Here’s the Latest Update on John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood
I’m getting to the home stretch of the first draft of John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood, which means I’ve been drilling down into the day by day events of the promotional campaign as the release of the movie drew near. The examination of the day-by-day rollout has revealed some interesting insights and “cause and effect” moments that shed light on what happened. Here are some brief snippets outlining some of the highlights. Before I get into them, I want to make the point–especially to my contrarian pals–that the book does not put forward as its thesis that the failure is wholly and completely a marketing failure. Aside from tracking the marketing decisions and the cause and effect of that — it also analyzes Stanton’s whole process of adapting Burroughs’ original story and looks at key decisions that Stanton made and correlates those decisions with the critical response — basically examining which decisions worked well, and which seem to have misfired with the critics. This is somewhat different than personally reviewing the adaptation — it’s an effort to see how Stanton, who had scored 90%++ with the critics in Finding Nemo and Wall-E — could get so out of synch with them with this material.
Hopefully you’ll trust me when I say that the book does NOT present an overly simplistic fanboy “blame the studio” reaction. It drills more deeply than that. I am probably more sympathetic to Stanton (and would be to any film-maker who put heart and soul into something like this) than the contrarians would like me to be. But his choices are examined critically, as are his statements made during the promotion, some of which affected the outcome–particularly the “out of control production” narrative that sprang up and damaged the film’s performance.
Also — the book tries to get beyond simply documenting that certain parties screwed up. It’s important that the documentation is achieved, but this is a first step ….. why did it happen? Were the blunders a result of policy decisions at the highest level? Sloppiness at the midlevel? And what do the factors that added up to “epic misfire” say about how things get decided and implemented at Disney and in Hollywood more generally? I’m not saying I’ll be able to provide definitive answers to all these questions, but it will certainly try to do so.
That said, here are some of the recent “finds”.
Gaps in the Promotional Activitiy
There are some intriguing and hard-to-explain gaps in promotional activity in support of John Carter that , when held up for analysis against other Disney films, and other films John Carter competed with, raise serious questions about what was going on. The most egregious example is the period from late August 2011 (post D23 convention) up to late November, when the final phase of the campaign was launched. During this period Disney’s publicity output on behalf of John Carter was approximately 3% of the output for Avengers, and 8% of the output for Hunger Games. There was another period, longer than this, in 2010 when Disney went completely silent. I’m examining this in comparison to a number of other films, Disney and others, to see if such long period of “radio silence” are unique to John Carter. So far, I have not found any other “tentpole” release that has these periods of promotional silence; and certainly none that are silent as late in the game as John Carter was during the fall of 2011. These long periods of promotional inactivity seem to be unique to John Carter, and thus unprecedented, with all that that implies. When I have completed the analysis and have all the facts and statistics in front of me, I do intend to see if I can get Disney publicity to comment on the strategy and why the gaps exist — or alternatively, show examples of how this is “normal” in some fashion. I am not holding my breath expecting a substantive response, but I definitely want to provide that opportunity.
The other thing I’m doing is a historical analysis of the correlation between these periods of silence and the absence of “buzz” in social media for the movie. In other words, the analysis will show that there is a direct correlation between the amount of publicity activity by the studio, and the amount of corresponding social media buzz (which in turn has been shown to be an essential element in box office success). So it not only tracks the lack of publicity output — it shows how this impacts the generation (or non-generation) of “buzz”.
How The Negative Chatter About the Budget Began, and How it Rolled Out
The negative chatter about the budget didn’t start until the summer of 2011. Up until then, the only mention of budget was $150m which was included in some of the announcements about Taylor Kitsch being cast in 2009. The elements that added up to the “out of control budget” narrative were:
- Andrew Stanton’s comment in his June 15, 2011 LA Times interview that he had done a “month of reshoots”, which seemed like a lot and caused questions to be asked.
- Stanton’s answers to questions about the re-shoots…his discussion of the “Pixar process” and his efforts to apply the Pixar model to live action film-making–explanations that ruffled some feathers and led to speculation about his inexperience, etc.
