How the Lone Ranger created problems for John Carter
In working on “Hollywood vs Mars” (working title), one of the things that was extremely important to pin down was — when and how did the “bloated budget” negative storyline begin, and how did it roll out? Ironically, The Lone Ranger had everything to do with it. Below is the current draft of the chapter dealing with this. It’s a little rough still, but it’s rounding into shape and it’s been a week or two since I shared anything from the book, so here it is. (Also, after the end of the article, some of my more recent thoughts on the title.)
The Lone Ranger clips John Carter
John Carter of Mars had been too far advanced at the time of Rich Ross’s arrival in October 2009 for Ross to put on the brakes or cancel the project. Principal photography was less than 90 days away; all the main cast had been signed, all the contracts were in place for special effects — the Carter horse was out of the barn. Not so Captain Nemo: 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, and Ross quickly moved to pull the plug on it.
Now, 18 months later, in the summer of 2011 with John Carter’s campaign just being activated, Ross was struggling with Jerry Bruckheimer and Gore Verbinski over the budget of The Lone Ranger, which was set to go into production in October 2011 for a release date of December 21, 2012. The budget of $250m was the issue — a budget that between Bruckheimer, Verbinski, and star Johnny Depp was more a function of “above the line” star/producer/director costs than the wind and grind of film-making.
Breaking the news, Deadline Hollywood ran with the headline: “SHOCKER! Disney halts “The Lone Ranger” with Johnny Depp and Gore Verbinski.” Within the article, there was what would turn out to be a fateful reference to John Carter:
This had to be an incredibly tough call for Disney’s Rich Ross and Sean Bailey, but they have several huge live-action bets on the table already. Budgetbusters include John Carter, the Andrew Stanton-directed adaptation of John Carter of Mars with Friday Night Lights‘ Taylor Kitsch in the lead role, which has a budget that has ballooned to around $250 million….
This is the first mention that John Carter’s budget was anything other than the $150m that had been released at the time of Taylor Kitsch’s casting announcement in June 2009. Because it was relatively buried in the article — and because the focus was on the more dramatic shut-down of Lone Ranger production, the reference to John Carter’s budget having “ballooned to $250m” did not generate immediate commentary, but, as it turned out, this was a key piece to the puzzle explaining how it was that John Carter eventually attracted a feeding frenzy of hostile press coverage, much of it driven by the impression that John Carter was a production out of control.
The question arises — who or what was the source for Mike Fleming’s reference to the John Carter budget having reached $250m? As is typically the case with Deadline Hollywood’s reporting, the source is not identified but it can be inferred that upon getting the news of the shutdown, Fleming and Nikki Finke were on the phone immediately to any and all of their contacts inside Disney. And with Deadline being arguably the most influential source for breaking “insider” type studio news, there were those within Disney who were ready to talk, and who had as their objective to justify the “shocking” decision by Ross to shut down Bruckheimer’s film. The key talking point from Disney was there were just too many films with huge budgets and Ross was just trying to act responsibly, and in the proces force Bruckheimer, Verbinski, and Depp to do so as well.
In order to build this argument — whether as an intentional strategy or something spontaneous — the lid came off the fact that John Carter’s budget was $250m. Moreover, the “ballooned to $250m” reference was all the more damning, but was made necessary by the fact that Disney had fed the press a budget figure of $150m at the time Kitsch was signed in June 2009. In reality, while then Disney chief Dick Cook may have wanted the film to come in at $150m at the time of Kitsch’s casting, no firm budget had yet been created and agreed to at the time of the Kitsch announcement. It was only months after Kitsch’s casting that Stanton’s team and Disney had the budget meeting that resulted in the budget being approved at $250m.
Stanton would later vehemently and credibly contend that he stayed on budget from day one based on this approval prior to the start of shooting. But that didn’t matter in August 2011, because the seeds of the “out of control production” story that would ultimately bring down John Carter more than anything else, were now planted.
The $250m reference was not the only seed.
Another important seed came from a lengthy “edit bay interview” of Stanton which was released through multiple outlets timed to coincide with the release of the first teaser trailer in July 2011, a month before the announcement about Lone Ranger.
