White Paper 2: The Case for John Carter Sequels

23 comments

• Dotar Sojat wrote:
  “You can criticize a lot of things in John Carter, but being dismissive of the Thark animation is just wrong. It’s superb and it costs money.”

  No the animation was OK. Superb is your opinion about it. Now Woola and the White Apes looked great but the Tharks left something to be desired. Or maybe it was just the design of them was off and didn’t work as well as they should have.

  ” Go back and count how much screen time in JC has at least one Thark on screen, and then how many minutes have multiple Tharks on screen. Really …..”

  Not as much as you think it is. By my count at most the Tharks were in 40-45 percent of this movie. As for crowd scenes, well let’s see-the scene int the Thark village where there was a lot of cutting so we didn’t get a great shot of them; the arena sequence where some of them looked good and some looked rubbery; and the poorly staged final battle. I’m sorry but really the Tharks got the short end, compared to say the Na’vi in Avatar. That and the fact that Cameron created a world with its own unique flora and fauna. What did Stanton give us? Utah, over exaggered jumping scenes, Shape Shifter Shang, moving Zodanga, lame Red men tattoos. Maybe if Stanton hadn’t been so determined to have his own misguided concepts eat up the effects budget more could have been done with the Tharks in terms of design and screen time.

  So I’m sorry. The Tharks just didn’t wow me as much as it did some of you guys. Woola was great, the White Apes were great, the Tharks just didn’t pop. And that still doesn’t explain why this film went up to 250 milllion. Really how much was the live action portion of this? 75-80 million? Someone’s math really was off.

• MCR wrote:

  OK the animation in this film did not look that expensive. Heck it was about on the same par with films like Wrath of the Titans, Thor or even Cloud Atlas and most of those films were budgeted or rumored to be around 100-150 million. The original budget for John Carter was announced at 150 million so clearly the producers must have had planned out the film’s CG animation for that cost so I have serious doubts that was the reason for the budget to suddenly rise that high.

  MCR usually your comments, if overly cranky and curmudgeonly, are much more astute than this. Your quote “the animation in this film did not look that expensive” betrays a real lack of understanding of animation. You can criticize a lot of things in John Carter, but being dismissive of the Thark animation is just wrong. It’s superb and it costs money. Remember that when you put an animated character in a live shot with a real human — the bar goes up tremendously. JC had to do that repeatedly and the result is considered excellent by any professional in the VFX/Animation space. Go back and count how much screen time in JC has at least one Thark on screen, and then how many minutes have multiple Tharks on screen. Really …..

• Jack, my man! You’re the first person here that sees eye to eye with me. After reading the trilogy again after 30 years, I was surprised at how much Andrew managed to squeeze into the movie (hell, even the white ape arena battle from Gods). You can’t argue that he didn’t incorporate all the essentials of POM.

  Sure he made some modifications, but they didn’t stray that far from the original concepts. For example. Dejah became more valkyrie than victim, but she had her heroic moments in the novels. I remember ERB writing that she attacked both Sarkajoa and Thurid “like a tigress.” Even at the climax of Warlord, where we fully expect JC to rescue Dejah, it’s a female that ends up saving the day (ERB sexist? I think not).

  Then there’s the Therns. Though Stanton pumped up their abilities and made them feed off planets versus human flesh, they’re also the same cult leaders, puppet masters, and spies from the books. I think he knew it would be easier to pull off their surveillance via shape shifting rather than donning red make-up and dark wigs. They also made for a better explanation for JC’s space travel (though many here disagree).

  As for Carter, Andrew knew all great stories require a character arc, which ERB only hinted at (southern civil war vet transforms into champion of racial harmony), so he had him adopt an anti-war stance after the death of his family. However, he never veered from JC’s core: a guy willing to sacrifice himself for others (ex. Powell, Woola, Dejah, Tars, Helium, etc.). Despite his efforts to fight his true nature, he remained a hero.

  I also approved of the way some of the scenes were rearranged in order for the movie to flow better. As great as they are, there is a lot of redundancy in ERB’s novels. This is understandable as they were serials and probably made up along the way. I have no doubt that Stanton is going to weave all the elements of the first three books into an even tighter story when he’s finished (only after he makes Disney a heap of cash from Nemo 2 of course). Bring on the Plant Men!

