Update on “Hollywood vs Mars” — 75% of the way there; questions for the JCF Braintrust

Other Stuff

I thought I’d provide an update on my progress on the book “Hollywood vs Mars”. I’ve been working on it 3-4 hours every morning and making good progress. The word count now stands at 79,262 and it’s looking like it should end up around 100,000 words, which people in publishing tell me is optimal. That would be 350 pages in a typical printed book format.

One of the things I’m struggling with, and could use some help on, is the subtitle. The main title, “Hollywood vs Mars” seems to be working well and I’m not envisioning changing it.

Here is what I have right now:

The subtitle I started with was :

  • How Hollywood Hubris Doomed John Carter and and unlikely fan-filmmaker alliance is fighting back.

I had a couple of people say they weren’t sure what hubris means, and there were questions about whether it’s an advocacy “hatchet job” or a legitimate inquiry, and my intention is the latter.

Here is the chapter breakdown of what I’ve done thus far.  It will come out as an eBook first but will be available in hardback a few weeks later.

  1. Intro
  2. Edgar Rice Burroughs 
    1. ERB’s backstory up to the point he sat down to write APOM.
  3. Dejah Thoris, Martian Princess 
    1. An 8,000 word abridged version of the 65,000 word APOM, with key scenes excerpted to showcase Burroughs writing style, John Carter’s character, handling of of exposition, and other items that are important for a later analysis of Stanton’s adaptation.
  4. The Burroughs “Magic”: What was it, exactly?  
    1. An analysis of what caused ERB’s stories to catch on the way they did.  (Not just my own analysis — scholars are cited).  Purpose of this is to further establish a framework for the analysis of the adaptation that will be part of the book later.
  5. ERB and Hollywood 
    1. Covers Burroughs move to Hollywood, then Tarzana, covers the ease with which Tarzan found his way to the screen, then covers the Clampett animated John Carter project, how it was greenlit by MGM but then MGM pulled back after getting feedback from their bookers in the heartland.  This chapter gets us to Burroughs’ death in 1950.
  6. The Imitators and Development Hell 
    1. Traces the history of the imitators, starting with Flash Gordon , up through Star Wars and Avatar, then the legitimate development from Harryhausen through Disney 86-2000 and Paramount 2000-2006.  (Request for help: There was a UK development in the 1980’s that I’m having trouble getting details on.  Anyone have any resources for that?  I remember during the buildup to JC’s release, there was artwork for this available online — but I can’t find it now.)
  7. A Phone Call With Consequences 
    1. Stanton’s childhood in Rockport, his initial exposure to ERB; his reaction (including coolness to the John Carter and Dejah Thoris characters, but fascination with the world and the situation), up to the phone call with Dick Cook in 2006 when Stanton brought up the idea of directing APOM, which had just come back on the market after Paramount dropped it.
  8. Adapting a Classic 
    1. Inside Stanton’s adaptation strategy — the why’s and wherefores of his approach; the team he recruited.
  9. Breaking Down Stanton’s Adaptation
    1. A critical analysis of Stanton’s adaptation with a clear look at the major changes, why he made them, and their impact.  (This does not go anywhere near far enough to make the MCR’s of the world happy, but it explores  all of the counterarguments and delineates what Stanton did in executing his strategy at the screenplay stage.)  This is done in such a way as to make sure that later, when the critical response is presented, readers are familiar with the choices so that the “actions have consequences” basis is established.
  10. Epic Budget: Fateful Decision
    1. Traces the process by which the approved budget went from $175m to $250m after the screenplay was complete and a “true budget” could thus be prepared.   Examines the reaction by all parties — Stanton, the production team, and the studio to this situation which, as it turned out, was a fateful moment of decision.
  11. The Unraveling Begins
    1. A look at Disney during the period starting in May 2009 when Disney CEO Iger publicly chastised Dick Cook for the studio’s results in a conference call with directors; then the acquisition of Marvel in August 2009 with a look at it’s implications for JC; then the firing of Dick Cook in  September, and the early months of Ross’s tenure  — all of this happening in the final months before JC would start filming gin January 2010.
  12. A 250M Production Experiment
    1. Examines the production itself; Stanton’s avoid “Pixar process” orientation; what the implications this were for the way the production period was approached; and a look at whether Stanton was in fact able to use the process that he was committed to — or whether “live-action” factors intervened and left him with half-measures only. Includes a critical look at the thought processes that were in play — and the conflict between the Utopian “Pixar Process” and the reality of how much of that could actually be incorporated into a live action film.
  13. A Marketing Strategy Programmed to Fail?
