TAG TEAM REVIEW: JOHN CARTER - Page 10

The only problem I could imagine is if Disney were somehow held responsible for kids rushing to the Googles and typing in 'Dejah' (not like they could spell it). Because thats what I just did. And I like what I see.

Did anyone see Devin's short piece about this cover... and then the covers for the new blu-ray release of the Spider-man trilogy?  Hoooooboy...

Those are very disappointing. 

'Disney Priveleges'

lol

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcnooj82 

Did anyone see Devin's short piece about this cover... and then the covers for the new blu-ray release of the Spider-man trilogy?  Hoooooboy...

Didn't see Devin's piece, but those SPIDER MAN covers are the most hideous thing I've ever seen for a major movie's DVD/blu.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Judas Booth 

Can someone post those Spiderman covers?

You can see them here: http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/02/john-carter-vs-spider-man-trilogy-who-has-the-worst-blu-cover/

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

When you put it in that context, the cover looks RADICAL!!!  GNARLY!!!

I hope you don't mind, but I tried to make it more appropriate to the time period (2nd one might be too far back...)

Nice! I almost went with black & white as a possibility, but it seemed to defeat the purpose.

There's also Michael Whelan's version of A Princess of Mars and of course, Frazetta's.  Either one of these could have easily been tweaked.  And there's also artists like Justin Sweet, Gregory Manchess, Adam Hughes, just to name a few.  These guys (and others who i didn't name), would've done an AMAZING job creating art that'd been perfect for the packaging.  That current packaging does not do the contents justice.  

Honestly, John Carter could be used as a textbook case of how to fuck up a films marketing. You had this wealth of imagry to draw from and you don't use any of it.

I don't care the reasons or who was to blame, but someone deserves the fucking sack for how badly the balls been dropped on this. I'm actually almost embarrassed for Dusney for fucks sake.

The lady who was coordinating the marketing effort at Disney has already resigned, though. They're not gonna fire Stanton, I don't imagine - hopefully, they just let him keep making movies while he stays the fuck away from the marketing department.

Keep making PIXAR movies, anyways.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Honestly, John Carter could be used as a textbook case of how to fuck up a films marketing. You had this wealth of imagry to draw from and you don't use any of it.

 

I don't care the reasons or who was to blame, but someone deserves the fucking sack for how badly the balls been dropped on this. I'm actually almost embarrassed for Dusney for fucks sake.

I've been thinking the same thing ever since I heard they were just calling it "John Carter" ...and then on top of it, they fuck up the graphic imagery in the posters and now the DVD covers. WTF!

I'd be dying to see what sort of marketing/advertising they came up with that got shot down by the 'suits' at Dizney

I can only hope we get someone that worked  behind the scenes to spill their guts and point fingers at who was ultimately responsible.

edit - just saw this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/comic-riffs/post/the-rant-john-carters-massive-fallout-whos-to-blame-for-disneys-200-million-bomb/2012/03/19/gIQAOKf6VS_blog.html

...and this-

The Inside Story of How John Carter Was Doomed by Its First Trailer

edit to add-

-it would seem that Stanton is partially to blame for the lackluster trailers

In all honestly I'm much keener to read the eventual insider behind-the-scenes 'what went wrong' book that will no doubt be written than I am to see the picture itself.

It doesn't sound like anything really "went wrong!" with this movie. It was marketed poorly, and was perhaps misconceived from the beginning in terms of its potential financial success as a project, and so it had a poor box office showing. There were no major conflicts of interest behind the scenes, as every interview demonstrates -- Disney gave Stanton pretty much free reign.

The point is that John Carter's getting a lot of stink on it that it doesn't deserve. Everyone's piling on a quite strong film due to strong industry prejudice against the "blockbuster flop." We're all above that shit, I think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

It was marketed poorly, and was perhaps misconceived from the beginning in terms of its potential financial success as a project, and so it had a poor box office showing.

I definitely think it was ill-conceived from the get-go as far as what the selling point was and how much money to spend on it. CARTER is based on books that only the nerdiest of the nerds are rabid fans of, and was always going to seem conceptually tired because the source material is so old and influential. This project needed to be relatively cheap or it needed to think far outside the box -- which I know Stanton was not interested in. HUNGER GAMES was the exact opposite, having white hot source material and being a completely fresh concept for the average American who never tracked down a bootleg or foreign region DVD of BATTLE ROYALE. And they spent under $100 mil on it. 

