John Carter??

[Bruce Banner]

That's a damn shame. I loved the movie. It deserved to do way better.
People are staying away from this, and yet they'll flock in droves to the next damn Transformers movie, or whatever.

Yeah, Disney should perhaps have incorporated "Mars" into the title somehow.
"John Carter of Mars" would probably have been an obvious choice, but technically inaccurate as that's actually the last book in the series and the movie adapts the first book "A Princess of Mars".

But for those (few, apparently) who have seen the film, the end title card just before the credits roll proudly displays the title "John Carter of Mars" with a cool "JCM" pictogram.

[MIB41]

Between this and Cowboys & Aliens (which I liked), Disney has been logging some rather expensive, high profile flops. Can't be good for the bottom line. I'm sure their nervous about the Lone Ranger now.

[The Toyroom]

Bottom line is "John Carter" is a character that is 100 years old (created in 1912). He is not very well-known to the general public despite having been around for a century. ERB's greatest claim to fame is Tarzan and John Carter probably doesn't even have 1/10th of that name recognition. So adding "Warlord of Mars" or something else would have been better than the very generic "John Carter".

In addition, was anyone really asking for a John Carter movie? Last year there was a Conan The Barbarian reboot and that didn't do very well. Now Conan has a lot more instant name recognition than John Carter. So I think this was a very risky proposition all the way around.

[Figuremod73]

Im kinda sadden that older characters dont seem to be doing as well with the younger generation. (teens to early 20's crowd). This is not only a character like John Carter its also Popeye, etc. It even had a big influence on the comics; the "they gotta be hip now" attitude.
I remember even appreciating stories such as Davy Crockett growing up. (I even like the Crockett/Boone movies/show with the same actor).

[palitoy]

The film has done $100 million world wide, this might be a case where the foreign box office saves it. The same thing happened with "The Island", North American audiences stayed away in droves but the rest of the world made it profitable.

[enyawd72]

They should have kept the nudity from the books. It would have generated a TON of controversy and buzz, and every fanboy in America would have seen it six times over the weekend just to see Dejah Thoris naked for two hours.

[palitoy]

They should have kept the nudity from the books.

Wouldn't that have also included long scenes of a nude John Carter jumping around? I'd definitely go for 2-D on that one.

[MegoMark71]

Between this and Cowboys & Aliens (which I liked), Disney has been logging some rather expensive, high profile flops. Can't be good for the bottom line. I'm sure their nervous about the Lone Ranger now.

We just watched that the other day. I ended up really liking it.

[MegoMark71]

Whoa, if that's the case , no nudity is just fine. Perhaps maybe they should have taken some of the money they spent in promoting the movie on a Get to know john carter special or something. That was my problem, i had never heard of it before and all the advertising didn't do much to make me want to see it.

[sprytel]

Wouldn't that have also included long scenes of a nude John Carter jumping around? I'd definitely go for 2-D on that one.

Talk about a flop... <wink, wink, nudge, nudge>

[babycyclops]

I just saw it on the big screen and really enjoyed it.

No endless fight scenes, yet plenty of action. For once all the CG characters worked well, and I really liked the look of the Martian tech and geography/architecture.

The camera didn't move around everywhere, the editing made sense... all in all, a well-made big budget sci-fi movie.

The main guy is pretty forgettable, maybe the weakest aspect of the film, but he certainly didn't ruin the picture (high praise, I know).

[johnnystorm]

I saw this today and really enjoyed it. They stuck pretty close to the books, the CGI was good, Bryan Cranston had a nice guest-spot, Carter was likeable, and Dejah Thoris was gorgeous!

Plus, I got in free for my birthday! Bonus!

One thing I liked was they did not inject any modern slang or jokes into the movie. Always hate a period piece that tries to sneak in something.

I think the advertising dept really screwed this one over. They should have used the John Carter of Mars title, or a Fighting Man of Mars, or such. As it was advertised, it really seemed to be another generic sci-fi flick with a bland name. I don't think being an "old" hero from a book is in any way a detriment. Disney ad execs marketed it poorly. Also, the lack of toys, merchandise, etc wasn't a help either.

And I think Carter will recoup it's money in foreign markets & it will be big on DVD. The possiblity of a sequel is better than for Green Lantern. Especially since the CGI stuff is already processed.

[spacecaps]

I think sometimes the people that market these movies are just out of touch. I had never heard of John Carter before March. I had no idea what this movie was about or that they were based on something created 100 years ago. Disney should have acknowledged that this character doesn't have the familiarity as Tarzan or Flash Gordon and dropped the name from the tile and called it Man On Mars or included a subtitle like "Man of Mars: A John Carter Adventure." The way they were marketing this film just didn't connect. I can tell you I would much rather go see this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxeHQY1NuM

instead of this movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiLL6ZW26wQ

or this movie


instead of this movie


Makes you wonder if anybody promoting this film really have a sense of what this movie was supposed to be or had a genuine love for this series.

[torgospizza]

I think they should have named this film Barsoom: Under the Moons of Mars (John Carter: A Princess of Mars would be ripped to shreds by comedians and this was the original title), the next film would be Barsoom: The Gods of Mars, then Barsoom: The Warlord of Mars and so on. I really see nothing wrong with having titles like John Carter: The Warlord of Mars, apart from the fact others--such as Ulysses Paxton--are the focus of some of the novels in the series.

[Fuzzysnail]

I'm not familiar with the story of John Carter of Mars. Went to see it today with my son, and we both enjoyed it. I would have liked to find out what happened when he returned to Mars. Is that in the book?