For the edit bay interviews, about 30 journalists were taken to Barsoom Studios in Berkeley, where they were given a presentation by Stanton and producer Jim Morris that included the trailer, selected scenes, a viewing of art and costumes, and a lengthy presentation by Stanton. The journalists in attendance were armed in advance with questions about the reshoot because of Stanton’s casual comment in the June 15 LA Times interview in which he talked about having done a “month of reshoots” — an attention getting number in an industry where anything more than a “pickup day” or two is regarded as sign of a “troubled production”:
Question: You come from an environment where a lot of the creative process happens in the post-production. I was wondering, I heard you did a screening at Pixar and there was a bunch of reshoots. It sounds like you’re bringing that [Pixar] process to this. Could you talk a little about that?
Stanton: It’s been interesting to compare apples to oranges now that we’re out there. I’ve always seen live action as the adults: They really get to make the movies, and we’re just kids here doing our little thing. I’ve always wanted to give it the intelligence and everything. That’s a bad trap you fall into, and the shocking thing when I got out there was like, “Oh my God, we actually know how to do it better on a lot of things back here [at Pixar].” I think some of that isn’t because people are bad at their job but that people are stuck in a certain way that it’s always been done. You can say that about any system. Pixar had this luxury of being ignorant and young and not knowing how it’s done. We saw from afar how we thought movies were made, and we used logic—turns out that’s not used that often. Then the other advantage is we have a pseudo-studio system of the modern era: We have the same people working together again and again and again. It’s like having the same team players on the same sports team for 20 seasons. You get really good at all the things that you would never value: How information is brought across to things, how things are delegated. The simplest, most mundane things have been honed down to their most efficient and smart way of what’s best for the film thinking. I saw nothing but improvement everywhere I went once I left this building—it was overload.
One of the other things that I realized is animation, because you can put it all up in drawing form that you’re not going to keep, in the grand scheme of things it’s a cheap way to make something. You draw it, you put your own voice on it, you cut it, and you don’t like it, and you do it again. You do it every six months over three to four years. Every time you do that, that’s the equivalent of a reshoot, so I’ve been taught how to make a movie with four reshoots built in every time. And you wonder why our movies are good? It’s not because we’re smarter, it’s not because we’re better, it’s because we are in a system that recognizes that you don’t go, “Oh my God, okay, I’m going to paint this, but I can only touch the brush once and I’m only going to make one stroke. That stroke’s asked, and we’re done; we’re not making this painting.” I get to try it, play it, don’t like that, play it again, no, play it again, record it—most creative processes allow for somebody to go off into their shack, their studio, their recording booth, and try stuff until they figure it out and find it. This is such an expensive way to make something creative, which is a movie. People freak, and they want to hold it all in. They want to see, “Can you be really smart and think about it some more and plan some more? Just do it once. Or maybe twice.” Most places now aren’t even letting you think about it; they’re like, “Just do it! Maybe you’ll luck out.” We planned the bejesus out of it here. I’ve never met people who plan more than we do, and we do it four times over. You have no excuse: It’s got to be good. I never had to argue, but my explanation to Disney when they were going, “Why do we have to reshoot, and why is this number so bad?” I said, “You’re taking somebody who’s learned how to do it three to four times and do it once.” I tried to be as smart as I could and raise the bar as high as I could with the script before we went shooting knowing I wasn’t going to get these same iterations, then tried to be as smart as I could about doing the reshoots. It’s still less than what I’m used to. You start to understand the logistical problem trying to do that. It’s such a gypsy culture: You don’t get to keep the same people. They’re not in that building; you can’t grab them on a Thursday and go, “What if we do this?” All your actors are gone off. It’s a real conundrum, and believe me, we’re trying to think if we do another one, how can we improve upon what we’ve learned? We’ve managed to seduce some of that with our thinking on this, but there’s huge room for improvement. It’s a gnarly problem; I get it.
