John Carter Facebook group now operating an off-Facebook forum; check it out-join the discussion

Other Stuff

I wanted to make sure that everyone who comes here to John Carter Files knows that the John Carter Facebook Group is now operating an off-Facebook Forum at Check it out — the idea is to have a forum where people who are interested in John Carter, but aren’t members of Facebook, can join in the discussion. Also, if you do use Facebook — join us at Back to Barsoom Facebook Group.

To give you an idea of what you’re missing if you’re not part of the facebook group — here is just one thread of discussion that started yesterday afternoon when word came about about Disney CEO Iger’s comments about John Carter:

Iger has spoken
I had been hearing from Disney sources that Iger didn’t “get” John Carter and that this contributed to the top-down attitude that it was doomed. I had been trying to verify this through multiple sources. I don’t’ have to anymore. Listen to this. .

Disney CEO is starting to talk about John Carter and what he has to say, first in a Fortune/CNN Money article, and now in Bloomberg, is extremely interesting, particularly coming now, publicly, the day after the Q2 financials were released. Iger is interviewed by Bloomberg’s Carol Muller. …

 ·  ·  · Share · Yesterday at 5:23pm
    • Steven E Gordon Sure that type of thinking comes from the top. Ross was just the sacrificial lamb (not that he didn’t deserve it). Ross might even been out in place for just such an occurrence. That’s why Bill Mechanic was put into position at FOX – to take the blame for Titanic when it tanked…

      Yesterday at 5:27pm ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers What I find infuriating is that this puts it all on the film-makers. “When we saw it…..we knew”…….so it’s not about the marketing or the concept (since they approved the concept) …it’s all on the execution by Stanton. Just spineless.

      Yesterday at 5:29pm ·  ·  1
    • Daniel Presnell I just want to slap somebody.

      Yesterday at 5:30pm via mobile · 
    • Bob Couttie Corp-talk at it’s worst.

    • Frank Starrett Thark slap

    • Steven E Gordon Because, ya’ know, Iger he KNOWS quality film when he sees it. He’s just a suit that clawed his way to the top by playing the right games

    • Tom Tataranowicz The Hollywood Corporate Motto… Fail upwards. Blame others. Hold onto your dick and keep your head down.

    • Steven E Gordon There’s very few people in that position that actually are involved in the creation of the films and he’s not one of them

    • Steven E Gordon most just take credit for the hits and blame others for the misses

    • Daniel Presnell Yeah the damn talking dog movies seem to be his flipping speed how many of those has he “got”

      Yesterday at 5:37pm via mobile ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon chances are good, Ross or someone came to him and told him they thought JC was a bomb. I doubt he came to any conclusions on his own.
      BUT he could’ve (if he had backbone) told his subordinates to spin a positive narrative for it regardless.
      It still feels like there’s a BIG missing piece to the story. WHY did they not do everything in their power to make the best of the situation…?

      Yesterday at 5:41pm ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers Not only that. They saw it in December 2010, 14 months before the release. If his reaction was as he says it is, he had a fiduciary responsibility to his investors to blow the whistle on the production; flex studio muscle; bring in creative people who could fix it; and raise the alarm. There is no evidence anything like that happened.

      Yesterday at 5:45pm ·  ·  3
    • Daniel Presnell Good point Michael. Anyone know anybody at the SECOND

      Yesterday at 5:49pm via mobile · 
    • Brian Fasick Iger. Certainly impressive. Not. Someone call in Clint Eastwood, we need an Iger Sanction post haste….

      Yesterday at 5:49pm ·  ·  1
    • Daniel Presnell S.E.C^ damn auto correct

      Yesterday at 5:50pm via mobile · 
    • Steven E Gordon small budget pictures I understand letting the wheels grind along\, but this was a HUGE tentpole picture and with a director they wanted to keep happy (or should have wanted to)

      Yesterday at 5:50pm ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon I can’t buy the Marvel made them do it conspiracy theory because it wouldn’t have hurt Avengers if just a month before Disney had a big hit and allowed them to have another tentpole.
      We’re not getting something and we may never get it.

    • Christopher Olsen ?”Almost” unbelievable nonsense from Iger. He has such great insight, doesn’t he?

    • Patrick Campbell This really makes me mad…Iger has gone off the rails as of late. Used to love the guy…Now, not so much. It turns out his lack of love and understanding for the studio is destroying it, and John Carter was caught in the crossfire. Sad…Just sad…

      Yesterday at 6:04pm ·  ·  1
    • Artemis Xoxox I’m not even going to read this. I take your word for what it says and I don’t want to get my blood boiling, too. Bah !!

    • Scott Dutton What a maroon.

      Yesterday at 6:22pm ·  ·  2
    • Scott Dutton Not you, Artemis. You’re more likely lavender or a nice shade of rose. 😉

      Yesterday at 6:24pm ·  ·  2
    • James Van Hise I don’t know if Disney will bother to explain this (perhaps someone at ERB
      Inc will know the facts) but it is clear that Disney decided pre-release
      that John Carter wasn’t testing well and so Disneybooks slashed the print run of The Art of John Carter so that it went OP upon publication and stores
      were unable to reorder it. Some Barnes & Noble stores never even received it and didn’t know that it had even been published. I called Disneybooks (a helpful B&N employee gave me the phone number) and they stated that the book was “unavailable for reorder and is thus OP.”

      Yesterday at 6:25pm via  ·  ·  2
    • Brian Fasick Great, instead of The Mouse That Roared we got The Rat That Choked…thanks to Iger and Ross.

      Yesterday at 6:28pm ·  ·  3
    • Kathy Lucero ?@Brian…good one…lol…hahahahaha….

    • Roy Dean I jsut want to see where the money they say they spent on marketing went. it obviously did not go into marketing.

      Yesterday at 6:33pm ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?James Van Hise thanks for reminding me about the testing. No — it tested just fine, which is interesting because Iger doesn’t cite the testing, he cites his own brilliance. Interesting.

      Yesterday at 6:37pm ·  ·  2
    • Brian Fasick Can anyone say ‘golden parachute’?

    • Shari Armstrong ?Roy: Exactly! I’m convinced it went in someone’s pocket. I saw ONE TV ad (not the Super Bowl one, either), there was no merchandise, no fast food deals, no market tie ins (seeing Battleship stuff everywhere – which is good for TK, but …. should have been there for John Carter, too!)

    • Roy Dean Americans are mostly sheeple. they believe anything mass media tells them. Tell them a piece of shit is golden and they will buy it. tell them that gold is worthless and they will buy that too. If disney would have pulled out the stops and pushed this movie with aggressive marketing and made the action figures, JC would have been the hit it should have been.

      Yesterday at 6:39pm ·  ·  2
    • Daniel Presnell Brian: this time I hope its made of real gold and he exits the corporate jet at about 35,000 feet.

      Yesterday at 6:40pm via mobile ·  ·  2
    • Roy Dean I mean really, ACTION FIGURES… Those ships were FANTASTIC!!! they wold have sold on image alone.

      Yesterday at 6:40pm ·  ·  3
    • Artemis Xoxox Btw, today, for the first time, I have seen a “sponsored” ad for John Carter, linking to the FB movie site. The ad has a couple of great photos, says “Before Star Wars & Avatar there was John Carter. Pre-Order a Blue-ray 3D or DVD Today!” Why didn’t they do this before???

      Yesterday at 6:40pm ·  ·  2
    • Jesse Johnson Disney is of course very much to blame for this but the man (Iger) has been making movies for a while so while he may have been a jerk for writing the movie off so early he may have been correct in what he thought about the film and I believe that Stanton is at least partly to blame. He was the director after all and was the biggest decider in what went into the movie and how it was made.

    • Shari Armstrong ?Chris: If the studio had supported the movie, and promoted it properly, the critics would have seen it in a different light.

      Yesterday at 6:41pm ·  ·  1
    • Artemis Xoxox I still think it was some sort of sabatage. I thought the Burroughs movie curse was broken when we got a great film made. Turns out it was cursed in a different way.

      Yesterday at 6:41pm ·  ·  1
    • Brian Fasick They should have come out with action figures/toy lines last Christmas season just to promote the movie coming out three months later.

      Yesterday at 6:44pm ·  ·  2
    • Roy Dean yes. we ERB fans got our movie. it was not perfect, but it was DAMN GOOD!!! when I win the powerball, I am gonna make the ERB Pellucidar series. I bet that will sell in todays market.

      Yesterday at 6:44pm ·  ·  3
    • Chris Farley Sorry Michael but Ive got to support Iger on this. All he is saying is that they knew it was going to be a challenge. We all knew this as soon as the critics came out with their views in fact I almost didnt see the movie because of them ,because I didnt want to be disappointed.
      The only thing that is in contention on what you have published is how much support he should have given the film. In this regard he must rely on his Studio Chief and the Marketing Department who let him and the Film down in a big way.

      Yesterday at 6:44pm ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley Iger would almost certainly be to blame for the $200 million loss statement to shareholders. If you are going to pull him apart this is where you should be headed.

    • Roy Dean I am gonna get Cameron to direct it and the studio who did the effects for Avatar to do the CG.

      Yesterday at 6:47pm ·  ·  2
    • Roy Dean I might also get the effects team from Jurasic Park to do the dinosaurs. 🙂

      Yesterday at 6:49pm ·  ·  1
    • Jesse Johnson I’d be happy to see a good adaption of Tarzan. One that sticks to the story that Burroughs wrote.

    • Brian Fasick Who else but the top dog of Disney would be able to make the decision to give such a dooming statement to the press ten days after the movie opened? That HAD to be Igers call.

      Yesterday at 6:52pm ·  ·  1
    • Kathy Lucero Woola would have sold a lot of movie tickets….if had been used to advantage….who wouldn’t want to go to a movie to see what Woola was all about?…all they had to do was promote the movie better…I think lots of kids would have been eager…. to see John Carter……just to see Woola…….well, hindsight is 20/20…..sigh….

      Yesterday at 6:52pm ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley You are saying you agree with Iger that the entire problem was with the film itself — that when he saw “enough of it”, his “instinct” told him it was a problem. Not the “research” (which showed that audiences liked it) but his “instinct” told him. And not a word about any failures by the marketing department? Just want to make sure that when you say you’re agreeing with Iger — that you think he’s correct in blaming it entirely on the filmmakers and the film itself and not a word about poor marketing?