- Ross pulling the plug on The Lone Ranger was really the moment that triggered it all. In that moment, (August 10, 2011), Ross shut down the Long Ranger over budgetary concerns and then Disney execs deployed talking points including initially telling Nikki Finke that John Carter’s budget had gone as high as $300m. They subsequently walked it back to $250m, but it was the whole flare-up of reporting over the Lone Ranger shut-down that flushed out the JC budget into the public consciousness.
- The final nail was the October 15 New Yorker interview with Stanton which put forward the notion that it would take $700m in Box Office Gross to justify a sequel — a statement that was picked up and replayed and got the narrative fully up on its feet.
An interesting subcomponent to all this was that Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were extremely careful to NOT say anything that would suggest the reshoots were extensive. As actors, they were savvy enough to understand how “reshoots” is perceived as “mayhem” and they worked hard to make sure that they weren’t the source of the “out of control” narrative. Stanton was the one who, because he was confident in the process he was following, was less cautious about this.
The Botched Release of the Main Trailer
My own close tracking of the movie really began on November 30, with the “World Premiere” of the trailer on Good Morning America. I had been disappointed with what I saw (which, as it turned out, was a 42 second cut-down of the trailer with the first 10 seconds being telecast by a camera filming it off of the Times Square billboard) and this was the beginning of my close tracking of the movie. What I hadn’t realized was how many other commentators had really jumped on Disney for what was considered the “botched” handling of the trailer release ….. everything from “why premiere it on GMA, which is not the movie’s demographic”, to “why say it’s the premiere of the trailer and then not show the full trailer”. The full trailer was released that night at 9pm via IGN and a little later via iTunes and on Jimmy Kimmel. But the amount of negativity that flared up between GMA’s morning show, and those shows 15 hours later, really points out the speed with which negative buzz can happen and how damaging it can be.
What’s next?
The next sections I will be looking at:
- Reaction to the TV spots which began on December 15. How much buzz was generated? What was the positive/negative sentiment ratio? When/how did Disney react?
- Disney’s assessment of its promotional position with JC as of January 10, three weeks after the TV spots started airing.
- Favorable test screening results through December, and how this affected Disney’s approach to the release.
- Analysis of the critics’ response, correlated with adaptation decisions — did decisions made in the adaptation process come back to bite Stanton and the film? How damaging were these?
- The fan trailers and fan activism — did it have any effect? Could it have had an effect?
- The case for a sequel — can there be one? Should there be one? If so, what is the path that could actually lead to a sequel at Disney? Elsewhere?
One new thought that kind of crystallized yesterday as I was idly watching Journey 2 on an airplane is that Disney really approached the promotion of John Carter as if they thought it was a movie like Journey 2. In other words, they made the decision go go for “tween boys” as the key demographic even though it was a 250m tentpole that needed to be a 4 quadrant success (males, females, over 25, under 25) to have a chance at success. This in spite of the fact that the film has nothing but adult characters — no teens or tweens in the cast — and simply does not have the “DNA” of a movie that looks to Disney moms/dads (who have to organize the cinema outing for tweens, who aren’t old enough to go on their own) like it’s really for kids. Yes, there was Woola, but there was mayhem and no young characters appeared in the trailers.
I found this commentary by Scott Mendelsson to be interesting and I’m “chewing on it”:
Going broke chasing boys: Why Disney ditched princesses and spent $300 million on John Carter, and what it means for the Mouse House’s core demo.
