Disney/Pixar's film 'John Carter' faced a $200 million loss due to its marketing failure and unclear title, which failed to attract audiences despite being based on a popular novel series. The film received mixed reviews but was marketed poorly, neglecting to highlight its science fiction elements or appeal to broader audiences. Ultimately, its box office performance has led to it being labeled one of the biggest cinematic flops in history.

1. John Carter Commentary – Alternate Hollywood Case Study
Taken from the telegraph:
There will be long-term consequences to the box-office failure of Disney/Pixar’s sci-fi film John Carter,
which the company itself concedes will show a staggering $200 million operating loss. A massive
$250 million was spent on its production, as well as close to $100 million on marketing.
Its inability to lure large audiences seems easy to explain with the wisdom of hindsight. Its story (based on
an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel) isn’t that familiar.
Leading man Taylor Kitsch isn’t a reassuring household name – except to fans of the American television
series Friday Night Lights. “John Carter” is a deadly dull title – and besides, wasn’t John Carter that serious-
minded young doctor on television’s ER? The film’s marketing suggested nothing of its setting (on Mars) or
its romance elements.
Because of its spiralling costs and reshoots, Disney knew John Carter spelt trouble even before it opened. I
gather the studio has cut back costs on at least one forthcoming big-budget movie, The Lone Ranger, with
Johnny Depp as Tonto. Sources claim almost $50 million was lopped off its sky-high budget: a 20 per cent
saving.
Disney's "John Carter"
The biggest flop ever?
Mar 23rd 2012, 16:21 by O.M. | LONDON (Taken from the Economist)
AROUND this time last year
the Walt Disney Company
released a very expensive,
very bad film: "Pirates of the
Caribbean: On Stranger
Tides", which went on to
make over $1 billion
worldwide. This year the
company released a similarly
expensive film—one that is
not just a great deal better
than the misconceived
flotsam of Pirates, but also,
as such things go, is not a
bad film at all. But "John
Carter" has not gone on to
make $1 billion. Indeed,
Disney says it has left the company $200m out of pocket, giving it a claim to be the biggest flop of all
time—bigger even than Kevin Costner’s 1995 fiasco "Waterworld" (which actually did reasonably well
outside America). What, if anything, can we learn from this?
The first thing is that openings matter. Not just opening weekends (though they matter too) but the
actual opening of the film. The screenplay of "John Carter"—an adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’
romantic, exoticised Martian adventure stories, as popular in their day as his books about Tarzan—is in
many ways a nice bit of work. The writers, Andrew Stanton (also the director), Mark Andrews and
Michael Chabon, a novelist, have refined the plot and created clear (if not deeply drawn) characters.
But the film begins with a truly terrible piece of back-story in which people you know nothing about—
and cannot readily distinguish from each other—are fighting about something obscure. The narrator is
telling you what they are all called and that one side is good and the other bad, but who knows which
is which? The editor and art director have done nothing to help matters: who are these new bald
people turning up out of nowhere? And what’s with the blue light and the sort of exoskeleton glove
Free resource taken from www.alevelmedia.co.uk