      Yesterday at 6:53pm ·  ·  3
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley — to be clear, I think a statement like this would have been much more appropriate and come closer to the truth of what happened: “You know, sometimes a film comes along that is hard to figure ut how to market. Andrew Stanton …. the director of Wall-E and Finding Nemo is a very, very unusual film-maker. Now here he was, a unique film-maker, with unique material, and our marketing team worked hard to get synched up with the material and how to present it in the marketplace in a way that would resonate with the potential audience of 2012. Quite frankly, we just never cracked the code. It was a learning experience, and a painful one. Is the film perfect? No. But we culd have done better with it.”

      Yesterday at 6:55pm ·  ·  5
    • Chris Farley Its hard to place blame on Marketing when they are still there. In fact the less said about this the better. They have still got to market the DVD and this ,if it does as well as Avatar, could earn more than the theatres

    • Roy Dean look at the marketing job for Twilight. they made people believe that vampires sparkle like diamonds in the sun. Now that was good marketing. and people bought it. Good marketing can sell turds. Now look at Battleship. looks like a great movie and the marketing is excellent. If we had had that kind of marketing, JC would have been a huge success.

      Yesterday at 6:59pm ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Campbell Unfortunately, Chris Farley, they really haven’t even begun marketing that. They’re just kinda ignoring it, and it comes out in less than a month. No real push, nothing. It’s like they’re just trying to sweep it under the rug, admitting defeat, instead of dredging forward and trying to find a way to turn this around.

    • Michael D. Sellers Anybody with a google alert for John Carter and John Carter DVD knows that they have done exactly zero other than one press release — the official announcement. And the release is less than a month from now.

      Yesterday at 7:01pm ·  ·  2
    • Shari Armstrong No TV ads for the DVD either, I’ve seen them for The Vow (I think it was), promoting it as some “perfect Mother’s Day gift”.

      Yesterday at 7:03pm ·  ·  1
    • Jesse Johnson I have said this before. Disney and Andrew Stanton were the wrong people to make this film.

    • Roy Dean They should have gotten Spielberg and Cameron to do a joint direct on the movie. 🙂

    • Roy Dean lets face it, Corporate American is as out of touch with we the people as much as our governmet is. it is full of pure idiots who will need another bail out pretty damn soon due to poor leadership.

    • Patrick Campbell I don’t think Stanton was the wrong people to make it at all. I thought the movie turned out fantastically. But Disney burned Stanton and the film, and that’s the problem. It had the chance to be huge, and the marketing, and everyone high above stanton just seemed to not care about the movie in the end. They essentially sabotaged their own movie. It’s just sad…

      Yesterday at 7:07pm ·  ·  5
    • Roy Dean ther is nothing wrong with the JC movie. It is good as it stands. it is what it is supposed to be, a loincloth and sword epic adventure. I like it and will be proud to add it to my ERB collection.

      Yesterday at 7:08pm ·  ·  3
    • Jack LesCamela ?Jesse Johnson, Robert Iger hasn’t *made* anything. He’s never written a movie, never directed one. He’s a suit. As such I trust his opinion about what could be a successful movie about as far as I could throw him.I saw JOHN CARTER in the theater nine times. Two of those were preview screenings I didn’t pay for, but seven of them I happily paid for –and would’ve seen it many more times besides if my local theater (the El Capitan in Hollywood) had shown it in 2D. I can’t see 3D and dislike wearing two pairs of glasses.

      I’ve never seen any movie in the theater nine times. I know this: No matter how unique I like to think myself, I’m not *that* different from every other person on the planet. If I was willing to pay that much to see JOHN CARTER, then millions of other theater goers would’ve paid to see it once. The difference between me and them is that I didn’t need to be told why the movie was cool or different or special before seeing it, and they did.

      That’s where the advertising failed them.

      Yesterday at 7:08pm ·  ·  6
    • Michael D. Sellers Also Chris Farley, remember that the head of marketing left/was fired in late January so the argument about marketing being in place and needing to be supported is undercut by that. With Ross and MT Carney (head of marketing) both gone, the argument for protecting the in-place team is weakened. Anyway …not a biggie…I’m not obsessed with winning arguments. It’s fine to agree to disagree.

      Yesterday at 7:09pm ·  ·  1
    • Shari Armstrong ?Roy: I don’t think Spielberg and Cameron were the right ones to do it – or they would have before now. Cameron made Avatar INSTEAD of the using the book it was inspired by. I loved the movie we got and want more.

      Yesterday at 7:12pm ·  ·  3
    • Jesse Johnson ?@Patrick Campbell~Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and I agree with you 100% about what Disney did but I also say Stanton as the director carries some of the blame. It was a good movie and I enjoyed it but it would have been a BETTER movie if Stanton had stuck closer to the source material. A once in a lifetime opportunity has been lost. Many, many hands are involved in making a film and no one person can be blamed for it’s failure.

    • Roy Dean like I said, I have no complaints about the JC movie. it was very good. I am just like everyone else who likes the movie, I am just pissed that the marketing, or lack thereof, was such a disaster. I think Stanton did a great job. As for the Spielberg/Cameron statement, I just love alot of their work and can always fantasize about a joint effort by them to put out an ERB movie. 🙂

      Yesterday at 7:15pm ·  ·  2
    • Jesse Johnson ?@Jack LesCamela; I saw JOHN CARTER in the theater nine times.I saw it once. If however Stanton had stuck closer to Burroughs story I would’ve seen it more than once but as it is, once was enough.

    • Patrick Campbell Ah, but that’s why I’m not blaming it on any one person. 😉 I blame everyone who turned their back on it. Sure, the movie wasn’t exactly like the source material, but it was a great adaptation that was a labor of love for Stanton. He just wanted to show the world about this magnificent book series that many didn’t know about, and I think he did it in spades. You’re right though, we’re both entitled to our own opinions,. We’ll have to agree to disagree. 🙂

      Yesterday at 7:15pm ·  ·  3
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jesse Johnson “Many, many hands are involved in making a film and no one person can be blamed for it’s failure.” How about “Many, many hands are involved in making AND MARKETING a film,” …..?

      Yesterday at 7:19pm ·  ·  3
    • Jesse Johnson I consider marketing to be a part of the making of a film.

    • Jesse Johnson ?~~We’ll have to agree to disagree. :)~~
      Yep about that you’re right.

    • Jeff Long But we all knew this, right? Disney didn’t know what it had, or what to do with it. I know squat about the movie biz, but anyone can see that studio suits love to know exactly who is going to gobble up their summer blockbuster. That’s why they keep making the same ones every summer. No one had to do market research to find the audience for Avengers or a Harry Potter sequel or Twilight. I can see the execs at Disney thinking they were getting a ‘guy with sword fights giant apes’ movie, and gearing up for that. They got a final product that didn’t fit that mold. And pissed themselves. The problem is, they didn’t know how to run with something that appeals equally to the people who wanted that swords-versus-apes movie but also to so many more demographics.

      Yesterday at 7:44pm ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jeff Long Yes we knew it but for Iger to blatantly admit it….and make no nod to marketing failures or failure to understand it….and to blame it all on the film itself… pretty breath-taking, at least for me. I mean — I’ve been hearing this for weeks from people I’m talking to but to hear Iger just say it like this, is really remarkable. I can think of 10 more political ways to respond to the question, but his ego seems to be so large that he couldn’t come up with a diplomatically appropriate statement …. he just says — I’m smart, I knew this would fail (subtext: I didn’t green light it), and the film just was never going to work, no matter what we did to market it.

      23 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Jeff Long ?Michael D. Sellers I see where you’re coming from. But to me — and to anyone who keeps hearing from people who reluctantly went to the movie and came away loving it — it just makes him look like an idiot. I came to this movie as a diehard and lifelong Burroughs fan, and that was my only interest in it. And as much as I love my fellow Burroughs Bibliophiles and our Dum-Dums and ECOFs and fanzines and email lists, I am reveling in this group of new fans who see things in this movie that are rooted in an ERB many of them never heard of. I know, you know, and everyone here knows, that this movie will stand the test of time. And that’s partly for reasons that go far beyond my cherished Edgar Rice Burroughs. Iger’s a boob for not knowing it.

      23 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Michael D. Sellers Well said, Jeff Long…..I have the same feeling — in the lead up to this release, yes, I was hoping for a hit (which increasingly meant hoping for a miracle, as the campaign unfolded)….but what I was really licking my chops in anticipation of was the fact that something like 30-50million people were going to get exposed to ERB through Stanton…….and when I saw the magic work for the “newbies” who knew nothing of ERB ….I was so thrilled…..and against that, and the potential it represents, there is Mr. Iger the man with no soul just simply not getting it. Oh well…’s made for an interesting several months…. Oh and by the way — also thrilling to see our Dum Dum / Ecof brethren mixing it up with the new fans here on Facebook……so — it’s Iger’s loss, ours too I guess, but as Steve Jobs said, there are people who “get it”, and there are “bozos”. The Bozo Meter has identified where Iger lands, if there was ever any doubt.

      23 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Chris Farley Iger should come out and publicly support the film before the DVD release . I think this will help if people know Disney supports the film and stands behind Stantons work.Its not what Iger does thats the problem its what he says publicly

      23 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley …. which is just yet another reason his comments are so baffling. Simple common business sense would dictate saying: “It was a difficult title to market but it’s finding an audience and we hope it builds a long-term position as a classic, starting with the DVD sales which are excellent.” Coulda said that — but then if he had, he wouldn’t be able to say “look how smart I am, I KNEW, I have INSTINCT about these things…..”

      23 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Patrick Malloy I am away for most of the day and I come back to read this…well, at least the Truth is out, one way or another it always rises to the top. So Iger is to take most of the blame along with Ross. How unfortunate that this is the case, for the film is such a brilliant film. I wonder how Stanton and Lasseter reacted to this article, or better yet how they have reacted to Iger/Ross gutting John Carter. It is no secret that Pixar was not wanting to stick with Disney, thought they eventually formed their partnership with them. I wonder if those at Pixar are regretting selling out to Disney. I for one would be. With this new revelation, I would say that we continue to do what we have done and be as positive but as unwavering as possible. I still think that the gentleman who was sitting in front of me was right on with his statement that Lasseter is the key to getting a sequel. One thing I have been thinking about the last week was becoming a Disney stockholder, for I believe that would add a wee bit little more weight within my communications with those of Disney/Pixar. I am sure there will be other revelations to come to light within the coming days. All we can do is continue with the effort we have begun and be resolute in determination to go back to Barsoom!

      23 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Chris Farley Iger has been a wonderful success at Disney and is responsible for their acquisition of both Marvel and Pixar He got his experience in radio and Television and I am not sure if as ked that he would claim to be an expert in film.

      22 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley he just did.

      22 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers Iger: if you’ve been in the business long enough whether something is going to do well or not, before it comes out, research aside — it’s more…it’s an instinct.