    1. Within Disney, looks at decisions made by Iger, Ross , and MT Carney in 2010 regarding the title change to “John Carter”; the decision to not pursue cross-promotions and merchandising; and contrasting that with the situation regarding other films at the same budget level as John Carter — particular any films (there really aren’t any) at this budget level without a “built-in audience”.   Presents the positive logic for the decisions that were made; and the counterarguments for why these decisions contributed to the “programmed to fail” scenario that would ultimately unfold.
  14. Post Production–The Rough Cut
    1. Back to the production for the first rough cut, up to the 170 version that was screened for the “Braintrust” at Pixar plus Disney execs in December 2010.  Details the specifics of the feedback that was given — and not given. Looks into the issue of whether the studio’s reaction as given to Stanton was the actual reaction reported back up the chain to Iger, and looks into the reaction as the Ross/Iger level.  This is a critical juncture because it was in the next month, January 2011, that the decision was made to move the release date up to March 2012 instead of June 2012.
  15. Reshoots — The Marketing Kicks In
    1. Covers the period in the first half of 2011 when Stanton was doing the first round of reshoots in Playa Vista and Disney marketing was working on what would become the first teaser trailer.  Examines the way that Stanton interacted with MT Carney and the marketing team;  how the first trailer came to be what it was; and clarifies the nature of the relationship between the director and the marketing team.
  16. The First Test Screening
    1. After the “Braintrust” screening in December 2010, the next major screening was an official Nielsen test screening before 400 “regular moviegoers” in Portland, Oregon, attended by Stanton and his team and senior Disney execs.  Covers the reaction to the film and what this meant to what followed.
  17. “Zero Complacency”
    1. This chapter gets it’s title from the words Disney production head Sean Bailey used to describe how Stanton reacted to the  very favorable results of the test screening by continuing to attempt to “plus” the film with additional reshoots in London and Los Angeles — all generated by Stanton (none by the studio).
  18. Team Disney
    1. This takes a look at the Disney team — dropping back to provide additional background on MT Carney, and basically goes into everything I’ve been able to turn up on their reaction to the first trailer (released on July 14, 2011) and their strategy and approach to the promotion that was kicked off in earnest by the release of that trailer.
  19. The ERBophiles
    1. Introduces Jim Sullos, ERB Inc, and the universe of Burroughs fans and scholars who were a very interested constituency as the first trailer was released.  Traces the relationship of ERB Inc to Disney; its expectations from Disney; and the general mood and expectations among the Burroughs community.
That’s where I am now — about 80% of the way through it.  Lots of big stuff ahead.
The main question I have is how much “backstory” to leave in.  As it is now, the Stanton-Cook phone call that starts the ball rolling on the actual Disney 2012 release happens on about page 100 — roughly 1/3 of the way into the book.    There’s a lot of fascinating stuff leading up to that point, but I’m thinking it may be necessary to grim some of this.   Welcome any comments readers might have on this — do the backstory topics seem relevant and compelling enough to justify occupying up to 1/3 of the book?
As for what remains:
  • The marketing; what was the strategy (themes and messaging); who was calling the shots; what were the beats; how did they react to tracking and other forms of feedback?
  • The film itself; test screening reactions, opening weekend;  critical reaction (with an analysis of what the negative reviews cited — referencing that back to the adaptation choices) audience reaction; comparison of audience and critical response
  • New info on Disney’s  reaction to the opening weekend and the thought process that led to the
  • Analysis and Conclusions
  • Afterword: The fan trailers and emergence of a fan movement — analysis of what happened; what opportunities exist the modern tools of social media and social referral……a realistic assessment of possible paths to a sequel or reboot.
There are also a handful of “Special Features” that come after the main body.
Anyway …. It’s going to be a challenge to be ready by May 30 but the deadline hasn’t slipped yet.  Hoping I can make it.

 

57 comments

  • Dotar –

    I like the switch from HvsM to HvsJC[ofM], but I would drop the brackets.

    It would make the book title a lot cleaner, and those brackets look cumbersome. The original title of the movie, after all, was JCM – which therefore could be considered more accurate because you would be using the original name when the case began (just because a litigant changes his name somewhere along the line doesn’t mean you need to use the latest alias). They’re an undue clutter because people who already know the film don’t need the brackets and those unfamiliar with the movie won’t understand why they are there, anyway.

    But I’m not fond of your subtitle. The cave of gold thing is an inside joke for those already familiar with the movie, but these people are your built-in customers, anyway. You need a subtitle which will expand your sales to the uninitiated and intrigue a broader audience. I believe you need to aim higher and be more cold blooded, think more up-scale, like if your book became a textbook or was sitting on an airport bookstore shelf – what would be catchy and cast a wide net of interest?