CARTER needed to be a HELLBOY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

It doesn't sound like anything really "went wrong!" with this movie. It was marketed poorly, and was perhaps misconceived from the beginning in terms of its potential financial success as a project, and so it had a poor box office showing. There were no major conflicts of interest behind the scenes, as every interview demonstrates -- Disney gave Stanton pretty much free reign.

Well, that's what went wrong.

The guy's doing his first live-action movie, and they give him free reign? That's a license to lose money.

Other than James Cameron, I am waiting for the one filmmaker who responded positively in a creative manner to "free reign." Chris Nolan on "Inception" maybe comes the closest.

For once in this thread, we are on the same page Gabe. Stanton could have made three FINDING NEMOS and I still don't think he should have gotten bottomless-pocket free reign for his first live action film.

More than anything that 'went wrong,' I wanna hear the people involved eventually talk openly and honestly about the production from their own points of view.  That includes the lies.  Stanton's use of the reshooting process, how much he was involved with the direction of the marketing, etc...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

For once in this thread, we are on the same page Gabe. Stanton could have made three FINDING NEMOS and I still don't think he should have gotten bottomless-pocket free reign for his first live action film.

I'm confident that JC is good precisely because it wasn't a committee-managed Disney groupthink project. Give me a movie conceived and engendered by a single passionate creative brain over a too-many-cooks, common denominator pander-fest any day. The last thing wrong with John Carter is that it was the product of one guy's vision, and not one mitigated by dozens of competing interests. In fact, fuck that whole notion.

*grammarnazi* Free rein. /*grammarnazi*

Spielberg got all the money and all the time he wanted after Jaws was a smash, and he turned in Close Encounters. But then he got carte blanche again and made 1941. So now we hope for an "I'll be good" follow-up effort from Stanton, which comes in on time and under budget. They can't all be Raiders but hey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hammerhead 

*grammarnazi* Free rein. /*grammarnazi*

Really? Then again, both sort of work. Weird. *googles*

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

For once in this thread, we are on the same page Gabe. Stanton could have made three FINDING NEMOS and I still don't think he should have gotten bottomless-pocket free reign for his first live action film.

That's the kinda thing I'd love to see a book encompass, the entire behind the secens at Disney of what went on, just how much sway Pizars kids have within the mouse house and what that's done to the overall balance of power in the company - and what this flop will do to it as well.

Get someone like Bill Carter in there to get all the dirt and lay it out. It'd be fascinating stuff methinks.

The weird thing about CARTER though is that it feels like a committee movie. I kind of think Stanton second-guessed himself a lot. Or something. I don't know. It doesn't feel like a wild one-man vision to me.

In any case. I do think there is a difference between a filmmaker being given free REIN creatively and given free rein financially. CARTER sounds like it had a somewhat deplorable level of $ wasting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

The weird thing about CARTER though is that it feels like a committee movie. I kind of think Stanton second-guessed himself a lot. Or something. I don't know. It doesn't feel like a wild one-man vision to me.

Maybe at days end, Stanton just isn't all that imaginative?

Time will tell. We can't forget that PIXAR is filmmaking by committee. Famously so. They have a 'brain trust.' Stanton may in fact need people tossing in their two cents.

Maybe it had a deplorable level of money wasting, but I don't really care about that. To me, it's not exactly a movie of some unique singular vision driven by a brilliant auteur, either. It's one guy trying to make a broadly appealing blockbuster with a soul, and a respect for some really innovative source material, and a certain original approach that is rarely seen. To me, he succeeds, and vastly surpasses any derivative Hunger Games or Wrath of the Titans nonsense we're getting these days. There's a passion behind it that can only be the product of one guy's artistic commitment. It shows through.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Maybe it had a deplorable level of money wasting, but I don't really care about that. To me, it's not exactly a movie of some unique singular vision driven by a brilliant auteur, either. It's one guy trying to make a broadly appealing blockbuster with a soul, and a respect for some really innovative source material, and a certain original approach that is rarely seen. To me, he succeeds, and vastly surpasses any derivative Hunger Games or Wrath of the Titans nonsense we're getting these days. There's a passion behind it that can only be the product of one guy's artistic commitment. It shows through.