      22 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers By the way Chris Farley I don’t disagree that as the “brand manager” and acquisitions manager and overall CEO he’s been successful. No argument there.

      22 hours ago · 
    • Bob Jenson I don’t get the people who complain that they “don’t get” “John Carter.” Really, was it any harder to follow than the first “Star Wars”? We accepted what that was with no need to know everything about that universe right off the bat. I think Ebert complained that he didn’t understand all the swordplay in “JC” when they had fliers and guns as well, when it was clearly comparable to early 19th century naval warfare, only mid-air. To me, if Stanton is to blame for anything it’s for not talking down to us.

      22 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Artemis Xoxox Obviously Ebert doesn’t read books, cos if he did he’d understand what was going on.

      22 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Patrick Campbell Exactly, Bob Jenson. Stanton said he never wanted to talk down to the audience:
      “The Unifying Theory of 2+2: Don’t give the audience 4, make them put it together. The elements you provide and the order in which they’re placed is crucial to engaging the audience.”

      22 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers I think Lucas recognized that there were certain advantages with starting with “Episode 4″. It forced the audience to accept that they didn’t understand all the backstory, just like we always do when we start watching a show in the middle or miss the first episodes of some multi-epoisde thing. He then went back and filled all that in later, after it was a hit.Re the swordplay — all that was needed was one line of dialogue from Kantos Kan ….”We never use a higher level weapon than the one with which we are attacked; it is our way on Barsoom.” I thin it would have solved the problem, but also conveyed the “codes” that were so much a part of what Burroughs was working with to such success in the books. Just one line of dialogue…..

      22 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers The thing is — the notion of a sword on one side, ray gun on the other, and you use the sword….is a part of sci-fi tradition since ERB (1st) and Flash Gordon after that. But …… at most it’s a quibble. People who complain about that are looking for things to complain about.

      22 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Patrick Malloy The key is the Iger has admitted that he is the one who for all intense and purpose killed John Carter before it arrived in a theater. Ross is guilty yes, but now we know Iger is the missing piece of the puzzle to paraphrase what another so correctly has ascertained. Now why you are “supporting” Iger is beyond me. I gather you enjoyed the film, yet how can you also support the very one who is responsible for torpedoing it. That is totally an example of “Reductio ad absurdum”. I find it ironic that his “intuition” is what guided him in making his decision about the film, only to be shown how far from the mark his is. Interesting to note that he throws Ross under the buss to, so as to help wash his hands of the debacle of how this was handled. If I was Pixar, I would be regretting the fact that I let Disney basically buy me out.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Steven E Gordon Trust me, Pixar is not regretting anything – though Stanton might be.

      21 hours ago · 
    • Chris Farley What he said was that ” there was a point before Carter came out that I had a very strong sense that it was going to be very challenging……” “……. you never know…..but we had a strong sense…i was very worried about it … not that I wasn’t cheering for it …..but I was worried about it.”
      This doesnt sound like an expert to me

      21 hours ago · 
    • Bob Jenson ?Michael, for sure a tradition – but kind of a dated one for today’s audiences. But they are also able to understand why both swords and guns (and canons) were used in “Master and Commander” and I saw no difference other than the ships in “John Cater” floated on air rather than water – I think Stanton showed us that and trusted us to be smart enough to understand it. So yeah, some people were looking for things to complain about, and to me that illustrates the dog-pile mentality that hit our film with a vengeance.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley … why are you skipping the part where he talks about having an instinct based on all his experience that lets him know when a film isn’t going to do well? That’s the relevant part of the quote. Here’s the exact quote, in full context, no cherry picking:”They’re all our babies and we root for all of them to do well….we’re relatively realistic about the prospects of our film when we see enough of each film…i mean, you get a good sense if you’ve been in the business long enough whether something is going to do well or not, before it comes out, research aside — it’s more…it’s an instinct. There was a point before Carter came out that I had a very strong sense that it was going to be very challenging……”

      IMO when Iger says “you get a sense if you’ve been in the business long enough whether something is going to do well or not, before it comes out, research aside–it’s more…it’s an instinct.” …. when he says that, he’s saying “I’m an expert.”

      Note that he says “research aside” — meaning, even if the research says otherwise — his instinct is what he relies on. That’s REALLY saying he’s an expert. And he made that comment about research precisely because the test screenings for John Carter were positive—certainly far more positive than the box office outcome would indicate.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Steven E Gordon I prefer William Gold man’s quote: “Nobody (in Hollywood) knows anything”.
      The only way Iger would’ve been sure that JC was going to take was because that was his plan

      21 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Bob Jenson … re it being a “dated tradition” for today’s audiences — precisely! That’s why I would have recommended (had they asked my valued opinion!) inoculating against this criticism with a line of dialogue that explains the Barsoomian code that governs warfare. But they didn’t ask me! <sigh>

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Steven E Gordon yes, and if he was being a real champion of the film as he should have been — if he had that concern he says he had, he would have/should have called everybody involved together and given the m the pep talk of the century making sure they all knew that with 250m invested, failure is not an option, and they MUST figure out how to get the public excited about this unusual movie……and left them with no doubt that the studio wants success, period. I am absolutely certain that never even remotely happened.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Patrick Campbell Can I also throw out there that Fox didn’t stand behind George Lucas and Star Wars years ago, but they still went along with what he was doing, even though they thought he was crazy and it wouldn’t sell…Yeah, look how that turned out. They tried, and it worked. This could have happened here…

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon Even if it had meant spending an additional 250 mill in marketing they (Normally) would have went balls to the wall to avoid an embarrassment of this nature – just as they did with Avengers.
      THAT’S the way it normally works

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon Star Wars was a small budget throw away film as far as Fox (and everyone else was concerned)

      21 hours ago · 
    • Patrick Campbell ?Steven E Gordon – It was also laughed at by most people who said it wouldn’t sell. They said it would never make money, and Fox was ready to take a hit for it. But they didn’t just stand aside like Disney did. They took a stand and pushed it, with Lucas’ help, and the rest, as they say, is history. It changed Hollywood overnight. I’m not saying John Carter would change anything, but it sure as hell could have done well if Disney had stood behind it and tried like Fox did with Star Wars all those years ago.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon yep…isn’t that what we’re all saying here?

      21 hours ago · 
    • Chris Farley I dont agree Michael To quote Wikipedia “Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience whereas ” Experts have a prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field.”

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Rebecca Baeder-Garland Geez, I wrote the longest, most thoughtful, inspirational yet concerned comment ever, but it disappeared. Figures. Something about… I knew it… maybe Iger will have a heart attack and die…we all tried, but it wasn’t enough… this sucks… so not fair… still glad I saw the film and got exposed to the books and author and met so many cool people as a result… so worth the pain… still trying for a sequel…. predict Iger will be gone by 2013… I love you guys… that was the gist.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Patrick Campbell ?Steven E Gordon – It definitely is. I just wanted to point that out. I thought it was an interesting comparison, especially considering how Star Wars borrowed from John Carter. I just wish this movie had done better…

      21 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Chris Farley I hope they dont lose Iger he is good for Disney. Look at the shambles it was before he arrived.

      21 hours ago · 
    • Patrick Campbell ?Chris Farley – He’ll be out by 2015 regardless since he’s already announced it. But the company is still faltering, especially in the studio department. He admittedly doesn’t see the studio as an important aspect of the company, so he doesn’t focus on it. It’s that kind of thinking that hurts the company. He’s done a lot of great work, don’t get me wrong, but he’s not perfect and has made quite a few mistakes in my opinion as well.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley At least they have some talent now to call upon from Marvel and Pixar.

      21 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Campbell Definitely. Those are the strongest parts of the company right now, in my opinion. They do the best work. 🙂

      21 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley This comes with a ;-), okay?I appreciate your wikipedia definition of “instinct” and would respectfully suggest that you explain it to Iger, since he is the one — (not yours truly) who misused the term “instinct” when he said, …”i mean, you get a good sense if you’ve been in the business long enough whether something is going to do well or not, before it comes out, research aside — it’s more…it’s an instinct.” — Iger is clearly saying, that after “you’ve been in the business long enough” you develop an “instinct”, which is the opposite of the Wikipedia definition of instinct, but is common usage….as evidenced by the fact that Iger used it that way. Anyway — Iger clearly said he has an instinct which comes from years of experience. If that’s a mis-use of “instinct”…oh well. He said it that way.

      I’m not trying to get Iger ousted from Disney — my real objection to his comments in this interview are a) the subtext was always a) “i’m smart, I knew it would fail, and anyway – that’s no skin of my nose because my predecessor, that fool Dick Cook, was the one who adopted this orphan” b) the entire problem, aside from green lighting it in the first place, was the film itself, which I could tell from my years of experience would “not do well” (subtext–“no matter what our marketing people did it was doomed)….. I just think it’s pretty spineless and transparently self-serving….but it doesn’t take anything away from his coldhearted ice-in-his-veins brilliance at acquiring marvel, etc. ….. Okay …?

      20 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Bob Weis Steven- one thing to remember is that Disney didn’t have to go balls to the walls with marketing for the Avengers. Probably 80-90% of the marketing groundwork for the Avengers was in place, done by the marketing staff at Marvel Studios starting back in 2008 with their 5 year movie plan. John Carter marketing, or the lack if it, came beginning, middle and end out of Disney.

      20 hours ago via mobile ·  ·  4
    • Patrick Malloy ?@Farley…so let me get this right…you are happy that Iger was so brilliant to get Marvel and Pixar talent, but then you say that it is not Iger’s fault for the mishandling of John Carter, which would mean that it is one of Pixars best and brightest talent Stanton’s fault…my head hurts now thanks

      20 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Bob Weis and that’s why in August 2009, just after the acquisition of Marvel, Ross called a meeting of the Marvel marketing team and the Disney marketers responsible for John Carter and said guys …..give a listen to our Marvel brethren and see what they’ve done, and see what we can learn and apply to John Carter. I want John Carter to get the same kind of imaginative, pro-active marketing that Marvel has put in place for Avengers…….Oh wait….That didn’t’ happen. Damn.

      20 hours ago ·  ·  8
    • Chris Farley I do agree he shoots off his mouth too much !

      20 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Chris Farley ?@Patrick Malloy I’m saying it was Ross and his Marketing team that did the film so wrong . Iger gave him the same budget as The Avengers had to do some groundbreaking marketing which the film needed and which they failed miserably at.

      20 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Malloy ?@ Farley….Ross/failed marketing team and Iger are to blame yes

      20 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Ron Heydon Any news yet on who is likely to take over permanently from Ross. This, surely, is the individual who needs to be be blitzed during the early days of their tenure at the Studio.