    Something like:
    Hollywood vs John Carter of Mars
    the astonishing story behind cinema’s biggest flop
    or
    the astounding story behind cinema’s biggest box office failure

  • MCR wrote:

    Hollywood vs John Carter: How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold”
    And how a bunch of people whined about it-just like Stanton’s John Carter!

    I think you’ve correctly identified the downside to this approach, as there will be those who react to it the way you have. “Oh, now the whiners even have a book.”

    I came across a comment on a discussion board about the book from “The Vile One”, another one of our more challenging commenters here, who makes the point that it’s a biased account if you start out from the proclamation that it’s Disney’s fault or it’s all on the marketing. As I’ve explained here, that won’t be the conclusion — the conclusion will be that bad marketing was the biggest single contributing factor but a) why was the marketing so bad, and b) what other factors contributed? Your Stanton issues will be part of the “other factors” ….. there is no doubt that if Stanton had made “all the right choices” (not easy to determine even in hindsight) and delivered Wall-E type numbers of audience and critical response, no amount of bad marketing could have doomed the film. The MCR’s of the world will say those kind of numbers were there for the taking if he had just not changed up the original story so much. Others will say that the original story, if not changed, would have clunked far worse than it did under Stanton’s version. Either way — the film itself as opposed to the marketing has to be scrutinized as well and if the title says it’s 100% on Disney …….I dunno. On the other hand, the title (even with subtitle) needs to be provocative, I guess.

    More thought …….

  • Hollywood vs John Carter: How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold”

    And how a bunch of people whined about it-just like Stanton’s John Carter!

  • Dotar,

    I must say that I do love, “Hollywood vs John Carter: How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold”, a whole lot. Very nice. Has punch – forceful. Mentions just “John Carter,” the movie title. Mentions “Disney.” Mentions the “Cave of…Gold.”

    That may be it, man. That sounds like a winner to me. Further, you’ve got “John Carter in your main title, “HOLLYWOOD vs JOHN CARTER,” so people know immediately what the books is about; and then the subtitle is “How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold.”

    And there is no way anybody can say that is a pedestrian title.

    Nice job, Abraham Sherman!

  • Abraham Sherman wrote:
    “Hollywood vs John Carter: How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold”

    Damn. Now that’s pretty interesting. I just love the assertiveness of it and it promises a recipe for what could have been. I also think around Hollywood that makes it very interesting.

    Hmmmmmm………

  • (1) Hollywood vs A Princess of Mars: The Star-Crossed Pursuit of Box Office Life on Another Planet
    (2) Hollywood vs A Princess of Mars: Disney’s Star-Crossed Search for Box Office Gold
    (3) Hollywood Courts A Princess of Mars: Disney’s Elusive Search for Box Office Life on Another Planet
    (4) Hollywood and A Princess of Mars: Disney’s Elusive Search for Box Office Gold
    (5) Hollywood vs John Carter: How Disney Lost a Cave of Box Office Gold
    (6) Hollywood vs Mars: Disney’s Elusive Search for Box Office Life on Another Planet
    (7) Hollywood vs Mars: Disney’s Elusive(Star-Crossed) Search for [a Cave of] Box Office Gold
    (8) Hollywood vs Mars: How Disney Became a Casualty in the Search for [a Cave of] Box Office Gold
    (9) Hollywood vs Mars: How Disney Squandered [a Cave of] Box Office Gold
    (10) Hollywood vs Mars: How Disney Bungled(Squandered) Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter

  • HRH wrote

    “Mars Needs Bombs”

    Now THAT is laugh out loud funny. Could it possibly work for the title? Probably not — feels like another book — one exploring why movies about Mars inevitably bomb. But it’s a classic bit of wordplay. Love it.

    If peeps do think it could really work, say so. I’m curious.

  • To Dotar Sojat:

    How about subtitle: ” How Disney Came to Sell JOHN CARTER Down the River, Iss”

  • Dotar,

    Last comment (for now):

    The only concern with “Doomed” is psychological. We all know exactly what you mean: “Doomed Disney’s JC [of Mars} (At the Box Office).”

    But might other people not quite as conversant with this subject read “Doomed” as the film itself being “doomed?”

    Just a thought to consider. That may be why a more neutral subtitle is better. Obviously, your call!

  • Dotar,

    Not bad – suggest “Giant” instead of “Super-sized, and work “Disney” in somewhere.”

    Slight alternative:

    “HOLLYWOOD vs MARS: How Studio Politics and Giant Egos Doomed Disney’s John Carter [of Mars]”

    That’s pretty good. “Giant” is one word, shorter than Super-sized; plus you work “Disney” in and it’s aliterative with “Doomed.”

