Why did Disney think "John Carter" would be a hit?

You've probably read by now that "John Carter" is a box office bomb. It's been all over that Disney will lose $200 million dollars because of it. Normally, a movie like this would come and go after making a modest amount, but the fact that it cost so much to make means that all conversations about the movie will be about it's box office performance, not it's quality. I have to ask, though - why did Disney spend so much money on this movie? They must have thought it was a safe bet. But why?

"John Carter" is based on a series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the writer who also created Tarzan. He introduces the character of John Carter in the "Barsoom" series, which began in 1912. It is very old-fashioned science fiction in that it romanticizes the previously mysterious and captivating planet of Mars. The movie tells the story of Carter, a Civil War veteran, who gets transported to Mars and tangled up in the conflicts of the planet's inhabitants.

The movie currently stands at a 51% on Rotten Tomatoes, with a painful 34% among Top Critics. The summary of critical opinion is that "while John Carter looks terrific and delivers its share of pulpy thrills, it also suffers from uneven pacing and occasionally incomprehensible plotting and characterization." Audiences weren't wowed by it either since it wasn't the smash anticipated. It's worth noting that sometimes movies do very well but are considered flops because they are being measured against the cost in making it. "John Carter," however, only made about $62 million stateside, which is not impressive at all. To give you some context for comparison, "21 Jump Street" has already made $71 million domestic, and even "Act of Valor" made $66 million domestic. "Safe House," which also received a 54% from Rotten Tomatoes, earned $122 million domestic.

So here lie the two big questions - why did Disney put so much faith in "John Carter" and why did it fail? First, let's address why Disney invested so much into it. Large-scale, sci-fi/action adventure movies can be very lucrative if they strike a chord with the viewing public. If you can build off of nostalgia for an established series of novels, even better. In the era of "Avatar," studios are willing to shell out the big bucks for movies with stellar visuals. Additionally, the Disney name still carries some weight when put before a film title. But in the end, "John Carter" didn't perform.

Like many people, I have a few opinions about why this is. First, there were no big names to draw in the crowds. If you know who Taylor Kitsch is at all, you probably know him as that guy who was on "Friday Night Lights." You know, that critically acclaimed show that no one watched. Between Sam Worthington, Channing Tatum, and now Taylor Kitsch, there seems to be a sale on bland hunks in Hollywood for leading roles. The rest of the cast is equally obscure, with the exception of Willem Dafoe. Although looking at the cast list, it's a veritable who's who of "that guys." It's filled with people who you probably recognize, but would never be able to identify by name. "Avatar" was led by two semi-nobodies, but you had the pedigree of James Cameron behind the picture. "John Carter" was directed by Andrew Stanton, an established Pixar director making his live-action debut here. "Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol" was the live-action debut of another Pixar man, Brad Bird. One of these men hit it big in live-action, and it ain't Stanton. Also, never underestimate the importance of good writing. Even if a movie looks amazing, if the story lacks any impact, its chances for success are slimmer.

A minor point I'd like to mention is the presence of the word "Disney" in the marketing campaign. The movie is PG-13, but the Disney label might keep some folks away. Disney is still associated with children's entertainment. My youth was the time of the Disney Renaissance, filled with brilliant children's movies, but they were still aimed at the younger crowd. If all you know about "John Carter" is that it's that Disney movie set on Mars, you're probably not going to be dying to see it, in my opinion. That's just not enough for true mass appeal. On this topic, I think the story itself isn't a big draw. The concept of "the mysterious Red planet" is very old-fashioned. Mars once set the literary world ablaze as writers' imaginations overflowed with possibilities for intelligent life in space. But it's 2012, and while Mars fiction will always be around, it doesn't have quite the same appeal as it did in the early 1900s when John Carter first set foot there in Burrough's novels. The concept just felt painfully antiquated. And if you don't have big stars or a well-known director/writer or a premise intriguing to the mainstream, maybe you can at least draw in the fans of the source material. To be perfectly honest, I had never heard of the John Carter novels before this movie came out. I'm positive there are many people like me who saw previews for this movie, a Disney sci-fi epic with a (still largely) unknown lead with a title like "John Carter," and barely registered it.

Whether it's due to all of my reasons or none of them, "John Carter" bombed big time. A sequel was planned, but it's not clear if that's going to happen or not. Despite plenty of source material to draw from, it's unlikely Disney will sink more money into this franchise.

In Theaters: "The Ides of March"

"The Ides of March" is a well-made film that you won't give a second of thought to after you leave the theater. It is an average movie with an Oscar-season cast. I'm not sorry I saw it, but I probably wouldn't have bothered if I had been the one paying for the ticket. (I started out wanting to see "Margin Call," which looks fantastic, but then realized that it's only playing in New York and LA.)

