"Disney's "John Carter" Film Rights Have Lapsed" Topic

Disney's option to make additional John Carter films has lapsed. The rights now revert to the Burroghs estate, which is free to seek a new studio for a re-boot.

link

Ron

I am pretty sure there is a reason they let it lapse.

Because it did not make money for them. I liked the film and felt it was close to the book. I think it was marketed poorly.

Matthew

I never saw it, but a good friend said it was great. Seemed a shame it didn't do better.

The rumor I hear is that Disney-Pixar top executives deliberately sabotaged marketing and release for John Carter, because they want to focus their business on cartoons, which are a goldmine, and didn't want a live-action film to be successful and muddy their corporate strategy.

It sounds crazy – Hollywood executive who *don't* want to make money? But sometimes office politics trumps everything, even profit.

Look – Where were the toy releases? Where was the tie-in with a fast-food company? Somebody wasn't even trying to make money.

Damn shame, because John Carter was an excellent sci-fi adventure spectacular that handled the canon material with respect. It deserved success and it deserves follow-on.

If you didn't catch it on the big screen Daryl, you missed out. But maybe if someone makes a sequel they'll bring the original back to the theaters.

It was OK, certainly not as terrible as say "The Lone Ranger" but nothing great. As for sabotage – a studio would do that with a lower budget picture but JC was a HUGE chunk of change, even for Disney. The saying that "never ascribe to malice that which can be explained by incompetence" comes to mind.

Because it did not make enough money for them

There, corrected it for you

@45thdiv and @zippyfusenet – couldn't agree more – I'm a big fan of the John Carter books, and I loved the film as well. Felt it captured the essence really well. Really needed to see it on the big screen – it was a big film!

And yes – where were the toys? Fleets of those skyships could have been sold – not a wargamers conention on 5 continents would have been complete without a huge aerial battle.

I recall reading that the director wanted to play down the geek appeal – any studio that wanted to would have given that idea the heave-ho. It's like McD's sayig "lets forget the burger eating part of our customer base and concenrrate on the vegan yoga instructors…"

An excellent film. It doesn't need a sequel. The question is, why are movie producers going back to 100-odd-year-old material to base a film around? Are they truly that bereft of ideas?

45thdiv – I agree with you on that. I enjoyed the movie and never read any of the books. Disney didn't even try to market it compared to what they do with their cartoons. Not to mention Lynn Collins was just gorgeous.

8)

I thought the film had some interesting set and costuming choices, but I thought the Dejah Thoris actress was a mediocre choice, and I thought the plot and its supporting elements were lousy. It wasn't awful, but not nearly good enough to appeal to anyone other than fanboys.

A different script, a few changes in casting, and they could have made a good movie with the rest.

The rumor I hear is that Disney-Pixar top executives deliberately sabotaged marketing and release for John Carter, because they want to focus their business on cartoons, which are a goldmine, and didn't want a live-action film to be successful and muddy their corporate strategy.

Disney locked John Carter in the basement, til it was old enough to ship off to military school. Disney spoiled Lone Ranger rotten, and now it just sits around the house all day, smoking weed, eating pizza, and insulting the race/sexuality/parentage of other online FPS players.

I loved it and read all the books as a result.

The rumor I hear is that Disney-Pixar top executives deliberately sabotaged marketing and release for John Carter, because they want to focus their business on cartoons, which are a goldmine, and didn't want a live-action film to be successful and muddy their corporate strategy.

I read an entertainment news article in which a Disney insider said the executive team decided to sabotage John Carter so that the studio would have a clear runway for Star Wars, not animated moves. They didn't want to support two scifi franchises at the same time, and Star Wars would be a big money maker. So they completely "un-marketed" the movie as much as possible to clear the way for a focus on Star Wars.

The rumor that I read was that the execs who sabotaged it were not the ones who produced it. There was a massive turnover in personnel. The wrong people would have gotten the credit. The guys who were fired. Can't have that!

They didn't want to support two scifi franchises at the same time…

I'm not sure why that would mean you couldn't NOT hamstring one movie, then just NOT make sequel. But then, I don't understand Hollywood.

I enjoyed it quite a bit. Never had an interest in Barsoom stuff until after I watched it.

As a devoted fan of the books, I was delighted by the movie and thought it far better than I expected from Disney. It seemed odd that it was instantly presented as an enormous bomb when in fact it (a) was good and (b) actually did make a fair chunk of change. The bar seemed to have been raised very high, possibly by folks who didn't want it to succeed for whatever nefarious reasons.
I would love to see another, though I pine even more for a sequel to Master and Commander!

Excellent and fun movie that was faithful to the spirit of the books. It was well cast and it was a shame that Disney mishandled the entire thing. They could of had a good franchise out of it. I agree there does not need to be a squeal. I own the DVD and have watched it at least three times plus the two times I went to see it in the theater.

Burroughs thought there needed to be a sequel. Eight of them, IIRC.

As for me, I could stand further exploration of Barsoom. More gorgeous pricesses barely wearing jewelry and silks, more great sky-fleets clashing, more green giants hacking and hewing, more mad Jeddaks villainously twirling their moustaches. We haven't even properly seen the Barsoomian cities and palaces, or the holy Therns.

Okay, I'm a fanboy.

Read the books many times. I am a long time fan of ERB. The studio did a terrible job of marketing what was a very good movie.
However, it is not the first time that something decent (either in the movies or on TV) loses out to the numbers. I have been a business man for many years…..you gotta have a bottom line. Like or not…that is the reality

fun movie. reading the books now.

I read the John Carter books as a kid and thought the movie was ok. About what I would expect from a major studio trying to translate a niche subject to a broad audience.

My wife on the other hand, who had never heard of John Carter loved it. She has watched it a bunch of times since.