    I like it!

  • Dotar,

    I will say, however, that “John Carter [of Mars]: The Inside Story of What Really Happened,” another suggestion, isn’t bad either.

    Or possibly, along the same lines:

    “John Carter [of Mars]: The Inside Story – What Really Happened.”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: The Inside Story.”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: What Really Happened.”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: The Truth Behind the Scenes”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: The True Inside Story”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: The True Story”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: How It Happened”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: A Mystery Solved”
    “John Carter [of Mars]: Mystery Solved

    The “Mystery Solved” ones aren’t bad either.

    Kenneth

  • Okay, I’ve updated the book cover to clarify the the issues raised by Paladin and seconded by Bob Page. It now reads: “Hollywood vs Mars” : How Studio Politics and Super-sized Egos doomed John Carter [of Mars].

    Not sure that’s the one … but it clarified the ambiguity, I think.

    I also wanted to address another point Bob Page made:

    There is also a slight psychological perception to the order of the vs components. VS is actually neutral, not taking sides, but the perception is that the first one is the defender and the second one is the attacker. But, I am torn on this, your book is a serious dissection of Hollywood and the studio’s creative and marketing strategies in regards to this film and you want to “play” to that audience, but it is also about ERB and the property and the many fans of the books and now the film. So, Mars vs Hollywood or Hollywood vs Mars ?

    Hmmmm……to me, without over-thinking it, “Hollywood vs Mars” just felt natural because usually the first named party in a lawsuit is the big corporation who is suing some smaller individual or entity. It’s usually “NBC/Universal vs Joe Everyman” — not so often vice versa although certainly there are times. My point would be that the first named party is usually the party with deeper pockets seeking to protect some perceived infraction of its rights, while the second named party is usually some creator being challenged. I may be thinking of it too much in terms of copyright or trademark law. Because indeed, you have the opposite — Peter Jackson vs New Line, for example in a royalty dispute.

    But Mars vs Hollywood just on a visceral level feels like an alien invasion concept, whereas Hollywood vs Mars seems a little more intriguing — why would Hollywood take on Mars? In what way?

    Here’s a thought: Hollywood vs A Princess of Mars ….. now that’s something I never thought of. It’s sort of what it is …..it’s the story written in 1912 that is being poked and prodded and eventually s–ed by Hollywood. But then “vs”, which I like, starts to not feel right. Thoughts?

  • Dotar,

    Personally I think “Strange” is almost there. The objective of your book is to investigate and possibly explain how a great movie by an iconic, 100-year-old character could possibly fail at the box office when first released. So that is strange and something strange has to be going on for it to happen; there was some serious dysfunction behind the scenes somewhere for John Carter [of Mars!] to fail at the box office.

    However, possible substitutes that might be considered stronger:

    Perplexing Case (as you suggest)
    Puzzling Case
    Baffling Case
    Mystifying Case
    Inexplicable Case
    Mysterious Case
    Vexing Case

    Just some ideas!

    Kenneth

  • BOB PAGE,
    I think you and Paladin are onto something. Maybe I do have to state it more clearly in the subtitle. I’m going to make a quick fix today that leaves no doubt…..then try to be more artful about it after thinking it through a bit.

  • Sorry, posted this in the wrong thread.

    Have to agree with ” Have Gun, Will Travel ” Paladin, the bottom text on the banner kind of implies that the movie went wrong, and I know, that you know, that is not really what actually happened here.

    There is also a slight psychological perception to the order of the vs components. VS is actually neutral, not taking sides, but the perception is that the first one is the defender and the second one is the attacker. But, I am torn on this, your book is a serious dissection of Hollywood and the studio’s creative and marketing strategies in regards to this film and you want to “play” to that audience, but it is also about ERB and the property and the many fans of the books and now the film. So, Mars vs Hollywood or Hollywood vs Mars ?

    John Carter (of Mars) : When a Good Film is Handled Badly
    John Carter (of Mars) : Ambushed on the Way to the Cineplex
    John Carter (of Mars) : The Inside Story of what Really Happened

    Totally off Topic:
    Anyone with a half way decent HD set up at home, knows that their home picture is sharper and more vivid than what we are getting in theaters now. I have SO been getting off on the air ships on my recent viewings. Saw it 4 times in the theater, but at home I have noticed that the detail of the flying ships wings are individual “anti-gravity” cells, that each rise and fall individually to affect how much lift the ship is getting. When they want to turn, they adjust one wings cells and the sudden drag due to the affect of gravity on that side, causes the ship to dip and arc in that direction. They literally glisten in the sunlight as they move. Very cool. Also check out the flags ( City Pennants ) on the ships that are furiously billowing and flapping in the air stream as they are flying.