If you’ve seen the trailer for the upcoming John Carter, you know that not only does it not look like it cost $300 million, but it so painfully feels like a Mad Libs male-driven fantasy blockbuster that it borders on parody. It’s no secret that Disney thinks it has a boy problem. One of the reasons it bought Marvel two years ago was to build up a slate of boy-friendly franchises. And the last two years have seen an almost embarrassing attempt to fashion boy-friendly franchises (Prince of Persia, Tron: Legacy, The Sorcerer’s Apprentice, I Am Number Four, Fright Night, and Real Steel), only half of which were even as successful as their alleged flop The Princess and the Frog (which obviously grossed ‘just’ $267 million on a $105 million budget because it starred a character with a vagina). We can only ponder the reasons why Disney decided to outright state that they were never going to make another fairy-tale princess cartoon again, even after Tangled became their most successful non-Pixar toon since The Lion King, but I’m pretty sure Disney won’t be making such statements about boy-centric fantasy franchises anytime soon.
Now we have John Carter, which allegedly cost $300 million (if not more). It’s being released in March, where only one film (to be fair, Disney’s Alice In Wonderland) has ever even grossed $300 million. Hell, in all of January-through April, there have been just five $200 million grossers (The Passion of the Christ,Alice In Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, 300, and Fast Five). So you have yet another film that basically has to shatter all records regarding its release date in order to merely break even. But that’s okay, thinks Disney, because John Carter is a manly science fiction spectacle so it is surely worth risking the bank. Disney is so desperate to not only chase the young male demos that is willing to risk alienating the young female demos that has netted it billions of dollars over the many decades. What they fail to realize is that the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (especially the first three films) was rooted in telling a story that crossed gender lines. All-told, the original trilogy actually revolved around Keira Knightley’s character, and her journey from daughter of privilege to outlaw pirate. I Am Number Four is a perfect example of this clear misunderstanding. Disney and Dreamworks decided to cash in onTwilight by making a variation told from the point of view of the super-powered teen boy, a story which turned the ‘Bella’ character into just another stock love interest to be sidelined for the third act.
If you look at Disney’s future slate, with the arguable exception of Pixar’s Brave (the first Pixar film to feature a girl, a warrior princess no less), they have almost no female-driven movies between now and 2014. Oh wait, I’m sorry… they ARE releasing Beauty and the Beast and The Little Mermaid in 3D over the next two years. My mistake. I may complain about the frenzy of upcoming live-action fairy tale adaptations, but at least those are big-budget movies centering around a female protagonist. It would seem that Disney, as a corporation, genuinely places less value on the female audience than the male audience. Money is money, and sweaty bills from girls should be just as green as bills from boys. Yet Disney apparently so disdains its core audience (young girls) that it not only has stopped chasing them (in the knowledge that they will buy princess merchandise anyway) but has risked untold millions on the most generic possible new franchise, with no star power and little to distinguish itself from a hundred other such films, purely because ‘it’s a boy movie’. In a way, Disney has become just like the Democratic Party, risking alienation of their base because they know that the young girls (and their parents) won’t really ever jump ship.
Anyway — that’s where I am at the moment with this. Word count just crossed 100,000, which is what I thought would be the finish line but it looks like 120,000 is more likely the finish line, which after editing should probably bring it back to 100,000 (about 350 pages in normal book format).
25 comments
“in all of January-through April, there have been just five $200 million grossers” …
Diz new what they were in for with the budget and all… Is this more of the “let’s make it fail” approach that they took, moving the release date to March?
Dotar-
Just thought I would ride through again and toss out a couple of humble comments about you book title. The “Gods of” gimmick doesn’t pertain to THIS movie or its source material. And besides, these Hollywood honchos who are the subject of your book are the not the gods – they just think they are. [the real gods of Hollywood are the ones who let us discover stars at a Woolworth counter, or who mete out justice to the hubristic, or jinx certain productions, or otherwise somehow capriciously deal the cinematic cards of fate]
The high-rollers you discuss are in fact Princes – a wealthy, privileged, powerful royalty, many of whom want to be considered god. But this is precisely why it is hubris: because indeed they are only mortal.
Also, I liked it when you still had ‘versus’ in the title. It adds some action, a little spice and pizzazz, a sense of divergent viewpoints and interests, a feeling of conflict, and presents your book (more accurately) as an airing of different sides to a case history.