      20 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley Iger was culpable on the statement re the $200 million loss and is also ultimately responsible as head of Disney if the film loses money. Ive already commented on the others.

      20 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Ron Heydon here’s a pretty good discussion of it by a writer I sometimes have a beef with, so I don’t swallow everything he says ….but I think he’s pretty much on target with his discussion of why it’s hard to fill the job now.

      20 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Ron Heydon Michael – Cheers ! Sounds to me that Iger really doesn’t need or want any more major Disney Studio activity through to his contract end in 2015 ( ? ), as this might undermine what has clearly been his ongoing priority of acquisition. This would lead one to conclude that it will be someone close to him or someone in tune with his vision and so unlikely to be a ” creative ” type from Pixar/Marvel/etc.

      14 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Brian Fasick Kinda off topic, but I have seen it asserted here and in other threads on our group page regarding STAR WARS being perceived as a low budget ‘throw away’ production. I really think that is an erroneous perception today since we commonly see so many ‘blockbuster’ movie productions exceeding 100 million dollars. Back in 1977 a movie with a production budget of $11 million (STAR WARS) was a considerable chunk of change. Consider these movies: 2001: A Space Odyssey – $10.5million; JAWS – $8million; Raiders of the Lost Ark – $18million; Close Encounters of the Third Kind – 19.4million; The Empire Strikes Back – $18million; Blue Lagoon -$4.5million; Airplane – $3.5million; Animal House – $3million; E.T. – $10.5million; Annie Hall (Best Picture Oscar of 1977) – $4million. Examples of ‘big budget’ movies for that time frame were war movies like A Bridge Too Far – $26million; Tora, Tora, Tora – $25million, and the comedy The Blues Brothers – $27million. Star Trek The Motion Picture was considered massively over-expensive at $35million, which is reflected in Star Trek The Wrath of Khan’s much more moderate $11million budget. Return of the Jedi – $32,500,000, was considered a really big budget movie. So I must humbly disagree with previous posters, in that STAR WARS was NOT a cheap, low production throw-away. Its budget for the time was very respectable as a considerable investment of capital.

      13 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Benoît Prézeau Well mr Iger, my instinc tells me that Disney will eventually regret not having pushed for this movie enough.

      13 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Khanada Taylor ?Michael D. Sellers: I had to use your “shot in the foot with smoking gun” lead in when I posted this article to my personal twitter acct. Too good not to do. But of course I didn’t use it when posting to our fan page/twitter acct.

      12 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Bob Jenson ?Brian, I agree for sure and I think we can compare “Star Wars” (and I’m sorry, but I am far too old to want to call it “Episode IV: A New Hope” – it is, and always will be just “Star Wars” to me) to “John Carter” a bit. While probably, even adjusted for inflation, not as big a risk as “JC” it still sure was a gamble for Lucas and Fox. I believe Fox was betting on “Damnation Alley” as their big-money SF movie of the year (and that sure didn’t work out for them…) and “SW” came along and blew us away and was a game changer. I’m thinking it had about as much merchandise as “JC” did at release. Unfortunately, while watching “John Carter” gave me the feeling I had when seeing “Star Wars” for the first time, you can’t rely on a movie being successful based on it simply being a fun Sf film romp. Audiences are jaded these days, and from what they could see as far as promotion, “JC” was nothing new to them.

      11 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Tom Tataranowicz I was working at Disney and got actually got drafted into coming up for marketing ideas when Warren Beatty and Jefferey Katzenberg were setting about personally willing “Dick Tracy” (a real turd of a movie) into being a hit. And they succeeded by sheer determination.

      10 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Debbie Banway Bob Jensen did you get my message??

      10 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz Bob Jenson “I think Ebert complained that he didn’t understand all the swordplay in “JC” when they had fliers and guns as well..” Well, Ii usually respect Ebert’s opinions, but c’mon Roger… like Light Sabers are the height of Space Age technology and even remotely logical in the super advanced Star Wars universe? Talk about selective points of view…

      10 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Tom Tataranowicz More on “Star Wars”… A key, and at the time, somewhat revolutionary part of the marketing plan was creating advance word of mouth buzz at Comic Cons. No studios used to do that back in the 1970’s and Lucas and his team pretty much pioneered it to obviously tremendous effect. Disney? They passed on generating Comic Con buzz for “Carter” and buried it in some half ass andlargely inappropriate Disney Convention.

      10 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Benoît Prézeau ?Tom Tataranowicz, maybe it is because SW tried to give a reason (“not as clumsy or random as a blaster. An elegant weapon, for a more civilized age.”). And in some of the SW movies of blasts are being deflected by lightsabers. If I remember correctly, in JC there’s nothing said about why people fight with swords.

      10 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz ?”Jesse Johnson – I have said this before. Disney and Andrew Stanton were the wrong people to make this film.” Don’t get me wrong here… I really like the film and think that Stantonindeed did a fine job. However, I agree with Jesse and also feel that Stanton may not have been the best Director for the job in terms of ending up with a film that generated the ever-so-important word of mouth buzz that would have launched “Carter’ into being a hit. I think it is basically inherent with the Pixar/Disney legacy – it just isn’t in those guys, or the system, to do a ballsy action film. Unfortunately, Stanton also did not seem to visually come up with the knock your socks off “iconic” imagery that makes people walk out of the theater and tell everyone, “You’ve gotta see this…”. As just one example, think of when Carter and the Tharks were attacking Zodanga. 100’s of Tharks on Thoats riding to the attack… music thundering… lots of characters… Carter in the lead… It should have been a real David Lean/James Cameron moment of excitement and spectacle. Instead, it was just sort of there. It looked nice, but didn’t get the blood pumping.

      10 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz All that I’m saying, Benoît Prézeaut, is that we accepted light sabers in Star Wars without caring about their inherent uselessness. The hoo-hah about “an elegant weapon” was all fine and good, but really, it was truly an ineffective weapon given all of the other technology. Light sabers (sword fights) just looked cool, so that’s all we needed. In “Carter,” i don’t see much difference from how swords and guns were both still used as late as in World War I. Even bayonets were still key weapons in WWII.

      10 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jesse Johnson My problem with Stanton is that he changed everything. He rewrote the story, he rewrote the characters, he even rewrote the locations. If he had stuck closer to the source material I personally would have enjoyed the movie more. Now I know you all say changes have to be made when translating a book to film but not as many changes as Stanton made.The basics were there yes. Carter goes to Mars, meets Dejah Thoris, falls in love, joins in the fight becomes a warrior of Barsoom and saves helium. Well the asylum version had the basics and it was garbage. Now I am not comparing John Carter to that John Carter was a good movie but it wasn’t a great movie. I wanted to see Burrough’s story not Stanton’s idea of what that story should be.

      10 hours ago · 
    • Christopher Olsen At Michael D. Sellers: So, since the test marketing of JOHN CARTER went well, what is the explanation for THE ART OF JOHN CARTER book going out of print almost immediately upon publication? cc: James Van Hise

      10 hours ago · 
    • Jeff Long The charge to Zodanga got my blood pumping. I almost wanted to get to my feet. But there was no climax. It just ended. I know a lot of people like the head slap. And I did chuckle. But in the end, it felt like a lost opportunity for grand spectacle.

      10 hours ago via  · 
    • Jesse Johnson Just to play devil’s advocate here. You can’t deny that if you do something long enough, i.e. ‘make movies’ even if you work in an administrative capacity, you do develop a sense, or whatever you want to call about how well something is going to work. That’s true in any occupation.

      9 hours ago · 
    • Bryan E Bustard I won’t exactly weigh in about whether Stanton was the best director for the movie or not, but the fact is that development for John Carter was dead in the water AGAIN when Stanton spoke up and said that he would do it. So had it not been for Stanton, we’d be waiting another 100 years for it to come out.

      9 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Tom Tataranowicz No question, Bryan E Bustard, I am grateful that Stanton got the film done and that I got to see a “John Carter” film in my lifetime. And a damn fine film to boot! All that I’m saying is that it was rather lacking in those “Alien” – Holy shit! That thing burst out of the guy’s chest” sort of moments that makes people go talk about a film excitedly and tell everyone that they have just got to go see it. And I’m not saying it had to be violence or anything like that, just a Directorial vision geared towards such iconic moments.

      9 hours ago · 
    • Bob Jenson ?Debbie Banway – no, I’m sorry I don’t think I did get your message. At least I don’t see one in my messages folder.

      9 hours ago · 
    • Bryan E Bustard Not saying I disagree with you, Tom Tataranowicz . Another favorite director of mine is Joe Johnston … and I LOVE Honey, I Shrunk the Kids, The Rocketeer, and Captain America and to a lesser extent, Jurassic Park III but he’s sometimes judged for not quite getting the kind of “oomph” out of action scenes that others can get. And personally, I think all of Spielberg’s action scenes in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade were all sort of “meh” as they say these days. And just to satisfy myself on where I stood on James Cameron’s Avatar, I tried again to watch it the other night on FX Movies and again found it emotionally uninvolving. Even the best directors have their weakenesses or even fail to live up to the reputation they have previously achieved. And being such a huge fan of David Lean, maybe Stanton should have caught what you mentioned. But being a fan of Hitchcock never seemed to translate too well for Brian DePalma who managed to rob scenes borrowed directly from Hitch in Dressed to Kill and Body Double of all their suspense and should have recognized that the hero of Bonfire of the Vanities was a PERFECT Hitch character and treated him accordingly 😉Michael D. Sellers justifiably says he would have added a line to suggest why swords and guns were both used in battles in the movie. You would have made the entrance into the great hall of Helium at the end far more dramatic. I might have added some more establishing dialog or action preceding the arrival of Carter, Dejah, and Sola at the River Iss. (It always seemed a little jarring to me to have left them the last time on their way to Hellium and then have them so suddenly just appear at the River.) Truth is, we can see these weaknesses now, especially after repeated viewings and of course we still love the movie, but I’m not entirely sure that even if we had advance copies of the script and had the opportunity to see rushes and test screenings all along the process that they would all have occurred to us then.

