4 ms·
"They keep talking about John Carter as a failure. I saw it. It wasn't great. And the reason wasn't bad acting or bad special effects, it was that it had a medi
by jivatmanx 14y ago
"They keep talking about John Carter as a failure. I saw it. It wasn't great. And the reason wasn't bad acting or bad special effects, it was that it had a mediocre script. So yeah, try hiring some better writers next time. They apparently cost less than special effects anyway. "
I saw it too, and thought it was decent. It failed because of the title. Even the most hardcore sci-fi fans don't know what John Carter is.
If the title had "Mars" in it it probably would have at least broken even.
- melling 14y agoJohn Carter was doomed before it was released. All the reviews doomed it. I even read a critical article on the WSJ. With all the bad press and the amount of money spent to make the film, I decided to see it anyway. I must say that I've seen far worse movies and I found it to be quite entertaining.
- broham 14y agoA book that "details every blunder and betrayal that led to the doom of the motion picture - and that left countless Hollywood careers in the wreckage" was written titled John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood - http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-Gods-Hollywood-ebook/dp/B00AFCZ1S4 http://www.amazon.com/John-Carter-Gods-Hollywood-ebook/dp/B0....
- AnthonyMouse 14y ago>I saw it too, and thought it was decent. It failed because of the title. It failed because it was "decent" rather than "great" and it cost too much to make to not be great and attract enormous numbers of theater goers. That's half the problem: They place these huge bets on single films and then if one of them doesn't work out they're in big trouble and you see everyone whining and crying about it. They need to learn to make a larger number of smaller bets that each have a higher risk individually but a lower risk collectively, because then a single failure doesn't cost you a hundred million dollars.