Battleship starring JC’s Taylor Kitsch opens lower than John Carter at $9m for Friday; looks to be en route to 25m opening weekend

24 comments

• Dotar Sojat wrote:
  “Kevin, I don’t think MCR would disagree with this — he was EXTREMELY negative long before he actually saw the movie; he only saw it once; and because he was fully aware of so many things that he objected strenuously to before he ever saw it, he just never was, and probably never will be, able to open up and get that sense of wonder.

  MCR – am I misrepping you here?”

  No you got most of it right. I was EXTREMELY negative for good reasons-the track records of ERB adaptations, Disney’s inability to produce good live action films and Stanton’s comments didn’t cause much confidence. I did only see it once because I didn’t want to pay to see it again with crappy 3D on it-I wonder if that wasn’t a cause for the film’s performance since it seems most theaters only had the 3D version and I know quite a few people who won’t see a movie in 3D. As for the things I objected to, I was just making sure not to pitch my expectations to high. I wanted to know I wasn’t getting the definitive John Carter movie so as to not be too disappointed. Unfortunately Stanton managed to bungle things even more than I thought possible. Now I said before, as an objective movie it was good but not great. As an adaptation it was a failure. That I just don’t see shape shifting Therns and Mrs. Crispy Critter as being helpful in creating a “sense of wonder.” Sorry for actually wanting a good story, not just pretty pictures.

• “…everyone who’s reported back about it says the audiences really like it… So why do you think the critics are savaging it soooooo badly ? I mean, other than the usual cynical reasons……is there any real reason you can think of for it to be getting such treatment?”

  I think some people are hung up on making fun of it because it’s based on a board game. And there is only ONE sequence that “might” remind people of the game, and that is conveyed in a really cool technological way. There’s the obvious comparison to Transformers (big alien craft on Earth), which is another easy pot-shot for the critics, but the alien ships in the movie are actually very, very impressive, and the individual aliens in futuristic armor (who are just a bit bigger than humans), who feature prominently in several scenes, are wonderfully done and work great as believable flesh-and-blood creations.

  Aside from that, the film proudly celebrates the heroism of the military and the Navy in particular – which aren’t exactly popular themes among many critics these days. The sequence when a group of veterans volunteer to help, and how they fight as hard as everyone else from that point on, is truly inspiring to behold. The double amputee who plays a prominent role in the island-based sequences is a real veteran, and his character gives the film even more heart. You’d think the veterans and the themes of rising above disability would earn more cred with the critics, but perhaps too many of them found it tough to look past the things I mentioned above.

• Kevin Sanderson wrote:

  I still don’t know why I was enchanted by John Carter other than maybe the sense of wonder got me big time. Wish it would’ve gotten you to so you’d be happier.

  Kevin, I don’t think MCR would disagree with this — he was EXTREMELY negative long before he actually saw the movie; he only saw it once; and because he was fully aware of so many things that he objected strenuously to before he ever saw it, he just never was, and probably never will be, able to open up and get that sense of wonder.

  MCR – am I misrepping you here?

• Abraham … everyone who’s reported back about it says the audiences really like it — they laugh, clap, respond like audiences are supposed to. And people who are serious film fans….not just casual ones….also seem to like it. So why do you think the critics are savaging it soooooo badly ? I mean, other than the usual cynical reasons……is there any real reason you can think of for it to be getting such treatment?

• I just saw Battleship, and it is a solidly enjoyable movie. I could definitely see it again, and it would make a great addition to the Blu-Ray/DVD collection. But don’t wait for the disc, go see it on the big screen. It has moments that are thrilling and heartwarming and inspiring, and incorporates actual veterans in the cast!

• With all due respect, MCR, I think you are taking it to an extreme. I sure didn’t take Stanton’s comments the way you did. I also give him props for making the CG and live action work. I’m not sure anyone else could have done that other than Cameron and that would’ve cost a princely sum way above the $250M with UK tax breaks. I really don’t have the problems you do with the movie and I have problems with most movies. I still don’t know why I was enchanted by John Carter other than maybe the sense of wonder got me big time. Wish it would’ve gotten you to so you’d be happier.

• Dotar Sojat wrote:
  “My observation is that your criticism of Stanton is so dismissive and disrespectful of him that it becomes flame-bait for anyone who thinks he deserves the least bit of respect.”