And so it was that between Stanton’s casual reference in the LA Times on June 15 to “a month of reshoots” led to questions like the one above, which in turn led Stanton to answer truthfully and at length concerning his “Pixarian” approach to live action film-making and how re-doing things in a way that live action directors usually don’t, or aren’t allowed to, is part of a process that he believed to be superior to the traditional “get it right the first time” approach that studios had used for live action film-making.
The combination of a film that had apparently started with a budget of $150m and “ballooned” to $250m on the back of a “month of reshoots”; a first time live action director asserting that Pixar had figured out a “better way” that he was applying to live action filming; and the tough marketing slog that it was widely acknowledged the film would face all combined to create a toxic combination for Stanton, John Carter, and Disney.
Even so, it would take sixty days for the combination to germinate, and it would be not the entertainment press, but a mainstream media moment that would bring the budget issue fully into focus and launch what would eventually become a virtual tidal wave of negativity.
End
===========================================
One note about the foregoing — I’m closing in on figuring out exactly who let the cat out of the bag about the $250m budget, but I’m not “naming names” yet until I can really lock it down.
Regarding the title of the book — I have to confess I’m having a problem with the “Hollywood vs” formulation. My problem is that it just doesn’t feel quite right to me to be declaring a partisan position in the title, even though I know this is commonly done. But I’ve been looking into it — the typical formulation where you do a title, then subtitle that is basically a one-line summation of your hypothesis, is just that — a book that posits a hypothesis, and then accumulates facts and arguments to support the argument.
This is different.
This is like doing a Hollywood version of something like Warren Commission Report, or a Titanic (the ship, not the movie) investigation. It’s what the FCC does after a plane crash: Look at all the evidence and figure out what went wrong, and how. Clearly, having watched this unfold step by step I have some opinions, but those opinions need to be tested by a careful assembly of all the facts that can be obtained from all possible sources.
And I’ve noticed that among those who are skeptical of the “blame Disney” argument, having a title that seems to be heading toward a “blame Disney” solution loses credibility and the skeptic who should read it, probably won’t, because they will feel that it’s obviously a biased account — you can tell that just by the title.
So the title is still wide open.
I have thought about a title as simple as “The John Carter Report”.
Today a more “out there” title occurred to me: “John Carter and the Princes of Hollywood”.
That one kind of tickles me. The Princes of Hollywood would include all of the elite who touched the movie — Dick Cook, Rich Ross, MT Carney, Andrew Stanton, Jim Morris — all of them.
But I don’t’ know if it sounds substantive or serious enough.
Anyway — please help me sort through this title issue as I continue toward the finish line.
As for my progress — it says 90,145 words so far en route to what looks like about 120,000 words on the first draft (to be shortened back to around 100,000 when I edit/rewrite.) I’m about to enter the portion of the story that I actually lived — the final 10 weeks up to the release — and I think the last part is going to be the easiest because I lived it. The John Carter Files was started on December 10th so there’s a day by day record here, and I kept detailed stats on social media figures before and after the beginning of the TV spots, comparing JC to Hunger Games and the other films coming out in March. In sum I think I’ve made it out of the “swamp” and am on dry land, and can give a pretty good finishing kick to get to the end.
42 comments
Dotar Sojat wrote:
” I don’t like to admit that, but when you consider the scale that is involved with a global tentpole release, we ERB fans were not the same factor that Harry Potter Fans, Hunger Games fans, etc are for those films.”
No I understand that as far as numbers go. The thing I was responding to was more Stanton’s thinking about this, his idea that since there wasn’t this huge base he could do whatever and everyone will be happy with it or accept it, no questions asked. I mean how much of a fan base did Iron Man or Thor have before those films opened up? How many regular people were familiar with them? Yet the attitude it seemed with Favreau and even Branagh was to maintain as much faithfulness to the source material as possible and not to pretend that the fans-small in numbers as they were-didn’t exist, to make a movie to please them as much as the mainstream audience. It seems with Stanton he didn’t even think about that, that since the books weren’t “Pulitzer Prize winners” as he told an interviewer he could do whatever. I mean I don’t know how many regular people have read Titus Andronicus either but would Stanton have the arrogance to muck with Shakespeare? I wonder…
MCR wrote
As much as you or I or other ERB fans want to think that our fan base coming into John Carter was significant — the fact is, Hunger Games publisher says they had 26m volumes of the trilogy in print and the first one was published in 2008 — so that’s 26m as a base load. Hunger Game’s opening weekend stats man about 15 million people saw it in the US on opening weekend. John Carter needed to attract at least 5 million people opening weekend to see the film and it got about 3 million. How many current active ERB fans were there coming in to the release of the film? Thousands? Tens of thousands?
