Why did John Carter fail?

[kingmyth]

Disney planned a John Carter trilogy in the past but what made them cancel the sequels?, They intended it to be their hit science fiction series but it flopped at the Box office.

[LordTrump]

Too expensive to make costs back, China wasn't a big factor internationally yet, bad marketing, boring name (Of Mars would've helped), somewhat genetic/trite due to being the template for most sci-fi

[AndrewCrossett]

It being a fairly obscure title (these days) didn't help. It's true that calling it "John Carter of Mars" would have helped.

[kingmyth]

Too expensive to make costs back, China wasn't a big factor internationally yet, bad marketing, boring name (Of Mars would've helped), somewhat genetic/trite due to being the template for most sci-fi

Maybe thats why Disney got the rights to own Star Wars to replace John Carter.

[LordTrump]

Maybe thats why Disney got the rights to own Star Wars to replace John Carter.

Basically. Them and Marvel, since most of their live action stuff that wasn't Princess related was flopping (that unnecessary Pete's Dragon remake sure during buck the trend).

[Jim Kelly]

Disney had all kinds of stupid reasons for why they ended up calling it JOHN CARTER, none of which make much sense.

Even so, for all the dumb things they did, I don't think the box office was as bad as it could have been. I wish they had stuck with the plan and made at least one more. Ideally a trilogy. The titles should have been:

• JOHN CARTER AND A PRINCESS OF MARS
• JOHN CARTER AND THE GODS OF MARS
• JOHN CARTER, WARLORD OF MARS

[kingmyth]

Basically. Them and Marvel, since most of their live action stuff that wasn't Princess related was flopping (that unnecessary Pete's Dragon remake sure during buck the trend).

Can a reboot save John Carter?, What was the point of them remaking Pete's Dragon to be a darker much less cartoony movie?.

[master of read]

i agree. before i actually watched the movie, the name "john carter" wasn't very appealing to me. now "john carter of mars"? that's a name i can get behind.


but still, i love this movie.

[Zero Hunter]

A big factor was the marketing. John Carter had one of the worst marketing plans in recent memory. Even worse than Ghostbusters. The marketing built up absolutly no buzz at all for this film and probably turned more people away than it brought in,

Another big factor is the budget. It was just too damned high to ever make a profit. It is like all those other old characters like Zorro, Tarzan, and the Lone Ranger. You just DO NOT spend that kind of money on it. If they had made it for say 100 million and had decent marketing they could have been setting themselves up for some sequels. Instead they spent close to 250 million on it and there was no way it was going to make a profit with a budget like that. You don't spend that kind of money on a project like this right out of the gate. You play it a little safe with the first movie and work within your means and then if that is a hit you bump up the money for the sequel.

[Doctor Know]

Bland name. Most people didn't know why "John Carter" mattered as a title.

A terrible marketing campaign. Like the JJ Abrams style of showing very little and not telling the audience much in the trailers. Only John Carter of Mars isn't a big name IP like most of the IPs Abrams' directs (Mission Impossible, Star Wars, Star Trek), so there was no buzz or traffic for this movie.

[mburns]

How about John Carter failed because it wasn't very good. It's been 5 years since JC bombed and the rights reverted back to ERB estate. No other studio has bothered to come knocking to make a reboot.

[JCAll]

I would have gone with "John Carter and the Princess of Mars".

But really, it just had a terrible marketing campaign. On top of the title, every trailer was awful, how hard could it have been to build hype for a civil war soldier going to mars to fight aliens. Plus they spend hundreds of millions on the marketing apparently, so there was no getting their money back.

Damn shame, it's one of my favorite movies of the last several years. I liked it more than Avatar, and that made 2 billion and has 5 sequels coming.

[hulahulk]

The flick was better than Avatar. Story, acting, special effects, etc. But it is a tired trope. How many more times can viewers see something like it that is new and exciting?

[Jim Kelly]

The thinking that led to that bland name seems to show a lot of anxiety from the Disney executives (none of whom are probably working there anymore). They seemed to be scared that little boys wouldn't want to see it if it was named "A Princess of Mars" because boys don't like princesses and that little girls wouldn't want to see it if it had Mars in the title because girls don't like science fiction.

They also seemed to be scared that it would be compared to STAR WARS. And they assumed a lot of ridiculous notions about what people want to see in a movie. Which makes one wonder why they made the movie in the first place.

They had two things working strongly in their favour that I don't think they used enough in the advertising. This is a story from the creator of Tarzan and a movie from the director of WALL-E. Even if they were scared of princesses and science fiction (as daft as that is)--they could have at least pushed these two strong points.

[JCAll]

How about John Carter failed because it wasn't very good. It's been 5 years since JC bombed and the rights reverted back to ERB estate. No other studio has bothered to come knocking to make a reboot.

What would be the point of a reboot? It's sort of like Dick Tracy, they already made a perfect Dick Tracy movie and it tanked. Where do you go from there.