  OK let me respond and I’ll try to be at least civil about it. Let me start by asking a question: Why should I be respectful of a director who has no respect for me or anyone else? I was taught that respect should be a two way street. That to respect someone that person has to at least have respect for you. What respect has Andrew Stanton shown to any of the fans of John Carter of Mars? He bad mouths the books, pointing up the shortcomings. He keeps saying no one has read them or if they have their dead, in the 90s or are old hippies from the 1960s who won’t care what he does with the material. To me as a fan who isn’t dead or a hippie it came across as disrespectful, both as a fan of ERB and as a movie goer. Now I have respect for you and most of the people who post here but why should I respect a person who doesn’t respect me or you for that matter.

  “just some Stanton and anger issues that are a little out of control and an inability (IMHO) to achieve any kind of reasonable perspective on the fact that adaptations are almost always going to be frustrating to the faithful fans of the original.”

  Again it goes back to not having a feeling of respect from Stanton as a fan and as a movie goer. Should I be happy with a cliched movie filled with bad ideas, terrible acting and confusing plotting? As for the anger issues-well as I said earlier at least I’m not hitting people with books. And I do understand that books do make changes to the original material. But most of the time the director doesnt’ lie and say he’s a fan of the material. Or have people prop him up as a “god” as so many did with Stanton prior to this film opening and then stuff worn out story ideas and concepts into it.

  I’m sure this wont’ be seen as civil by some but that’s my response.

• MCR Wrote:

  Fine Rider. What is the contradiction? Since you’re smarter than I am what is it? I just want to know since it seems you and a few others love to point out what an idiot I am. (And yes Dotar I know it’s more baiting. These Stanton defenders are even more bait happy than trolls are.)

  My understanding would be that the contradiction is you sort of say at the outset that you can’t come on here and criticize Stanton and “get away with it” , but then you cite others who evidently have shared your opinion and have evidently gotten away with it. At least you don’t say they didn’t get away with it. It’s a contradiction to say you alone can’t get away with criticizing Stanton — then in the next para cite other people sharing your views (and presumably getting away with it.)

  What you seem to be saying is that you uniquely among those posting her can’t seem to criticize Stanton without getting bashed. My observation is that your criticism of Stanton is so dismissive and disrespectful of him that it becomes flame-bait for anyone who thinks he deserves the least bit of respect. If you would formulate your criticisms in a less harsh uber-curmudgeonly manner, you wouldn’t get bashed. But you seem to want to stir people up into an emotional response, rather than make your point in a way that encourages a civil response.

  For me, in spite of what Khanada says (which is basically an accurate evaluation of what seems to be motivating you) somehow you’ve become a weirdly endearing figure here to me — I don’t want to say the Archie Bunker of the site, but something like that. You’re such a vigorous defender of ERB and his legacy — it’s hard to hate that. You’re pretty outrageous most of the time but you’ve got me at least feeling like you’ve got a good heart — just some Stanton and anger issues that are a little out of control and an inability (IMHO) to achieve any kind of reasonable perspective on the fact that adaptations are almost always going to be frustrating to the faithful fans of the original.

• Taylor Kitsch is soo bad in John Carter that he surpasses Homer Simpson in looking dumb, but falls short when it comes to eloquence. “Mmmmh, cave of gold, DOH!”. BTW, his seemingly large forehead is quite distracting.

• Mike,
  Welcome — haven’t heard from you before. Since you haven’t been here before, I can see (sort of) how you might have been confused about what we were talking about. You seem to have inferred that we were talking about a simple computation of the “theatrical net to date”. That’s what you’re calculating, but that’s far too simplistic and misses the point that we were discussing.

  Our discussion was about the “200m writedown” that Disney took, and speculating about what size “write-down” Universal/Hasbro would have to take. The calculation that goes into declaring a writedown is far more complex than just figuring out the theatrical net to date. Since you don’t seem familiar, I’ll explain briefly how a writedown is calculated. The way it works with film accounting is that under AICPA Statement of Position 00-2 which governs film accounting, accounting for motion pictures must follow what’s called the “Income Forecast Method” of accounting which “amortizes or accrues (expenses) such costs in the same ratio that current period actual revenue (numerator) bears to estimated remaining unrecognized ultimate revenue as of the beginning of the current fiscal year (denominator)” Got that? It means that the film company must make a reasoned assumption of “Ultimate Revenue” is the studio’s reasoned estimate of total revenue to be received over the full life of the film which is defined by Statement 00-2 as 10 years. This 10 year forecast includes not just net theatrical revenue (the only one you mention) – but all net revenue streams which as I’m sure you know include theatrical, DVD/Blu-Ray/Download, Pay-Per-View, Pay-Cable, Basic-Cable, Broadcast TV, Licensing, and any other income streams that may develop over the 10 year period. The studio must then amortize (same concept as “depreciate”) the production investment over that 10 year period according to what they reasonably believe to be the schedule or pace at which income should be realized. Within this system, certain events trigger a required “write-down”. These are events which cause the studio to believe that it’s forecast of “Ultimate Revenue” is in error. The write-down adjusts the forecast of “Ultimate Revenue” by the amount the studio believes that forecast to have been in error based upon the “event” causing it to revise. The “event” that normally causes this revision is a disappointing theatrical release, although other events such as going wildly over budget can also trigger a write-down.

