- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 'John Carter' goes down as one of the biggest flops in history ($200M loss)
Posted on 3/20/12 at 8:28 pm to Thracken13
Posted on 3/20/12 at 8:28 pm to Thracken13
quote:
a great script, great director, and great acting
Those generally cost a lot of money too. Unless you discover one of them...
0
Posted on 3/20/12 at 8:28 pm to Freauxzen
quote:
To be specific it's adventure pulp in a science fiction setting.
Which means if it is good it can be a cult classic in future years something that could never happen if it were financially successful.
I haven't watched a single movie in the theater all last year and have kinda given up on it. So it's not my fault John Carter flopped but all of you! Not you as in you you but you know everyone else but me.
Posted on 3/20/12 at 8:58 pm to Thracken13
quote:quote:
Making great movies is less about how much money you throw at them, and more about having a great script, great director, and great acting
this times 10000
No one is debating that.
And John Carter does a pretty good job at all three.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:52 am to rickgrimes
I honestly don't get the hate this movie has received. I saw it, and found it to be pretty good.
Someone explain the following issues to me:
1)It cost $250 million... so what? I absolutely don't understand why this is an issue at all.
2) It doesn't have a star in the leading role... again, so what? What was Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill before Star Wars?
3) The title change... to an extent, I agree here; but the truth is John Carter is really known more for the 'overall title'; the John Carter, Warlord of Mars series (and that's not actually a real title either). The actual title of the book was "A Princess of Mars", and while that was exotic a hundred years ago, now it sorta sounds like something on the Disney Channel for the Hannah Montana crowd.
I just was a bit taken aback by the hostility directed at this film, especially before it was even released. I wanted it to be good, because I knew and liked the source material; and I did enjoy the movie. It's SUPPOSED to be fairly light and fanciful. The books were never like Lord of the Rings where there is a deep brooding storyline, JC is much more like Conan, another early, iconic hero who always wins.
Someone explain the following issues to me:
1)It cost $250 million... so what? I absolutely don't understand why this is an issue at all.
2) It doesn't have a star in the leading role... again, so what? What was Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill before Star Wars?
3) The title change... to an extent, I agree here; but the truth is John Carter is really known more for the 'overall title'; the John Carter, Warlord of Mars series (and that's not actually a real title either). The actual title of the book was "A Princess of Mars", and while that was exotic a hundred years ago, now it sorta sounds like something on the Disney Channel for the Hannah Montana crowd.
I just was a bit taken aback by the hostility directed at this film, especially before it was even released. I wanted it to be good, because I knew and liked the source material; and I did enjoy the movie. It's SUPPOSED to be fairly light and fanciful. The books were never like Lord of the Rings where there is a deep brooding storyline, JC is much more like Conan, another early, iconic hero who always wins.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:57 am to Scoob
Well said.
I mean really, has anyone who has actually seen this film actually said it totally sucked? There are far worse films, and many more films who you can cheer when they fail. Not this one.
I mean really, has anyone who has actually seen this film actually said it totally sucked? There are far worse films, and many more films who you can cheer when they fail. Not this one.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 11:01 am to Scoob
quote:
I honestly don't get the hate this movie has received. I saw it, and found it to be pretty good.
Agree. I enjoyed it but then I have always enjoyed a good science fiction story and John Carter definitely qualifies.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 12:20 pm to Scoob
quote:
1)It cost $250 million... so what? I absolutely don't understand why this is an issue at all.
that's why its a massive flop. If it cost 75M it would not be a flop.
quote:
2) It doesn't have a star in the leading role... again, so what? What was Harrison Ford or Mark Hamill before Star Wars?
If you are going to risk so much money on a movie, its pretty stupid to have no bankable star in the movie. I think people are offering this as reason it flopped, not that they care or want to see big stars.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 3:18 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
only a few guys can handle a super budget movie well
Billy Walsh comes to mind.
Posted on 3/21/12 at 10:56 pm to Scoob
quote:
I just was a bit taken aback by the hostility directed at this film, especially before it was even released.
There are people that love to see Disney fail.
There are people that love to see Hollywood fail.
When early reports show that any movie might have a problem finding an audience, the blood is in the water and the press will jump all over it.
Posted on 3/22/12 at 12:02 am to Fewer Kilometers
I saw it and thought it was pretty good. Not awesome but not terrible.
It had a unique plot and storyline which I think why it was pretty good.
It had a unique plot and storyline which I think why it was pretty good.
Posted on 3/23/12 at 4:07 pm to tsmi136
The reason it flopped is because no one has ever heard of John Carter. Is he supposed to be some kind of hero or something? the name John Carter is not a very heroic name. John Carter sounds like the guy who works on your car not a super hero battling aliens on Mars. Also everyone knows they dont have shite on mars but red dust. they should have changed the planet
Posted on 3/23/12 at 7:25 pm to LSU Rules07
quote:
Also everyone knows they dont have shite on mars but red dust. they should have changed the planet
You're an idiot.
Seriously.
Posted on 3/23/12 at 8:34 pm to CocomoLSU
quote:
Sometimes that doesn't: See the bore that was Cowboys and Aliens.
I enjoyed the hell out of Cowboys and Aliens
Posted on 3/24/12 at 12:00 am to Fewer Kilometers
quote:
Also everyone knows they dont have shite on mars but red dust. they should have changed the planet
You're an idiot.
Seriously.
Guess I'm and idiot too cause I was thinking kind of the same thing. In the early 20th century, stories about people/civilizations on the moon or Mars made sense, but really don't now in that sense. I know its pure fantasy, but it doesn't work with out some level of verisimilitude.
Posted on 3/24/12 at 12:38 am to rickgrimes
Stallone and Denzel are set to star in the sequel "Get Coach John Carter".
Posted on 3/24/12 at 9:49 pm to H-Town Tiger
quote:
quote:
1)It cost $250 million... so what? I absolutely don't understand why this is an issue at allquote:
that's why its a massive flop. If it cost 75M it would not be a flop.
it didn't cost ME any more money than any other movie did. Nobody's starving because it cost money to make this movie. So the studio paid handsomely for development and artists, so what?
The marketing was horrible; as plenty of people have said, they were unfamiliar with the story so they didn't know what to make of it. It clearly would have benefited from hyping the "by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan" angle, and whoever decided to neglect that should be fired for incompetency.
It is what the books were- classic romantic escapism fantasy. Not high-brow intellectualism or morality play, just simply "what I would REALLY want to do if I could...". Go to another world, be the most badass dude, and bag the hot princess along the way.
I tend to dislike Disney on principles as much as anyone else, but I felt like they left it adventurous and violent enough to be acceptable.
Maybe I'm just a throwback to another time, but I'm ok with the "it's not scientifically plausible" part. Not every bit of escapist fiction needs to be painstakingly constructed in such a way that everything is totally possible; I'm OK with John Carter kicking arse on a Mars with hot chicks and green 4 armed aliens (also ok, btw, with "the Force" not having some cellular mutation giving Darth Vader the ability to choke dumbasses without spilling his beer either, but that's another rant).
Taken for what the story is meant to be- a big, fantastic, fun ride without any basis in truth- I think the movie was plenty good enough to chow down on popcorn and relax.
Page 7 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News