So whats the beef with this movie? i actually liked it

so whats the beef with this movie? i actually liked it

Attached: Taylor-Kitsch-in-John-Carter-2012-Movie-Image-600x399.jpg (1200x800, 137K)

I dunno, it was alright I guess, didn't make much sense though. Think the main problem was it just cost ten times too much to make.

no beef,
It was unsuccessful because is it was a big budget movie using an IP that's already been ripped off/referenced by Star Wars and other fantasy ScFi to the point that nothing was new and it didn't have any marketing

disney rarely makes flops
this and lone ranger stand out
if it was another studio it wouldn't be as noted

It's kino. Massive plot because it was a very expensive film that barely got marketed.
I liked the 2016 Tarzan too, it's poorly directed but has some soul.

>and it didn't have any marketing
it didn't have any marketing because test marketing returned negative results. as test marketing is how marketers determine what to market and what not to market.

I liked it. Not sure why it bombed but we may just be in the Era of Capeshit where anything other than superheroes gets the snub by the kiddies.

It flopped because of the marketing, not because it was bad. I actually quite liked it, though I have no clue how faithful it was to the source material. The fact that is serves as an informal Rome reunion is an added bonus.

disney has tons of flops. they just don't market them. a wrinkle in time, good dinosaur, BFG, pete's dragon, the nutcracker, etc.

The source material is more revealing.

Attached: fz029.jpg (871x1071, 149K)

i loved attack of the clones

I think the title was terrible. Calling it John Carter tells you nothing about the film. If they'd named it The Princess of Mars after the book it was based on and played up the Victorian, retro future steam punk angle in marketing people might have been intrigued by the concept. Instead it was just an undefined scifi action flick that the public shrugged at.

I actually enjoyed the film though. Its not a classic or anything but it was fun, which is more than you can say of most of the shit Hollywood cranks out these days.

Attached: Troy Mcclure Stars In......png (608x464, 367K)

it flopped, like was mentioned, because it was a faithful adaptation of a piece of proto-fiction that has been ripped off and improved upon by basically every bit of fiction made sense. as it is, essentially, tarzan goes to mars. as it was written by a guy who was sick of writing tarzan books, but ended up not being able to write anything else.

extremely bland and generic, horrible rushed ending subplot

there's only two kinds of people when it comes to steampunk. those who love it and those who think its fucking stupid. 99.9% of people fall into the latter category.

the antagonists being a group of literal space jews also didn't help it. not to mention the fact deja wore clothes and didn't have .2g CGI breast physics.

Definition of a meh forgettable movie. Seemed like they spent money on it but none of the characters were that interesting.

What happened is the Disney exec who championed the project left and the guy who replaced him didn't believe in it so they just let it flop

The girl they cast for the princess was kind of a mistake. Carter had more chemistry with the four armed chick than her.

>those who love it and those who think its fucking stupid. 99.9% of people fall into the latter category.

I wouldn't go that far. I think the people who LARP at steampunk conventions are weird but I like retro futurism as an aesthetic although I prefer early 20th century to late 19th. Pic related.

Attached: Rocketeer.jpg (1000x1363, 211K)

>I think the title was terrible. Calling it John Carter tells you nothing about the film. If they'd named it The Princess of Mars after the book it was based on and played up the Victorian, retro future steam punk angle in marketing people might have been intrigued by the concept. Instead it was just an undefined scifi action flick that the public shrugged at.

I've heard that the reason they called it JOHN CARTER and didn't mention Mars was because "Mars Needs Moms" was a recent flop, so the (((executives))) in their endless wisdom decided that "all movies with 'MARS' in the title will flop this year".

I always new that Disney just ripsoff AOTC arena fight.

Attached: obiwan-acklay-1536x864-393998466106.jpg (1536x864, 295K)

before the martian, every movie that mentions mars in the title had flopped.

but changing the name wouldn't have put asses in seats, as it was a plodding mess of a movie.

>qt princess
>based Rome cast
Purest kino

Attached: e10147968ef9ef99d8bddc0cae9d6d61.jpg (735x1086, 94K)

Dejah Thoris wasnt naked enough

RIP in peace, Frank.

Disney genuinely didn't bother advertising it. Check out John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood, it goes into proper detail about just exactly how fucking little effort they put into advertising it. There were fan made trailers before the release that were ten times better than any single official advert. Fucking embarrassing behaviour from Disney.

Tl;Dr is right

As others have said, the marketing. But before watching it I didn't even know it was based on the books. Also, execs had some weird hangup with the word 'Mars'
If they had angled it as based on the quintessential sci-fi book then it could have been interesting

you do know disney test markets literally everything out the ass, right?

the issue is it isn't the quintessential sci-fi book, it's the prototype sci-fi book. a prototype that's been improved upon by most every book/movie since.

they were trying to go the source of sci-fi to get a sci-fi franchise going. Which was a mistake on every level as that's not how you make something new.