      9 hours ago · 
    • Steven E Gordon Sure, the film could have been different – maybe better – with a different director and studio involved. No way to really know that, of course. But unless you want to argue that having Stanton or Disney’s name involved with the film hurt the opening weekend then your talking about second weekend and word of mouth reaction.
      I doubt Stanton’s name hurt opening weekend (my opinion), but you could make an argument having Disney’s name attached to a film like this might have hurt opening weekend.
      Ultimately though the film(regardless of what names were attached) belonged to marketing – or lack of marketing. The following weekends seem to follow the normal course of a film not getting bad word of mouth so I’m not sure Stanton – or even Disney – being attached to the film hurt it.
      Would the film have done better if Favreau made his version? Coming off Iron Man, it might have. But it sure didn’t help Cowboys and Aliens.
      Would it have done better if those moments that Tom, or anyone else, point to as things they would have fixed/changed (or as Jesse wanted a direct translation of the book to screen) made opening weekend numbers better? I doubt it.
      The one thing that does seem pretty clear is Marketing dropped the ball and didn’t even try – as well as Ross and Iger planning for this film to fail from the beginning.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jesse Johnson if you think Stanton changed everything, you should read the 10 scripts developed by Disney and Paramount before Stanton’s……his is the closest to the original of all of them. …….You want John Carter as a modern day mercenary in Africa? You want JC as a wise-cracking Brookyner? The first 45 minutes inside the Atmosphere factory on Mars? These are some of the alternatives that “the best minds in Hollywood” came up with……I’m just sayin…..

      8 hours ago ·  ·  7
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Christopher Olsen….That’s the point — Iger followed his “instinct”, not the test marketing. The test marketing said audiences liked it and thus, with decent marketing, it should do well. Iger chose to trust his gut which said no, it won’t do well, so he didn’t support it with marketing — instead gave it the “marketing it deserved”, which, since he thought it wasn’t much of a film, wasn’t much. The opposite should have happened. If your experience based “instinct” is telling you this is likely to flop; but the test results are favorable; the solution is to call your marketers to gather and talk to them as if they are the “smart guys in a room” in Apollo 13: failure is not a option. That just never happened.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Christopher Olsen … and the book was just a casualty of that mentality.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Bob Weis Steven: we can all agree that marketing dropped the ball with John Carter. However you mentioned that having Stanton’s name associated with John Carter might have hurt opening weekend. We’ll never know because in none of the trailers was Stanton’s name invoked. Award winning writer Michael Chabon’s name was never invoked. So nothing that could have helped the film was used.

      8 hours ago via mobile ·  ·  4
    • Christopher Olsen Maybe Iger’s a closet Burroughs collector, and just wanted the rarity and value to increase for THE ART OF JOHN CARTER! 🙂

      8 hours ago · 
    • Jeff Long Was there one trailer or print ad that mentioned Edgar Rice Burroughs?

      8 hours ago via  ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon ?@Bob – Sure – that’s one of the reasons why I doubt it effected BO, but my point was did having Stanton as the director (or Disney as the studio) directly effect opening weekend BO and my suggestion was that the only way it could have been effected is by having his name attached to it and not by his actual direction or storytelling.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley Bottom line here is if the sequel is to happen before 2005 it will be Iger that greenlites it. Do these revelations make our job more difficult. Yes! Is it impossible to change his mind. No ! Lets get on with our present tasks of raising public awareness of a great movie without attacking the person thats going to make the decision which gets us nowhere.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Bryan E Bustard I’ve said several times… there was another article posted here at some point that suggested that Iger is practically being pushed around by the Marvel Studio exec. Get him to realize that John Carter is a closer cousin to the Avengers because of the long history Marvel has with ERB and especially John Carter and that Marvel’s tradition was also hurt by the shoddy marketing of the movie and he’d have to light a fire under Iger’s ass and do a lot of our work for us.

      8 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Sparky Santos Clearly – our allies are in Pixar

      8 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Patrick Campbell I think our allies lie within Marvel and Pixar. They both have great heads on their shoulders, and I highly that Feige would try pushing Iger around. I bet he was trying to help him understand the concept better, since Iger really didn’t seem to get it. Marvel has always been in the John Carter business, so I think having them there to help wouldn’t have been a bad thing, really.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  7
    • Patrick Campbell That should say say highly doubt. Typing too fast. My bad. :p

      7 hours ago · 
    • Bryan E Bustard I don’t believe the pressure was necessarily directly from Feige … but from Ike Permutter, I think the article suggested? I have a hard time keeping all the names of the players together, but then I guess we should be writing to Feige and asking his help?

      7 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers I can see a storyline developing….first it was Pixar who felt they had “earned the right” for Andrew Stanton to make John Carter…..Disney grudgingly acquiesced then screwed up the marketing. It would be really interesting if Marvel came along and said, after doing the Avengers etc, that they want to campion Gods of Mars — kind of an interesting kindred bond between Marvel and PIxar with Disney emerging as what it is, a distributor only, no longer a prime creator of IP. Storyline is still kind of hazy…..but there’s something there.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  10
    • Jack LesCamela Do you it’s likely to happen like that,Michael D. Sellers? Certainly having Feige on as a producer for GODS OF MARS would be a plus one thinks.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Steven E Gordon Like Stanton before JC, Marvel certainly could make demands on Disney after the Avengers

      7 hours ago · 
    • Chris Farley Marvel can definitely afford it now and they must have a lot of pull now with Iger after the success of The Avengers. But would they want Stanton?

      7 hours ago · 
    • Patrick Campbell I could definitely see that happening. Especially since Marvel is pushing towards the cosmic side of their comics in the movies now. It would actually be a great fit. I’d like to see that happen, and I think Marvel would be the perfect home for it. Plus, Marvel is budget cautious, which may not be a bad thing, meaning they could reign in if it started getting too crazy. Honestly, the whole idea is so crazy, it just might work!

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers Well … I think one of the hardest aspects of this situation is simply envisioning a scenario that could get past Disney’s “we’re so over John Carter” mentality. The emerging story of Disney no longer being Disney — the studio chief no longer being a czar, but rather being a coordinator and mollifier of the grand egos of the grand creators at Pixar, Marvel, Dreamworks…..If you grab onto that narrative, the concept of the distributed entities becoming the champions and Disney becoming more of a service distributor……at least it starts creating the beginning of a narrative wherein you can imagine a sequel happening.By contrast, if you think in terms of the conventional mentality — it’s very hard to imagine how, in the next period of time (2-4 years) Disney would ever go back to the well with JC.

      So …’s intriguing. Trying to think it through some more.

      The other scenario besides Feige/Marvel picking it up, is one that Patrick Malloy suggested–that Lasseter/Pixar take on Gods as the first true live action PIxar film. Not the half-way version that Stanton got to do for JC, but a real Pixar production. That might create space for Iger to budge.

      Either of these scenarios are far better than believing Disney will do it as a direct Disney production like the first one. That one is really hard to imagine.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley Marvel is a great Studio and very loyal to all their characters.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Bryan E Bustard And why not a full-fledged co-production between PIXAR and Marvel with both powerhouses combining their resources?

      7 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Jesse Johnson ?~~Michael D. Selle
      Jesse Johnson if you think Stanton changed everything, you should read the 10 scripts developed by Disney and Paramount before Stanton’s~~Yes I have read about those scripts and yes any of them would have been infinitely worse but that only means that Stanton’s version was “closer” it doesn’t mean it was close. Not close enough in my opinion at least.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Steven E Gordon The first scenario with Marvel (though I’m loathe to admit it) seems like the most likely right now. They have earned tremendous clout and goodwill.
      But a lot will depend on what happens with Brave. JL might be losing his steam since as CCO of Disney he has had less than an stellar record though Pixar seems to be doing well (once again, we’ll know more after Brave)
      And JC is a better fit and gamble for Marvel – action/adventure/boy’s films

      7 hours ago · 
    • Bryan E Bustard Total purists will always have trouble with a movie based on a beloved book. I still maintain that if it had not merely gone for the spirit of the books but strictly adhered to them, that the movie would have been as boring as the Asylum version. Reading the first book again only in the last few weeks, the central love story would not have manifested itself until far later in the movie and the pacing would have been all wrong on the screen.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Tom Tataranowicz Look… I’m not saying that Stanton did a bad job. In fact, I think that he did a great job. But for a film that had to gross nearly a billion dollars to be considered a blockbuster that it was hoped to be (it will be interesting to see if “Avengers” hits much beyond that), it was somehow lacking in the “cool” factor that would make it a must see film. In that regard, I disagree with Steve Gordon. A buzz of “break out” aspects of the film is a proven way for a film to have strong legs. Certainly it would have been a battle to overcome Disney’s own seemingly internal sabotage (for whatever the true reasons), but it would have helped monumentally. After all, isn’t the success of the “Transformers” films based simply upon the cool and loud mayhem without any pretension of being good films? I could argue that the same is true of many Tim Burton films.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz Unfortunately, I rather think that Marvel is really only interested in doing little other than mining their own extensive Universe, which they own in their entirety and do not have to license from outside entities such as ERB.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Jesse Johnson I have to disagree with you Bryan. The love story is much more prevalent in the book than it is in the movie. Giving Carter an earthly wife an having Dejah try to trick Carter made me grind my teeth as far as their relationship went.And closer adaptions being good are entirely possible. I give you the adventures of Sherlock Holmes starring Jeremy Brett as an example.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Patrick Campbell ?Tom Tataranowicz – There’s no saying they can’t produce a John Carter movie if Disney lets them. I mean, they are doing an, or were doing, an adaptation of Gods of Mars just recently, as well as the John Carter movie tie in comics. They’re in the John Carter business, they always have been. If they could find a way to convince them to get the rights, I’d say it’s very possible they’d like to do an adaptation of it on screen. And with the Marvel name on it, I expect many more people would go to see it.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley As a subsidiary of Disney they should already have the rights. If not I am sure ErB would be onside.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Patrick Campbell Yeah, i would figure since they’re part of Disney, they should be able to deal with the it. Marvel is the perfect home for John Carter.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz A book is a book. A film is a film. The two are often not easily interchangable. Obviously, the idea is to do a good film, not simply a faithful adaptation of a book. Of course, that does not mean that I think that source material should be unduly tampered with and changed just for the hell of it. In recent years, the Chris Columbus “Potter’ movies were critically lambasted for being too loyal to the books and thus not cinematic enough (I can’t say that I 100% agree with that assesment). “The Godfather” film was close to the book because – at least according to Robert Evans – the book and movie were being conceived of pretty much simultaneously.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Tom Tataranowicz The end result is that Stanton turned out a very fine film that everyone involved in should be proud of despite the pooch being screwed largely in the marketing, internal politics of Disney, etc., for whatever the reasons. Any changes or disagreements we may have with what Stanton did or didn’t do is frankly armchair quarterbacking. I, for one, am glad to have this film done.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley This would also overcome the problem of the “Disney is for kids “mentalty of the teens.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jesse Johnson Actually I thought there were elements of the potter films that deviated too far. Yes I am a purist and I believe a closer adaption that would have been a good film is possible and I’m saying that someone other than Stanton would probably be a good choice for that. I don’t know who but what I do know is that while I liked John Carter I didn’t like it as much as I would have had he not rewritten the story and changed the characters.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Jesse Johnson Oh and all this speculation as to what company would be best to make the sequel is also “armchair quarterbacking”