The difference in scale between the ERB active faithful coming into the release of JC, and the Suzanne Collins active faithful coming in to the release of HG, is so great as to undermine your point pretty badly, I think. I don’t like to admit that, but when you consider the scale that is involved with a global tentpole release, we ERB fans were not the same factor that Harry Potter Fans, Hunger Games fans, etc are for those films.
MCR … well, yeah, sort of. The point, though, is that in this exchange he’s really trying to educate the assembled journalists, about half of whom (by show of hands) knew anything about the source material, about the actual source material (ERB books) and he was emphasizing to them the historic and important nature of the source material. He does eventually go on to all the things you like to bring up, but it would be ..um…nice if you could at least give him credit for putting in a plug for ERB, because that’s what he’s doing in this quote. He’s trying to get the journalists to appreciate ERB and keep in mind — he didn’t have to start his whole presentation with the “ERB pitch”……the fact that he did says something.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Hey now, gotta call you on that. You’re connecting his comment about Frazetta stuff being “van art” to old guys reading the books. You’re being loose with your facts unless you’ve aware of quotes other than the one you always quote about the van art.”
Well it’s true in this way: It seems to suggest that Stanton believes that no one has ever read the books past 1980-and that the only way their familiar with John Carter is the Frazetta art that in his words was “very popular on vans in the ’70s.” It again seems to point to his belief that since this wasn’t a Harry Potter, Hunger Games or Girl with the Dragon Tattoo that no one has EVER read them or knows anything about John Carter that’s alive today-or doesn’t have 1970s vans with Frazetta art on them. If he had actually bothered to hit Google or even talked to people-go to one of those ERB events-he might discover it’s not all 90 year olds or 1970s van enthusaists who know John Carter of Mars. And because of that it seemed to him it justified his “mucking” no matter how badly it turned out.
in reading your post, the title “john carter and the therns of hollywood” sprang to mind. apt, but a bit too “inside” as only fans of the stories would get the reference…
MCR wrote:
Hey now, gotta call you on that. You’re connecting his comment about Frazetta stuff being “van art” to old guys reading the books. You’re being loose with your facts unless you’ve aware of quotes other than the one you always quote about the van art. In that quote, Stanton’s only point was that more people are familiar with the Frazetta art which they have seen on vans, than with the original source material (ERB novels), and that’s a shame. His point was to be lauding the Burroughs source material and lamenting the fact that the Frazetta art, even though “iconic” (he used that word) was more familiar to most people than the books. Come on now, be fair MCR. And if you’ve got another quote other than the one we usually refer to on the “van art” issue, I would love to see it.
Here’s the quote. Stanton was addressing 30 journalists brought to Barsoom Studios in Berkeley for what have become known as the “edit bay interview”. He talked about Frazetta and van art in his opening remarks: (You can read the whole interview here: http://collider.com/andrew-stanton-interview-john-carter/101272/
The John Carter Files: Hollywood vs Mars
Wish we could put SHAMELESSLY somewhere in the subtitle! How it was Shamelessly wrecked.. or Shamelessly sabotaged… i know its biased but shoot, they deserve it!
MCR, I don’t have the sources, as you do, for the quotes from Stanton and his interpretations of ERB, nor his dislike for Frazetta, et al. However, I think if you compare Stanton’s John Carter imagery — even the costuming — against Frazetta’s, Stanton’s seems far more outdated, and Frazetta’s is not only more original, but more reflective of ERB. Stanton needed to not only reflect the material, but to update it for a 2012 audience. Interesting dichotomy.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Um. Having worked on about 45 films, I can assure you that paying the crew does not mean they will love the director. Truly, MCR. Can’t give you a pass on that one. You know I’m right.”