So I think your title should be:
John Carter vs The Princes of Hollywood
This is much more clever because the word ‘princess’ and ‘princes’ are nearly pronounced the same, because it refers to THIS movie and plays with the title of the source material, and because it was your idea (kudos to you!). So with this title you still retain the double meaning that you get with ‘Gods’, but you also get added in another more subtle play of words.
I believe the thumbnail book cover you have displayed is not accurately dimensional. If it were, it would be more tall and narrow, which would lend itself beautifully to a really sweet lay-out for this new title (3 lines, with the vx in the middle).
Of course, maybe I’m all wrong about this, too, but just wanted to give you a divergent point of view.
Regarding the “Going Broke Chasing Boys” article, Scott Mendelson says the Pirates movies “revolved around Keira Knightley’s character”. He may be right that much of the drama of the movie revolved around her (to the detriment of much of the films I’d argue), but the success and likeability of the Pirates franchise was all Johnny Depp and the other amazing male characters. Personally, I thought Knightely’s character was irritating most of the time. But I get that she was needed to add drama and, therefore, more female interest, and therefore more money.
There’s a recent Avatar story that says James Cameron will film THREE sequels all at one time. A stark contrast might be to compare the marketing and promotion of Avatar to that of John Carter.
I wouldn’t lay blame on Stanton, MCR, for the dismissal of people responsible for the failure of marketing the film (and other films) properly. Disney has had a marketing problem with a few of its movies and a lack of marketing IS the major reason JC failed and this is not just from fans but many in the industry if you read Nikki Finke’s early posts on the box office. Spielberg had major problems with the way “War Horse” was handled, too. We’ve all seen lesser movies do very well from excellent marketing. The utter PR silence on JC was real.
I’m very interested in seeing what you turn up in regards to promotional activity. I remember observing that official press for JOHN CARTER was strangely silent. I certainly didn’t see any of the television spots from 2011 on T.V. It wasn’t until late February that I saw anything on T.V. (I didn’t watch the Super Bowl) — and even then it seemed like the spots were only on a handful of channels. I saw one spot with THE BIG BANG THEORY, but only once, and saw a few more on the Science Channel, but in general the T.V. spots were no where near even the average saturation levels. I don’t think I even saw the television spots running on Cartoon Network or The Hub, two prime channels to advertise the movie on.
Abraham Sherman wrote:
“When people seem to be disagreeing with your statements about Stanton, it’s not necessarily because they worship him or because they’re committed Stantonites – it may just be that they find some of your comments to completely lack empathy (the ability to put yourself in Stanton’s shoes.)”
Let me respond to this and I’ll let you guys chew me out later. First though I have to give Abe props for at least being good and polite about telling me to practice restraint. Most of them it’s just “we’re tired of your moaning” and using childish names-trolls anyone.
Having empathy for Stanton though is just something I don’t have at this point for two reasons. The first is what empathy did he have for ERB fans? He kept claiming to be a fan, yet his comments always were the same-they don’t exist, they’re old, they won’t care what he does with this movie. It’s almost like he didn’t think there was people out there who have waited decades for this film, they just were supposed to accept whatever he gave them, no questions asked. Why should I feel empathy for someone who doesn’t feel it for me or other ERB fans who weren’t pleased with this film?
The second thing is this: Stanton didn’t have the film taken from him and butchered by the studio, like say Orson Welles with The Magnificent Ambersons or even Ridley Scott with Blade Runner. Nor did he have to fight with the studio to get his vision on screen. He was given-as bascially every article and even Stanton himself has claimed-carte blanche to do whatever he wanted. The only thing he seemed to have to bend to Disney’s conditions on was the changing of the title, which he then claimed was his idea until MT Carney resigned/fired and then blamed it all on her and her department. Now I always feel empathy for artists who have to compromise their visions or have them ruined because of interference but this wasn’t that case. Nor is it easy to feel any empathy for a guy who has no problem assigning blame on someone else after they got the boot. In fact that’s one of the sad things about this. How many people-other than Carney and Rich Ross-lost their jobs over this film? How many more in the marketing department, people Carney brought on, do you think were also let go but not reported about? Or people that Ross brought on to help him? Yet Stanton didn’t get fired. I’m not saying Ross or Carney didn’t deserve it-after all they failed miserably in their respective jobs too-but where is the fairness that it was Stanton and his film that got both of them and who knows how many others fired while he gets off scott free? How much empathy does anyone have for them? Or the fans of Edgar Rice Burroughs?