• MCR, I’ll keep it as civil as I can for Michael’s sake. The animation in JC was great! I’m an animation fan and maven.The movies you mention had very little character animation and were mostly VFX. You may seriously doubt what you will, as you always do, but there was an upward adjustment for the animation which was always the biggest part of the cost. They moved the production to England after the tax deal because of the costs they were running into and that was long before any reshoots. $150M was a ball-park starting figure. It was not set in stone. Animation, especially character animation, is very expensive and the more complex it becomes, the more it costs. The animation, however, was completed to everyone’s satisfaction by the deadline they had according to articles I read. To budget a film with as much animation as JC had combined with live action at $150M is too low and they knew it. All the live action reshoots combined would not have totaled $100M. That’s so absolutley ridculous to even consider as true.

• Kevin Sanderson wrote:
  “MCR, the reshoots did not dramatically increase the budget. It was the animation, especially the Tharks.”

  OK the animation in this film did not look that expensive. Heck it was about on the same par with films like Wrath of the Titans, Thor or even Cloud Atlas and most of those films were budgeted or rumored to be around 100-150 million. The original budget for John Carter was announced at 150 million so clearly the producers must have had planned out the film’s CG animation for that cost so I have serious doubts that was the reason for the budget to suddenly rise that high.

  “They got a tax break from England to do the animation work there along with many of the interiors. Without the tax break the movie would not have been done as was said in a YouTube interview at a premier by the producers.”

  So your source for this is the producers? Was this the film equivalent of Springtime for Hitler because clearly if the inability to make Barsoom not resemble Utah and cheap excuses for creating the Red Men are to be believed they those tax breaks must not have gone too far. Again I wouldn’t put too much faith in what they said anymore than anyone should believe Stanton since at that point they were saying anything to avoid coming across as irresponsible about the budget.

• MCR, the reshoots did not dramatically increase the budget. It was the animation, especially the Tharks. They got a tax break from England to do the animation work there along with many of the interiors. Without the tax break the movie would not have been done as was said in a YouTube interview at a premier by the producers. This also allowed them to get many of the animators who had worked on Avatar as they had already moved to the big CG/VFX houses in London. Animation is not cheap. Tangled cost over $200M to make with no big stars. Almost every animated movie in the past few years has been very expensive due to the R&D, the crews and the amount of time it takes.

• i like the idea of two Gods of Mars, the structure of the book actually can be divided into two parts. Peter Jackson is adding another full feature length movie to his originally planned two hobbit movies, which is probably an additional 3 hours. So it seems to me adding more story is seen more as a creative opportunity than a creative stumbling block.

• Debra Fisher wrote:
  “Most people know that Stanton had his movie on budget and on time and the Disney execs wanted more clarifications (apparently many of them…like some commentators…have never read the books) and gave Stanton a reshoot budget. But, MCR, like the Republican party, thinks if he just keeps saying it, it will be true.”

  “Most people?” Who are these “most people,” the ones who believed Stanton lock stock and barrel? As for comparing me to the Republican Party, well let’s see. They elected a man to office they put on pedestal, believe everything he said, allowed him carte blanche and an open check book, followed his own vision and was hailed by his followers as an infallible god. Yeah that pretty much describes both the last president and a certain cartoon director to a tee. Plus it is true: Stanton drove up the budget because of his inability to discover that his Pixar method didn’t work. He drove up the budget because of constant reshoots. He drove it up just because no one at Disney could stand up to him (sort of like the Democrats in that respect). How does a movie end up costing 250 million dollars that had no big movie stars, no Steven Spielberg or James Cameron calling the shots? In short what you need to do is stop believing everything you read and actually think for yourself. Or are you like those Republicans and just take everything as truth if it comes from your “God” without questioning it?

  Besides that has Dotar had his book event yet?

• Must agree that China and Russia are the tipping points to a John Carter sequel. Marvel/Disney is taking full advantage of China’s deep pockets to make Iron Man3, so why not John Carter!

• just love the net, don’t you?

  In re MCR’s take on Mark Andrews lack of respect for the ERB material, here is a musing on the Tharks from Mark’s blog:

  “Andrew Stanton and I had always seen them as native like, masai, aboriginal-esque warriors. Tall, sinuey, no body fat, elegant. I incorporated armor, since they were warriors, they would have some protection. It would be more ornamental like (yet functional) made out of metal scavenged from the wastes of Barsoom. I even gave them shields to be used as portable Pavise to provide cover while shooting their long rifles.”

  and here are descriptions from the source material:

  “Five or six had already hatched and the grotesque caricatures which sat blinking in the sunlight were enough to cause me to doubt my sanity. They seemed mostly head, with little scrawny bodies, long necks and six legs, or, as I afterward learned, two legs and two arms, with an intermediary pair of limbs which could be used at will either as arms or legs. Their eyes were set at the extreme sides of their heads a trifle above the center and protruded in such a manner that they could be directed either forward or back and also independently of each other, thus permitting this queer animal to look in any direction, or in two directions at once, without the necessity of turning the head.