Possibly. But the pay check doesn’t hurt.
Rus Wornom wrote
“That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Pixar Process itself: make the movie, see what doesn’t work, and fix it, no matter what.”
No I agree. But as you said it is filmmaking by committee and the problem here was the committee. Based on everything that has been said Stanton didn’t even bother to turn to people outside of Pixar who had live action experience or for other opinions when it came to making John Carter. And I feel that was the problem both from a production standpoint and the storytelling. No one at Pixar had ever adapted an outside source before-except Brad Bird with The Iron Giant but he was making MI-4 at the same time so I don’t even know how much, if any, input he was able to give. And I doubt any of them had ever read ERB either so they probably went with what Stanton was telling them about it. It was just surrounding himself with “yes men” and the one time on record they did voice an objection-the original opening and their suggestion to open with John Carter and seeing it through his eyes (like in the novel) Stanton responded “That’s lazy guys.” It just seems for a movie like this he needed advice from someone outside Pixar.
Also I know directors have egos. They have to. It just seems with Stanton that his has went to 11-comments about how no one except old people and hippies with Frazetta paintings on their vans have ever read the books and how no one will care if he mucks with it; his “Disney fears me” attitude…it just seems he trying to out-Cameron Cameron.
The Pixar-style movie is not perfect. Although kids and families and even critics generally love Pixar films, I feel that as fun and as funny and as creative as they are, they fall into a formulaic trap — even Wall-E, which, as far as I’m concerned, is the best of Pixar’s offerings. They are all flawed, to me, because they cater to a general audience instead of the individual audience. or an audience that expects something more, beyond the norm. They are almost — even as individualistic as each Pixar film seems — movies made by committee, made for the lowest common denominator: kids and their parents (who have a ton of disposable income).
That said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the Pixar Process itself: make the movie, see what doesn’t work, and fix it, no matter what.
If you’re going after filmmakers with huge egos, then pick which one you’re going to stop at, because everyone in the industry has an ego as least the size of a small planet, Stanton included. From writers to costumers to directors, you HAVE to have a somewhat inflated ego to do any creative work and expect people to respond. Hey, if you’re not a Stanton fan, no problem. Like I said, I’m not a Pixar fan — but I like the way they approach the parts of movies that don’t work. If Stanton has to be the torch-bearer for that kind of live-action movie-making, then screw Disney and the bean counters. Make better movies. Make more intelligent movies. Tell better stories. And do whatever it takes.
MCR wrote:
Hmmmm…..my chapter on the physical production is called “A $250m Production Experiment”. So……yeah.
and MCR said
Um. Having worked on about 45 films, I can assure you that paying the crew does not mean they will love the director. Truly, MCR. Can’t give you a pass on that one. You know I’m right.
MCR, you should french kiss Nikki Finke, snark, snark! 😉
Since some people are taking issue with my comment about Stanton coming across arrogant, this turd will respond. I took issue with it because it did come across as arrogant to me. It came across as the same attitude that some directors have when they are given carte blanche and suddenly think their a “god,” that they can not make mistakes. And then you see the results of such hubris-1941, Heaven’s Gate, One from the Heart, Ishtar, Battfield Earth. Here it just seemed to be also a slam against directors who do know what they are doing. I mean Scorsese, Spielberg, the Coen Bros, people like that who have made hits and misses but continue to strive to make the best movie they can. I just felt that Stanton’s comment was dismissive of people like that, those who try their best but sometimes don’t have a studio bending over backwards to give them want they want-like Pixar does with him and Disney did with John Carter.