  So, you see, what we were discussing was not what you thought we were discussing. You thought we were discussing the simple computation of theatrical net but we were actually contemplating the write-down with a knowledge of all that stuff I just cited.

• Fine Rider. What is the contradiction? Since you’re smarter than I am what is it? I just want to know since it seems you and a few others love to point out what an idiot I am.

  (And yes Dotar I know it’s more baiting. These Stanton defenders are even more bait happy than trolls are.)

• MCR wrote —

  “Again I could come on here bash ERB’s work and get away with it-but not Stanton. Why is that?”

  And in the next sentence, MCR wrote —

  “As for being with others are not like-minded I don’t know. There have been a few others who have posted comments who didn’t like the movie or have issues with the way Stanton handled it. I’m not the only one who has expressed these opinions. I just want point that out.”

  Um, might I point out the contradiction …?

• You fan boys have to learn to do movie math. Studios ONLY get 50-55 % of domestic grosses and about 40 % of foreign. You know when you go to the Cineplex Odeon–well they get half the share of your proceeds. Take that 220 foreign multiply it by .40 and that’s Universal’s take…jeez.

• “MCR just LOVES to be the hater and LOVES to argue for the sake of arguing.”

  No I don’t love being the “hater.” I would have been ecstatic if this movie had been great, if it had been respectful of one of my favorite authors and had delivered the movie that so many had built up. But it didn’t in my eyes. And again we go back to this-it’s my opinion. What I want to know is why so many of you-including you Khanada-don’t like people to express their opinions? Or is it OK to express an opinion as long as you’re giving fawning praise over Stanton and his movie? Again I could come on here bash ERB’s work and get away with it-but not Stanton. Why is that?

  As for being with others are not like-minded I don’t know. There have been a few others who have posted comments who didn’t like the movie or have issues with the way Stanton handled it. I’m not the only one who has expressed these opinions. I just want point that out.

• MCR just LOVES to be the hater and LOVES to argue for the sake of arguing. Sure, he can’t stand Stanton, and that’s genuine, but he hangs out here with others who are not like-minded just to stir the pot and try to rile us all up. I never have understood people like that.

  Taylor is fantastic on screen, he’s just been a bit unlucky as his film career has gotten started. He’s a good guy that deserves much better than he’s gotten. What happened with John Carter was unique and unfortunate. And to follow it up with a film based on a board game, that happens to be in theaters alongside one of the biggest box office smashes in history, is pretty much the reason for this bad box office result of Battleship. I’m rooting for Taylor in Savages, hoping that those criticizing him as an actor will finally SHUT UP! People are so cruel and so hateful, especially about other people they don’t even know and things they know nothing about. It’s pitiful.

• Things might change during memorial day weekend. But Until then this seems like another bust. Such a shame too, I thought the film was pretty good. But then again it did get its production budget back during its worldwide debut a month ago, which was nearly fifty million less then John Carter’s production budget.

• At least Universal’s marketing department made an honest go of promoting the movie. Although I think promoting a movie based on Battleship was always an uphill battle, primarily because most people tend to scoff at the idea before even giving the film a chance.

• Barsoom Bob, I have a problem with sequels not using the original actors. It really kills the world that’s been created. Unless the actor has passed away or aged too much, there’s no good reason for it. That always bothered me about the James Bond movies.

• Personally, I think Stanton did his job and we have a broad audience origin story, if you will. The next one should be directed by Robert Rodriuez at strong PG 13 level to bring on the pulp. And then Ridley Scott could come in and do Warlord of Mars and bring the epic.

  As much as I loved Lynne Collins, I would have no problem with different actors each time. Might be kind of an interesting way to complete the intitial trilogy.

  Dotar – I’m posting what you requested in the 720P Clip thread in the next few minutes.

• Dotar Sojat wrote:
  “MCR, MCR, MCR……I guess it’s good for you to exorcise all this pent-up vitriol….I hope it’s therapeutic.”

