriate.) JC is also "kid friendly" in rating, but the marketing didn't seem aimed at kids or families and it has nowhere near the mainstream traction as TRANSFORMERS, BATMAN, IRON MAN, or even GREEN LANTERN (now I have to rinse my mouth out.)

I'll stop because I know if stuff gets too wordy people just glaze over and skip it.

Sorry, just had another thought. What percentage of JC box office is 3D screens vs. 2D screens? And what percentage of the Worldwide release is reflected as 2D vs 3D? Is it doing bigger numbers as a lower cost ticket in markets that only show 2D films? Just curious.

Mr Rid
04-10-2012, 03:26 PM
There was a huge promotion for Steel. I suggest that 'unbelievably stupid' is the reason it had a limited audience. Friends and I couldnt endure more than about 20 minutes of dismay (and for free), which is much less than I can say for even a Transformers. Dumb, empty action/FX movies dont normally make Transformer money.

Terminator 4 was a tentpole release, based on a very successful franchise, but again, 'disappointingly mediocre' is why it didnt do that well. Rambunctious robots or explosions wont save a piece of crap.

Cat in the Hat was based on about the most beloved and famous children's character there is, but it was awful and miscast, so it bombed. CG wont save a piece if crap. Being based on a popular source wont save a piece of crap. You have to actually bother to make an engaging movie and market appropriately. Grinch, Horton and Lorax were better executed, therefore they sold more tickets.

Green Lantern or Speed Racer- very popular source for teens/kids, bunch of FX, summer release, but too stupid so they bomb accordingly. Fitting a formula wont save a piece of crap.

Conversely, Inception, Matrix (remarkably R rated), Avatar, Men in Black, Jurassic Park, or Pixar movies were not based on known properties, but they were very well made and marketed, and so they made crazy money. If they were crappy, then they wouldnt do so hot.



First, JC is 3D meaning they are earning an extra $3-$5 per ticket sold. Meaning their box office reports indicate fewer people seeing the movie but paying more to see it..
I dont see how that affects total gross.



Second, overall attendance has been declining for the last 10 years. The financial crisis is what it is and shows its effects in our discretionary spending..

Bread and circuses are the last things people give up in a depressing economic slump. The economy has not really affected total grosses- http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/ Notice the drop in total tickets sold for 2011 is equal to 1994 where total gross was half of 2011. Unfortunately they dont list worldwide yearly totals. The sagging economy wont prevent a good piece of well-marketed escapism from grossing about the same as a similar type release before 2009. The economy isnt holding back Hunger Games or JC foreign, and hasnt affected Transformers steady attendance levels.

I can only guess that Transformers fans are just really fanatical about them. The toys/toons were much bigger than Barsoom. But I honestly dont know a single person that was into Transformers as a kid. Yet I have several friends who read the John Carter books in high school.

erikals
04-10-2012, 05:33 PM
...then why is Wrath of the Titans sinking?
crap trailer and marketing?

Why did Battle L.A. do so measly?
can't even remember that movie, even less the VFX...
trailer sucked too...

...why didn't Tron Legacy or JC make a billion where there's even better characters and story?
hard to say, again, trailers do a lot, the Tron trailer was good i think, the JC trailer, not so much... not surprised at the bad income of JC, but Tron L,... not sure really... the lead roles' bad acting?


If its just about robot violence, then how come Real Steel made less than John Carter has so far?
well, Real Steel ain't exactly Transformers vfx...

Or why did Terminator 3 or 4 make half as much as a Transformer?
not sure,... but both were kinda boring, both vfx vise and story.
T4 got close to become something, but fell here and there...

Even Iron Man 1 & 2 each grossed less. For some reason giant robots that morph into cars while mindlessly smashing stuff is magic, even though you just don't give a s*** why anything is happening. I cant even come up with another such vapid action movie, yet that was so popular.
:] yep :]

...Transformers... For me its like staring at a strobe light while someone blows smoke in your face and screams at you for two hours. After awhile, you just kinda shutdown and go numb.
agree, can't find any other reason than the VFX and the chick\s...

Transformers 3 audience rates 67% on RT and 6.3 in IMDB, while JC rates 70% on RT and 7 on IMDB. So if public opinion is better for JC, why aren't sales near the same? Yeah, JC marketing fumbled (Stanton's fault it seems) < yup, but also people have seen it all before, a walking alien, an alien dog,.... nothing special vfx vise... not that great rendered aliens either imo...

jasonwestmas
04-10-2012, 05:49 PM
"...then why is Wrath of the Titans sinking?
crap trailer and marketing?"

Nah, just crap. :D

Titus
04-10-2012, 07:16 PM
Real Steel had a wrong promotion IMO. I refused to watch it, for me it was only a violent film not suited for my kids, when the DVD came out gave it a try and really liked it.

DigitalSorcery8
04-10-2012, 07:40 PM
HARRY POTTER ORDER OF THE PHOENIX lost money.
I would say that it's more about "creative accounting" than anything else.

And I certainly do NOT trust accountants in the motion picture industry. :2guns:

Ernest
04-10-2012, 08:30 PM
hey, who liked the story of Avatar anyway...??
TONS of people!
In the theater I went to, every single person over 50 that I could see was in tears by the end.



I too am astonished that they continue making transformers movies and not because the story is paper thin. I can't even follow the camera work it's so disconnected from shot to shot that even that isn't enjoyable but frustrating to watch.
It gets better! By the third movie the camera work is actually good. You can even tell who's who, and what is happening.