Whether true or not tho, that aint what it'll be remembered for. Hell it's going to be a punchline now to rival Heavens Gate. "Doing a John Carter"

That New Yorker piece on Stanton went into something I found really interesting. 

On Finding Nemo, Stanton originally wanted the origins of Marlin's anxieties about Nemo to be parsed out gradually as the film went on.  It was through the 'Pixar process' that the film eventually laid all of that out in the opening of the first act. 

With the Warhoon/Family Burial montage, it seems like Stanton has been wanting to relieve that artistic itch for a while and brought it over to John Carter.  This time, he didn't have that constant Pixar pipeline to reign in his impulses. 

Maybe Joshua is right and Stanton needs that committee.  But his point about the deplorable amount of money definitely feels true.

And even in reading about Stanton's comments about the title change, it does seem like he was second-guessing himself and defanged his own movie by being too preoccupied with the worst.  It's an impulse I understand, but it's a shame if that was what ended up handicapping his approach to the film.

Keep in mind, I really kinda loved the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Whether true or not tho, that aint what it'll be remembered for. Hell it's going to be a punchline now to rival Heavens Gate. "Doing a John Carter"

Since when do you care what a movie will be remembered for? We're talking about the actual film, not making some estimates about what its cultural cache will be amongst movie geeks 20 years from now. If that's the discussion then I agree, it's probably about "damn terrible" or so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Whether true or not tho, that aint what it'll be remembered for. Hell it's going to be a punchline now to rival Heavens Gate. "Doing a John Carter"

"What the hell's a John Carter?  John Carter of wha?"

"Sorry... I tried to start something and it got away from me."

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

 

Since when do you care what a movie will be remembered for? We're talking about the actual film, not making some estimates about what its cultural cache will be amongst movie geeks 20 years from now. If that's the discussion then I agree, it's probably about "damn terrible" or so.

Well it's nice to imagine Hollywood as some artistic utopia free of the shackles of the capitalist world, but at a certain point one has to acknowledge Hollywood is a business first, leading the art around by the nose like some prize bull. I'm not saying films shouldn't be judged soley on their artistic merit, but when business plays such an all encompassing role that it effects that art directly and constantly, it's at least worth acknowledging contextually.

Look, the support for the whole by-committee filmmaking process is pretty distressing here. Does anybody seriously believe that's the way to make movies? And more seriously, does anybody believe this is the movie that calls that entire basic notion of film artistry into question, especially when we have shit like Wrath in theaters right now? Like I said, it's just prejudice against the blockbuster flop building up and turning this into a conversation piece, rather than a movie that stands on its own merits. If anything, I pity Stanton for the fact that the achievements of his film were lost in the industry publicity machine, which is too eager to assign labels and precedents to movies, usually to build the pretense of expertise amongst those who have none.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Look, the support for the whole by-committee filmmaking process is pretty distressing here. Does anybody seriously believe that's the way to make movies? And more seriously, does anybody believe this is the movie that calls that entire basic notion of film artistry into question, especially when we have shit like Wrath in theaters right now? Like I said, it's just prejudice against the blockbuster flop building up and turning this into a conversation piece, rather than a movie that stands on its own merits. If anything, I pity Stanton for the fact that the achievements of his film were lost in the industry publicity machine, which is too eager to assign labels and precedents to movies, usually to build the pretense of expertise amongst those who have none.

Again tho, all I see is you desperately wanting to divorce the art from the business, when they're inextricably linked.

I think the key difference here Mulder, at least for me, is that I view CARTER as a highly flawed movie. A movie that I enjoyed and wanted to see Stanton get a second chance at with a sequel. But slightly aggravating in places too. I don't think saying, "Hey, maybe he needed the PIXAR brain trust to help vet his script" is championing that movies need to have a thousand fingers in their creative pots.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

I think the key difference here Mulder, at least for me, is that I view CARTER as a highly flawed movie. A movie that I enjoyed and wanted to see Stanton get a second chance at with a sequel. But slightly aggravating in places too. I don't think saying, "Hey, maybe he needed the PIXAR brain trust to help vet his script" is championing that movies need to have a thousand fingers in their creative pots.