  Well it’s probably better than finding Andrew Stanton and wacking him in the head a few times with my copies of the John Carter books. 🙂

  “No, there’s no “new theory” and that’s not the point. TK couldn’t be box office poison for JC because when JC came out he was a relative unknown and that was always a given.”

  That’s true but I’m sure the fact that he was an unknown didn’t help when it came to the box office. And now being the guy who starred in the “biggest box office bomb of all time” (as the Nikki Finkes will always bring up) that probably didn’t help Battleship. And now two for two won’t be helping Savages. In fact you have to wonder if Universal didn’t have some regrets after John Carter that now their big summer tentpole also had the same guy. I don’t have anything against Kitsch and I’m sure he would have made a great John Carter and did in the few scenes where he wasn’t playing damaged, mopey or whiny. But he may just not have what it takes to be a big star which is fine.

  “but then isn’t it just hilarious that those two other imposter directors pretending to be actual intelligent human beings …. Peter Berg and Oliver Stone …..had the same idea about Taylor Kitsch and hired him for their big budget movies too? ”

  Actually that’s easy to explain. Berg produced that “low watched TV series” Kitsch starred on so he just hired someone he worked with before. And Stone hired Kitsch for Savages based on Berg’s recommendation and after seeing some of the Battleship footage. So we have one guy working with someone he’s worked with before and another hiring him because he trusts the other director. Makes sense to me. Then again Oliver Stone has made some great-and not so great movies-and Peter Berg has a few good ones (like the Friday Night Lights movie which I liked more than the TV series) so I don’t consider them “imposter directors.” Now if they had mucked with John Carter I would probably have a different opinion but that’s how the cookie crumbles.

• MCR, MCR, MCR……I guess it’s good for you to exorcise all this pent-up vitriol….I hope it’s therapeutic.

  MCR wrote

  So I guess now we have a new theory for why John Carter tanked-Taylor Kitsch is box office poison. Maybe hiring a teen heartthrob from a low watched TV series wasn’t the smartest idea Stanton (who hasn’t had many smart ideas with this movie) or Berg had. I wonder if Oliver Stone isn’t worried since he hired Kitsch for his next movie.

  No, there’s no “new theory” and that’s not the point. TK couldn’t be box office poison for JC because when JC came out he was a relative unknown and that was always a given. But IF JC had gone well, and IF Battleship had gone well, and IF Savages goes well, then TK could have emerged rom 2012 as a bankable star and that would have been a huge benefit for any (however remote) sequel calculations by Disney or anyone else. Even with JC not working out that well, if the next two did big business, TK could have emerged as a star and that benefits JC in any future it might have (I’m talking about this JC, not a reboot with entirely different people.)

  By the way — you so detest Stanton for his horrible bad judgment in “hiring a teen heartthrob from a low watched TV series” ….. but then isn’t it just hilarious that those two other imposter directors pretending to be actual intelligent human beings …. Peter Berg and Oliver Stone …..had the same idea about Taylor Kitsch and hired him for their big budget movies too? Imagine that? Stanton’s horrible judgment must be contagious, huh?

• Wow… what bad news. I went to see Battleship last night. It was loud and fun and my kids liked it. I liked that they used real veterans in the film, too.

  Feel so bad for Kitsch. If people start getting the idea that he is no good for a film and, as MCR believes, is “box office poison”, then producers won’t view him as marketable, thus diminishing our chance for a John Carter sequel.

  Luckily, he still has “Savages” coming out and filming is set to begin on another Berg film in September called “Lone Survivor.” Hopefully those things can make some money. Poor guy.

• @MCR: All right, we get it–just how many times are you still going to beat your dead horse? Sheesh.

  While it will be easy (okay, way too easy) for the press in the US to start hammering BATTLESHIP as being a flop (paging Nikki Finke!), I wonder how many will look at the film’s overseas gross and factor THAT? Because they sure as hell didn’t do it with JOHN CARTER. I suppose that ethnocentrism affects a good chunk of American film critics, but that’s just me.

• So I guess now we have a new theory for why John Carter tanked-Taylor Kitsch is box office poison. Maybe hiring a teen heartthrob from a low watched TV series wasn’t the smartest idea Stanton (who hasn’t had many smart ideas with this movie) or Berg had. I wonder if Oliver Stone isn’t worried since he hired Kitsch for his next movie.

  Then again Battleship just looked stupid so it will just be dismissed as another victim of The Avengers.