The other issue with the “Pixar Process” is this: It almost seems that Stanton took on this movie as some sort of experiement. To prove that he could make a live action movie the Pixar way. Sometimes a person has to accept the fact that it won’t be perfect, it will never be perfect. And I feel this constant attempt at perfection on Stanton’s part ultimately led to the problems with the movie’s structure. Now that’s fine if he wanted to attempt it but he probably should have tried it on a less expensive film than this, a film that wasn’t going to blow up budget wise and cost people their jobs. For example, Tim Burton’s first live action film wasn’t Batman, it was Pee-Wee’s Big Adventure (and before that the original Frankenweenie short). Both were low cost projects that if they had failed wasn’t going to cost the lose the studio 200 million dollars. Possibly having done this Stanton might have realized it didn’t work or even that he wasn’t the right person to make a movie as complex as John Carter of Mars. Instead it seems he was too busy following his ego to prove a point-that this can work and I will make it work. And it didn’t.
Oh and one final snarky comment:
” The actors all seemed to love him and the VFX house crews in interviews all said it was a pleasure to work with a director who gets CG/VFX and knew what he wanted and how to get it.”
Yeah pay me and I’ll love him too.
I find it interesting that the in production movie “World War Z” is going to do substantial re-shoots now (with substantial re-writing going on too) , and the word “troubled” is being thrown out there again. Which the movie may very well be having problems, but I’m curious to see if they are way broader than “John Carter”s were, or if this is just the same thing happening again. Either way, the chum has been tossed in for “WWZ” and we’ll have to see if it gets savaged like “JC” did.
As for a title for your book Dotar, I don’t have anything specific to suggest, but I don’t see the problem with your original title. I thought it was catchy and might grab a wider audience’s attention. I think people will want to read something that sounds like it will be fun and not just a “report”, and if you over-think it you might run the risk of homogenizing it too much.
I cant resist – I’m gonna lobby: it’s simple and clean, distilled, while still being expansive, and incorporates everything – from ERB’s source material to the conflict to the film itself.
……..….The
…..JOHN CARTER
………..Files
.
.
.…A Princess of Mars
…………..vs
The Princes of Hollywood
I don’t think Stanton comes off as arrogant at all. He seems very intelligent and knows what he wants and how to get it. The actors all seemed to love him and the VFX house crews in interviews all said it was a pleasure to work with a director who gets CG/VFX and knew what he wanted and how to get it. I wish Hollywood would take the time to re-make parts of many movies before they release them so we’d get a better value for our money. And has been said before, the re-takes didn’t push the cost so much as the stellar CG did. And they got tax breaks as well for that and production in the UK which helped keep the cost down. Remember, the reason John Carter hasn’t been made for decades until now was it cost too much to bring that world to life with any quality unless you were going to animate the whole thing. And with the stupid idea that many have that animation is just for kids, it made it harder to bring a story about John Carter to the screen.
The legendary production head of MGM, Irving Thalberg, was famous for his re-takes policy and for having many hit/quality films. It only makes sense as it’s very rare for creative pursuits to be perfect out of the chute… look at writer’s re-writes, music production is full of studio time doing re-takes, commercials have retakes, etc. If you want anything of quality you have to work at it to make it perfect.
From http://itunes.apple.com/us/artist/irving-g.-thalberg/id286729014
“Thalberg accepted a vice-president post at the newly formed MGM in 1924. While Louis B. Mayer handled the financial end of MGM, Thalberg took over the creative end, turning out a steady stream of movie hits. One of his most famous policies, which on the surface seemed the height of budgetary folly, was to allow MGM’s producers and directors to shoot limitless retakes of scenes that hadn’t played right in the projection room or before preview audiences. While industry wags referred to MGM as “Retake Valley,” this perfection-at-all-costs policy resulted in excellent box-office returns.”
Bean counters are the only reasons we have the current thinking of no retakes… I think they stir up most of the box office drama we read about, too. Something about them feeling inadequate to the creatives possibly… so they call the trades and Nikki Finke at any given opportunity.
Digital moviemaking is supposed to be able to make re-shoots more affordable anyway today.
I’m glad Stanton stuck to his guns and got most of what he wanted. I am still loving this movie on DVD and the quality that went into the production makes it even more enjoyable.
I find “The John Carter Files” too neutral as a title. The “vs” at least implies that there was a problem in the way the industry delt with the movie.