Exactly, not every auteur should be given the free reign of a Spielberg, some end up a Lucas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Rain Dog 

Well it's nice to imagine Hollywood as some artistic utopia free of the shackles of the capitalist world, but at a certain point one has to acknowledge Hollywood is a business first, leading the art around by the nose like some prize bull. I'm not saying films shouldn't be judged soley on their artistic merit, but when business plays such an all encompassing role that it effects that art directly and constantly, it's at least worth acknowledging contextually.

Yeah but my problem is that the context is overwhelming the actual film. Even now we're not discussing the movie, but industry bias against the movie, and public opinion surrounding it. Obviously Hollywood is a business first and foremost, and a site where art happens a distant second, and often not at all. But should we be willingly complicit in approaching movies that way, especially as audience members and not in any way actual "industry insiders"? This is probably a silly place to have a discussion like that, but when you fancy yourself a serious critic, like Gabe does, and yet tend to only think of movies in the way the Hollywood industry complex has modeled for you, there's clearly something objectionable going on.

It's less of "movies need more directors!" and more of "Andrew Stanton just really isn't a genius!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by JMulder 

Look, the support for the whole by-committee filmmaking process is pretty distressing here. Does anybody seriously believe that's the way to make movies? And more seriously, does anybody believe this is the movie that calls that entire basic notion of film artistry into question, especially when we have shit like Wrath in theaters right now? Like I said, it's just prejudice against the blockbuster flop building up and turning this into a conversation piece, rather than a movie that stands on its own merits. If anything, I pity Stanton for the fact that the achievements of his film were lost in the industry publicity machine, which is too eager to assign labels and precedents to movies, usually to build the pretense of expertise amongst those who have none.

Everybody needs someone to rein them in when they go to far. Someone they trust to bounce ideas off. It doesn't have to become 'filmmaking by committee'.

Just look at George Lucas. He got do do *whatever* he wanted for the prequels - more freedom than any film maker may have had. How did that turn out? In smaller productions a single voice may work out. But with too many resources, things will rapidly go out of hand. 

An optimal balance is needed between George Lucas and 'filmmaking by committee'. Where is it? Not sure... But John Carter (which I also liked) certainly didn't hit that point.

Look, we can all agree that Andrew Stanton needed some checks and balances here. Maybe some Disney accountants needed to talk to him. Maybe Disney could have brought in a strong producer with a filmmaking background like Gore Verbinski or something. Point is, the dude was alone at the rudder, and he didn't really know what he was doing.

Mind you, I am coming from the perspective of "This isn't a good movie, and no one will be discussing it in five years."

These days, it becomes more and more apparent that artists could do with some limitations/restrictions/difficulties.

And don't worry Mulder.  This business stuff is really just something that's around now because it's recent.  Eventually, it'll just be the film. 

There is also a huge difference between studio execs carelessly inputting their ideas into a film, and people playing the Socratic Method with a filmmaker, forcing them to think twice about things and decide what is worth fighting for. From personal experience I find my best work is rarely the work I was allowed to do with zero feedback or restrictions. Budgetary restrictions force people to get creative.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

There is also a huge difference between studio execs carelessly inputting their ideas into a film, and people playing the Socratic Method with a filmmaker, forcing them to think twice about things and decide what is worth fighting for. From personal experience I find my best work is rarely the work I was allowed to do with zero feedback or restrictions. Budgetary restrictions force people to get creative.

Exactly.

Not all executives are retard trolls.

(Except the ones at Platinum Dunes)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

I think the key difference here Mulder, at least for me, is that I view CARTER as a highly flawed movie. A movie that I enjoyed and wanted to see Stanton get a second chance at with a sequel. But slightly aggravating in places too. I don't think saying, "Hey, maybe he needed the PIXAR brain trust to help vet his script" is championing that movies need to have a thousand fingers in their creative pots.

But on second thought, this was written by Michael damn Chabon. Do you really want to say that you would've preferred some kind of a brain trust to write this film, over arguably the best contemporary author we have going? I don't want to say that arguing against this film is like arguing against the notion that good writers should write movies. But to suggest that the creative system that operated behind this movie was flawed is basically arguing that yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

There is also a huge difference between studio execs carelessly inputting their ideas into a film, and people playing the Socratic Method with a filmmaker, forcing them to think twice about things and decide what is worth fighting for. From personal experience I find my best work is rarely the work I was allowed to do with zero feedback or restrictions. Budgetary restrictions force people to get creative.

Even the best authors need editors, or you end up Dan Brown.