      7 hours ago · 
    • Patrick Malloy I knew this would be the “hot topic” of discussion this weekend! I was off doing stuff, so good morning/afternoon to everyone. It is easy to have a “debate” about Stanton’s “vision” and “direction” in terms of how he presented the John Carter film. It reminds me of the eternal debate about who is the best James Bond. That is all academic really, what I think is the important point to focus upon is the fact of the matter, that Iger has come forth and said that it was his “intuition” that lead to the mishandling of how the film was handled. My primary focus here being within the group is to do what I can to get a sequel made which has Stanton as the director. It was his film which I fell in love with and what moved me, and I want to see his vision carried forth. I think Stanton and Lasseter could really hit the ball out of the park if Pixar were to take it over. I know that Joss Whedon supports Stanton and John Carter, I don’t know enough to know if there are true Marvel supporters for Stanton/John Carter. If the Marvel team and Pixar were to join forces to make a sequel, then it could work, though realistically I don’t see marvel going that route. It is all speculation. Obviously there is a lot going on behind the scenes, so our best bet is to keep on with what we have been doing and Barsooming forth supporting the film and those associated with it in a positive manner

      7 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Bryan E Bustard Sorry to have given you the impression that I thought you were saying Stanton did a bad job, Tom . If we thought that, it would sure be hard to understand why you’re such an active member of this board and especially that you saw it multiple times too.You may be right about Marvel’s interest in John Carter, too, but Marvel Studios would be wise to abandon ONLY mining their extensive Universe for films since genres rule the screen for only so long and how long can superheroes dominate the Summer movie scene? Anyway, I think they may be persuaded to look into it, have some involvement, put the famous flashing comic book graphics of the Marvel logo on the film, be somewhat involved but let PIXAR and Andrew Stanton do the heavy lifting.

      And Jesse , I’d expect that you’d disagree but having well over the first third of the movie being in the primitive Thark domain with Princess Dejah not even showing up at all until that point with the old stereotype of the girl being there in ERB’s fiction as another girl to rescue, interests me in the book but just doesn’t interest me for the movie. But hey, that’s just me. I agree that I prefer Jeremy Brett to Robert Downey Jr. as Sherlock Holmes, but the fact is that they didn’t try to make a Sherlock Holmes movie with Jeremy Brett. Yeah, I skipped the modern Sherlock Holmes movies for the very reason you only saw John Carter once, but I WAS pleased with the spirit of the first 2 Rathbone Holmes adventures as I am pleased with the spirit of John Carter as theatrical motion pictures. I guess it all depends on how much compromise a person is willing to accept taking into account the vocabulary of books vs movies. It WAS good enough for me and for a lot of ERB fans, but there are a minority of ERB fans who were disappointed and I can’t blame you for that.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz Back in the earlier Tom Hanks, etc., versions being considered in the late 1980’s were under the banner of the Disney subsidiary, Touchstone, precisely to avoid the onus of the Disney name on something that would be marketed to a wider audience. BTW… Is Touchstone still around?

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz No, Jesse Johnnson, speculating about a sequel would not fall under armchair quarterbacking. Armchairing is second guessing after the fact. Sequel talk is something else altogether.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jesse Johnson Do you think any of this is going to effect any major film corporations decisions?

      7 hours ago · 
    • Brad Blake I want a sequel! If we all go to Disneyland and make a scene by throwing a mass group tantrum on Main Street, we’d probably make the news.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jesse Johnson Oh yeah We’d definitely make the news but I doubt that would get us a sequel. Their going to make decisions based on what they think is best for there company not on what a few fans want.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz ?Patrick Malloy, your points are well taken. However, I don’t think that this forum is necessarily best served by simply “Gee! Golly! Wow!” posts about the film. IMO. lively discussions on all facets of Carter, ERB, etc., simply enhances interest and keeps involvement fresh and alive. Like anything vital, a varied and nourishing diet is needed for a long run haul. Anything that keeps this forum going now that the film is pretty much out of the theaters is a good thing, no?

      7 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jesse Johnson ..”Oh and all this speculation as to what company would be best to make the sequel is also “armchair quarterbacking”” …..Jesse, I understand the tendency to think that way, but I want to help cure you of that! 😉 I think you’re selling yourself and everyone else here short. Sure, nobody can say some speculation we start here will become real — but with the tools of social media, blogging, the ear of Disney (yes, we have it), Stanton (yes, we have it), ERB Inc (yes we have it), the “wisdom of the crowd” (our crowd, in this case) can absolutely have an impact. I’m not sure I would have thought of either the Marvel or Pixar argument myself; but the group here did, and I’ve got a blog, and a book… do others in this group.

      People here need to realize — we can have in some fashion a seat at the table as this goes forward. We can affect the outcome. We had writers, artists, film-makers amongst us. You never know, it might be omeone from this group who connects with a Russian or Chinese gazillionaire who offers to co-finance….

      Message: It’s useless armchair quarterbacking. Ideas first tested within this group have a chance to become part of the story.

      End of rant. 😉

      7 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Chris Farley And it enables us to reach better decisions on how we should proceed Tom Tataranowicz

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Christopher Olsen ?Tom Tataranowicz: I think Touchstone was supposed to go away a few years ago, but it still remains a label used by Disney, ref Wikipedia.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers Damn auto-correct: “It’s NOT useless armchair quarterbacking” is what I meant to say.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz ?”Jesse Johnson: Do you think any of this is going to effect any major film corporations decisions?” In large liklihood probably not. But there is truly something to the “Star Trek” phenomenon of somehow keeping something alive until it finds its “time.” If anything is going to work, it’s the long game we need here.

      7 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Jesse Johnson Well maybe this isn’t where I should be then because I don’t like what Stanton did with the story and I don’t feel he is the best choice for a sequel.

      7 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela I do think it’s possible that the movie could find it’s audience in a big way on DVD. I can easily imagine a lot of people putting the movie in and thinking, “This was a really good movie. Why didn’t it do better? If I’d known it was like this I would’ve gone to the theater to see it.”

      6 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jesse Johnson … I would say that if your support for a sequel is premised on dumping Stanton …the likelihood of finding a consensus here for that is very slim. The group exists because people LIKED the film and WANT a sequel in the same vein came together pretty spontaneously. Having someone other than Stanton would be, I think, a second choice for the majority. Having said that, I don’t mean to presume to speak for everyone. We could do a poll to see how people feel.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Jack LesCamela ?Jesse Johnson, I’m not picking on you, but what are some specific things you dislike about the movie?

      6 hours ago · 
    • Chris Farley He had to sell it to modern audiences Jesse especially because much of it had been in other movies

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz With all due respect, Jesse Johnson, I think that this is exactly the place for someone with your views. While I may or not may agrree on many things, I welcome your thoughts. The fact that you have strong views on a topic much beloved by youthat you feel compelled to share is always valuable. Of course, it is obviously up to you to participate if you wish. But, I for one, would quickly lose interest in this, or any group if everyone simply agreed on everything in one big fan boy (or girl) circle jerk.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jesse Johnson John Carters wife on Earth
      The army trying to recruit him
      Having the river Iss in this movie
      Having Matai Shang in this movie
      Turning the Thurns into great big bad alien villains
      Making Zodonga a moving city
      Not even touching on the possible immortality of John Carter
      Giving the red Martians tattoos

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jesse Johnson and Jack LesCamela. I know we all have endless fascination with the issues surrounding the adaptation. This thread is covering some really important ground regarding Iger’s remarks yesterday, and the way forward, so I’m going to request that if you want to do a long discussion of the book to film adaptation issues, just take it to a new thread, okay? No offense meant, and I hope none taken.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Tom Tataranowicz I think that if Stanton were directing possible sequels that would be great news. If someone else creatively qualified were to direct them, that would be okay too. The “Potter” films (IMO) got better and better as they kept introducing and changing Directors. The “Spiderman” films went into the toilet with the 3rd one, I believe partly because the Director overstayed his welcome creatively. I think the same could be said of even an often superb director like Spielberg overstaying on the “Indiana Jones” films.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz In short… I am not per se a Stanton fan. I am not per se a Taylor Kitsch fan. I am not per se a Lynn Collins fan. I am a fan of this particular John Carter film. With a strong dose of being an ERB fan tossed in for good measure…

      6 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Tom Tataranowicz I think Stanton’s availability will be an issue no matter what, because — with no sequel happening immediately — he will be on to something else, probably a Pixar film, and it takes 5 years to make. He might end up as a co-writer and producer rather than director, or something like that…..or else the sequel waits for his availability.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela None at Michael D. Sellers. You’re right. Incidentally, if Andrew Stanton couldn’t direct, I’d be fine with Mark Andrews directing –provided the screenplay was co-written by Stanton as is being done now anyway.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Tom Tataranowicz .. I’m about the same — on balance, having contemplated the other scripts and directors, and being mindful that the one and only reason this film got made was because Stanton reached out to Dick Cook and Disney and urged them to do it, and Lasseter supported him — all the more reason to remain loyal to Stanton until/unless he opts out.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Chris Farley Marvel is so good ,have they had a movie fail yet,that I am sure they would produce a quality sequel even without Stanton. Stanton could always be a consultant on the film.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers And that’ without being in agreement with all his creative choices, etc.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jesse Johnson To give you all some context, my first trepidations with Stanton came WAAAAY back in one of the first interviews he gave. He said”I’m doing it more the way I remember than the way they actually do it”(In the Book)
      I knew right then I was going to have a problem with it.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela Something you wrote, Michael D. Sellers, indicated that the head of Universal was in talks with Iger about taking over Ross’ vacated position. It then said Universal is releasing BATTLESHIP next week, which cost a quarter of a billion dollars to make.My question: Why is nobody in the press making a stink about BATTLESHIP? It cost virtually the same as JOHN CARTER. Shouldn’t the same people be up in arms about this?

      6 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Michael D. Sellers I think there was a perfect storm of “cognitive dissonance” for John Carter. Disney making a boy’s adventure; 100 year old “quaint” steampunk sci-fi source material; 250m budget. I think Battleship looks a lot more “normal” — not as “out there” in terms of the type of material. That said, I dunno. Sure ain’t fair.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Chris Farley I think it was that statement about the 200 million loss.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers I understood Jack’s question to be about the pre-release “preordained flop narrative” ……. not the post-release reporting. Remember the NY Times and others reported a “likely write-down of 160m” before JC was even released.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers The 200m announcement was the nail in the coffin — or unexpected bullet right between the eyes, since if they had followed normal protocol they would not have announced it until the next quarterly financials came out on May 9th.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Chris Farley Battleship hasnt lost money YET!