  The ears, which were slightly above the eyes and closer together, were small, cup-shaped antennae, protruding not more than an inch on these young specimens. Their noses were but longitudinal slits in the center of their faces, midway between their mouths and ears.

  There was no hair on their bodies, which were of a very light yellowish-green color. In the adults, as I was to learn quite soon, this color deepens to an olive green and is darker in the male than in the female. Further, the heads of the adults are not so out of proportion to their bodies as in the case of the young.

  The iris of the eyes is blood red, as in Albinos, while the pupil is dark. The eyeball itself is very white, as are the teeth. These latter add a most ferocious appearance to an otherwise fearsome and terrible countenance, as the lower tusks curve upward to sharp points which end about where the eyes of earthly human beings are located. The whiteness of the teeth is not that of ivory, but of the snowiest and most gleaming of china. Against the dark background of their olive skins their tusks stand out in a most striking manner, making these weapons present a singularly formidable appearance.”

  “The man himself, for such I may call him, was fully fifteen feet in height and, on Earth, would have weighed some four hundred pounds.

  With the exception of their ornaments all were naked. The women varied in appearance but little from the men, except that their tusks were much larger in proportion to their height, in some instances curving nearly to their high-set ears. Their bodies were smaller and lighter in color, and their fingers and toes bore the rudiments of nails, which were entirely lacking among the males. The adult females ranged in height from ten to twelve feet.”

  Radium rifles & accuracy

  “Our own fire never diminished, and I doubt if twenty-five per cent of our shots went wild. It had never been given me to see such deadly accuracy of aim, and it seemed as though a little figure on one of the craft dropped at the explosion of each bullet, while the banners and upper works dissolved in spurts of flame as the irresistible projectiles of our warriors mowed through them.

  It seems that each green warrior has certain objective points for his fire under relatively identical circumstances of warfare. For example, a proportion of them, always the best marksmen, direct their fire entirely upon the wireless finding and sighting apparatus of the big guns of an attacking naval force; another detail attends to the smaller guns in the same way; others pick off the gunners; still others the officers; while certain other quotas concentrate their attention upon the other members of the crew, upon the upper works, and upon the steering gear and propellers.”

  (So much for the indiscriminate and undisciplined fire shown in the film)

  Walking on Mars

  “Springing to my feet I received my first Martian surprise, for the effort, which on Earth would have brought me standing upright, carried me into the Martian air to the height of about three yards. I alighted softly upon the ground, however, without appreciable shock or jar. Now commenced a series of evolutions which even then seemed ludicrous in the extreme. I found that I must learn to walk all over again, as the muscular exertion which carried me easily and safely upon Earth played strange antics with me upon Mars.

  Instead of progressing in a sane and dignified manner, my attempts to walk resulted in a variety of hops which took me clear of the ground a couple of feet at each step and landed me sprawling upon my face or back at the end of each second or third hop. My muscles, perfectly attuned and accustomed to the force of gravity on Earth, played the mischief with me in attempting for the first time to cope with the lesser gravitation and lower air pressure on Mars.

  Unarmed and naked as I was, the first law of nature manifested itself in the only possible solution of my immediate problem, and that was to get out of the vicinity of the point of the charging spear. Consequently I gave a very earthly and at the same time superhuman leap to reach the top of the Martian incubator, for such I had determined it must be.

  My effort was crowned with a success which appalled me no less than it seemed to surprise the Martian warriors, for it carried me fully thirty feet into the air and landed me a hundred feet from my pursuers and on the opposite side of the enclosure.”

  Thirty feet. But, you know, it has to be higher for dramatic effect. Bah!

• and I like how you folks manage to cherry pick arguments and only answer the ones you think you can win.

