Stanton Breaks His Silence, Talks “John Carter” with the LA Times
Andrew Stanton hasn’t spoken publicly about John Carter since the release of the film. He broke his silence in an interview with the LA Times Rebecca Keegan which is published in the Sep 8 LA Times. No big surprises but definitely worth a read:
Director Andrew Stanton looks back on ‘John Carter’s’ rocky path
The Pixar veteran reflects on the tough journey to and from his Mars-themed film, which bombed in theaters, and says ultimately, he’s proud of ‘John Carter.’
When his movie “John Carter” thudded into theaters in March, director Andrew Stanton escaped to New York and spent the next three weeks riding the subway, noodling on scripts and visiting with his daughter and some friends.
For the first time since he started at Pixar Animation Studiosin 1990 at age 24, Stanton was facing an unfamiliar sensation — the gut punch of a public failure in an industry that hardly shelters it. The film had forced Walt Disney Studios to take a $200-million write-down and helped lead to the departure of two top executives.
Now, as he processes the experience, he’s still a bit bewildered by his movie’s “Ishtar”-like reception. He concedes he was taken aback by the creative and cultural leap between animation and live action. And rather than blame the studio, he says he’s actually surprised by how much freedom he was granted.
“I was left alone from Day One to the last day,” he said in an interview last week, his first since the film’s troubled release.
His experience illustrates, among other things, the risks of making movies that are too big to fail, and how the fallout travels in many directions.
With “John Carter,” he had hoped to bring his Pixar success to a live-action film. But between its development and its release the leadership at Walt Disney Studios changed, and new top man Rich Ross installed a new marketing chief and head of production. (Ross and his marketing chief, MT Carney, both left in the months surrounding the film’s release). By Hollywood conventional wisdom, a regime change would lead to shuttered projects and creative disputes.
Stanton was surprised, however, when the opposite happened and he got little push-back at all. “I thought, ‘Are we gonna lose the green light?’ In the very beginning I assumed it would be like that, cause who’s gonna give me the keys to a Ferrari if I’ve never driven before?,” he said. “But studios are not set up like that. They’re like, ‘Go and drive the car and don’t drive it off a bridge.'”
Instead of looking over the shoulder of an animator in an office, Stanton was shooting in sandstorms in the Utah desert and working within the spontaneous, adrenaline-fueled culture of a set full of actors, cameramen and grips. He also learned, while still in the scripting stage, that he had high-functioning attention deficit disorder.
In 2007, when he wrote his first draft, adapting it from a 1917Edgar Rice Burroughs novel, he and Disney executives hoped the movie would launch a lucrative new sci-fi franchise. On its release critics praised the visuals but knocked the story as messy and overlong. It opened to a lackluster $30 million in the U.S., although it went on to gross $283 million worldwide, not nearly enough to pay off the studio’s hefty investment of more than $250 million plus marketing, nor warrant the sequel Stanton had begun outlining.
26 comments
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“It’s not about “like”. It’s about “respect”. I respect Brad Bird even though I don’t see anything special about The Incredibles and I would never use the kind of language to describe his work that you routinely use to describe and denigrate Stanton.”
Here’s the thing about that. I was taught that respect is a two-way street. that to respect someone they have to respect you back. From my point of view Stanton had no respect for the fans of the books or ERB or the material. It’s hard to have respect for someone who showed that repeatedly in his interviews and his actions. Now for all I know Stanton might be a good guy and apparently everyone whose worked with him thinks so. That still does not change the fact that he still acted the way he did and it won’t be easy to just forgive him or have respect for him or his work. I know that sounds petty but it seems everyone involved with this movie was petty too, from Stanton to Rich Ross to Iger. They all failed and I don’t see that they deserve respect since they had none for this project or the fans who did wait for it.
In many ways Bob is right. I did feel frustrated because the film both failed artistically and financially. It was a double disappointment because I waited a long time-as you did-for this film and to have it turn out the way it did was disheartening. But then to also see it fail at the box office and kill any chance for a sequel-with someone else hopefully involved who would have fixed Stanton’s errors-and any other ERB films not Tarzan related it made me angry and the person I do blame for this is Stanton. If he hadn’t thought he could make it, if he hadn’t thought he was a fan of the books, none of this would have happened. It made me angry and I do lash out. Because of him we’re now not going to get to see any of that.