As a person from Cincinnati, if anyone should have been biased in favor of this movie, it's me. "The Ides of March" was shot there and it was big news in the area when Clooney & Co. came. I constantly heard about sightings of cast members and people were always guessing where they would film next. Like many others, I felt obligated to see it just to play "spot the Cincinnati landmark." However, I also read many reviews beforehand so my hopes weren't sent ridiculously high.

"The Ides of March" has all the hallmarks of an Oscar movie, except the release date. The cast is A-list all the way, the plot is about heavy drama, and the tone is cynical. Ryan Gosling plays Stephen Meyers, working on a political campaign for candidate Mike Morris (George Clooney). Morris is competing against another Democrat in Ohio for the party's presidential nomination. Meyers is experienced yet idealistic as he gets wrapped up in the dirty inner-workings of a major campaign.

I was disappointed in how sorely underused most of the cast was. Gosling and Evan Rachel Wood figure prominently, while Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, and Marisa Tomei are used sparingly and each hardly get one big scene to shine. Even Clooney gets little to do aside from canned speeches until the final act. He gets some more material in a scene that is supposed to be revealing and striking, but it's actually underwhelming and predictable. All this being said, everyone does a good job. It's not surprising considering how little their roles ask of them, though. You wouldn't expect any less from these people, but you don't get any more.

What struck me most was the length of the movie - it comes in at 101 minutes, but feels much shorter. As I felt the movie wrapping up, I couldn't help but think "that was it?" It's not insulting or stupid, but the script isn't saying anything new and it is certainly not as poignant as it thinks it is. It's hard to sympathize with a disillusioned protagonist when he was very naive to begin with. Back-room deals and scandalous cover-ups are nothing new to the audience, so why does Stephen Meyers take it so hard? How could a man so experienced in political campaigns be encountering these things for the first time? Gosling has a natural intensity and grounded performance that proves he's more than a pretty face, but the script just doesn't give him enough to work with. The covered-up scandalous act, while ripped from the headlines, was tired and predictable. (If men can't keep it in their pants, they should hire uglier interns.)

This is a perfectly adequate movie. Like I said, I'm not sorry I saw it, but I certainly didn't take anything away from it. The idea of Oscar talk around it seems absolutely ridiculous to me - it's smooth, efficient filmmaking but certainly not Oscar material in any way. Perhaps it's just difficult to make a compelling story about great, big scandals that don't happen. But "The Ides of March" was never about media-rocking scandals anyway - it was about one man's path to accepting that politics is not where people play nice. This could have been an engrossing film, even without saying anything new, but it just wasn't. Instead it plays more like an after-school special as told by the Academy.

My grade: C

Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Worldwide & Domestic Grosses)

And now for a comparison of the box office statistics instead of the critical ratings. Take these with a grain of salt, though, since I'm not aiming for absolute statistical accuracy. I'm using a combination of Wikipedia and IMDB stats and rounding them, so these are rough numbers. However, they're still accurate enough to get the trends across. The only major difference between the worldwide and domestic grosses seems to be the fact that "Die Hard with a Vengeance" did better than "Die Hard 2: Die Harder" worldwide, but did worse domestically.

Comparing Action Movie Franchises (Die Hard, Mission Impossible, Indiana Jones)

As I wrote my previous blog post and started comparing movie franchises in my head, I wondered how they stacked up against one another over time in the ratings. I'm talking solely about their quality, not their box office revenue. So I went to Rotten Tomatoes and charted their trajectories according to the general consensus of professional critics.

"Die Hard" franchise includes:
"Die Hard" - 1988 (94%)
"Die Hard 2: Die Harder" - 1990 (65%)
"Die Hard with a Vengeance" - 1995 (50%)
"Live Free or Die Hard" - 2007 (82%)

"Mission Impossible" franchise includes:
"Mission Impossible" - 1996 (60%)
"Mission Impossible 2" - 2000 (57%)
"Mission Impossible 3" - 2006 (70%)

"Indiana Jones" franchise includes:
"Raiders of the Lost Ark" - 1981 (94%)
"Temple of Doom" - 1984 (85%)
"The Last Crusade" - 1989 (89%)
"Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" - 2008 (77%)

I don't entirely agree with all of these ratings, but they do manage to give you an idea of what direction each franchise has gone. The second "Die Hard" is in no way better than the third. "Live Free or Die Hard" suffers a lot of backlash among fans, but it deserves its rating. It was not the complete and utter mess people say it is, it just wasn't what they were expecting/wanting. And I think it's a downright travesty that "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is rated at 77% while "Mission Impossible: 3" stands at 70%. Not that MI3 needs to be that much higher, it's more like that last Indy movie was horrendous and superfluous.

