Disney expected to lose $200m in biggest flop of cinema history - Polidicks

This film looks like Dune and Avatar thrown in a blender.

[QUOTE=matt.ant;35221168][B]Walt[/B] Disney has said[/QUOTE] i thought that fucker was dead

[QUOTE]Disney spent another $100m on marketing[/QUOTE] The more you advertise a shitty looking movie, the less people want to see it. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] Here's an example of good marketing: [video=youtube;CWPkJD0YHeM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPkJD0YHeM[/video] It's good because it makes the movie look much better than it actually is.

[QUOTE=ExplodingGuy;35221458]Because Barsoom is one of the greatest series of novels in literary history. One so great, anything other than a direct adaptation is bound to fail.[/QUOTE] And it's pretty mindbogglingly awesome to think that the very first novels of the series were done in the 1910s, too.

The movie is based on what amounts to the first modern fantasy books ever written. Yes it is going to be "generic", because nearly every aspect of the original book series was used in the movie, and those same aspects became the fundamentals for fantasy books everywhere. The real problem is that the trailer is badly put together and they failed to promote it well enough while still showing off the plot.

[QUOTE=TheFilmSlacker;35222124][img]http://www.soundonsight.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/paranormal-activity-poster-01.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] That movie had good marketing because it didn't have any. It was all word of mouth.

[QUOTE=Scot;35222137]That movie had good marketing because it didn't have any. It was all word of mouth.[/QUOTE] It sure did [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8508675.stm[/url] [QUOTE]An emergency services spokesman told news agency Ansa the most serious case was a 14-year-old girl "brought to the hospital in a state of paralysis".[/QUOTE] [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] Most people i know watched it home and were like "Durr not scary at all!" No thats because you got control over your DVD player and can turn down the volume but in a freaking movie theater its kinda hard to turn on the lights or to lower the volume

[QUOTE=darth-veger;35222217]It sure did [url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8508675.stm[/url][/QUOTE] Marketing is something the movie studio provides, not news reports. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] And yeah paranormal activity is bad

Say what you want about Paranormal Activity but I liked those movies. While not brilliant by any means they somehow often seem more believable to me than the script- and special effect-heavy Hollywood blockbusters. I liked Blair Witch Project for the same reason. I watched Paranormal Activity II with friends, at decently high volume and massive bricks were shat at some points. Yeah, startling isn't the same as horror but they were definitely watch-worthy in my opinion. Or at least one of them seeing as they're pretty similar.

[QUOTE=Useful Dave;35221288]Note, both this and last years flops were based on Mars. Why can't we go to Jupiter? :<[/QUOTE] Remember what happened last time? [IMG]http://www.wired.com/underwire/wp-content/gallery/readers-choice-robots/hal9000.jpg[/IMG]

I think they picked the name just for the relation to the terminator John.

good because this movie looked terribad and the makers and actors should feel terribad

I saw the movie, wasn't that bad actually. Wasn't quite so true to the books but hey, better than a lot of other movie adaptations of books I've seen.

Wait why is Disney doing live action, I'm still waiting for Monsters Inc. 2 dammit.

What is the movie about? All I know about it is that theres some guy called John Carter from Earth, and nothing else...

[quote]$100m on marketing[/quote] What fucking marketing, I've seen no adverts for this film.

[QUOTE=eddy-tt-;35222897]What fucking marketing, I've seen no adverts for this film.[/QUOTE] I wouldn't have heard of this film if it hadn't bombed I've never heard of the John Carter books or character either

Saw this in theaters and it was trash. Story made no sense and I don't understand how he jumped that high. Ending was OKAY. The girl was smoking hot though.

They thought that movie was going to work, Man first time I saw it I thougt, Total Shit

feel bad for the director, i really liked wall-e

[QUOTE=Scot;35222046]The more you advertise a shitty looking movie, the less people want to see it. [editline]20th March 2012[/editline] Here's an example of good marketing: [video=youtube;CWPkJD0YHeM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWPkJD0YHeM[/video] It's good because it makes the movie look much better than it actually is.[/QUOTE] Honestly I thought Battle: Los Angeles had terrible marketing. The trailer I saw in the theater made it look like the entire movie was Aaron Eckhart screaming generic war movie lines while things blew up around him and there were some non-identifiable aliens. All the while I had literally no idea what was going on because they used that terrible quick-chop method of editing that the Bourne movies made popular. I heard it was an okay movie, but I didn't bother seeing it because it literally looked like the whole movie was screaming and explosions of gravel in LA caused by "aliens". Granted having watched the trailer you linked it does seem a lot more appealing. I think the movie industry really underestimates how important a good trailer is nowadays. It's probably one of the biggest deciding factors of whether or not people will go see the movie. If it's generic and boring, something I've pretty much already seen, then chances are I'm going to completely forget about it a day later. If it's an interesting premise for a movie then I'll be excited to see it and actually want to. A good example of this is the trailer for ParaNorman. [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NbtltCSpcU[/media] That's a good movie trailer. [QUOTE=dass;35222799]What is the movie about? All I know about it is that theres some guy called John Carter from Earth, and nothing else...[/QUOTE] That's one of the big reasons I think it flopped. The name was terrible, they should have just going with A Princess From Mars. John Carter is incredibly non-descript and hard to remember. The whole aesthetic was also a poor choice, I'm sure Disney didn't want them doing anything too out of the ordinary but something more along the lines of Frank E. Schoonover's original cover illustrations for the books would have been a lot better received. Instead they went with generic live-action fantasy deal. Hell the poster just made me think the movie was some horrible Prince of Persia rip off. Example of what I mean in terms of the original illustrations. [t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3a/Princess_of_Mars_large.jpg/399px-Princess_of_Mars_large.jpg[/t]

Really because I thought it made the movie look like something for toddlers.

Aw the director directed WALL-E? One of my favourite films, shame he couldn't make this work :(

[QUOTE=Rebi;35221294]Personally, I think Disney should just stop live action overall. And James Franko is a good actor, but I have a hard time taking him seriously in any movie after he was in Pineapple Express. He's suffering from Tom Hanks syndrome.[/QUOTE] Go watch Milk

[QUOTE=Lambeth;35223312]Go watch Milk[/QUOTE] What does that have to do with anything he said?

I think the main problem this movie had is the story is out of date. Everyone knows that there are no civilizations of four arm creatures living on the surface of Mars, they all live underground. This is the kind of story that would have been a big movie back in the 1950s, with all the other outer space movies. Now the only people who are interested are people who have read the books, which is a mostly small niche market, not enough for a blockbuster movie.

[QUOTE=Benlecyborg;35222211]The quotes are more exciting than the movie itself.[/QUOTE] I watched this with a friend in the middle of the night, shit is fucking scary, makes me a bit paranoia after seeing it. But the thing that makes it scary is the suspense of waiting when something is going to happen. Maybe it's just me, i always had a thing where i look behind me every minute or so,bit paranoia maybe? About this movie, i thought the trailer was great and i definitely want to see this movie, i like big an lots of CGI.

[QUOTE=Scot;35223371]What does that have to do with anything he said?[/QUOTE] James Franco stars in Milk

[QUOTE=Xehanort;35223436]I watched this with a friend in the middle of the night, shit is fucking scary, makes me a bit paranoia after seeing it. But the thing that makes it scary is the suspense of waiting when something is going to happen. Maybe it's just me, i always had a thing where i look behind me every minute or so,bit paranoia maybe? [/QUOTE] that's funny, I watched it on a portable dvd player in a cabin in the woods at midnight and I found the birds scarier than the entire movie.

This isn't possible, nothing can beat "Jack and Jill's" shitness.