  • Micheal I can’t wait for your book! There are so many unanswered questions I have on the handling of the movie by everyone involved.

    How about this for a title?

    Hollywood vs Mars:
    “How a Perfect Storm at Disney
    Sank John Carter of Mars an American Classic”

  • The word “perplexing” could have the unintended side effect of sounding intimidating, like it could leave the reader perplexed rather than informed about our current best understanding of the project. A synonym of “perplexing” could work, like “puzzling” or “curious”.

    “Hollywood vs Mars: The Curious Case of the Indomitable John Carter”
    “Hollywood vs Mars: The One Hundred Year Journey of John Carter”
    “Hollywood vs Mars: The One Hundred Year Pursuit of the Indomitable John Carter”
    “Hollywood vs Mars: The Hundred Year Storm of Disney’s John Carter”

  • Thanks to all who are submitting ideas about the subtitle. As I noted in the text above, I’m leery of declaring a conclusion before first presenting the evidence — so I’m not inclined tower the “How JC was screwed” thrust of subtitles. At the moment I’m on: HOLLYWOOD vs MARS : The strange case of Disney’s John Carter”, but I think that’s a little flat. I’m thinking bout the word “perplexing” instead of “strange”, as that’s what it is and it doesn’t imply judgment. But I still don’t think this is “the one”. I like ending it on “John Carter Mars].

    Provocative would be good — but judgmental, no. For example: “Hollywood vs Mars: Who killed John Carter?” …. but I don’t want to suggest that John Carter is dead because …… he isn’t.

    Then again, in the books he died and went to Barsoom.

    Anyway — still working gon it, pls feel free to post any good thoughts. I realize that a lot of non-fiction books state their conclusion as part of the title — i.e. “How the politics of patronage are suffocating America” or something like that, but when I read that kind of title I tend to think it’s written by a bombastic windbag …. as opposed to something that suggests a riddle or mystery to be solved. But I could be wrong. It might feel somewhat different to me once I get to the end ….

  • John Carter (of Mars): an out of this world look at an out of control [studio, effort, campaign, etc].

    Two.. three things. An author asking for editors is like a dog asking for fleas (and I mean that in the nicest way, everyone ;). You may get more suggestions than you can handle, but so far, they’ve all seemed good.

    A long and wordy subtitle can make a person put the book down in the store, so beware.

    And… I’m guessing a fair portion of your reasons for writing this book come from the fan ‘kick back’, horror in marketing, and attempts to show someone how it could have easily been done (ok, don’t get me started). My suggestion is to not hide that aspect in an afterword – make it a significant portion of the text. But, I may be underestimating the extent of your afterword.

    Ok, four… I’m also in favor of taking your time… I understand your thoughts on coordinating the release, but there may easily be a chapter on the DVD sales that should be included in this story. I hope.

    Valiant efforts, Dotar!

  • Kevin wrote

    I would hold off on the deadline just a little so you can include the first week’s DVD sales. So you could then change the title to…
    Hollywood vs Mars – John Carter Fans To The Rescue

    Actually that’s quite an interesting point. I do think the DVD sales will be good enough to be able to claim that the tide is turning — but I’m not sure how good. There has been virtually zero promotion and outside of the fan community that’s already established, I’m not sure who knows about it. And the artwork is dreadful. But before I talk myself into a funk, I’m going to think about your point. You may be onto something! Thanks.

  • Title Suggestion: EPIC FAIL: How Disney Threw Away Their $350 Million Dollar Investment In JOHN CARTER (OF MARS)

    Tagline: The Flop That Never Had To Be

  • I would hold off on the deadline just a little so you can include the first week’s DVD sales. So you could then change the title to…

    Hollywood vs Mars – John Carter Fans To The Rescue

  • I like Abraham Sherman’s sub-title suggestion best so far: “The Cinematic Un-Making of John Carter”. But, people have short attention spans for covers and need to be hit with the “zazz” of the subject in a very simple way. How about:
    “Who sabotaged John Carter and why”?
    (You MAY object by saying ‘But, I don’t have all the answers’. To this I say, no one ever does and it may be years before we find out some of the super-secret inside dirt. You’re writing the book NOW and you need to move some paper using the best info you currently have. This also makes a follow-up possible.)

  • John Carter (of Mars) : Abandoned by it’s Studio, Saved by it’s Fans
    or Cherished by it’s Fans

    John Carter (of Mars) : Or How a Studio Sabatoged It’s Own $250 million Investment

    John Carter (of Mars) : Betrayed by it’s Studio but Still Fighting for it’s Life

    Forgot what your first one was, but it was good. Do not like the one with “Junking” in it.