2. thing? And whose airship just exploded? And...why?
Johnny Carson, the king of late-night, had a motto for comedy writing: “Buy the premise, buy the bit”.
If the audience knows what’s going on, they will see the humour. An apt corollary is “Blow the
prologue, blow the film.” However neat the subsequent plotting, the opening sequence of "John Carter"
left the audience confused, and there they remained.
To see how blockbuster films should begin, check out Peter Jackson’s "The Fellowship of the Ring",
which also had to set up a conflict between various weird factions unknown to the audience. Mr
Jackson’s fellow screenwriters worked hard on that prologue, ensuring it was evocative yet exciting,
with clearly delineated sides and as few proper names as possible (Gil-galad? who’s that?). The
essential story was clear: buy the Ring, buy the bit, and all the other subsequent bits, yea even unto
the many endings of "The Return of the King".
As to the opening of "Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides"—who knows, or cares? The fact that
I remember that it opens in Greenwich, England, is purely a function of my living there. But this film
didn’t need to sell itself in its opening minutes. Audiences knew what they were getting: Johnny Depp
doing ironic swashbuckling with occasional special effects but now with added Penelope Cruz and
underlit and uninspiring stereoscopy. This brings up the second problem with "John Carter": marketing
matters, especially to a big and expensive film without forebears. "John Carter" was marketed
abominably.
To begin with, the title. Who, other than diehard fans of the TV show "ER", wants to see a movie called
"John Carter"? Mr Stanton’s original title, "John Carter of Mars", was apparently nixed by Disney’s
marketers on the basis that viewers don’t like Mars, or indeed science fiction, very much. This will
come as a surprise to James Cameron, whose "Avatar" didn’t do too poorly at the box office, despite
the handicap of being a spectacular piece of science fiction involving—just like John Carter—a wounded
war veteran travelling by mental projection into an exotic alien landscape of noble savagery, six-limbed
beasts and vast machines that eat up the environment. But if you really don’t want to tell the audience
that they are about to see a piece of science fiction, you really ought to tell them what they *are*
going to see. Burroughs’s world is one of high adventure, huge spectacle and heady romance of a sort
that might be called bodice-ripping were there any bodices being worn. But the marketing campaign
never really conveyed any of this. A dull red poster of man with a prosaic name against a poorly
defined background doesn’t cut it.
No one should doubt that Mr Stanton will make more films, and indeed more good films. The greater
risk may be for his leading man, Taylor Kitsch. Having been made into the sole focus of the film's
useless marketing campaign, the failure of "John Carter" cannot help but cast a shadow over his
prospects as a leading man, and raise the ante for his next outing, "Battleship", in cinemas in April. Yet
"Battleship" could work out. It is directed by Peter Berg, who as creator of the magnificent television
show "Friday Night Lights" (in which Mr Kitsch first demonstrated both his gift for acting and his
aversion to shirts), deserves all benefit of the doubt. Yet it is based on a children’s game, and its
trailers make it look disturbingly like a cross between a "Transformers" film and "Waterworld". Mr
Kitsch better hope that the prologue grabs the audience very firmly indeed.
WEB 2.0 Comments:
People don't like Mars? Total Recall did pretty well.
In addition to the poorly titled movie (my son thought it was about basketball; no, that's "Coach Carter"), how could you market the
movie and not use the line "from the creator of Tarzan".
Seems like someone at Disney wanted this one to fail.
I paid the $15.50 for the 3D version, having recently read (for the first time) the entire 11 book series. I thought it was very well done,
and followed the first book ("A Princess of Mars") as well as can be expected when compressing a multi-year saga into two hours.
A good clue to the poor marketing was that a coworker who had been planning to see it did not know it was out yet. There was no six-
month media build up, no toy tie-in - where are the flying toys at McDonald's? The Thark plushies? The video game - Tharks and
Heliumites vs. Zodangans? I wonder if the movie might have brought in more teenage girls if it were named "A Princess of Mars" or "John
Carter and the Princess of Mars" or something equivalent.
I still have hope that, despite this poor financial result, that Disney will proceed with a sequel that is equally well done. There is
precedent - the first Star Trek movie was not well received (though I liked it), but the movies became one of the most successful
franchises.
I like Mars. It is one of my favorite chocolate bars.
Free resource taken from www.alevelmedia.co.uk

3. This type of merchandise will only
appeal to niche audiences and fans of
the original novel. Where’s the game?
http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/merch‐hunter‐disney‐merchandise‐campaigns‐sgall.php
Paramount production (background info taken from Wikipedia)
Producer James Jacks read Harry Knowles' autobiography, which lavishly praised the John Carter of Mars
series. Having read the Burroughs' novels as a child, Jacks was moved to convince Paramount Pictures to
acquire the film rights; a bidding war with Columbia Pictures followed. After Paramount and Jacks won the
rights, Jacks contacted Knowles to become an adviser on the project and hired Mark Protosevich to write the
screenplay. Robert Rodriguez signed on in 2004 to direct the film after his friend Knowles showed him the
script. Recognizing that Knowles had been an adviser to many other filmmakers, Rodriguez asked him to be
credited as a producer.[28]
Filming was set to begin in 2005, with Rodriguez planning to use the all-digital stages he was using for his
production of Sin City, a film based on the graphic novel series by Frank Miller.[28] Rodriguez planned to
hire Frank Frazetta, the popular Burroughs and fantasy illustrator, as a designer on the film.[29] Rodriguez
had previously stirred-up film industry controversy owing to his decision to credit Sin City's artist/creator
Frank Miller as co-director on the film adaptation; as a result of all the hoopla, Rodriguez decided to resign
from the Directors Guild of America. In 2004, unable to hire a non-DGA filmmaker, Paramount assigned
Kerry Conran to direct and Ehren Kruger to rewrite the John Carter script. The Australian Outback was
scouted as a shooting location. Conran left the film for unknown reasons and was replaced in October 2005
by Jon Favreau.[28]
Favreau and screenwriter Mark Fergus wanted to make their script faithful to the Burroughs' novels,
retaining John Carter's links to the American Civil War and ensuring that the Barsoomian Tharks were 15
feet tall (previous scripts had made them human-sized). Favreau argued that a modern day soldier would not
know how to fence or ride a horse like Carter, who had been a Confederate officer. The first film he
envisioned would have adapted the first three novels in the Barsoom series: A Princess of Mars, The Gods of
Mars, and The Warlord of Mars. Unlike Rodriguez and Conran, Favreau preferred using practical effects for
his film and cited Planet of the Apes as his inspiration. He intended to use make-up, as well as CGI, to create
the Tharks. In August 2006 Paramount chose not to renew the film rights, preferring instead to focus on its
Star Trek franchise. Favreau and Fergus moved on to Marvel's Iron Man.[28]
Free resource taken from www.alevelmedia.co.uk

