Man of Steel Scores $125M Opening Weekend in Spite of John Carter-ish “Rotten” Critics Rating

Michael Sellers Other Stuff

Man of Steel fans are basking in the glow of a $125M opening weekend, achieved in spite of a 57% “Rotten” rating from critics, while John Carter fans are shaking their heads and wondering how a similar film with similar elements and equivalent marketing challenges could achieve such success in spite of critics backlash.  Let’s break it down a bit.

The Marketing Challenge

Both films faced an uphill battle.  John Carter (of Mars, dammit)  faced lack of awareness among most of tbe target audience of the underlying source material.  Man of Steel faced apathy and a sense that Superman just wasn’t relevant in 2013.   The two challenges are different …. are they equivalent?   I would argue that Superman had enough going for it that the realistic worst case opening, even with bad marketing, would have been in the $50M range, whereas John Carter’s “bottom” was . . . well, it’s hard to imagine it doing worse than the $31M it did on opening weekend.   So the point would be that a performance by Man of Steel in the 50M opening weekend range would have been an equivalent disaster to John Carter’s $31M.  But that didn’t happen, did it.

The Marketing Approach

Aside from spending more money ($150M, reportedly, versus $100M for John Carter), what did Warner Brothers do that Disney didn’t?  As Scott Mendlesson notes: “Obviously credit goes to Warner Bros’ marketing department, which cut a series of emotionally potent trailers that actually hid most of the big action beats …”   Indeed — it’s hard to argue that the WB trailers were infinitely better than the Disney trailers.  The decision to find the emotional core of the film was a wise one — and when you contemplate the fact that Disney had, after all, Andrew Stanton directing–it just highlights the strangeness of the decision to make trailers that featured endless battles with a white ape in an arena and virtually zero emotional content.

Of course there is more to the marketing than the trailers — but the trailers and TV spots are the backbone and WB made a series of great decisions, and Disney stubbornly made bad decision after bad decision in their tone deaf promotion of John Carter.

Let’s move on from the marketing to the films themselves.

How Similar was the Critics Response?

Pretty similar, it turns out.  John Carter was at 54% “Rotten” on opening weekend before eventually drifting own to 51%.  Man of Steel is at 57% “Rotten”.   This is close enough that neither film can say that the critics were a positive factor.  In each case, success had to be achieved in spite of the critics, not because of them.

What About Audience Response?

Man os Steel had an A- Cinemascore; John Carter was a B+.   Other indicators seem to suggest that the audience response to Man of Steel has been slightly better on opening weekend than was the case with John Carter.  But chances are, we will see a dropoff next week that is fairly “in pattern” with the dropoff that John Carter experienced in the second weeks.

What About Studio Decisions?

WB made a series of decisions that turned out to be very smart, and Disney made a series of decisions that turned out to be not so smart.  WB got Christopher Nolan, architect of the immensely successful Dark Knight series, on board as producer and with that single decision, insured that the film would have a “cool” factor that was vitally needed, given audience apathy and the sense that Superman was a little too bland (too “vanilla?”) for modern audiences.   Nolan brought David Goyer with him for the screenplay — another “cool factor” move that made good sense, and thus the hiring of Zack Snyder as director came with a context to it — that context being that the director of 300 (good) and Sucker Punch (not so good) would be part of a strong team and have strong oversight.  The team then went forward and made a series of smart casting decisions.  They picked an unknown in Henry Cavill to play Superman . . . . and they made a pick that has been universally lauded.  Then they supported that choice with an iconic supporting cast — Russel Crowe, Kevin Costner, Diane Lane — and for Lois Lane, they went with Amy Adams.  Compare that to the John Carter choices — Taylor Kitsch as John Carter was a rough equivalent to Henry Cavill in terms of market appeal  (not much going in), and thus the supporting cast decisions become critical.  Ciaran Hinds, James Purefoy, and Willem Dafoe just don’t register in the marketing the way that Crowe, Costner, and Lane did.  And then you have Amy Adams on the one hand, and Lynn Collins on the other.  This is not meant as criticism of the actors themselves or their performances — it is an observation regarding the “cast design” as envisioned by the producers and director.  One has great appeal in the marketplace — the other has limited appeal.

The Story

You can feel the same forces that were at play in Andrew Stanton’s mind as they play out on the screen in Man of Steel.  Is Superman “mopey”, to use a favorite word heard often around these parts?  Answer: Pretty much.   But other than that . . . .  well, I haven’t seen the movie yet so I’ll save that for a followup post.

In closing I’ll just say this.  It’s not possible to hold up Man of Steel and its $125M opening weekend and say that John Carter, with a few better decisions and better marketing, could have done the same.   But it didn’t have to do the same.  Even half of that opening would have been enough to generate a sequel and keep John Carter on movie screens for years to come.   That didn’t happen, and the reasons for it, which have always been somehwhat obvious, became somewhat more obvious this weekend. 

20 comments

  • Man of Steel’s success just shows a badly reviewed movie with a lot action can still do well like Transformers.