• Living overseas, I agree that the “John Carter” movie got a much better reception outside of America (away from the internet pessimism and concentration on dollar signs). I think a sequel would also be welcomed abroad and could now build on some knowledge of the series’ roots. As for China, Disney has established some very good working relations there, with two theme parks and with animation cooperation. A “Gods of Mars” movie would have little problem getting a release date in China, if Disney sought it.

• While there are some interesting thoughts in this paper, I think Andrew Stanton’s take would not likely follow the structure of the book. Plus, I can’t see Dejah Thoris as portrayed in the movie being the quest object she was in the books. Yes she might be captured, but I suspect she’d play a bigger role in her escape. As far a box office numbers, well, we know the movie did better overseas, mostly because they don’t listen to stupid American critics or have

  I really hope we do get to see the next two movies made, I loved the changes that were made in the character of Dejah Thoris, and I liked the framing story as well as the mechanism used to “telegraph” Carter to Mars. For the rest, the spirit of the books remained intact, and that comes from someone who’s likely read PoM about fifty times over the last forty years.

• The usual naysayers have jumped on board here. First, you have MCR talking about how Stanton made the production “go out of control.” Most people know that Stanton had his movie on budget and on time and the Disney execs wanted more clarifications (apparently many of them…like some commentators…have never read the books) and gave Stanton a reshoot budget. But, MCR, like the Republican party, thinks if he just keeps saying it, it will be true.

  Then, there is good ol’ Steve. He says, “The digital distribution of film is also not considered. I’m sure that not nearly as many theaters over seas have converted, so that means prints. Lots of them.”

  Did you do the research, Steve, before you said this? Check out http://www.screendigest.com and http://www.nevafilm.ru. I’ve even given you a nice little recent quote from Screen Digest:

  “Global d-cinema penetration reaches new high

  By
  Charlotte Jones
  August 14, 2012

  The industrial roll-out of digital cinema screens continued apace in the first six months of 2012 as higher levels of activity in Asia Pacific and other emerging world regions helped push the global total to 77,021 at H1 2012, which marks a 20.7 per cent increase from the total of 68,825 at end 2011. Over 13,000 screens were converted to digital cinema in the six month period featuring an accelerated level of activity towards the end. Asia Pacific recorded the largest number of new screens converted followed by North America. As a result, there now more d-screens In Asia Pacific than in Western Europe, the first time this situation has ensued.”

  Looks like digital film distribution world wide is no problem hence the huge box office numbers overseas.

  I find the premise behind this white paper to be correct. John Carter sequels would probably make bank overseas. But where I differ on this article is cutting Gods of Mars into 2 films. I believe that the theme of the book is about how blind faith can lead you wrong. I’ve always felt that the Temple of Issus represented the Catholic Church. While it would be hard to put the God of Mars into a 2 hour window, the fact that there are 8 more (I’ve deliberately left off the last book of the series) Barsoom books out there means that dividing each one into 2 films could cause some people to reject the series as they would feel (like many of us already did before John Carter the movie) that they would not live long enough to see them all. A Martian lifespan could help this matter but it’s not happening.

  And, BTW, Steve Davidson, I can show you a Disney exec who wasn’t behind the film and is no longer working at Disney. Irony, huh?

• The only reason John Carter flopped is that Disney did absolutely no marketing and no product licenseing. BTW Disney owns the rights to John Carter for 5 years I beleive

• Although I agree with Steve Davison, above, when he writes, “Execs at Disney have to WANT to do this,” I also agree that these numbers are a good step toward compelling a Disney exec to move forward.

• “Actually, Mark Andrews, director of the excellent BRAVE, co-writer of John Carter OF MARS and second unit director as well, has been slated to direct Gods of Mars for a really long time.”

  Actually Andrews is listed as co-director with Brenda Chapman who got uncermoniously fired from it (which along with Stanton’s botching John Carter and their shoveling out pointless sequels has done a lot to damage Pixar in my eyes). Also if his comments were any indication on his blog in response to someone criticizing JC Andrews has even less respect for the material than Stanton does, which says a lot considering Stanton has zero respect for ERB. Plus was there ever any official announcement that Andrews was going to direct? No one has ever said this-not Stanton or even Andrews in most interviews that I’ve read.

  I also agree with Pascalahad: Stanton couldn’t bother to keep the story structure of A Princess of Mars so its doubtful he would keep the structure of Gods or Warlord. And given his fondness for worn out cliches stolen from other movies and books Matai Shang would probably be revealed as John Carter’s father’s brother’s nephew’s cousin’s forrmer roommate. 🙂

• Actually, Mark Andrews, director of the excellent BRAVE, co-writer of John Carter OF MARS and second unit director as well, has been slated to direct Gods of Mars for a really long time.