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela That was kind of my feeling too, Michael D. Sellers. JOHN CARTER is different. I think it’s the kind of movie that the more you bring to the viewing experience, the more you get out of it.A note: I’ll be interested in knowing what the special effects will look like to audiences five years from now. My prediction is that because the filmmakers strove to make the fantastic things look real and not “fantastic” (ala AVATAR and STAR WARS), that they will look less dated over time than those movies do.

      I think the sense of wonder in JOHN CARTER springs from the story and the characters which doesn’t ever get old. It’s the type of thing that is lost on the type of audience only looking for a big dumb action movie as the ads portrayed.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Chris Farley I also think most critics have panned Battleship so yes why hasnt it been written up inthe press. Maybe because its not a Disney movie.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela My point, Chris Farley, is that there are no doomsayers for BATTLESHIP. It cost $250 Million for what looks like a big, stupid action movie! Where’s the hate? I mean, how could they spend that kind of money on that?I am of course going to see BATTLESHIP next week in support of Taylor Kitsch.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Chris Farley You’re right. Disney was like a bulls-eye on John Carter’s back, I think.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela Forgot to add, the negativity for JOHN CARTER started waaaaayyy before it ever came out.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela Like telling someone they’re going to get run over by a car if they don’t watch where they’re going… before pushing them in the road to see it happen.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jack LesCamela the other thing that fed the negativity was the “reshoot/balooning budget” narrative….explaining that it got to 250m as an accident, due to messy production issues. That turned out to be a false narrative, but it sure had traction.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Patrick Malloy The whole point of what this thread is attempting to discuss what Iger has revealed for the first time to the general public. Rather than have divergent tangental threads veering off course in terms of “I don’t like Stanton vision” ect, that is not focusing on the matter at hand. What Michael posted about for this particular thread should be the focus here. Iger is the one primarily responsible for ensuring that JC would be a “bust”. This is the “smoking gun” so to speak as to why Disney failed to do what any properly focused studio would have done with the film. It is ironic to think that even in light of what Ross and Iger have done (or not done), that it was a massive hit within the foreign market and here at home we have a large ground swelling of support and fans that want a sequel! Now that we know this information how best do we make use of it to help arrive at our goals, which is to have a sequel and to best support a film that we so love.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Jack LesCamela Something I was thinking of, Patrick Malloy, was that when JOHN CARTER comes out on DVD, that some fans use the movie to create the marketing campaign the movie always *should* have had. Michael D. Sellers did this already with a limited amount of footage he had. But it could be done again and on a much more impressive scale.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers Aside from the “smoking gun” aspect, my takeaway from Iger’s remarks is not only has he moved on – he is unlikely to become convinced that Disney should risk production investment on John Carter during the remainder of his term. That’s why I like the Marvel option …..and I had never thought that a possibility. Marvel has its own production fund so they don’t have to say “mother may I” to Iger, at least not to the extent that would be the case if it were a Disney production. Pixar is similar. But Iger’s comments were really very disturbing because, having claimed his “instinct” told him it would fail in spite of market testing that said audiences liked it, it’s just hard to imagine him embracing it. But with Marvel, it’s not Disney’s production investment so it becomes a much, much different equation.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  6
    • Patrick Malloy Indeed! Now that is the type of brainstorming and formation of ideas that the group/board needs…how best can we help the effort by the tools and abilities and creativity that is within the group to help sway the tide as we swim upstream

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jack LesCamela The attitude for the new trailers would be to pretend the movie has never been released. There is no failure narrative. Nobody has ever seen JOHN CARTER. Do it the way Disney could have.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers We can create both trailers and featurettes and brand them with our own logo….featurettes can include fan comments on what the movie meant to them – very grassroots, but slick and professional way of presenting th emovie.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Patrick Malloy Now were cooking with olive oil!

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela I’m Italian, Patrick Malloy, and that’s the way we do things.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  5
    • Jack LesCamela Definitely for the featurettes, up the ERB quotient. Telling people his huge influence on literature, science, etc.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela Use Jackson’s LOTR trailers as a model maybe.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jesse Johnson Wouldn’t there be some copyright issues with something like that?

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela That was another series of movies that couldn’t be easily explained with a sentence.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela If it’s helping to sell their DVDs and generate interest in a franchise for them, why would Disney care?

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jesse Johnson Disney has always been very protective of it’s properties.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers Disney would be the first studio in history to target fan-made trailers, which are common and accepted part of the landscape. IF they should do that …the publicity would bring much attention to us. You do know we have lots of fan trailers already out there made by people in the group?

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela Yes, when people steal them. Urging people to see one of their movies, buy their dvds, etc. isn’t theft though.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela I don’t know what the legality is, but if they’re done well it’s nothing but free advertising for Disney.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Darryl Fabia It’s fair use. You just can’t put the fan trailers on a DVD and sell them.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers The legality is that Disney, as the copyright owner, has the right to issue a take-down notice and if they do, it has to be taken down. That’s all. They cannot launch any legal action until they ask — and no studio in their right mind (even Disney, which appears to be not entirely in its right mind regarding John Carter) has ever done that. Selling would be the line that can’t be crossed/

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela I would love to see the reactions to a trailer that focused on Dejah Thoris, or on the romance aspect of the movie.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Tom Tataranowicz A cautionary word about starting new threads… This one is cooking along nicely, IMO. Sure, it deviates a bit, but it does come back to the point. From my experieince with this whole Facebook clusterf–k, I fear that a new thread will get people onto that and they will then start writing on the new one. That could mean that this one will sink out of sight. I may not be right, but I say, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz Me to Disney? Catch me if you can…

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers Agreed. It’s when it veers off and stays veered off, as sometimes is the case, that it’s broken. I was worried about that too when I put up that post ….but fortunately it seems to have worked out okay. I have definitely seen good, important conversations get hijacked inadvertently, especially when it’s something emotional like “what I like or didn’t like about the adaptation of my favorite book”……

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela Hey, would there be a way to put a fan trailer up on YouTube that has an Amazon link at the end to click on and buy the dvd and Blu-Ray?

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Michael D. Sellers Yes, these concerns about legality — give it a rest. There is no issue as long as nothing is being sold, the intent is to stimulate sales of the movie, and the material is not being radically altered in some way that damages the brand. And like I said, on the internet – they have to do a takedown notice and be ignored before they can take any action. Beyond all of that, they know exactly who we are and how to contact us via email and if they have an issue, they could also raise it that way. Believe me they don’t want a Disney vs the Fans publicity thing going on.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Malloy So help broaden my understanding then, tell me more of Marvels production unit and how it could potentially work to take on a JC sequel…would that also involve Pixar, so as to have some sort of join venture?

      6 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela Turn the new trailers into a sales funnel machine for the dvd and blu-ray.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers ?Jack LesCamela such a link could be in the description.

      6 hours ago · 
    • Tom Tataranowicz I agree with Michael Sellers… we shouldn’t practice law without a license. We do something wrong, let them “cease and desist” us. We have a goal, if not a mission, so we should not negotiate with ourselves about things out of our wheelhouses. Common sense will tell us if we are clearly out of bounds on something.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Michael D. Sellers The argument put forward re Marvel was that they have been in the John Carter business for a long time, and it’s not inconceivable that an alliance could be struck with them which could result in them championing a second movie. It’s easy to say “no way — they will just do their own stuff” …but as noted, they have a history with the material. A lot depends on the personalities involved, and whether there is some kind of evolving Pixar/Marvel alliance — or whether they end being culture clash competitors (in which case it might be unlikely). Also …who ends up as head of Disney Studios might matter. Rumor is the Feige already said no, so he will stay at Marvel. Lasseter almost certainly has also said no…….Marvel is a longshot but not as long as Disney Studios producing it anytime soon.

      6 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Chris Farley What about a letter writing campaign to Marvel and/or Pixar instead or as well as Disney?

      5 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Malloy ?@ chris…I have sent letters to Pixar, that is a good idea to also expand out/reach out to Marvel as well!

      5 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Patrick Malloy I am sure that Stanton and Whedon can certainly commiserate, with how many times Whedon was back stabbed by those in position of power.

      5 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Debby Jordan I think Michael D. Sellers point about Marvel being in the John Carter business for a long time is a very cogent and positive sign that it might work. Note Marvel just released its 1980s run of John Carter, Warlord of Mars in a deluxe, full-color version, and I believe it sold quite well. Certainly Marvel + Pixar working together would likely produce a winner. Obviously it would be marketed quite well; you wouldn’t have any nonsense about dropping “of Mars” fro the title. Furthermore, just having “Marvel” on the movie would almost guarantee it would be financially successful. I also don’t see JC as necessarily being a “competitor” to characters such as Iron Man, the Avengers, etc.; really I think JC and Barsoom in general, and even the Venus/Amtor series by ERB, could become complimentary, money-making character(s) for Marvel, etc. I think Marvel is a NATURAL for picking up on John Carter and possibly even other ERB characters.

      5 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jack LesCamela I would do an entire “marketing campaign” with the fan trailers.–A teaser trailer that highlights several strange and amazing things from the movie and emphasizing ERB; starting slow at first, then speeding up showing more weirdness, more action until the end when you hear Tars Tarkas say, “You think you know Mars, but you do not know Mars.”

      –Several smaller spots highlighting individual characters:

      “This is Tars Tarkas, Jeddak of the Tharks. He wants to lead his people to a great future. To do that he will need the help of one man.”

      “This is Dejah Thoris, the Princess of Helium. Her planet Mars faces certain disaster and she will do anything to save it. Even fall in love.”

      “This is John Carter. A veteran of the Civil War, he believes his greatest battles are behind him. He will find brave friends, evil enemies, true love, and a destiny undreamed of… on Mars.”

      Something like that.

      A full trailer could then bring everything together. Emphasizing ERB, the filmmakers involved, the legacy, and the epic quality of the story. Oh, and something about how the adventures on Mars “only *begins* here.” Promoting it as if the sequels are already in the can the way they were for LOTR.

      5 hours ago ·  ·  3
    • Patrick Marcel ?…except that Marvel has more than enough characters in development it doesn’t have to pay a penny for – not even to their original creators – to bother about licensing a character from outside that isn’t certain to make money for the company. Marvel isn’t a big studio. It’s basically a company that processes the comics-to-screen adaptation of their stock of characters.