    A badly reviewed movie that is rather dull in the action Department like JC has a much steeper climb.

  • Just received notice that my copy of “Warlord of Mars” Trade paperback 3 is arriving today. This should finish up the original first three ERB book trilogy. Quite enjoying these graphic novelizations.

    Oh, if only he who must not be named had just gone a little more in this direction instead of his middle of the road, didn’t please anyone direction that he took. And sexing it up a little doesn’t hurt either, it might have help sell tickets. It was those sexy Frank Frazetta covers on the Ace books that got me started reading all the stories back in the day.

  • One common point I would see between John Carter and Man of Steel is a certain reluctance to “embrace the pulp”. Other than that I don’t perceive both movies to have anything in common. Now I won’t see Man of Steel, too many things bug me in the critics I read, I’m pretty sure it will be better for me to stay home.

  • PS Sorry you didn’t like Man of Steel though Michael. I thought some things worked but don’t have a huge desire to see it again.

    As for Whiny having “the Burroughs magic” where was it? The only thing Burroughsian about this was that Man of Stanton kept the names. The rest of the magic was gone.

  • Michael Sellers wrote:
    “Without Disney bad marketing we would be getting ready for a sequel that would be coming out next year, all the while listening to you whine about it being whiny. (couldn’t resist that one).”

    Would we? Given the 350 million dollar cost of making and marketing, plus what you yourself mentioned about having no major stars and a director who, while he may think he is the greatest director who ever lived, is not Spielberg, Cameron or Nolan I highly doubt it. Throw in the much discussed lack of good or enthusastic word of mouth (which as you may have noticed has already plagued Man of Steel causing it to have a pretty big dip this past weekend) and while Mopey might have done well opening weekend it would have died off quickly as the enthusasism wasn’t there.

    As for Whiny Kitsch, don’t blame me. Blame Andrew. Apparently he thinks that’s the only way this film could have been made (and as we know he is the infallible Last Son of Pixaron, who has the ego to leap over big budgets, studio executives and his own hatred of the source material in a single bound).

    “The problems with John Carter (the movie) were there, but they were not “sequel killing level problems”…..

    The problems with John Carter (the marketing) were there, and they were absolutely “sequel killing level problems”. . . . .

    So …that’s not to deny there were probs with the movie, just to put it all in perspective in the world according to yours truly. I suspect you may beg to differ.”

    I just did. 🙂

  • PS to MCR …. I haven’t even been able to write a review about Man of Steel. I was really pretty excited to see it … had pretty high hopes, saw it once and it was pretty much one and done for me. Just so-so, very ordinary superhero stuff with a better first act that most. But it eventually, for me, just became every other superhero movie.

    As flawed as Stanton’s dear old JC is, it still has a lot of Burroughs magic in there and it still stands up under repeated viewings in a way that MOS does not, for me, and I was primed to embrace MOS.

  • Ha….MCR….the difference is this. Without Disney bad marketing we would be getting ready for a sequel that would be coming out next year, all the while listening to you whine about it being whiny. (couldn’t resist that one) … 😉 …. Instead, we are listening to you whine about it being whiny and there is NO sequel and probably no hope of a sequel anytime soon.

    The problems with John Carter (the movie) were there, but they were not “sequel killing level problems”…..

    The problems with John Carter (the marketing) were there, and they were absolutely “sequel killing level problems”. . . . .

    So …that’s not to deny there were probs with the movie, just to put it all in perspective in the world according to yours truly. I suspect you may beg to differ. 😉

  • “If you gave it half a chance, John Carter ( of Mars, damnit ) was fun, this one not so much. You can crucify Andrew Stanton for his choices, but it was Disney not making any attempt to make the general population aware of what the Carter tales meant to the developement of the pulp genre, sci-fi action romance, comic book super heroes and instill in the masses the desire to go out and see the movie that really sunk the ship.”

    And here we go again, that Disney Whiny Kitsch only failed because of Disney’s bad bungling of the marketing. Yes they botched it while Warners got it right. But Whiny Kitsch had different problems than Man of Steel did. MOS mostly suffered from disaster porn syndrome, a boring Zod who shouts too much and dull speechifiying from Crowe and even Costner (who I did feel was good as Pa Kent). But when it came to the actual story arc Kal-El suddenly didn’t act like a jerk. He gave himself up, no forcing his hand-like Backstabber Dejah-to Zod and decided he was wrong. No whining over a stupid cave or a dead cliched wife and kid.

    Now I’m not saying MOS was a great movie. It had its moments but like Whiny fell short. I just think its gotten funny that so many fans of Whiny feels that every movie ever made falls short (especially at the Super Secret Stanton Worship Site). I’m sure if Stanton had made MOS several of you would be claiming it the greatest thing ever made, even better than such hack jobs like Casablanca, Pinocchio, The Wizard of Oz, Seven Samurai, Lawrence of Arabia, etc.