I also agree with Bob that in the long run this film probably won’t hurt ERB’s legacy and his work. But I feel it has destroyed any serious chance of Hollywood spending the money and resources to make an ERB film. Does this justify my behavior and comments? No it doesn’t and I understand that but it still doesn’t change my disappointment or feelings.
MCR wrote:
Is there a director I don’t like?
It’s not about “like”. It’s about “respect”. I respect Brad Bird even though I don’t see anything special about The Incredibles and I would never use the kind of language to describe his work that you routinely use to describe and denigrate Stanton. It’s not enough for you to take issue with his work, you’ve got to lambast it in the loudest most derogatory terms possible.
And all I’m trying to say is that in doing that, you shut off reasoned, intelligent conversation and drive somebody who otherwise would be willing to discuss shortcomings/mistakes etc into, instead of discussing such things, defending Stanton against your wrath. I just don’t know how I can state it or restate it more plainly. You use aggressive, emotionally charged language designed to provoke, rather than respectful, fairly worded language designed to promote discussion and dialogue.
It’s the old “disagree without being disagreeable”. You don’t see your language as being inflammatory and disagreeable. I do — I see it as unnecessarily insulting to Stanton and, by extension, to anyone who disagrees with you. But hey ….it’s okay, I can deal with it. I just keep thinking that one of these days I’ll get you to play a little nicer, but in the meantime — it’s a playground, people will play the way they like to play, and I’m not a control freak. …..;-)
MCR, I and, I can tell, even Michael feels your pain. Like you, we have loved these stories for many decades since our youth. I have dreamed of this being a movie since before Stanton, Ross or even Iger were even born. I don’t know about you, but I have made a couple of attempts at a spec script, even calling out to Tarzana, in the eighties to inquire about who had the rights and spoke to ERB’s grandson on the phone.
You are psyched to the limit, telling everyone what a great story this is and what a great movie it will be and then comes the embaressment of this movies reception. You are frustrated, angry, hurt for yourself and for damage that you preceive to have been done to
ERB’s good name and his future prospects. Being a lover of the words that ERB wrote, your most immediate and glaring target is Andrew Stanton. You are not alone in that, but you are taking this way to personally. You are living with this vitrol and it really can’t be so good for your health. It is not the end of ERB or his works. His work is not diminished by this movie. It is not the end of this world, or Barsoom, that this movie wasn’t a great success.
This movie has prompted many new readers to seek out and read these books than would ever have happened if it had not been made.
Most people that comment here are not putting Stanton on a pedestal, so your tearing him down to size is pretty pointless, except to purge your anger.
As for the , ” what did I write, I’m just stating my opinion.”
MCR wrote
Really Dotar? You’re saying that Stanton’s whiny Mopey Carter with his useless backstory, shape shifter Shang, wimpy and klutzy Tars Tarkas almost beheading Carter in his clumsiness; Moving Zodanga-all of that is closer to A Princess of Mars ……….
Whiny, mopey, useless, wimpy, klutzy, all just in one sentence, these are not just stating an opinion. And it isn’t like we haven’t heard them from you before, we have, duly noted.
You can state your opinions without the vitrol. “I didn’t like the changes to the back story” or “I thought that Tars should have been more formidable” etc.
I do thank you, sincerely, that you stopped using the “Mrs. Useless P. Carter” one. Yikes, she was just an innocent, collateral damage in a tragic human war. She didn’t do nothing to nobody. What we are trying to say is, we love you man, but lighten up a little.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“And you don’t think that maybe, just maybe, you’ve got an itsy bitsy bit of bias against Stanton and are just poised and ready to pounce on, and hate, anything he does?”