Golden Compass, I actually liked that movie and was expecting the next part. A money loser, that's a shame but that kind of budgets are really exagerated. That was a totally different case. That actually had a good story and unique memorable visuals. The armored bear posters are the kind of images that stick in your mind forever. There was just a big scandal that the book was written specifically to try to destroy religion, and many families did not go see it because of that.



for a teen a big explosion is well worth the money...
Only if it can be sold as the biggest explosion ev4r. Otherwise, it can't carry a movie.
Every single person in the world will tune in to see the first rocket launch to the moon. A few astronomy aficionados will tune in to see the 4th.
Transformers was effectively sold as a historical landmark in VFX.



...then why is Wrath of the Titans sinking?
Because Clash of the Titans.


Why did Battle L.A. do so measly?
Lost footage "look" only works when they can convince the audience that it is really lost footage.



If its just about robot violence, then how come Real Steel made less than John Carter has so far?
Robots look cute and are controlled by a kid. The kind of audience that enjoys giant fighting robots would not be caught dead watching this.
Also, the transformers are considerably taller.
PS: Why didn't they use Evangeline Lilly? It made no sense at all that the kid would be an electromechanical genius. There was nothing to justify that. And they had E.L. who was 100% justified as an electromechanical genius and... they kick her off screen and give her job to the kid?
And... she could have been on-screen!



Or why did Terminator 3 or 4 make half as much as a Transformer?
Because the story and universe of Terminator 1 & 2 were actually considered "respectable." It's OK to make the transformers campy but fans resent it when stories with the promise of T1 & 2 get ruined.
Watch out Prometheus!


But I honestly dont know a single person that was into Transformers as a kid.
There was a period of about 3 years during which there were only 2 toys that boys would play with: transformers and Gi-Joe dolls. Really. Nothing else. And this was a period between Atari and Nintendo in which there was almost 0 video gaming. (I don't count balls and sports equipment as "toys").



Transformers 3 audience rates 67% on RT and 6.3 in IMDB, while JC rates 70% on RT and 7 on IMDB. So if public opinion is better for JC, why aren't sales near the same? The general public tends to rate rate movies based on their story, not the overall experience, and JC's story was considerably better.

erikals
04-11-2012, 05:16 AM
hey, who liked the story of Avatar anyway...??


TONS of people!
In the theater I went to, every single person over 50 that I could see was in tears by the end.

hm, soft hearts i guess, with acting like that...
but hey, people liked Dragonheart too...

(having said this though, i really liked the experience)
 

jasonwestmas
04-11-2012, 08:49 AM
hm, soft hearts i guess, with acting like that...
but hey, people liked Dragonheart too...

(having said this though, i really liked the experience)


yep, I'm still a fan of awesome cg, no matter how bored I get with the plot.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2012, 09:05 AM
(having said this though, i really liked the experience)
 
::eyeroll:: People sure like to bash Cameron's plots. I bet he cries all the way to the bank.

jasonwestmas
04-11-2012, 09:15 AM
::eyeroll:: People sure like to bash Cameron's plots. I bet he cries all the way to the bank.

You think he does this for money? hehe. Anyway, I don't dislike all of cameron's plots but some times they do make my eyes go to the back of my skull.

I do think that it is wise however to make a movie that is less financial risk to fund an idea that is more risky business.

erikals
04-11-2012, 10:36 AM
::eyeroll:: People sure like to bash Cameron's plots. I bet he cries all the way to the bank.

what's up with the eyeroll?
how is bashing one Avatar movie bashing Cameron's plots?
(i'm just waiting for a silly answer like "i didn't say that...")

jeric_synergy
04-11-2012, 02:46 PM
Maybe I'm conflating this w/other current events on other forums, but plenty of people also hated "Titanic". Which I thought was fine. Same as I found "Avatar" fine.

shrox
04-11-2012, 02:55 PM
hey, who liked the story of Avatar anyway...??


TONS of people!
In the theater I went to, every single person over 50 that I could see was in tears by the end.

Hippies. Tree huggers.

jeric_synergy
04-11-2012, 03:51 PM
It's a demographic. Heck, here in the PNW, it's THE demographic.

Dexter2999
04-11-2012, 04:03 PM
I have no doubt that demographic plays a roll. But I think movies have reached the point where they have found that $250 million in eye candy is the "tipping point" where they hit the law of diminishing returns...and it is in fact very difficult to make a profit or even break even.

Not to say a movie CAN'T make even more money, but it would be the exception rather than the rule.

Ernest
04-12-2012, 06:11 PM
Hippies. Tree huggers.

I don't know if you were joking or serious but, from my very unscientific post-movie survey, they were not crying for the characters, they were crying for "the world that we had when we were young and now it's all gone" and "we had all that beauty that Pandora has right here" and stuff like that.

shrox
04-13-2012, 01:32 PM
I don't know if you were joking or serious but, from my very unscientific post-movie survey, they were not crying for the characters, they were crying for "the world that we had when we were young and now it's all gone" and "we had all that beauty that Pandora has right here" and stuff like that.

My sister (hippy) cried. I thought Avatar was...meh. Sigourney Weaver's avatar looked like a lemur.

jasonwestmas
04-13-2012, 03:07 PM
I don't have to watch a movie to make myself feel sad, that's for sure ^.^

Dexter2999
04-13-2012, 03:38 PM
I don't have to watch a movie to make myself feel sad, that's for sure ^.^

Just watch the news.

erikals
04-13-2012, 03:56 PM
ditto that...

DigitalSorcery8
04-13-2012, 04:18 PM
Unfortunately.