I’m with Nick. Stanton’s track record — and, by extension, Pixar’s — speaks greatly for him. I think what he said was less from hubris and more from a factual, observational standpoint — and one he’s certainly entitled to have.
MCR, I think Stanton’s quote about Pixar doing it better is in reference more to big budget films. Pixar basically makes a given movie 4 times…at a minimum. They write and storyboard film, then present it to their “Brain Trust”. They all make notes and offers suggestions. The lone director….and nobody else….decides what to do with those suggestions. Then he tweaks and sometimes starts over with big chunks of the film.
Too many big budget movies have too many cooks stirring the pot. And many films, like Hunger Games for instance, try to get into the theaters as quick as possible, leaving all sorts of holes and problems in their films.
I think in Stanton’s quote, he’s basically saying that he now respects greatly the work that non-animated directors do, and says he’s already thinking of ways he can cut some of the time and money that goes into making live-action movies. Stanton only knew the Pixar way of making movies….which I think we’d all agree has been pretty damn great….and expecting him to be able to make his first live-action film without any learning curve is ridiculous.
I like Paladin’s suggestion of “The John Carter Files”. Seems like a natural fit, since the book is basically an outgrowth of this website. A subtitle could hint at intriguing content and convey the balanced nature of the book. The full title could be something like:
“The John Carter Files: A Case Study of the Rewards and Pitfalls of Big-Budget Adaptation”
……..….The
….JOHN CARTER
….…….Files
.
.
…A Princess of Mars
…………..vs
The Princes of Hollywood
I think the simpler the title the better. Maybe something like “Hollywood on Mars”.
From Epic to Fail: How Disney Grounded John Carter of Mars
Perhaps something like The Inquest of John Carter. Or just using the term ‘inquest’ somewhere in the title or subtitle as the word seems to encompass your ultimate goal in writing the book without seeming antagonistic.
I rather like Kenneth Jordan’s ideas of “Disney [leaving] millions at the box office” — I’m not sure if it fits what your looking for in a title but it does seem a nice descriptor of the situation.
“John Carter Strikes Back” – The condemned in advance movie that refused to die –
Punchy in, my opinion, no definite opposition, and hinting at a sequel (evocative of Star Wars, it’s about time for the payback). John Carter is living on artificial support right now, mostly defended by its fans, and hopefully more will join the fight thanks to the home video release!
I Still Live: How John Carter Overcame The Disney Executive Debacle To Become Both A Classic Film And A Financial Success
Ralok wrote:
No, Ralok. MCR is more complicated than that and I must castigate you for calling anyone who loves ERB and fights for what he thinks is the best way to keep faith with ERB is a turd. There are turds out there in our universe, but not MCR. Baffling, frustrating, maddening at times — yes. Turd, no.
Dotar,
One other suggestion on the subtitles: Instead of “Cost Millions” or “Lost Millions,” consider “Left.” “How Disney Left Millions at the Box Office,” etc.
PS: Ignore my last sentence fragment – I just forgot to edit it out!
Dotar, Back on the title: If you want a more neutral title, consider the following:
1. “John Carter [of Mars]: An Exposé” [MAIN TITLE ONLY]
2. “John Carter [of Mars]: An Exposé,” with the subtitle “How Studio Politics Cost Millions At the Box Office”
3. “John Carter [of Mars],” with the subtitle “How Studio Politics Cost Millions At the Box Office”
4. “John Carter: An Exposé,” main title, with either of the above subtitles.
5. Any of the above main titles, with a subtitle previously suggested by someone else: “How Disney Lost a Cave of Gold at the Box Office.”
6. “John Carter, The Movie,” with any of the above subtitles.
I believe your main title must include either “JOHN CARTER” or “JOHN CARTER [OF MARS]” (or “JOHN CARTER OF MARS” w/out the brackets). And I think a subtitle with your thesis is fine, because Disney politics did cost millions at the box office and it did lose them a “cave of gold.”
I would stay away from any title with the word “Fail” in it, because that can be read or taken to mean that the film itself was a failure!