And let me ask you again: Is there a director that you don’t like? I’m sure there are directors whose films you don’t like. You said it yourself, you don’t understand the glowing notices for Brad Bird and The Incredibles so clearly you are not a fan of him or his movies. The same way I’m not a fan of Wall-E. Am I biased against Stanton? I’m biased against bad or mediocre filmmaking. I’m sorry I didn’t find Wall-E that compelling or that great. Also to let you know I didn’t care for The Dark Knight Rises, The Social Network or even Citizen Kane-the greatest film ever made according to virtually every critic. That’s my opinion, not one shared by the critics.
“But I don’t beat up on Brad Bird like you beat up on Stanton, no way.”
Maybe because people were not putting him on an infallible pedestal as has been done with Stanton. Even you did that on IMDB, using the same defense of Rotten Tomatoes and his Pixar success to prove the point that Stanton was the right person to make John Carter. Remember my response there? Heaven’s Gate. 1941. The proof that just because a director makes a successful film doesn’t mean his next one will be. Or maybe it is the fact that Bad Bird didn’t make John Carter, Stanton did.
“But it seems like when you encounter the same situation you just dismiss the entire body of critical opinion when it comes to Stanton and make sweeping dismissive statements with as amped up language as you can imagine”
Well it’s because it is an opinion. You can disagree with them. I mean by the same rationale you’re dismissing the critical opinion that greeted John Carter and making statements that the film isn’t a total turkey they made it out to be. As for using “amped up language” how is describing something as a bad concept amped up? Or that something is cliched? Those are terms critics have used to describe a movie and what they felt was wrong with them.
Nick asked “I am curious however if you’ve seen “Wall-E”. If so what did you think?” and MCR wrote:
And you don’t think that maybe, just maybe, you’ve got an itsy bitsy bit of bias against Stanton and are just poised and ready to pounce on, and hate, anything he does? Wall-E is a film with 224 “Fresh” reviews and 9 “Rotten”. And “Top Critics” are 41 Fresh, 1 Rotten. It has an 89% audience rating. Yet you dismiss it so high-handedly — “bad concepts, tired gags, and cliched plot twists.”
The thing is….maybe I’m just wired differently. Sometimes I find myself not liking something that the critics are crazy for. Example: The Incredibles. It’s got almost the same kind of numbers that Wall-E has– yet for me, there’s nothing special about it. But I don’t beat up on Brad Bird like you beat up on Stanton, no way. I figure that while individually here and there a critic can be a dolt, it’s unlikely that 220 of them are all drunk on Brad Bird kool-aid, so I kind of find myself wondering what it is that I’m missing, and looking at it again, trying to figure out what’s so great about it. But it seems like when you encounter the same situation you just dismiss the entire body of critical opinion when it comes to Stanton and make sweeping dismissive statements with as amped up language as you can imagine, almost as if you know that overstating it in the strongest possible terms will drive people nuts and somehow you like doing that. Am I wrong? Do you not like tossing hand grenades just a little bit?
I’m just sayin’…….
To be fair with MCR, everything Andrew Stanton put on screen is an altered version of what existed in the book. Barsoom looks nothing like the way Burroughs described it, the Tharks are humanized, the motivations of every character are different (Woola excepted), the plot is altered, the technology works differently… But even with those alteration, and even if you changed the name of every character, the movie is still recognizable as a Princess of Mars adaptation. Yes, even with shape-changing Therns – in the novels the Therns blend into every population to spread their false religion, and among the Tharks too, how did they do that if some of them weren’t able to pose as Tharks in some way? The next logical step is to make them shape-shifters.
Tom, Meet MCR. MCR, meet Tom. You guys can have a love fest. You actually have a similar way with words — “utterly butchered the story and crapped all over any concept of character development.” My, my.
I just think that’s way, way over the top. John Carter goes through a complete, beat by beat transformation that has been the subject of much debate around these parts. Whether it was needed; whether it was as effective as another approach might have been (specifically one closer to the original concept) is a matter for debate. But like it or not, the beats that Stanton put in the story as John Carter goes from ragged prospector in Arizona to “take me back to my cave of gold” reluctant participant to finally falling in love and committing to Dejah and Helium……I mean, that’s all Hollywood ‘by the book’ character arc stuff.