Again though thank you Dotar and Abe for at least being reasonable and letting us contrarians vent, even if it doesn’t make us popular with the fans of this film.
MCR wrote:
MCR — show that you’re serious. Write up the questions you would SERIOUSLY like me to ask. No dripping sarcasm. No intentionally antagonistic language. Phrase the questions in such a way that it looks like you’re actually seeking information rather than seeking to antagonize. Give me that list and we’ll take it from there. If you’re serious, and the questions are serious-minded, I will give them serious consideration.
MCR, we all know you’re a real fan of ERB. And you have many excellent things to say. Some of your interactions with other fans might go a bit smoother, though, if you more deliberately practiced empathy.
Whether or not someone like Stanton deserves mercy or the benefit of the doubt is secondary to our responsibility to treat him as though he does deserve that kind of common decency, until the moment should arise when he makes it clear that he’s being disrespectful on purpose. All accounts of Stanton are that he is a decent, regular guy who means well and does his best, so it seems a bit unfair to many of us who read your comments that you sometimes seem determined to assume the worst about his motives. Even the comments of his that you often bring up are just vague enough to also allow for flattering interpretations, and/or have elements of truth that aren’t easy for ERB fans to hear, but which are accurate. And his creative decisions in his adaptation are inherently subjective and not issues of right vs. wrong. Could things have been done better? Of course. I bet Stanton wishes, at least as much as you do, that he had thought of those better ideas a couple years ago.
When people seem to be disagreeing with your statements about Stanton, it’s not necessarily because they worship him or because they’re committed Stantonites – it may just be that they find some of your comments to completely lack empathy (the ability to put yourself in Stanton’s shoes.)
Dotar Sojat wrote:
” I want to know things like, what was the procedure for developing and approving trailers, key art, and the like. And I want to zero in on the specific things in the adaptation that the critics hit, and it was shapeshifter and it wasn’t Mrs. Carter. You know what it was, and that’s what I’ll be asking.”
So in short nothing that will offend him? That’s what you’re planning on asking him?
I know this is your book and I respect that. But you keep saying you’re not trying to pick sides, yet your going to “pussyfoot’ around Stanton, even though it seems many of this film’s problems-both storywise and budgetwise-are pretty much on his shoulders. Yes I didn’t expect you to ask him about the dead wife and shape shifting-I was doing the usual cynical joking there-but I still want to know why he thinks he is a fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs and John Carter of Mars and still cannot say what he ever liked about those books-and not just “I loved the world.” You keep saying you want to present a fair portrait of what happened-then do it. Don’t play sides.
Finally: “you’re single with no children right ?”
And what does that have to do with anything? What Jeff, you got a female friend looking for a date? Tell her to hit one of the online dating sites or the personal ads if she’s desperate.
Crustbucket ….[yawn] you need some new material. By the way you’re the only one I’ve seen who really blasted the Civil War Vet portrayal at the beginning. I loved some of your great comments recently — long piece about what the ending could have been. Bravo for that. Boo hiss on this one.
MCR wrote:
C’mon, man. Give it a rest. This is a serious piece of work I’m trying to do. Try to keep your comments on a serious level. In spite of your abhorrence of “shape-shifting” and the “useless Mrs. Carter”, neither of these figured at all into the main criticisms by the critics and these are just your pet peeves so no, I won’t be asking those questions. I want to know things like, what was the procedure for developing and approving trailers, key art, and the like. And I want to zero in on the specific things in the adaptation that the critics hit, and it was shapeshifter and it wasn’t Mrs. Carter. You know what it was, and that’s what I’ll be asking.