    In short neither film I would classify as “fun.” Whiny Kitsch was just more disappointing since there has already been a great Superman film before and this was it for us long suffering ERB fans and yes it was the fault of Disney’s bad marketing. But the film itself was also the problem.

  • I agree with Barsoom Bob’s assessment of “Man Of Steel”. The action had a sameness and got boring. I didn’t like the dull colors and Snyder-esque look of the film. And I think Nolan gets way too much praise. Yeah, he has interesting viewpoints, but “fun” is never one of those viewpoints. And for me, that’s a BIG problem when it comes to comic book movies.

    I was MUCH more entertained by “Carter” than “MOS”. I knew MOS wouldn’t be as light and fun as the Reeves original, but I also didn’t expect it to be so serious and dark (literally). I liked the brief Smallville scenes with Costner and Lane, but wanted more. The new Lois Lane is a go-getter, but I liked Kidder’s version who marveled at the mysterious superhero.

  • The short answer is Warner Bros. had Christopher Nolan while Disney had Bob Iger and MT Carney.

  • It’s very true that Superman has an awareness than John Carter didn’t have. And frankly Warner’s marketing campain was just too much for me, I just couldn’t stomach one more Man of Steel clip anymore!

    But has Disney really learned anything? The Lone Ranger’s marketing campain seems awfully quiet to me. Perhaps it will accelerate in the last month to release though.

    Here is another character whose recognition is mostly in the past (in France he’s completely unknwon), but Disney probably counts on Johnny Depp’s charisma to sell the movie.

  • It has to do with “awareness”. Everybody knows Superman, we are living in a very juvenile age of comic book movies, personally I’m so sick of them, and a certain social media hive mind mentality among the younger population. They were lining up around the block in the City here to give them their $14 to $20 dollars for a ticket.

    I saw Supe on Saturday and there were some cool inovative things in the story, acting was good, but it was so overwrought and drawn out it become numbing. And, I have a problem with Snyder’s style of special effects. Everything is this grey, washed out color and dimensionally it is very flat looking. While not as obvious as his green screen wallapalooza, 300, it just seems like a busy background to me, not a real environment. Say what you want about JC’s bland backgrounds, at least they looked real.

    If you gave it half a chance, John Carter ( of Mars, damnit ) was fun, this one not so much. You can crucify Andrew Stanton for his choices, but it was Disney not making any attempt to make the general population aware of what the Carter tales meant to the developement of the pulp genre, sci-fi action romance, comic book super heroes and instill in the masses the desire to go out and see the movie that really sunk the ship.

  • Well yeah. A hundred bucks would not buy you much PR.

    As for childhood memories, yeah Stanton did a hell of a bang-up job if his Whiny Carter ( who still out mopes Man of Steel) and the rest of his deluded “childhood memories” are an indication.

    And really? 213 times? Maybe you need to splurge and buy another movie, maybe something by someone else other than the Great and Powerful Andrew. How about the original Superman with Christopher Reeve. It holds up and there is no massive carnage or caves of gold to mood over

  • 1st. The $100 PR for our Disney Film is bull. They didn’t even pay for the atrocious Super Bowl commercial; As whatever promotional contest paid for it.

    2nd. I don’t think I trust the Nolan Snyder Goyer brain trust with my childhood memories at all. I don’t like what he did to Batman. And Suckerpunch and Watchmen are not inspirational …

    3rd. Aside from revisiting 9/11 every time you watch the film – would you watch it more than twice? I am about to watch John Carter of Mars for the 213th time. YMMV.

  • These stories have been with me since childhood.
    My brother used to read these books to me before bedtime.
    I used to contemplate how a world like that might look. Now I’ve seen Tharks, White Apes, ships that sail on light and, more importantly, imagination. Thank you Edgar…

  • John Carter was not a bad movie. I think it was marketed wrong and could have used a stronger lead actor. I’m hoping it will get a sequel as there is plenty of potential still left there.
    Man of Steel in my opinion is a really good movie. And I don’t know what the critics had such a problem with. The only thing I didn’t like was his childhood was told mostly in flashbacks. It is easily one of the best comic book adaptions I have seen.
    And for those of you who don’t know. Superman was based on John Carter from the Edgar Rice Burroughs books. In the beginning of the comics and they showed it in Man of Steel, he jumped just like Carter did on Mars. It has been said that those books inspired several movies including Star Wars.

  • Steve Davidson wrote:

    it’s just the weekend. better weekend, better box office.

    Ha … and John Carter was originally scheduled to be released on June 8, then opted to go for a March release. So I guess I should have added that to the “bonehead decisions” paragraph.

    But …. while I get the sentiment and I know you’re probably not being entirely serious …. gotta say, you can’t lay it all off on the release date. The danger of a June release date is the competition. Disney made the decision to move John Carter to the same date they had released Alice in Wonderland (and, sign, Mars Needs Moms) ….to escape the presumed June competition. It was a defensible decision, sort of, had they backed it up with decent promotion. Not a good decision, but a defensible one.

Leave a Reply