MCR, we’re just WAY different. If I had to describe Wall-E with 1,000 adjectives, I’d never think to use the words “preachy”, “tired” or “cliched”.
To me, Wall-E is a love story. When I first saw it, not one time did I think it was a “save the environment” movie. I think the opening 30 minutes on Earth is jaw-dropping. It starts off mysterious and almost eerie. Then it quickly evolves into observing a budding relationship of robots who don’t talk, and does so in a creative, touching and funny way. Being an expensive, animated family film that needs to please all ages, the 2nd half has a more expected pacing and content. But saying that, I think that undersells Wall-E and Eve’s courtship that contiunes in space. The scene where the 2 of them fly together in space is the highlight of the film and there are other great moments between them. If Stanton makes ANY statement in the film, it was to encourage people to interact with others and get off our butts.
I CAN see how someone could watch Wall-E and think Stanton could pull off a live-action/CGI combo, sci-fi movie.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Let’s see. We got Barsoom, Helium vs Zodanga, John Carter among the Tharks, Dejah Thoris pursued by Sab Than, Woola, Sola, Tars (even if he doesn’t meet your standards)…..all of that is a helluva lot closer to the book than 99% of the Tarzan movies ever got. Look, lets just agree to disagree. To me your stand seems just excessively mean-spirited and petty. ”
I guess since I’m looking at this from my point of view, how is this response mean-spirited and petty? I provided a rebuttal to your response, that’s how I see it. If it came across as you say it does then what should I have written? I was being honest in my response, there was no intention of being mean or acting petty. The film to me failed as an adaptation, obviously it didn’t for you. I could point out there is even holes in your defense of why it is closer (we didn’t get Barsoom, we got Utah. Carter among the Tharks? For 20 minutes without any of the texture of the book where we learn about their culture and the characters of Sola, Sarkoja and Tars Tarkas…) and that is nothing more than me providing a response. I guess since I’m not able to see my responses objectively I don’t know how to fix it or not have it come across in an over the top fashion. If I am being unfair to Stanton, the only defense I have is why not? Everyone else believed him-blindly in some cases-and he does deserve the criticism. He deserves to be taken to task for failing with this film, not to be coddled as so many seem to want to do. I mean do you like every film director out there? I’m sure there are directors-some of them probably considered legendary or brilliant by the critics-that you don’t like. If this film had been done by another director who made the same mistakes as Stanton did I would be just as critical of them as well.
Also Nick wrote:
“I am curious however if you’ve seen “Wall-E”. If so what did you think?”
Honestly I didn’t like it. It took what could have been an interesting premise-and a promising opening 20 minutes or so-and added too many bad concepts, tired gags and cliched plot twists. Also I got tired of the preachy “save the environment” message that was shoved through the film. There was also nothing in it that proved Stanton was the right person to make John Carter.
MCR, no way we’ll ever see “John Carter” the same way. That’s cool. You read all the books and were a big fan of all the books and had the world in your head. I was only familiar with the some of the material in the books before seeing the film, and was fully able to be swept up in Stanton’s vision.
I am curious however if you’ve seen “Wall-E”. If so what did you think?
“…Stanton said he’s proud of his film and hopes, optimistically, that it joins the ranks of movies such as “Blade Runner”…”
WTF? Gimme a fcuking break. That’s like comparing Catwoman to Apocalypse Now. Stanton utterly butchered the story and crapped all over any concept of character development. The movies is as romantic and sexy as having root canal performed. If you think that John Carter was entertaining, then you’re easily entertained. Me, I found it inadequate, weak and painful to watch.
MCR Wrote:
Let’s see. We got Barsoom, Helium vs Zodanga, John Carter among the Tharks, Dejah Thoris pursued by Sab Than, Woola, Sola, Tars (even if he doesn’t meet your standards)…..all of that is a helluva lot closer to the book than 99% of the Tarzan movies ever got. Look, lets just agree to disagree. To me your stand seems just excessively mean-spirited and petty.