4. Release
Although the original film release date was June 8, 2012, in January 2011 Disney moved the release date to
March 9, 2012.[11][17][44] A teaser trailer for the film premiered on July 14, 2011 and was shown in 3D and
2D with showings of Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2; the official trailer premiered on
November 30, 2011. On February 5, 2012 an extended commercial promoting the movie aired during the
Super Bowl,[45] and before the day of the game, Andrew Stanton, a Massachusetts native, held a special
screening of the film for both the team members and families of the New England Patriots and New York
Giants.[46]
Critical reception
One week before the film's release, Disney removed an embargo on reviews of the film.[47] John Carter
received mixed reviews from critics. As of March 16, 2012, it holds a 51% rating on the film-critics
aggregate site Rotten Tomatoes based on 189 reviews; the general consensus is "While John Carter looks
terrific and delivers its share of pulpy thrills, it also suffers from uneven pacing and occasionally
incomprehensible plotting and characterization."[48] On Metacritic, the film holds a rating of 53% based on
36 reviews, signifying "Mixed or average reviews".[49]
Box office
John Carter has earned $62,347,000 in North America and $172,100,000 in other countries as of March 25,
2012, for a worldwide gross of $234,447,000.[5] In North America, it opened in first place on Friday, March
9, 2012 with $9.81 million.[65] However, by Sunday, it had grossed $30.2 million, falling to second place for
the weekend, behind The Lorax.[66] Outside North America, it topped the weekend chart, opening with $70.6
million.[67] Its highest-grossing country was Russia and the Commonwealth of Independent States, where it
broke the all-time opening-day record ($6.5 million)[68] and earned $16.5 million during the weekend.[69]
Despite strong overseas numbers, however, Disney revealed that the film was expected to lose as much as
$200 million in the their second fiscal quarter ending March 31.[16] As a result, media reports began to refer
to the film as a box office bomb.[70][71][72]
Studio Walt Disney Pictures[1]
Distributed by Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures
March 7, 2012 (France)[2]
Release date(s)
March 9, 2012 (United States)
Running time 132 minutes[3]
Country United States
Language English
Budget $250 million [4]
Free resource taken from www.alevelmedia.co.uk

5.
Above left – a review from Rotten
tomatoes (better received by audiences).
Left, a nice conceptual poster – but do we
really have these connotations with the
name ‘John Carter’?
Below, taken from IMDB with a ridiculous
plotline summary.
Resources collected from several newspaper websites.
John Carter is a great alternative case study to use, especially as a compare and contrast example of how a media
conglomerate like Disney can get it so wrong. If you use John Carter, you should compare the similar expectations
they had for Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides. This film had a similar budget to John Carter but made in
excess of $1 billion dollars. You might also want to contrast this film against the success of Battleship which also
features Taylor Kitsch.
Overall, this is a film that had a terrible marketing campaign. See the trailers, online reviews and opening sequence
posted on Youtube to see why so many people couldn’t decide whether it was a western, sci‐fi or period drama.
‘From the creator of Tarzan’ might have helped, as would have keeping original title John Carter of Mars.
Free resource taken from www.alevelmedia.co.uk