You had been mellowing out and being more reasonable for awhile. Now you’re being a recidivist.
MCR – you’re single with no children right ?
Ask “smarter then ERB” Stanton about his highly questionable choice of lead actor.
Ambercrombie and Finch catalog model “Pretty boy” Taylor’s portrayal of a grizzled civil war veteran at the beginning of the movie was appallingly bad.
Subjected to such odious acting, no wonder the critics immediately engaged there “suck switches” and were insusceptible to the redeeming qualities that later surfaced in the movie.
Ask “smarter then ERB” Stanton if if he had made JC 2, how would we know that Carthoris is JC’s kid.
Matai Shang and every thern in the solar system would be shapeshifting and slippin’ it to the incomparable sumptuous bootylicious Dejah!
Disney would have an execrable excuse for not calling the movie, “God’s of Mars”, hence JC 2. (They can use the same lame ass posters, just splash a “2” on it)
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Stanton gave more than 100 interviews and I have all of those, so the idea is not to ask him to reflow the same ground, but rather, to only talk about those things that haven’t been covered. So yes ….. I’m 90% sure it’s happening.”
Yes and make sure to ask him why he felt the ned to bash ERB in every interview. Also why his “damaged goods” approach to the John Carter character failed to connect. And who came up with shape shifting and Mrs. Dead Wife Carter and the useless kid. It may be time to ask some hard questions, not just the fawning ones everyone else was.
“I believe so. The plan is to get to the end of the first draft so that I have all the facts gathered that can be gathered, and then focus only on those areas that need clarification. Stanton gave more than 100 interviews and I have all of those, so the idea is not to ask him to reflow the same ground, but rather, to only talk about those things that haven’t been covered. So yes ….. I’m 90% sure it’s happening.”
A great approach, Michael. Too many writers don’t do their homework first. Hope you land the interview.
I believe so. The plan is to get to the end of the first draft so that I have all the facts gathered that can be gathered, and then focus only on those areas that need clarification. Stanton gave more than 100 interviews and I have all of those, so the idea is not to ask him to reflow the same ground, but rather, to only talk about those things that haven’t been covered. So yes ….. I’m 90% sure it’s happening.
Rus Wornom wrote:
“Sounds great! Please tell me you’re also looking into the probability that the marketing campaign was not a bunch of mistakes, but deliberate on the studio’s part in order to take that $200,000,000 write off…and for whatever other financial reasons they may have had.”
Well, perhaps our best hope for a sequel is that in three years Disney will be looking for another $200,000,000 write off …
FAAAAAAAAA-bu-lous!!!!!
I’m loving it already. Appreciate your hard work and inspiration.
Allow me to wish you great success with this project. Your approach seems very sound. Hopefully your book will shed some light on the Byzantine ways of Hollywood. Of course, a personal interview with Stanton would be very desirable. Here’s hoping!
Michael, did you have any success landing a personal interview with Stanton? I know how difficult getting an interview can be at times.
The book is sounding great! Looking forward to it!
It would be interesting to find if it was corporate sabotage to get out of the sequels, though there was no approval of those yet, a failure would shut down Stanton. Since he was still a Pixar guy, it wouldnt’ risk his loss and the billions he could bring in there as he already had done.
The other curious thinking I’ve come across: I recently was involved with a project where it was stated in the material that general audience material should be geared to a 7th grade reading level so there is less of a risk of the material being misunderstood. I find that so often with science fiction material, it is far above 7th grade reading level. Perhaps that’s why some critics and audience members had trouble grasping it though most fans didn’t – it’s level was above the standard.
It will be so nice to have it all documented and well written! You are very balanced in your approach, Michael, as has been obvious by the other posts about the book that you’ve shared. Keep up the great work! 😀
Sounds great! Please tell me you’re also looking into the probability that the marketing campaign was not a bunch of mistakes, but deliberate on the studio’s part in order to take that $200,000,000 write off…and for whatever other financial reasons they may have had.