Here’s the thing .. if you would just state your view a tad more fairly, I could find myself agreeing with some of them. I don’t think the decision to give Carter a human wife was a good one but it’s not the disaster you make it out to be; Tars Tarkas was fine … but could have been better. I reserve judgment on Matai Shang because I think we just got to see a glimpse of what Stanton has in mind for parts 2 and 3…….
The point is …. there are some interesting conversations to be had on these topics, but by constantly stating your position in the most outrageous, over-the-top, i-have-the-answer-to-everything way, you just drive people who are NOT Stanton worshippers to defend the damned guy because you are so patently over the top and unfair. There is truth to almost all your points — but you overstate your point so aggressively that you make it very hard for anyone other than someone who is just as bitter and angry as you are to be able to really talk about any of it with you.
Take an effing chill pill for chrissake.
“Because someone likes JC, they’re Stanton worshippers? Personally, I think Stanton’s really talented and I’m glad he was given a chance to make a live action movie. I’d argue that the first 25 minutes of Wall-E ranks as some of the best film-making ever, animated or otherwise. ”
Well Nick you just answered your own question with all that gushing.
” I hope for you that someday a studio dumps hundreds of millions dollars into making the John Carter movie that you’re envisioning….and that that vision of a movie is something that millions of movie-goers go see.”
Hey that would be great. If anything it would make up for Stanton’s botch job.
Finally Dotar Sojat wrote:
“And how does John Carter vs APOM stack up when compared to Tarzan (the movies) vs Tarzan of the Apes? My view — there’s never been a Tarzan movie with the possible exemption of the first one that came as close to the books as John Carter does. First twenty minutes of Greystoke, yes – but then what happened? So you’re just railing against a movie for deviating so much when there are 60 Tarzan movies that did worse.”
Really Dotar? You’re saying that Stanton’s whiny Mopey Carter with his useless backstory, shape shifter Shang, wimpy and klutzy Tars Tarkas almost beheading Carter in his clumsiness; Moving Zodanga-all of that is closer to A Princess of Mars than those 60 plus Tarzan movies? Basically they’re both on the same level there. The only difference is at least the vast majority of people who made those Tarzan films were doing it for a paycheck, not pretending to be a real fan of the books.
MCR said: “The fact that it didn’t stand up-despite it being the greatest thing ever according to the Stanton worshippers-how is that possible?”
Because someone likes JC, they’re Stanton worshippers? Personally, I think Stanton’s really talented and I’m glad he was given a chance to make a live action movie. I’d argue that the first 25 minutes of Wall-E ranks as some of the best film-making ever, animated or otherwise.
Sucks for you, I guess, that Stanton’s first stab at live-action was JC. I hope for you that someday a studio dumps hundreds of millions dollars into making the John Carter movie that you’re envisioning….and that that vision of a movie is something that millions of movie-goers go see.
And what movie can claim to have generated a spontaneous fan movement? Not a lot I assume. And I don’t think that’s just Andrew Stanton’s fans, there are people among them (including perhaps some aspiring filmmakers) that have discovered that Edgar Rice Burroughs created other wonderful characters than Tarzan, and others that will read the books and discover Burroughs’ magic.
John Carter is a landmark, not because it is a perfect adaptation, but because it has the potential to put more ERB into the light. It broke a curse. Now nobody knows the future, if the fan movement will be enough, if Alan Horn will ultimately see the potential that John Carter sequels can have, if other will be interested in other ERB properties at all, but I think the world is better with the movie John Carter than without. Every people that touched the property had to give up for more than seventy years. Stanton did it. Not perfectly, but he did it. And it touched a lot of people, and hopefully it will grow in recognition. That’s the important part.
MCR Wrote
There are plenty of films out there with the same kind of audience and critics numbers – especially adventure/sci-fi films – that were successful financially and are not regarded as the kind of total turkey of a film you insist that this one is. The difference is that those other films had at least a competent marketing campaign. The JC campaign, int he final weeks, actually drove people away, meaning that as the “awareness” went up, the “definitely interested” went down, an almost unheard of phenomenon that shows just how toxic the marketing was.