What “failed” was how Disney promoted it before it reached the box office – marketing, title, support by higher executives, etc. In truth DISNEY failed the film; the film is fine. It was DISNEY that dismally failed to figure out how to bring it to the box office, even though it’s obvious to us. That was caused by studio politics and super-sized (or gigantic) egos, as you suggest. But if you don’t want that much bias in the title or subtitle, just some of the more neutral ones suggested above will be accurate but more neutral.
Studio Politics Cost Millions At the Box Office
MCR I get the distinct impression that you are a self-righteous turd who thinks that if someone doesnt meet your expectations that they themselves are a bad person!
This is a fundamentally wrong mentality.
Yeah I love his comment “Oh my God, we actually know how to do it better on a lot of things back here [at Pixar].” How much arrogance can one man have? Or how little respect does he have for other filmmakers who have made great films outside of Pixar?
With The Lone Ranger situation-beside it being another example of Disney throwing money at a horrible idea (and I love The Lone Ranger but it’ll just be another round of Depp’s tiring antics)-it probably did put John Carter on the spot since suddenly there was a figure to throw around. And with all the hype of it being from Pixar director that made for juicy gossip. It didn’t do the movie any favors but then again neither did Stanton’s approach to making it.
“John Carter’s From Mars, Hollywood’s From Venus”
I’d find it very interesting to read about how many changes were made in the better films in history. It seems almost lightning in a bottle for a filmmaker to get it all right in the first shooting. It seems to get the 3rd act exactly right would be particularly hard. Once a filmmaker sees the film on screen with all the cuts and especially the pacing, only then does he/she see where all the warts are.
Reading Stanton’s long answer makes me better understand how it is that so many big budget films are released that either seem unfinished or non-sensical.
Whatever title you choose, it really should reflect the point your book is trying to prove. Whether it’s something like, “EPIC FAIL: How Disney Dumped ‘John Carter’ Deliberately” or “DEATH BY DECREE: How the Media Killed “John Carter,'” the title should give a clear indication of your main thesis. BTW, it sounds like the book is getting better and better.
Michael,
Of the proposed titles, I like “Hollywood Vs. Mars” best. I think it’s catchy, evocative, simple, easy to remember. It promotes a little conflict, but if you report it objectively, as you have on the Website, I don’t think it will lend an air of antagonism or bias to the book.
Of course, there may be a perfect title out there no one’s thought of yet . . .
“John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood” <-includes the plea for a sequel… 🙂
Stanton should have realised that his review process, that worked for cartoons, was likely to be a lot more expensive when applied to live action movies and included this in his original Budget. Inexperience I suppose.
As for the title of your book you need a title that will sell. What about just
“The John Carter Expose”
Digital sure should make reshoots more affordable.
Henreid’s suggested title is good and so is John Carter and the Princes of Hollywood.
Henreid,
I thought of John Carter of Hollywood too…..that might be a good one.
Re Pixar process…..what I’m trying to figure out is whether what we have is a “pixar process” film that had to be abandoned/finished about 50% of the way through the process…..or whether Stanton really got enough reshoots and revisions to allow the process to work its magic. It’s a good process — no doubt about it. But live action film-making just has such an incredible “burn rate” during principal photography, it’s hard to see how you could apply the “reshoot it four times” process thoroughly enough to make it really work the way it does for Pixar.
Great chapter! I’m mulling over book names. If I come up with anything I’ll send it along. 🙂
I think the ‘Hollywood vs. John Carter of Mars’ is not so much partisan as it is aggressive and rightfully so, but I understand your concern. ‘John Carter of Hollywood’ ?
Could do the ‘John Carter of
MarsHollywood’ thing, too. That specifically calls out the title change and does have an interesting ring to it. The John Carter Report is a little bland (though I suppose that also calls out the title change indirectly), just my 0.02.To the article, I have nothing against the Pixar process and a lot of what he’s saying makes tons of sense. Unfortunately he probably did the process more harm than good by boasting about it on the eve of what happened to the film, which isn’t a great example for how ‘much better’ his way is. I was always interested in his response in that article, and I would love to see more films adopt that mentality.