• Very interesting article. I am among those who would like to see Andrew Stanton and company carry on. Yes. I know he took liberties. But, his knowledge of animation and storyboarding, to me, is what made the Tharks believeable and Woola so endearing.

• Well, this assumes Andrew Stanton left the structure of Gods of Mars (and Warlord of Mars) pretty much intact, I doubt it will be the case. But if he decides that what he has to tell can be split into more than two movies, so be it, as far as I’m concerned. I’m just curious to see what he had in mind in the first place.

• Wow thanks for putting this up Dotar. and MCR, I’ll admit the last two Matrix movies should have never been made, yes they were bad. Harry Potter was a classic, Kill Bill was good. These movies were done well despite being divided into two parts. I actually like the depressing and somber tone in DH1, it was really different from DH2 and together both movies fit well. And I just can’t see what you are saying to hold true for splitting Gods of Mars into two. There is so much action in every chapter of the book that i can’t see it being as unbalanced as those other franchises you mentioned, and even if it is, it can be done well like DH 1 and 2. How would you guys feel about splitting both movies into two? I’d like to hear some opinions. I feel if it has been done successfully before then it can be done again. I bet you all 3 Hobbit movies are going to be classics.

• hoo boy. this “white paper” makes so many blind assumptions and fails to take into consideration just about everything that would be considered when making a film.

  First of all – every film that is played in China must be pre-approved and my understanding is that there are a lot of off-the-books associated with getting such an approval. Even more so for a “sequel” since the studio is now over the barrel so far as negotiating is concerned.

  Second – when you look at the overseas numbers vis-a-vis the take vs the number of theaters the movie was released to in order to gain those sales, they just don’t look as good.

  The digital distribution of film is also not considered. I’m sure that not nearly as many theaters over seas have converted, so that means prints. Lots of them.

  But the main point that is completely lost in the above (and seemingly amongst most of those who are begging for a sequel) is that the decision to release one is not going to be based on dollars alone. And probably not on dollars as the first consideration.

  Execs at Disney have to WANT to do this and any exec at Disney who advocates for a sequel is essentially saying “I am putting my career on the line to back the biggest flop not only in this company’s history but in the history of Hollywood”

  True or not, the above is the perception of this film. Show my the Disney exec who is willing to do the above and I will show you a Disney exec who is no longer working at Disney.

  It will not happen in the lifetime of those who worked at Disney and survived the debacle. That’s like asking someone who has already been burned to touch the stove to see if its hot. Repeat: Not. Gonna. Happen.

  Finally, this white paper does not address serious competitive issues. Like the fact that Disney OWNS Marvel, but doesn’t own ERB properties. It makes no sense for the company to pour millions into trying to create a franchise when A: they already have a franchise and B: when the additional costs of optioning and licensing are kept in-house in the case of Marvel and not for ERB properties.

  It wouldn’t surprise me at all to find that at the root of deciding not to continue with JC there lies a failed attempt by Disney to purchase ERB Inc.

• “-Russia box office market continues to grow and has become one of Disney’s top 5 markets”

  Must be something in the dubbing. Maybe Pirates of the Caribbean plays better in a foreign language. Either that or they know how to write better dialogue and make the stories less boring.

  “The first movie was so great because Stanton had free reign and his vision was not subject to money constraints or time limits, like a 100 minute movie like you suggested.”

  OK first what is the face for gagging? Really it was Stanton’s vision that made this movie a misfire and his free reign that made the budget and production go out of control. Possibly reigning him in would have helped budget wise even though that still leaves Stanton’s misguided vision to deal with.

  “The Solution: Make Gods of Mars into two movies. ”

  That’s not a good idea: The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions; Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1 and 2; KIll Bill Volume 1 and 2. The problem was spliting the story into two leaves you with two uneven movies. In the case of Reloaded, DH 1 and KB 2 they was a lot of talk, heavy exposition and little forward action while the other films were nothing more than non stop action. Also this is the middle act. Where does that leave Warlord of Mars in this design? I understand yes people are tired of the Star Wars comparions (which might not have happened if Stanton hadn’t ripped off ideas from that rather than read the books) but going with two Gods of Mars movies doesn’t make much sense. Plus how much more could Stanton bungle the Therns?