12 years passed between the previous two "Die Hard" movies, while a whopping 19 years passed between the previous two "Indiana Jones" movies. To put even more weird perspective on this, when Sean Connery played Indiana Jones' father in "The Last Crusade," Connery was 58 years old. In "Kingdom of the Crystal Skull," Harrison Ford was 65 years old. I love you Harrison Ford, but Bruce Willis and Tom Cruise can still handle being action stars while I think your time has come and gone. And really, with characters like Han Solo and Indiana Jones under your belt, you really shouldn't have to stoop to doing any more "Indiana Jones" movies today.

"Die Hard 5" - How about "Just Die Already...Hard"?

I adore "Die Hard." "Die Harder" was a big letdown. "Die Hard with a Vengeance" is pretty entertaining, and has Samuel L Jackson, so that's a plus. "Live Free or Die Hard" is very divisive but I fall on the side of loving every insane minute of it. But I do agree that it's not entirely a true "Die Hard" movie. John McClane was no longer the everyman, but the classic indestructible cop hero of action cinema.

Lately it's been announced that the next movie is about to be shot and is called "A Good Day to Die Hard." Really? That doesn't sound very badass. It will be set in Russia, which is helping sell it for me. I love a good action movie set in Russia, even though Russians as antagonists is a wildly outdated movie concept. Who knows, maybe it'll be set in Russia for some ridiculous reason but the whole country won't be portrayed as the villain. I don't know how they're going to get John McClane there, but I'm curious as hell to find out. Can we work Putin in here somehow? Yippi-ki-yay, comrade.

And now, according to this Variety article, they're searching for an actor to play McClane's son to take over the franchise. My first reaction was, 'because that worked so well for Indiana Jones.' My second immediate reaction was, 'why not just go with Mary Elizabeth Winstead as Lucy McClane?' I loved her in the fourth movie. Even though she had to be the damsel in distress, she held her own and I could definitely see her stepping up to the plate. I guess as long as they don't go with Shia LaBeouf, I'm good. It's just that I would really love to see them be unique and let a woman step up and take over. Why does this even have to continue though? Short answer, money. But creatively, the series just needs to end. With all the 80s remakes coming left and right, it's almost cliche to say it, but think of a new idea already! I just blogged about what to do when your favorite TV shows go downhill. Well, what do you do when a film franchise you loved starts going downhill?

Yes, I loved the last "Die Hard" entry, but what are the odds that this next one is any good? Maybe I'm being too pessimistic, considering this is all coming from a person who is counting down the days until "Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol." Who cares if the franchise distances itself so far from its original premise that it's something entirely new? Can't it be a good action movie in its own right, even if it bears no resemblance to its predecessors? "Live Free or Die Hard" still had some call-backs to the other films. John McClane wasn't the vulnerable hero anymore, but in the end the villains were executing a highly convoluted, complicated scheme just to commit a robbery (like in "Die Hard"s 1 and 3). On one hand, we have the Indiana Jones franchise, that sputtered and turned out a crappy attempt to continue the series. On the other hand, we have the Mission Impossible franchise that came back with a very strong third installment and what looks like a solid fourth movie as well that will try to hand off the leading man role to Jeremy Renner. Perhaps this could work. (One thing that would certainly help is if they reinstated the R rating. Let the blood and swearing fly, McClane! I want a grown-up action movie, and an R gives it that freedom.)

No matter how this turns out, I still know where I'll be Valentine's Day of 2013 - going to a theater to see "A Good Day to Die Hard." And quite honestly, any day is a good day for "Die Hard." (So long as they don't fuck this up as bad as the last Indiana Jones movie!)

Featured article: "'Godfather' versus 'Goodfellas': There can only be one Boss"

Article link: http://popwatch.ew.com/2011/08/12/the-godfather-vs-goodfellas/

No doubt inspired by the recent Mob Week, two writers at Entertainment Weekly discussed two of the greatest films of all time in an effort to declare a number one. Most people think this is a no-brainer and simply state "The Godfather." But "Goodfellas" is an excellent movie in a very different way. The writers and commentors pointed out those differences, which I think are valid. "Goodfellas" is a gritty, realistic look while "The Godfather" is "drama with a capital D," as Kevin Sullivan puts it. In a way, I agree with him. "The Godfather" operates on a grander scale about family and similar heavy themes. "Goodfellas" exists in something closer to the real world. On a personal level, I find "Goodfellas" more entertaining, but the perfection of "The Godfather" cannot be ignored.

It's an enjoyable article that is genuine without being pretentious, which is incredibly refreshing. So enjoy, fellow movie lovers!

Mob Week on AMC - my kind of movie marathon

This week is Mob Week on AMC, hosted by Rudy Guiliani. They are showing classics of the genre of crime/mafia films, including interesting interviews with real-life mobsters and lawmen during the commercial breaks.

