Originally Posted by DonnachaOne

Typically when movies tank, the studios know in advance, thanks to test screenings, tracking and plain ol' watching the flick. When you're stuck with a dog, you don't want to lose any more cash than you have to. You downplay the marketing, release the film as counter-programming to a film expected to do well, spin the results, and release news about future big movies to help quell the discussion of the current trouble and get people talking about the good stuff to come.

When a film is as immense as John Carter, both in investment and expectation, you can't use the same money-saving strategy. A film like this needs a huge marketing campaign and tie-ins to help cover the investment. So you splash on the advertising, preparation and market penetration, hoping that if you can get enough people talking about the film, and convince them that the film is a must-see event, that people will ignore reviews of friends or critics.

The curious thing with John Carter is that Disney really didn't do that.

John Carter's failure - and make no mistake, it is a disappointment - has nothing to do with Taylor Kitsch, or the quality of the animation, or 3D prices. It has everything to do with what people expected of it. The influential John Carter series of books, loved as they may be by Burroughs fans, are not nearly as famous or culturally significant as they once were. When people saw the first trailers, reaction was not awful, but they had a very important question - "who is John carter and why does he matter?"

Disney never answered this.

Instead, the obtuse and mystifying ads for the film continued. Unless they were looking the character up, no-one knew anything about the character or story, or why any of it mattered. Moviegoers who were already bemused tuned the film out. Those who may have been off the fence wrote it off as an Avatar or Star Wars rip-off (and who could blame them, when no-one was telling them any different?). Even those that might have been interested from the beginning began to wonder just why the advertising was presented in such broad strokes. Were Disney trying to hide the bad parts of the film?

The trailer problem carried over to the print campaign. The first teaser - a b&w image of Kitch with a red, stylized "JCM" overlaid - did nothing to hint at what sort of movie people could expect. The final one-sheet, with Kitsch in barbarian attire in front of an obscured red landscape and sky, did little more to guide the crowds. The most prominent aspect of any poster, even the character posters (a misguided notion, since Disney had failed to make any of the characters seem interesting or important at this point), was the name JOHN CARTER in big yellow letters, looking both imposing and bland at once.

Even the name of the film was kept as disinteresting as possible, a failed attempt at creating mystique. A Princess of Mars became just John carter of Mars, then John Carter. Some have posited that Disney dropped " - of Mars" to try and avoid the stigma of movies involving Mars; Mars Needs Moms failing so hard last year, and Mission to Mars failing on just about every level a decade ago, likely gave them little confidence (though one can safely assume they should have know Mars was intrinsic when they greenlit the project years ago). If so, it may have been the damning move. By removing "Mars" from the title and thrust of the campaign, Disney removed any anchor for the film. Now it was just another guy with a boring name on some alien world.

Late in the campaign, Disney started to release videos of director Andrew Stanton talking about how much the old stories meant to him, how much they influenced modern fantasy lit and films, and how much people would love John Carter. It was too little, too late.

So, why are people talking about John Carter's failure? It's not purely out of spite toward the film; a lot of people really enjoy it. It's because the film's failure is an interesting story of one folly after another. Other studios are looking at it as what not to do in future. Film analysts are calling Disney on their mishandling and underestimation of the audience. Awful moviegoers who made their mind up that the film was terrible without giving it a chance in the first place revel in their "vindication". Fans bemoan that they may never get followups.

Originally Posted by TimeandTide

Fantastic post.

Originally Posted by AVP77

Apparently Disney executives gave Stanton the power to overrule the marketing department on the whole marketing campaign: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-...t-trailer.html

Originally Posted by TimeandTide

Fantastic post.

Originally Posted by AVP77

Apparently Disney executives gave Stanton the power to overrule the marketing department on the whole marketing campaign: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-...t-trailer.html

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

John Carter will return in "John Carter versus the World Crime League". Can't wait!

Originally Posted by Shannon Nutt

John Carter will return in "John Carter versus the World Crime League". Can't wait!

Originally Posted by KillerCannibal

This really needs to become a meme template:

<img src=http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/03/12/business/carterjump1color/carterjump1color-articleInline.jpg alt=ross

Originally Posted by PenguinJoe

Poor Disney, I guess they can go cry into their multimillions of dollars of profits they make from ABC, ESPN, Marvel, Pixar movies/games/toys, Disney movies/games/toys, Radio Disney, Amusement Parks, and whatever the fuck else they make money off of.

Originally Posted by whoopdido

Karl Marx is that you?

So just because a company is successful, it can't be disappointed when one of their products bombs? Is there a limit of how many times a company can succeed?

That's like saying that Albert Pujols shouldn't be disappointed if he strikes out in the bottom of the 9th with the bases loaded and down by 2 runs because he had already hit 3 bombs earlier in the game.

Nobody goes into a situation thinking its ok to fail just because they were already successful in the past.

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

Kids today don't know from Encyclopedia Brown

Originally Posted by Hokeyboy

Kids today don't know from Encyclopedia Brown

Originally Posted by Patman

They should bring him back as "Wikipedia Brown".

Originally Posted by joe_b

If I were the marketing execs, I would have told Stanton to hit the bricks instead of treating him like a sacred cow that could not be overruled. At the very least, I would have tried my best to convince him he was shooting himself in the foot with his approach to the campaign. Perhaps they were afraid of him using his Pixar clout to get them all fired.

I remember last fall when Stanton and company had a press day to generate buzz on the film. He made a point of mentioning that the initial (terrible) teaser was something he made them recut over and over to achieve the right tone for the film. This was the same trailer that made it look like some dreadful period romance set in the desert with barely a hint that it took place on a world inhabited by alien life.

Originally Posted by KillerCannibal

This really needs to become a meme template: