SciFi and Fantasy Book Club discussion

217 views
TV and Movie Chat > John Carter Barsoom

Comments (showing 101-125 of 125) (125 new)    post a comment »
dateDown_arrow    newest »

MrsJoseph | 682 comments Thanks for the info! I've been meaning to buy a DTB edition but this will work just as well.


Julia | 540 comments B.C said: Why push the books when there is no return. Well, unless you count ticket sales as the return.

Ticket sales, buzz, interest. Books help sell movie tickets and movies may help sell books. It used to be the every sf/ f movie that wasn't based on a movie, had a novelization published. Usually the novelizations were crummy, but sometimes they were brilliant. I guess movie makers now hope for fanfiction?

When we came home from the movie theater, after watching "The Hunger Games," my husband wanted to read the book. I got the copy I read from the library. He was excited that he was able to "borrow" a copy for free for the Kindle.


Kevin Xu (kxu65) | 789 comments Some of the reasons I heard why the movie failed were because first the direct has not really made many live action movies, he has only basically done Pixar movies, , the movie should have never been in 3D because the alien look strange, the movie should have not changed its name from the original book's title to attract the target audience of males but most important of all was they should have tried to associate the author, Edgar Rice Burroughs in order to attach him as the creator of Tarzan, which most people would know.


message 104: by Julia (last edited Apr 04, 2012 11:08AM) (new)

Julia | 540 comments I assume he means they are in the public domain, meaning more money for publishers/ movie companies, if they had bothered with a big release of these books because no doubt Burroughs' version wouldn't have been the one we see...


MrsJoseph | 682 comments Julia wrote: "I assume he means they are in the public domain, meaning more money for publishers/ movie companies, if they had bothered with a big release of these books because no doubt Burroughs' version woul..."

It would have been nice to have had a book release along with the movie. It would certainly have made a bigger splash and probably bolstered movie sales.

I can't understand why a publisher did not do this - there are many many books in the public domain that get re-printed every year. *shrug* I would have let the director write an annotated (movie) version. He would have loved that, I'm sure.


message 106: by Ron (new)

Ron | 77 comments John Carter did poorly partly because we have limited time (and/or money) and let other people do our thinking for us. [That Disney might have spent less or promoted it better is a separate issue.]

I enjoyed it at about the level of intellectual involvement Burroughs meant for the original series. It was fun.


message 107: by Al (new)

Al (alkalar) | 258 comments I heard from one fellow involved in the production that part of the problem was that the press was excluded from the set during shooting. That pissed them off so they ignored it to death and instead downplayed it whenever possible.

No greater fury than a "journalist" scorned.

Which basically lowers my already low opinion of the "news" media.


Trike | 917 comments Caron wrote: "What kind of world do we live in where a film that earns over $234 million dollars worldwide in a weekend (weekEND!) and is then considered a box office bomb?"

I don't know where you're getting your numbers, but it didn't make $234 million in a weekend. As I write this, it's made $264 million worldwide ($68 US, $193 foreign) and is going into its 6th weekend. On a budget of $250 million with a reported $60 million ad campaign.

That's $310 million *before* print costs, shipping and all that. Considering the studio only gets about 50% of the non-US box office and has diminishing returns for the US release (smaller percentage of ticket sales each week), Disney has probably made about $150 million.

That's a loss of $160 million. Floparino.

By contrast, The Hunger Games cost $78 million and is now entering its 4th weekend and has earned $470 million worldwide. ($313 US, $157 foreign). Studios get a larger percentage of the box office the first couple weekends (generally 80% to 95%, Star Wars gets 100%) and decreases from there. Again, about 50% for foreign.

So that's $290 million profit (+/-). Big hit.


Trike | 917 comments Robert wrote: "Caron, it's called the Hollywood world, and an accounting gimmick they use to cry broke, which is one of the main reasons my peers and I will remain independent film makers. ;)"

Except in this case there's no funny accounting going on. Caron got bad info.


Trike | 917 comments Robert wrote: "What do you think Rodriguez, Lucas, or Spielberg's, producer and director fee's are? Typically 5 - 25 percent of the projected film budget. Now factor in the cost of the writer(s) and did they opti..."

You counted the writers as a substantial cost. That's ADORABLE.

The last two productions my friends worked on, they spent less money on the scripts than on the catering.


Trike | 917 comments MrsJoseph wrote: "It would have been nice to have had a book release along with the movie. It would certainly have made a bigger splash and probably bolstered movie sales.

I can't understand why a publisher did not do this - there are many many books in the public domain that get re-printed every year. *shrug* I would have let the director write an annotated (movie) version. He would have loved that, I'm sure."


The week John Carter was released I happened to be in Barnes & Noble. There were no less than 7 brand-new editions of the ERB books on the shelves, including a novelization of the movie. They took up half of a bookcase.