The JC fix.
YouTube link

i looked it up, and while it made almost $300 USD million overall, it's budget was $250 USD million and the box office totals were buoyed by unexpected popularity in Europe especially Russia. It thus looked like an expensive bomb that was saved by a Hail Mary.

I really think the only way to make these sorts of movies is to bite the bullet and film the main film and a sequel simultaneously, so as to make better use of the costumes, makeup, and props. LOTR is a model for this, and I know they made the last Hunger Games sequels in a package and are releasing them on a preset schedule.

^^^^
Yes, that is the way to go. It's why television can have a lower budget and still good.

Well, maybe now a studio who will treat it right will pick up the rights to it.

Looks good.

Amicalement
Armand

shame, the books were a great read

Burroughs was a hack genius and the books are magazine fodder churned into a science-fantasy fun-fest.

More niche and more pulp could be cool, if the right studio were to take it on.

Conan of Mars!..:)

Or Fifty Shades of Gor??

Plus international DVD/Blu-Ray sales & TV rights usually bumps up studio profits quite a bit. My kids watched it and thought it was great. I haven't seen it yet.

I really liked this movie! It deserved better.

I was on a Disney Cruise right after John Carter opened in the theaters and the Cruise Director pointed out that it would be playing at the onboard theater joking that he knew that no one had seen it already because no one anywhere had bothered to see it.

It was a packed room full of Burrough-ites, right?

I liked it!

Every review I read, it was obvious the reviewer hadn't even read a Cliff's Notes version.

My favorite was "a little known book from an unknown author who would never amount to anything". Couldn't spend 30 seconds on wikipedia.

Really? A little-known book from a little-known author? Please post the name of THAT idiot reviewer.

Wan't Tarzan like the greatest bestseller of series for the entire half-century or something?

Ray Bradbury apparently thought Burroughs was great--check this quote out:

In a Paris Review interview, Ray Bradbury said of Burroughs that "Edgar Rice Burroughs never would have looked upon himself as a social mover and shaker with social obligations. But as it turns out — and I love to say it because it upsets everyone terribly — Burroughs is probably the most influential writer in the entire history of the world."[18] Bradbury continued that "By giving romance and adventure to a whole generation of boys, Burroughs caused them to go out and decide to become special."

I'm a big fan of the books and thought the movie was BETTER than the source material. So did my wife, my brother, and his entire family when we all went to see it on opening day. It's a shame that they mis-marketed it so badly but at least we have the one movie!

"The question is, why are movie producers going back to 100-odd-year-old material to base a film around? Are they truly that bereft of ideas?"

Why not? Does the age of a book diminish it's value or appeal? Nope, it does not. Should nobody have ever made a movie based on H. G. Wells or Jules Verne? Or for that matter, Shakespeare? Fie upon thy odiferous opinion! 8)=

I think Hollywood has every bit as many good ideas as they ever have, which is to say a fairly small percentage. But it is rare that the GOOD stuff makes a lot of money so I place the blame squarely on the moviegoing public. They are after all the ones that go see things like Fast and Furious and The Expendables (and all their many awful sequels)…

Hey! Hey! I love The Expendables movies. Be kind Nazrat.

As to John Carter, I thought it was a very good movie, as did my wife (who also loves the Expendable movies).

And the Green Martians were fantastic.

I like The Expendables too!

Amicalement
Armand

Next it'll be Mickey and Mini Rat. These guys could ruin Spaghetti with their over budgeted bad 'as in boringly acted' casting CGI'ed into oblivion rubbish, yeah I agree stick to those cartoons and let others have a go, sure they'll do better with less money and more integrity.
Cheers, "If its a cheap shot, more the better"

For a fair comparison, look at "John Carter" next to "At the Earth's Core" or the old Tarzan movies, the other Burroughs novels used by Hollywood. Though they have a special charm to many of us pulp aficionados, the superior quality of John Carter is pretty staggering.
Of course, "Earth's Core" had Caroline Munro though :)

Get the DVD and listen to the producer/director commentary which was apparently recorded prior to the movie's release.
Those two were full of it!

My wife and I loved the books, and liked the movie. I agree there was no marketing. It seemed a natural for Happy Meal toys and Hallmark Christmas ornaments and all kinds of action figures and vehicles, and yet, we got nothing! Many movies make a lot of their money on the merchandizing. These guys did not even try. I hope someone else picks it up.

I also agree they need to film two or three at a time to cut costs and insure the same cast can do the sequels. It used to be pretty common to start a sequel soon after the first film opened.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

I enjoyed the film, and have never understood the disdain both the critics and the studio execs had for it. Misunderstood and mis-marketed, it should have been a hit. Maybe somebody didn't like that Carter was an ex-Confederate soldier?

One of the major problems with the movie was that it was politically correct. Face it, Dejah Thoris was supposed to be a be eye candy and Mr. Carter was Tarzan with a sword.
There was another version of it in the works about twenty years ago that I think would've fared much better.
When they were filming the remake of 'Ocean's 11' at the Bellagio in Las Vegas I had a chance to talk to Julia Roberts. She had been offered the role of Dejah Thoris while Tom Hanks had accepted the role of John Carter. From what I gather, there were plans to market the movie like Star Wars and to expand upon the works of Edgar Rice Burroughs. But at the last moment, Julia Roberts dropped out and the movie was cancelled. The reason that Julia Roberts had dropped out was because she would've been topless in every one of her scenes.

Coelacanth, are you spoofing us? Tom Hanks IS John Carter? No, not when there's Will Smith or Adam Sandler available.

This was 15 years ago.

I just don't see Tom Hanks as an action hero. Nor do I see Julia Roberts topless in every scene. I mean, I'd LIKE to see JR topless a lot, but it's not going to happen, either in the movie theaters or around my house.