As I post this, I'm watching "The Untouchables," the Brian de Palma movie based on the real events of law enforcement trying to bring down Al Capone in Prohibition-era Chicago. If you've never seen it, it's absolutely worth a view. The cast is excellent and the writing is very memorable. I first saw this movie when I was very little (probably way too young for a film like this, but hey, my parents know good movies) and a lot of it has stuck with me. "They pull a knife, you pull a gun. He sends one of yours to the hospital, you send one of his to the morgue. That's the Chicago way."

The last two nights featured "The Godfather" and "The Godfather: Part II," which are obvious must-sees for any film lover. Other movies to be aired this week include "Scarface," "Goodfellas," (one of my favorites of all time) and "Donnie Brasco." For a complete schedule, click here.

It's appropriate, then, that I post my 100th entry about such a great topic. Too often we get marathons of shows or movies that are only marginally related to each other or not at all. Here we have a worthy theme with enhancing extras. Oh, and really kickass promos. Have you seen those promos? (I wish I could link to them for you, but they aren't online anywhere I can find. I guess you'll just have to tune into AMC's Mob Week then!)

Tvgirl's Fourth of July Movie Picks

As I walked about our nation's capitol this week and evening, surveying the best of America's history, I was overcome with the irresistible desire to watch movies. It's not my fault I associate the National Archives with "National Treasure." And there's only so many Disney songs, depressing Josh Groban songs, and banjo medleys by comedians in front of the Capitol Building I can take before I long for Nicholas Cage to school me on our Founding Fathers.

For every holiday, there is at least one movie or TV show that can be used to celebrate the occasion. Whether it's an annual showing of "Shaun of the Dead" on Halloween, "It's a Wonderful Life" on Christmas, or the Robin Sparkles "Let's Go to the Mall" music video from "How I Met Your Mother" on Canada Day. The Fourth of July is an outdoorsy holiday, so I recommend watching movies the day before or after. But before or after you enjoy your barbecue and fireworks, sit back and relax with these July Fourth classics (or movies marginally related to patriotic-like themes.)


8. "The Sandlot"One of my most vivid memories of this movie, aside from the big scary dog and drug use, is the Independence Day celebration. To this day, I think of this film when I hear Ray Charles' version of "America the Beautiful."

7. "Glory"I remember this one primarily for watching it in high school history class, but I recall it being a pretty good movie. The ending is rather depressing, though, so I wouldn't recommend it if you want a feel-good holiday flick.

6. "The Patriot"If you can stomach the historical inaccuracy and presence of Mel Gibson, this is a great movie for national pride. Hey, Heath Ledger is in it too! Does that cancel out Mel?

5. "1776"Okay, this is the one I watched a lot as a youngster learning my history in school. I can't even recall if it's any good, but it's a musical! If you're looking for something really different from the usual, tired July Fourth movies that air on TV every year, maybe you should give this one a try.

4. "Forrest Gump"It may not be entirely about the Fourth of July, but this film is so embedded in American history I can justify putting it this high. If the sight of Forrest and Jenny running into each others' arms in the Reflecting Pool doesn't fill you with joy then you clearly have no soul.

3. "National Treasure"I'm a sucker for nerd heroes. It's why those "Librarian" movies on TNT with Noah Wyle will always have a special place in my heart and the Doctor is the greatest TV hero of all time. Intellectual heroes rock. And we all love a good conspiracy theory and treasure hunt. But at the end of the day, there's something uniquely entertaining about a summer blockbuster that so gleefully revels in the subject of American history.

2. "Live Free or Die Hard"If nerds aren't quite your thing, you can take them in in small doses in this great summer action movie. John McClane drags Mac guy along for a wild ride while Nikita and Raylan Givens try to dismantle the nation's infrastructure. Also, Kevin Smith! And at least in this one, when the Capitol Building "blows up," it's not supposed to be fun (it's not a Michael Bay movie, after all). For some strange reason, despite being set on the Fourth of July, the movie was released in June. Huh.

1. "Independence Day"The grand daddy of July 4th movies. Will Smith and Jeff Goldblum save Earth from damn dirty aliens. Talk about the greatest, 90s action/thriller/scifi movie casting. When I first saw "War of the Worlds," all I could think of was how I rather be watching this movie. I don't want aliens to be defeated by dumb luck (and I do mean dumb) - I want them to be defeated by all humans rallying together in a display of solidarity and bravery. I don't want Tom Cruise and his stupid, whiny kids running all around while people get massacred - I want Jeff Goldblum incomprehensibly hacking into advanced alien technology. I don't want Tim Robbins spazzing out in a basement - I want Randy Quaid flying a plane up the ass of an alien spaceship. "In the words of my generation: up yours!"