John Carter: The Poor Labelling Continues with "Flop"

According to Disney (as reported by the Globe and Mail), John Carter is a flop. A movie that cost the studio $200,000,000,000.

Some critics have panned it as a corporate product (as James Kendrick has it) or as a movie that's like a bad mattress, firm at either end but saggy in the middle (Rick Groen of the Globe and Mail). It definitely can't be denied that the movie's got a shiny polish, or that it does have a middle section that involves a lot of zigging and zagging about.

But, having just seen the movie, it's clear that neither of these qualities take away from a movie that's as pulpy as its source material. Things are fantastical, and there's a lot of wandering around the world of Barsoom in the movie's middle, but the characters are fine - surprisingly deeper than what you'd expect from an big-budget action movie.

Plus, unlike another sci-fi/fantasy romp that involves a 19th century American (*cough* Jonah Hex *cough*), John Carter's main character, John Carter, actually develops and changes as a human being.

And the sets and effects don't take away from the story since they match the overall feel and atmosphere quite nicely. Heck - even the alien characters don't go Jar Jar and upend the whole movie by being obnoxiously pandering.

So with an intriguing plot that's at home among the epic stories of Final Fantasy III/VI or Breath Of Fire II, pretty impressive sets, costuming that makes the Barsoom society real, fight choreography that is entrancing to watch, and two strong lead characters, what went wrong? Why is John Carter an official "flop"?

Marketing. And, possibly, timing.

At the theater last night the first showing of the Hunger Games was sold out, though the movie was playing on three screens.

Granted, John Carter came out two weeks ago. But, even that is too close to the buzz behemoth that is the Hunger Games.

Stepping away from sheer timing, ask yourself, before John Carter hit the screens did you hear anything about it? See any previews that really grabbed your attention?

Just compare this official trailer posted on youtube:

With this fanmade trailer from The John Carter Files: Granted, it may be difficult to remember seeing anything for a movie with a name that sounds so generic (taking "Of Mars" out of the title is another stroke against the movie's marketing), but the Disney trailer puts the emphasis on the wrong places. The Disney trailer hypes the movie's action and makes no mention whatever of the legacy that Burroughs created with his novels, possibly their most interesting aspect to non-fans. And using whatever was at hand in the movie's content and source material was necessary to really get people out to see this one, since the movie doesn't have many big stars to boast of. In fact, Willem Dafoe (as Tars Tarkas) is really the only big name in the movie's roster (sorry David Schwimmer!). Setting that aside, Taylor Kitsch (as John Carter) and Lynn Collins (as (Princess) Dejah Thoris) both play their parts well enough to ensure that they'll get more gigs. In the end, John Carter's lack of star power is really the only sturdy stroke against it. Though, when you're someone who recognizes the name Michael Chabon in the list of screenwriters, things like a movie's star power really don't matter as much as marketing execs may think. Back To Top