      5 hours ago · 
    • Jeff Long You’ve all convinced me. Make mine Marvel!

      5 hours ago via  · 
    • Jack LesCamela I think the first step is in making the sequels look like a viable option. If it looks like it could make money, Disney, Marvel, etc. will take immediate interest on their own.So: How do we get people to rent/buy/see the movie? THE IRON GIANT is not regarded a failure anymore, only a failure of Warner Bros. marketing. The same narrative is true of JOHN CARTER, we just need to get people to get there with that assessment sooner rather than later.

      5 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Steven E Gordon ?Jack LesCamela‘s right. DVD sales will either help or hinder the progress of a sequel.
      Either way I think Marvel (and the more I think about it that seems to be the best and most likely solution) will have to evolve to this idea almost on their own.
      I can put out some feelers to a few of the guys in features, but it seems very early and might be counter-productive at this point.
      I think Tom T is right in that it will probably evolve (if Marvel takes it) where Stanton becomes a co-exec-Producer and and they look for an untainted director to do the sequel. That could work though it wouldn’t be my first choice

      4 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Jack LesCamela Mark Andrews, co-writer on JOHN CARTER has Pixar’s BRAVE coming out this summer. They could alternate roles on this one.

      4 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon My guess, and that’s all it is, is if Marvel did move forward they’d want a known live-action director and one that didn’t cost too much

      4 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Tom Tataranowicz If it gets to the point that they are picking a Director, be it Stanton or whomever…. we’ll all be entitled to be dancing naked in the streets. First things first… keep the flame burning. Second, hope for luck. Third, see if it grows. To badly slaughter a movie line: “If we build it, they may come.”

      4 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Jack LesCamela I don’t think that’s necessarily the case,Steven E Gordon. The movie in no way failed because of how it was made. It failed because of how it was sold.JOHN CARTER is a unique movie that needed to handled in a different way from the norm. Disney marketing was a guy with a hammer who sees every job as nail that needs to be pounded.

      When people who love JOHN CARTER talk about why they love it, it’s always the same things they mention: They love the characters, the story, the romance, the imagination and sense of wonder.

      You know what people that didn’t like the movie talk about? Take your pick: It has too much action, it has too little action, it moves too fast, it’s too slow and nothing happens, it’s too confusing, it’s too simplistic. I’ve literally read every one of these complaints. There is no consensus whatsoever. That tells me two things:

      1. These people don’t know what’s “wrong” with the movie, they just know that it failed and blithely fill in the blank with the first answer that comes to mind.

      2. There’s nothing wrong with the movie, it’s just too different from what people are used to to be sold in the manner it was. Carelessly.

      4 hours ago ·  ·  4
    • Rebecca Baeder-Garland Wow, it only took me 30 minutes to read through all your posts:) I’ve been tossing around a spoof song about Iger to the tune of Gotye’s “Somebody that I used to know” as soon as Steve finishes his finals (Monday) we’ll record and post it. At least it will be some kind of funny coping mechanism.

      4 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Steven E Gordon ?Jack LesCamela – I’m not sure what you think I said, but I’m pretty sure I in any way blamed Stanton or the film itself for failing.

      4 hours ago · 
    • Jack LesCamela Sorry, Steven E Gordon. It was this comment of yours I was responding to, “My guess, and that’s all it is, is if Marvel did move forward they’d want a known live-action director and one that didn’t cost too much.”What I wrote makes it sound like I’m arguing against a point you didn’t make. That wasn’t my intention. What I was trying to get across is, if the movie can be turned into the success it should have been then it changes what people think about it.

      The only way I can see anything we’re talking about working and a sequel getting made is if Stanton’s movie is seen as a great movie that was let down by the studio. If Stanton is seen as a director who failed the material and needs to be replaced that just carries on the failure narrative in my opinion.

      One of the reasons why partnering with Marvel would be such a good idea, is that Marvel knows that the way their own movies became successful was to be true to the material and market as something special.

      4 hours ago · 
    • Steven E Gordon As I said…I was just guessing and speculating…just as you are. Until it occurs it’s anyone’s guess.

      4 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Steven E Gordon Since we’ve been talking about Iger:

      Walt Disney Co. chairman and CEO Robert Iger this week exercised stock options t…See More
      3 hours ago ·  ·  1 · 
    • Jack LesCamela Another suggestion. For the new round of trailers, retitle the movie to JOHN CARTER OF MARS. Let’s fix all of Disney’s marketing screwups when we do it.Also, a second go at what a script for a Dejah Thoris centered spot could read like:

      “This is Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium. The planet Mars faces certain disaster and she will do anything to save it –even if that means falling in love with a strange man from another world.”

      3 hours ago ·  ·  2
    • Bob Weis Steven: not to be cynical or anything but based on Iger netting $26.6m on the sale of that Disney stock, he looks to be generating his own golden parachute in case the directors opt to show him the door before 2015.

      2 hours ago via mobile ·  ·  1
    • Debby Jordan One point it is difficult to understand: WHY would Iger deliberately decide that a $250 million movie (+promotion costs) must be a failure? Why not do everything possible to make such a movie a success, after spending so much money on it? If I were in his position and I’d watched the movie and decided, “Well, I just don’t get it, guy. What’s so great about this John Carter character??,” I’d still have the attitude, “Well, I don’t get it, but maybe the audience will.” (Yeah, Bob, they might, given that we have a 100-year-old character who’s been popular for many years; yeah, somebody besides you just might get it, old fella.) BIZARRE! There almost must be other motivations behind this whole deal. It makes no business sense, really.

      2 hours ago ·  ·  1
    • Jeff Long Is there any kind of organized Marvel Fandom? If anyone from here crosses into that, maybe some subtle suggestions about John Carter would be worthwhile. However, I prefer NOT to one day see the Warlord of Mars as the newest member of the Avengers

      2 hours ago via  ·  ·  1
    • Andy Nunez Good thought, Jeff. Once there was the Merry Marvel Marching Society, then FOOM, not sure what exists now, but in 1976, I got a poster at the second Marvelcon in NYC with the Marvel heroes charging forward and in the background was Doc Savage. He teamed up with the Thing in Marvel Two in One, (title), so JC, why not? Make Mine Marvel –or not…

      2 hours ago · 
    • Jeff Long Chris, because the Hulk would bounce himself into orbit

      about an hour ago via  · 
    • Pamela Donovan HULK BOUNCE

    • John Carl O’Neil ?1. Iger should know a salesman should do everything he can, within the bounds of ethics, to sell his product. If he hated everything but a few visuals, he should have focused on selling the movie based on those few visuals. A good salesman can sell snow to someone living in the artic, to paraphrase a saying. He could have used the postive screen tests to create a bandwagon effect. He could have had marketers cherry-pick quotes from the 50% of reviews that were positive to help sell the movie–the dvd marketing is better than the film marketing, but they aren’t doing anything the marketers of PoM didn’t do with their Star Wars and Avatar references. 2. I’m frustrated but have got the blood back down to a simmer–if they shoot both sequels together over a couple of years, I guess they could do it 2016-2017 without the actors aging too much, but I do hope the logic of green will convince Iger to make a sequel. 3. On a sidenote, Ebert was saying he thought sword fighting illogical when guns were available. Articles have been published in Amra arguing basically the same thing. Ebert reads, as evidenced by his mention of 50s space opera parody. Maybe I have a soft spot for him because Ebert Fest does so much good for Champaign, Il, where I work (I live south of there).

      about an hour ago ·  ·  3
    • Jack LesCamela Swords didn’t disappear from our navies when revolvers were introduced. The airships that Ebert refers to as advanced technology –are not. They’re tall ships of the kind Earth had at the time. They just happen to sail on light instead of water. It’s a leap of imagination, but one no greater than Ebert has made in the past with light sabers in the Star Wars movies.

      about an hour ago ·  ·  1
    • Jack LesCamela First sentence should read, “Swords didn’t disappear from our navies immediately when revolvers were introduced They were still used for close combat.”

    • Debby Jordan Any such criticisms are all nit-picking to bolster a position previously taken by a critic or some other critic that critic agrees with. As Jack points out, ships sailing on light are no more far-fetched than the “light-sabers” of Star Wars or they guy in Avatar being placed into an alien body. It all amounts to whether you want to support the film or you don’t want to support the film. “Willing suspension of disbelief” works just as well or better for the concepts in John Carter as they do for Star Trek or Star Wars, etc. Teleporters a-la Star Trek?? Likely won’t ever happen. What will happen is everybody taking a shuttlecraft to the surface of the planet. So these guys should get real – don’t pick on a movie because of its fantasy or sci-fi concepts.

      about an hour ago ·  ·  1
    • John Carl O’Neil Jack, there have been articles predicting Battleship will be a flop since before its worldwide opening.

    • Jack LesCamela Fair enough. I haven’t seen them or the mean spirited glee that accompanied the talk of JOHN CARTER’s “inevitable” failure.

    • Jeff Long The game Battleship is a beloved memory of childhood for many. I’m sure if the movie doesn’t stick religiously to the plot outlined in the Official Rules Handbook of the game, there will be a loud backlash from fans

      56 minutes ago via  ·  ·  1
    • John Carl O’Neil Marvel is owned by Disney, so couldn’t Disney just make the movie and stick the Marvel logo on it.

      53 minutes ago · 
    • Chris Farley If Disney doesnt want JC why not give or loan it out it to Marvel and or Pixar as long as ERB is onside.

      31 minutes ago · 
    • Michael D. Sellers I think it’s an excellent idea to start lobbying Marvel and Pixar and frankly a much better use of letter writing energy than writing Iger. Naysayers who think Marvel has too much of its own product are failing to take into account the human element in all this. Perlmutter can’t stand Iger; he might love to rub his nose in it by showing him what a real operation can do, and/or he might like the idea of an alignment with — a Pixar/Marvel coproduction or something. As Tom T said …..Keep the Flame Alive……keep shaking the tree, something might fall out.

      28 minutes ago ·  ·  3
    • Michael D. Sellers And as far as the money/royalties go — Marvel wouldn’t have to pay ERB Inc, that would come from Disney’s distribution share. It wouldn’t have to cost them anything.

      24 minutes ago ·  ·  2
    • Bryan E Bustard ?Michael, I suppose Perlmutter and Feige would be at the same address as Disney/PIXAR?

      22 minutes ago · 
    • Jeff Long A fan trailer that makes the subtle — or blunt — point that John Carter was the first superhero might get a lightbulb to go off in the heads of some Marvel execs. It could also mention the history Marvel already has with John Carter, including the influence the 70s comic books had on Stanton.

      4 minutes ago via  ·  ·  2

Leave a Reply