Re the Lone Ranger …. well even before that Ross pulled the plug on Captain Nemo, as soon as he came on board in fact. But Nemo wasn’t cast, pay or play contracts hadn’t been set. With JC, Ross came on in October and the film, originally scheucle for a November start, was ready for a January start — all contracts were in place, everything was set. Pulling the plug on that, on his first day on the job, wasn’t in the cards. But what happened is not that they were fearful of “mighty Pixar”….rather, he just said fuck it, let ’em make it, we’ve got other things to worry about and that was it. Anyway you slice it, there was an abdication of responsibility. Stanton, it’s true, doesn’t seem to “get” that the complete freedom he got was not a vote of confidence, it was a concession and a sign of lack of interest, lack of commitment, and lack of involvement by the studio. It was a warning sign of what was to come.
As for what a marketing campaign buys you ….. yeah, it buys you an opening weekend and a 60m opening weekend would have bought this movie a 200m domestic gross and they could have done that with competent marketing. By doing virtually every single thing wrong from start to finish they just ground the opening weekend into dust.
Still…if Stanton had been a bit wiser — made some better choices in the adaptation and thought twice about letting the budget go so high — he could have pulled it off in spite of lame support from Disney. That’s true, and that’s what you seem to be focused on — it was there for the taking, and he could have taken it with better choices. My sense is that in doing that, you’re asking more of him than the system is supposed to ask of the director. You’re asking him to do something directors never do — say “no” to things they want and the studio says they can have. It’s in their DNA to say “I need this, I need that, I can’t do it without this……” and you’re asking Stanton to basically eliminate that “Director DNA” from his makeup. And you’re asking him to not think that he’s smart, but rather to trust to ERB’s intelligence. Again, you’re asking him to renounce basic Director DNA.
You’re right, how many good Tarzan movies have their ever been?
And how does John Carter vs APOM stack up when compared to Tarzan (the movies) vs Tarzan of the Apes? My view — there’s never been a Tarzan movie with the possible exemption of the first one that came as close to the books as John Carter does. First twenty minutes of Greystoke, yes – but then what happened? So you’re just railing against a movie for deviating so much when there are 60 Tarzan movies that did worse.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“what do people come here, to JCF, for?”
Free hot wings?
On a more serious note, yes I know why people come here and I know they are tired of my viewpoint and bashing this film and Stanton. But what do you expect to me say when someone is Praising the Lord that Stanton made this film as Nick did? It shows what has been my main issue from the start with this whole thing-the blind faith and putting Stanton on a pedestal attitude that has made them unwilling to admit that Stanton did anything wrong. He doesn’t get it. Neither does I feel probably the vast majority of Stanton defenders. And then they say we offend them. How do you think I feel about that? I never intended to offend anyone but apparently I’m supposed to be OK with Stanton’s offensive attidude?
“We all GET that you were disappointed but aren’t there other points to be made?”
Yes but the problem is-and I’m not saying this to be mean-is that we end back in the same discussion over and over-how Disney screwed up this film and how Stanton bares no responsibility for it. Even your comment “think the greater failure was Disney turning its back on the project and not a) pushing back when the budget went too high, b) paying attention during the production, c) making even a sincere effort to market it properly.” Yes I agree the marketing people failed in their jobs but the other two points? Rich Ross didn’t seem to have a problem cancelling The Lone Ranger when it got to high? And the studio seems to keep an eye on other projects. The real reason they didn’t here-they didn’t want to offend Stanton and his Pixar overlords that’s why. The fact that Stanton seems blind to this is the real reason this film spiralled out of control. If it had been another director this film would have never gone forward, not with the budget, cast or lack of personnel who could reign it in. So yes Disney does deserve the blame for failing to push back but what about Stanton, the guy actually who directed it, cast it and delivered it? Clearly he failed too because if this film had been a good movie it would have done better. Even with a bad marketing campaign all that buys you is an opening weekend. The fact that it didn’t stand up-despite it being the greatest thing ever according to the Stanton worshippers-how is that possible? Why didn’t the word of mouth save it? Why didn’t it get a better review score? Both parties failed but in the end as a film-which is the heart of it-Stanton is the one responsible for it not delivering.
“And what is your, and my, objective in all this?