  • Dotar,
    Leave in the back story, after all, it seems everyone who knows who John Carter is, is already dead, so they’ll need the back story.

    Don’t forget to discuss the unprecedented Disney announcement of the $200M write-off 11 days into the opening of the film, which in my opinion torpedoed possible future revenues.
    Don’t forget about how the media piled on the film, because of ignorance, their own prejudices, or how they love to see a big budget film fail . . . gives them something to talk about.

    Suggestions for subtitle “Hollywood vs. Mars: . . .

    . . . The John Carter of Mars legacy, Lost in the Shuffle” in reference to the Disney shake up

    . . . The Mismanagement of a Legacy, John Carter of Mars”

    . . . Disney and the John Carter Legacy – Incompetence at the highest levels”

    . . . Disney and the John Carter Legacy, “We knowth not what we do””

    . . . . . . or variation: , “We knewth not what we had””

    . . . . . . or variation: , “We knowth not what we have”” as they still own the rights to JC

    . . . ERB’s John Carter of Mars – How arrogance and ineptness helped sink a franchise”

    . . . The John Carter of Mars Legacy: Will Disney learn from it’s Goofy mistakes?” (Judging from the trailer released for the DVD/Blu-ray campaign, apparently NOT)

    . . . Disney’ mishandling of ERB’s Classic John Carter Franchise – Shortsighted? or “We get paid big bucks to make moronic decisions””

    . . . The John Carter of Mars Legacy, Is there anyone at home at Disney?”

    . . . The John Carter of Mars Franchise – Disney’s billion dollar lost opportunity”

    I love Rebecca’s “crucified by the media”. it’s VERY fitting.

    I also agree: Do not rush this. To tie this into the release of the DVD/Blu-ray probably won’t matter as it seems Disney won’t be making too big a deal about it anyway. Why should they change their M.O. now?

    Maybe wait for feedback on the e-book in case you have to make revisions on the hard copy.

    Just some thoughts.

    Thanks
    Ken

  • Paladin wrote

    One humble comment, Dotar: deadlines come and go, but your book will be around forever. Don’t rush. Five years from now the deadline will be long forgotten but the book will still be there. Frankly, unless you have someone editing your galleys, I’m blown away by your approach. If you are doing your own editing, I would think you would first need to finish your writing and then just set it aside, and only come back to it about 3 weeks later to do the final edit with a fresh set of eyes. You’re way too close to the material right now to see it faults.

    But maybe you’ve done this before, so you have your method down pat. And maybe you do have a publisher who’s doing an edit/mark-up for you.

    Thanks for some good thoughts there. As I have gotten deeper into it, the notion of how substantial it could end up being has caused me to question the deadline too. On the other hand there’s a feeling that coordinating it with the DVD release might be important.

    One thing that’s nice about eBooks is that you can update to a new edition any time ….. but on the other hand you don’t want to put something out there that’s not your best work. The first thing I need to do is keep charging ahead to the end. That much I know. Then I’ll have to take a deep breath and decide what’s next.

    I do have a system, sort of, only I’ve used it mostly for writing screenplays and/or making films. It has taught me the extreme value of good editing.

    The other thing is …. is there the kind of overarching theme in this that will expand the value beyond those who are interested in it from the ERB point of view, or the “inside Hollywood” aspect. The title “Hollywood vs Mars” is meant to evoke some themes, or at least suggest their possibility, and shaping the narrative with that in mind is something that will only come after I plow through to the end. It’s easy to just cast it as “suits agains visionaries” but I’m aiming a little higher than that. Film is a unique medium — or at least high cost feature films are. It attracts some of our best artists because of it’s power and multi-dimensionality, yet it can only be undertaken as a crassly commercial endeavor. I’ve always liked the quote (which I thought was from Orson Welles, but apparently not — who said this?) — (I’m paraphrasing) — “Given how much movies cost and how much of a commercial endeavor they are, the surprising thing is not that there are so few good movies — it’s surpising there are any good movies.” The artistic value can be judged independently of commercial considerations, but in the making of it a big budget Hollywood movie, the commercial calculation is dominant in the process. So the suits aren’t the enemy, or don’t need to be. At the same time, the creative side has responsibilities that can’t be ignored. Those responsibilities (to commercial success) can be in conflict with artistic vision……..and so “Hollywood” is all of that, not just “evil suits”……

    We’ll see……thanks for the inputs.

