"John Carter of Mars" reminds me ofSpidery_Yoda wrote:
John Carter flop to cost Walt Disney $200mI think it's more to do with the film's marketing and image. All you see in the trailers is some guy and some green things in the desert fighting and yelling with no context whatsoever, and whoever decided it was a good idea to call a Sci-Fi action epic set on Mars "John" needs to get fired instantly. "John Carter" sounds like a character drama starring Tom Hanks or something, not an action sci-fi film. They should have named it after the first book: "A Princess of Mars". That would at least tell audiences that there is a princess and it's set on Mars. Or hell, the name of the last book "John Carter of Mars". Anything is better than John Carter on it's own.Ilocano wrote:
Bad plot is bad plot.
From what I've heard tell the film itself isn't bad. Not great but not awful. Yet the marketing just made me (and the rest of the planet) think "meh". The $100 million they spent marketting this film was not money well spent. Stupid.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