Mine is to introduce as many people as possible to Edgar Rice Burroughs, and to keep the legacy alive, and that is best done by having more John Carter movies although that’s not the be-all and end-all of it.
What is your objective? What do you want people to take away from your repeated statements? Do you want to convince them to hate Stanton like you do? To hate the movie even if they like it because it could have been so much better if only Stanton had not changed stuff? I’m just trying to figure that out.”
My objective is to help tell people about ERB and his work. I’m not against movies being made but when they fail it doesn’t help and I don’t think I should be supporting them. I mean should we support all those bad Tarzan movies that has resulted in the public’s opinion that he’s an idiot? The “ME Tarzan, YOU Jane” version? Now that’s good if John Carter introduced people to the books but I don’t feel that means I should be supporting Stanton for doing mediocre work. That’s not the same thing.
As for my statements I’m not trying to influence anyone’s opinion. If they want to worship Stanton and this movie then fine. All I can do is say what I feel. If someone doesn’t like it then I’m sorry but I don’t have to agree with them either. All I want them to do is read the books and discover a great author who I feel doesn’t get the respect he deserves.
MCR wrote
But MCR, the thing is …. what do people come here, to JCF, for? If the dominant “takeaway” is that when you come here you’re going to have to listen to bitter, angry voices railing against Stanton anytime his name gets mentioned….I mean, who wants/needs that? We all GET that you were disappointed but aren’t there other points to be made? You have been involved in tracking this movie from day one, long before I was….you have your site devoted to it …. we understand your point of view and are tired of arguing about it. Others, myself included, don’t think he screwed it up as badly as you do. Others, myself included, think the greater failure was Disney turning its back on the project and not a) pushing back when the budget went too high, b) paying attention during the production, c) making even a sincere effort to market it properly. Sure, you can blame Stanton too …. but you’re like a guy standing between a Stanton punching bag and a Disney punching bag and you’re whacking Stanton 10 times with a baseball bat, then turning to disney and slapping it once with your hand, then turning back to Stanton and going at him with the baseball bat again. At some point there’s no point in continually bashing something when it’s bashed beyond recognition already.
And what is your, and my, objective in all this?
Mine is to introduce as many people as possible to Edgar Rice Burroughs, and to keep the legacy alive, and that is best done by having more John Carter movies although that’s not the be-all and end-all of it.
What is your objective? What do you want people to take away from your repeated statements? Do you want to convince them to hate Stanton like you do? To hate the movie even if they like it because it could have been so much better if only Stanton had not changed stuff? I’m just trying to figure that out.
“Dotar, I don’t think MCR and other “John Carter” haters understand how offensive their comments are to people like me (and hundreds of thousands of others) who actually liked the film and are THRILLED that Andrew Stanton was ballsy enough to “get in the car”.
No Nick I don’t think you understand how offensive this movie was to people like me who have waited years-in some cases decades-for a John Carter of Mars film and the result was this-a mess made by a man whose arrogance overrode any intelligent thought or concern about his lack of respect and whether or not he should have gotten in the car. I guess we should also be THRILLED that David Lynch got in the car and made Dune too. Except there he ran into a wall and totaled the entire car.
And don’t hold your breath for a sequel at this point. You’ll be more likely to finally see Buckaroo Banzai Against the World Crime League get made before Disney-or any other studio-tackles John Carter of Mars again. And that’s the most offensive thing about this whole enterprise-it destroyed the chance for there to be another film that might actually get it right.
Dotar, I don’t think MCR and other “John Carter” haters understand how offensive their comments are to people like me (and hundreds of thousands of others) who actually liked the film and are THRILLED that Andrew Stanton was ballsy enough to “get in the car”. Praise the Lord for Stanton’s confidence and passion. To me, “John Carter” is a somewhat quirky sci-fi masterpiece with heart. Can’t wait to see “John Carter 2” when…not if…but WHEN it’s made.