  • Rick Barry wrote

    For the same reason and others, I urge you to consider (unless you’re already planning this) to find a way to make print copies available.

    No worries — it will be. The eBook may come out a week ahead of the print version, but it will be available in print.

  • Okay, got some subtitles!!!!
    How John Carter the savior of Mars was crucified by the media (too religious?)

    Hollywood turns a blind eye to John Carter’s greatness

    Hollywood’s indifference to a classic hero: John Carter

    The bumpy road that brought John Carter to the screen, and then tore it down

    Mine really aren’t that clever, but maybe they’ll spark some of your own ideas

  • How John Carter Saved Mars but Died in Hollywood
    ……….and Fans Fight to Flip the Flop

  • Michael, this looks fabulous.

    I second Paladin’s comment about being flexible with your self-imposed deadline, even though I know you’ve got the DVD release in mind. This is going to be an ERB classic, read for many years.

    For the same reason and others, I urge you to consider (unless you’re already planning this) to find a way to make print copies available.

  • Dotar –

    ……..HOLLYWOOD vs MARS

    …….….The John Carter Story:
    How Hollywood Killed the Savior of Mars
    …..and Fans Fight Back to Flip the Flop

    [I only used the periods to center stuff, otherwise this comment box automatically slams text to the margin. You could also instead substitute the word ‘but’ for ‘and.’]

    I would leave all the back-story stuff in there. Your book is investigative, but also encyclopedic, and could be used as a textbook in film-study courses, so size matters. Massive is better. The challenge for a writer is to get words on a page, so please don’t take them off, including any of the Stanton bio – I’m sure you didn’t go overboard on any of that.

    I agree with Rebecca, though, on a format note: it seems like chapter 3 is unique, and as she says, should be placed in an appendix. This is a hard call to make without having actually read it, and it depends on how you structured that chapter, but I like Rebecca’s suggestion.

    One humble comment, Dotar: deadlines come and go, but your book will be around forever. Don’t rush. Five years from now the deadline will be long forgotten but the book will still be there. Frankly, unless you have someone editing your galleys, I’m blown away by your approach. If you are doing your own editing, I would think you would first need to finish your writing and then just set it aside, and only come back to it about 3 weeks later to do the final edit with a fresh set of eyes. You’re way too close to the material right now to see it faults.

    But maybe you’ve done this before, so you have your method down pat. And maybe you do have a publisher who’s doing an edit/mark-up for you.

  • Will you mention why did the movie cost so much? Is it due to the planned reshoots, to the location shooting or to the decision to shoot on film and not digitally?

    Yup….lots of detail on that.

  • “I still live!” John Carter: the condemned movie that refuses to die

    I love the breakdown so far, and I especially love the search for a neutral, analysing tone. I saw no mention of Asylum’s Princess of Mars in it, you won’t cover it at all? Without going fully into the details, I thought it was a fascinating attempt in some ways.

    Will you mention why did the movie cost so much? Is it due to the planned reshoots, to the location shooting or to the decision to shoot on film and not digitally?

  • Background is essential. What about ” John Carter and the Hollywood Sausage Factory” or “The Execution of John Carter” as titles.

  • So excited for you Michael!

    I would put chapter 3, Dejah Thoris… in an appendix. I would have to read it in context to see if it fits in with the narrative, but I typically skip those kinds of chapters to get the the “juice”.

    Chapter 7… how much do we need to know about Stanton’s upbringing to understand the rest of the book? For me the only thing I really need to know it that he was exposed to the material via the comic-books when he was a kid in the 80’s. Then the rest about how you talk about the “coolness”… that seems pretty interesting. I think a mini-bio of the guy kind of veers off.

    Is chapter 9 too’ nuts- and bolts-y’? How much if it can your average person read without having to pay super close attention to details? People can get bogged down in that kind of stuff.

    Pretty much, whenever writers want to include details that might be just “too much” I suggest adding them to an appendix.

    Just my concerns… of course I haven’t read any of your transcripts, but I am a ruthless critic of writing and I will always tell you what’s up.

    Let me know if you want me to read anything. I’m doing something like this right now for the CEO of a major fast-food chain… and his book on leadership.

    Subtitle: still thinking…

  • Some ideas for the subtitle, based on ideas already being tossed around in this thread:

    (1) “Hollywood vs Mars: The Cinematic Un-Making of John Carter”
    (2) “Hollywood vs Mars: The Cinematic Travails (or Tribulations) of John Carter”
    (3) “Hollywood vs Mars: The Cinematic Un-Making (Travails, Tribulations) of Tarzan’s Science Fiction Sibling John Carter”
    (4) “Hollywood vs Mars: The Cinematic Un-Making (Travails, Tribulations) of John Carter, Science Fiction Sibling to Tarzan”
    (5) “Hollywood vs Mars: John Carter and the Battle for the Cinema”
    (6) “Hollywood vs Mars: John Carter and the Battle for the Silver Screen”

    I hope that helps!

