by Jonathan Klotz
| Published
In Disney's long history, the company has achieved massive successes, including the history-making Marvel Cinematic Universe and its entire animated output in the 1990s. At the same time, they created some of the biggest bombs ever.
Sci-fi adventure 2012 John Carter It was, at the time of its release, the least profitable film of all time, a title it would end up losing Joker: Folie a Deux By the end of the year. An exciting sci-fi adventure based on classic novels, John Carter It was supposed to be a massive hit, but never had the chance, thanks to the worst marketing campaign ever.
How John Carter Trailers Killed the Movie
The first trailer for John Carter It explained almost nothing about the film's plot, and the scenes on Earth were intercut with shots of Barsoom (or Mars, as we know it) that looked like they were from two completely separate films.
The second trailer is track-corrected and begins with Carter fighting in an arena before launching into a montage of the alien planet with Led Zeppelin's song “Kashmir” playing. As with everything about this film, it was way ahead of the curve, as today, each trailer has an epic, slow-motion version of a classic rock song playing over the trailer, but in 2012, this confused most of the general audience .
Worse still, there's nothing about it being based on Edgar Rice Burroughs' legendary pulp novels, nothing about it being an adventure 100 years in the making, and no mention of how it stars Taylor Kitsch, who Hollywood at the time was pushing as the next big thing. . In interviews leading up to its release, Kitsch spoke publicly about his disappointment with the film's marketing, which lacked any kind of “oomph” or stunning special effects shot to leave an impression on viewers. Even others Science fiction useless, warshipincluded a full-screen shot of the spaceship in all its glory to tease moviegoers with the battle yet to come.
Disney even got the name wrong
John Carter It had no chance of a million dollars in either trailer, which is ironic since it cost $260 million in 2012 (more than $357 million, or more than Wonders). In addition to the poor reception of the trailers, an even worse decision was made months ago when the title was changed from 2009 to 2019. John Carter of Marsreferring to the adapted book, Princess of MarsSimply put John Carter. No one knew who “John Carter” was except him He is Fans, the name itself tells you nothing about what the movie is about.
This may seem like a strange problem, and you might think that people would surely look it up to see what it's about; After all, the Internet existed in 2012, but this problem is not unique John Carter. This is also one of the things that hurt the original John Wick. the first John Wick The teaser was filled with sadness Keanu ReevesBy name, no one knew it was an action-packed thriller, and many mainstream audiences assumed it was the latest romantic drama.As for. It was only after the film had been in theaters for two weeks that word of mouth spread, and the film became a massive hit.
Making the name worse is the marketing campaign “Are you the real John Carter?” Disney's marketing team ran a contest asking people named John Carter to enter a contest to attend a special screening of the film. What it actually did was make people think so John Carter It must be some kind of mystery movie, similar to what Blake Lively was later marketed to Simple serviceWho asked: “Where's Emily?” And effectively creates buzz around the film's central mystery.
John Carter It's a sci-fi adventure film, not a mystery, but once again, the marketing has muddied the waters and left it unclear exactly what genre it is. By the way, the marketing campaign cost over $100 million and did nothing but ruin the movie.
John Carter failed to ruin sci-fi movies, and it's still happening
At the time of its issuance, John Carter It was another in a series of failed science fiction Disney films Mars needs mothers to Cowboys and Aliens Just a year ago, its historic collapse changed the course of Hollywood science fiction. John Carter It's an exciting adventure film, but in the years since, we've started to get darker and grittier sci-fi, and once again, studios have become more risk averse and didn't want to gamble on a potential new franchise. Unless it's based on a comic book (Guardians of the Galaxy(or novel)Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets), no science fiction adventure films entered production after Disney's failure.
The era of throwing huge budgets at experimental scripts It's over, and it still stands today. The only genre that tries to push the boundaries is horror, thanks to low-budget hits like… M3GAN and horrifying. Major studios rely on digging up old intellectual property or developing older sequels, which is why Disney remakes their films. Old animated movies: that's for sure.
John Carter is a fun movie
What makes the film's enduring legacy, a legacy that condemns us to a world of fearful studios unwilling to try something new and different, all the more frustrating is that John Carter It is a good movie. Taylor Kitsch never becomes a household name, but he does a great job as a Civil War veteran stranded on an alien planet. It's a shame he never had the opportunity to turn this into a franchise.
The works of Edgar Rice Burroughs had a major influence on science fiction Princess of Mars It is evident in huge franchises such as star wars or Guardians of the Galaxy. The proof of this is that despite the failure of John Carter, the film was ahead of its time.
John Carter It is currently streaming on Disney+. Give it a chance.