John Carter  The Movie Novelization  Also includes  A Princess of Mars by Stuart Moore John Carter: The Movie Novelization: Also includes: A Princess of Mars


MrsJoseph | 682 comments Trike wrote: "The week John Carter was released I happened to be in Barnes & Noble. There were no less than 7 brand-new editions of the ERB books on the shelves, including a novelization of the movie. They took up half of a bookcase."

Cool, I didn't know about this. But why on earth would they re-write a book into a screen play & then rewrite that into a different book. *face palm*


Trike | 917 comments Al wrote: "I heard from one fellow involved in the production that part of the problem was that the press was excluded from the set during shooting. That pissed them off so they ignored it to death and instea..."

That's completely untrue. Press were on the set frequently. There are dozens of set visit reports on all the sci-fi geek websites, and even from the Los Angeles Times.


message 114: by Al (new)

Al (alkalar) | 258 comments Trike wrote: "Al wrote: "I heard from one fellow involved in the production that part of the problem was that the press was excluded from the set during shooting. That pissed them off so they ignored it to death..."

Guess the guy was fibbing in an attempt to puff himself up.


message 115: by John (new)

John Karr (Karr) | 32 comments Trike wrote: "The last two productions my friends worked on, they spent less money on the scripts than on the catering. "

A lot of producers must think, "just give 'em the visuals, the public doesn't care about plot and dialog. Mindless action is all that matters."


Salman Shariff (cryaway) | 5 comments I'm going to rent this one when it comes out this week. I know I'm going to like it because someone said it's like Flash Gordon and I loved Flash Gordon when I was a kid.


Peggy (psramsey) | 294 comments I enjoyed it, but my expectations were pretty low going in. Plus it didn't hurt that Taylor Kitsch ran around half-nekkid for most of the movie....


message 118: by Jon (new)

Jon (jonmoss) | 894 comments I pre-ordered my copy of the BluRay yesterday. I should have it by the time Venus finishes transiting the sun.


Caron Rider | 45 comments Peggy wrote: "I enjoyed it, but my expectations were pretty low going in. Plus it didn't hurt that Taylor Kitsch ran around half-nekkid for most of the movie...."

That didn't hurt at all!


David (davidjburrows) | 15 comments I liked it! I'm also rereading his Tarzan novels. A bit samey ofter a while but still enjoyable. You can see why it spawned so many films.


Peter | 1 comments I would say that the visuals and special effects were fantastic. The plot reasonably followed the book BUT, like practically any interpretation of a great novel, I thought it lacked a lot of what the book offered. As I said, that's to be expected I guess. I think what really kind of killed the movie for me was the acting. In my humble opinion, the acting was like something from a Dino DiLaurentis film of the 1980's. Bad. Overall I still liked it, but it definitely could have been better.


message 122: by PJ (new)

PJ White | 3 comments Haven't seen it yet, but intend to.


message 123: by Jonathan (last edited Jul 18, 2012 07:02AM) (new)

Jonathan (headspinningfromvagueness) I saw it when it was at the cinema and also loved it. I was surprised that it didn't do better at the cinema as it was a perfect mix (for me) of various sci-fi ideas. And I'd never read the novels before hand. I'm just a big fan of watching sci-fi movies with lots of action so I had to see it. And compared to the other films I've seen this year at the cinemas (Avengers, Spiderman, Sherlock Holmes 2, The Hunger Games) it held up in the top tier.

Those critics who complained about not being able to follow the plot progression must be rather dull people. It was pretty easy to follow everything. (Are they the same people who get confused by Inception?)


message 124: by Bill (new)

Bill I finally saw it on pay-per-view and also enjoyed it very much. It reminded me how much I had enjoyed the books. It had lots of action, neat scenery and characters. Humour and action, a nice mix.


Jenelle | 114 comments Saw the movie in theaters and loved it. Loved it even more when I was told it was based on a 100 year old book. Just finished reading A Princess of Mars (Barsoom, #1) by Edgar Rice Burroughs and really enjoyed it. I can sort of understand where people are coming from if they're griping about the movie not being exactly like the book. They definitely added some stuff to the movie and rearranged the plot a bunch... but I think most of it can be forgiven... as the medium of a movie is so different than that of a book, so often something HAS to change, and because story-telling has definitely changed in the past 100 years. I still thought that the movie was a pretty good/accurate representation... and I have no idea why it did so poorly in the box office.

Perhaps it had something to do with the advertising (or lack thereof), I wasn't super excited to go see it because the trailers were not real good at explaining what the story was going to be about... and I think they should have hyped up that this was based on a book that was published in 1912... because even the most voracious of sci-fi readers (case in point: me) may not have been familiar with the book.


1 3 next »
back to top

unread topics | mark unread


Books mentioned in this topic

John Carter: The Movie Novelization: Also Includes: A Princess of Mars (other topics)
A Princess of Mars (other topics)