  • I’m with MCR and Patrick in leaving the back story in. It’s a very important setup.

    Interesting Wired article that briefly mentions UK tax credit:
    http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/02/ff_johncarter/all/1

    Some interesting comments on the UK tax credit in this thread:
    http://vfxsoldier.wordpress.com/2012/03/21/subsidies-get-a-good-laugh-in-the-uk/

    No mention of UK development in this rather thorough overview of previous failed attempts:
    http://www.enotes.com/topic/John_Carter_(film)

  • How about this:

    Hollywood vs. Mars:

    “From Inspiring Literary Classic to Beloved Cinematic Bomb”

    Can’t wait to read your book…this site has been a tonic for this JCM fan.
    Went and saw it again at our local Drive-In last night…enjoyed it of course, but two things stood out for me…one, how many cars stuck around after “The Avengers” just to watch it and how MORE actually pulled in just to see JCM…and two, how PERFECT this movie is for the drive-in!

    Thanks for keeping the news JCM news coming!

  • MCR wrote

    “The Unmaking of John Carter-Or How A Studio Destroyed a Classic” (Yes I know but you asked for possible suggestions and I’m trying to help. It’s either that or How Arrogance, Egotism and Andrew Stanton Ruined John Carter.)

    Hey, I like the first one, or the first half of it. “Um-making” is a word I hadn’t come across. I’m not sure about “How a Studio Destroyed a Classic” ……I’m still not completely sure whether I want the subtitle to take a stand, or convey the idea that I’m taking a judicial sort of look at the whole situation and reaching conclusions where conclusions can be reached. My “style” is more the latter — I’m not a great ranter, and by training I have experience in investigations, intelligence reporting and analysis, and legal writing — all of which is rooted in digging out the facts, reporting them accurately, then building an argument based on the facts. (Legal writing is al title different because you have no obligation to show both sides.)

    What feels natural for me is to report the whole thing as accurately as I can, citing direct-access sources when hey are available, and/or combining that with close analysis, but withhold judgment until the end — then render a “judgment” only after all the facts have been submitted. If that’s the approach, declaring the outcome in the title may be wrong.

    Now, having said that: “How Arrogance, Egotism, and Andrew Stanton Ruined John Carter” is such vintage MCR….to get that one in play you’ll have to write yer own book. 😉

  • I think you’re right on track, Michael. The backstory is essential in order the set up the discussion that follows. Sure envy how you’ve made so much headway so quickly!

  • John Carter?
    The Most Successful Flop In Movie History!
    Tarzan! Dejah Thoris! Back To Barsoom!

    If 30 Million people have seen John Carter already, then that is a good starting point for recognition of and sales of Hollywood Vs. Mars
    But that still leaves 100 million or so potential readers who still don’t know who John Carter is……or ERB. They again probably do know of Tarzan. It would be good to pique the potential reader’s interest with Tarzan, if that name could be worked into the subtitle.
    So, if only 1 out 100 people actually buy and read books, that’s still a sizable potential best-seller audience!

    Good Luck On Sales,

    Dave Nelson

  • If it was me I would leave the backstory in, just to show the legacy of ERB and the various attempts. It helps explain why the book wasn’t filmed before and the problems that other filmmakers faced.

    “There was a UK development in the 1980?s that I’m having trouble getting details on. Anyone have any resources for that? I remember during the buildup to JC’s release, there was artwork for this available online — but I can’t find it now.)”

    Are you talking about the Amicus version? From what I know it was planned as the third film in their ERB series after The Land That Time Forgot and At the Earth’s Core around 1977. A friend who followed the project for years told me they had hired a writer named Anthony Wilson and there was some production sketches-not full concept art-that portrayed the Tharks with cages on their heads and Dejah Thoris as a white haired woman. The film was reportedly passed on when the budget became a concern and they made The People That Time Forgot instead. The sketches were online and so either try Google or if you’re nice I did have them linked on my blog in a post about that project and I’ll try to find it.

    “One of the things I’m struggling with, and could use some help on, is the subtitle.”

    I’m not good with that but I’ll give some suggestions:

    “The Unmaking of John Carter-Or How A Studio Destroyed a Classic” (Yes I know but you asked for possible suggestions and I’m trying to help. It’s either that or How Arrogance, Egotism and Andrew Stanton Ruined John Carter.)

Leave a Reply