I really believe the failure of this film lies in the hands of all parties. The marketing was weak, however had the film had more “moments” like the book did word of mouth may have saved this film in North America. Instead, we had a convoluted plot with elements from future books in the series throw in for good measure. If Stanton, Chabon et al had just stuck with the story told in “A Princess of Mars” I think it would have won over a larger audience and been easier for those not familiar with the books to follow. Men would have appreciated John more if he was a brash leader like he finally became in the arena scene, however, having him portrayed as a brooding, lost soul for over half the film weakened the character and made him look whiney and weak. Women would have warmed to the movie had the romance been depicted more like the book. I found the relationship between John and Dejah quite compelling in the book and kinda meh in the movie…
Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate the fact that Stanton got it done and I am glad I got to see Tars, John, Dejah, Woola and the rest on the big screen… I just wish it could have been a success for It looks like “Gods of Mars” is gong to be a long time coming, if ever…
This project was botched at every level and they still managed to deliver a visual feast and a good to excellent overall film. I just wish everyone involved could have been on the same page…
Paul
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“MCR — He clearly is taking responsibility for a lot of it. He clearly says they gave him the keys to the car and expected him to not drive it off a cliff.”
Yes but did he for a second sit there and think to himself “Should I even get in the car?” I don’t think he ever did. And what is he taking responsibility for? He didn’t take responsibility for the budget ballooning past a point that it would never recoup its cost. He never admitted that the Pixar Method didn’t work on this film. About the only thing in this interview he took any responsibility for was the marketing and that was a group failure-which I’m sure in his and his Pixar buddies’ eyes was mostly MT Carney’s fault really.
MCR — He clearly is taking responsibility for a lot of it. He clearly says they gave him the keys to the car and expected him to not drive it off a cliff. That leaves it up to the reader to determine if that’s what he did, and you surely can’t expect him to say — “I guess I drove it off a cliff, didn’t I?” Not one director in Hollywood or anything equivalent “big time player” would say that. What he didn’t realize, and may not yet fully realize, is that they did that NOT because they trusted him to not drive it off the cliff……they did it because in the Disney studio scheme of things, John Carter — in spite of having a budget that was theoretically so big that it was “too big to fail” — was from the time Rich Ross came on board being treated as a stepchild that was being left to sink or swim on its own without anything remotely approaching the kind of “all-out” marketing effort that it’s “too big to fail” budget demanded. It may have been a “Ferrarri” in terms of budget, but Disney’s attitude was “we have dozens of Ferrarri’s, you can have this one, have fun and don’t bother us too much.”
The other thing is that he still won’t throw marketing under the bus. I think his comment about the marketing — that everybody tried, there was no huge contentiousness, and that they just couldn’t crack the code, is basically true. But what Stanton didn’t know, and still doesn’t know, is how little actual effort Disney was putting into the marketing. So in other words — he was talking to the creative director Frank Chiocchi and the trailer guy Joe Tamusaitis who were collectively the ones dealing with the trailers, tv spots, posters, all of that. But marketing is a lot more than that — and there was a demonstrable lack of focus and lack of effort–verifiable–that wasn’t something that Stanton would necessarily be able to see…….
OK is Stanton ever going to take any responsibility for anything? I thought it was amusing that the writer said he didn’t blame Disney yet he said they basically gave him the keys and told him not to wreck the car. So I guess we should blame Ross, Carney and Disney for the fact that the film itself wasn’t very good and wasn’t the big masterpiece/blockbuster everyone was expecting since they gave Stanton all HE wanted. Maybe he should have had more driving lessons or an actual tutor in the car with him.
I agree about the “Attention Deficit” line. Was that some kind of joke? It seems to come out of nowhere.
Anyway, I enjoyed the article over all. It’s good to see someone willing to take responsibility for a project under their control. I respect Mr. Stanton even more for it. However, aside from the flaws of the movie, I still contest that it would have done better if properly marketed.
Hollywood is a strange beast. OK, reshoots are generally a bad sign, but how many movies with reshoots see their release date moved by months BEFORE the original release date? If that was not part of the original plan, it would have logically been pushed back.
Anyway. The story is not over yet, hopefully.
Does anyone understand this sentence in the context of the article: “He also learned, while still in the scripting stage, that he had high-functioning attention deficit disorder.”?