Front Page

Content

Authors

Game Index

Forums

Site Tools

Submissions

About

KK
Kevin Klemme
March 09, 2020
34964 2
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
January 27, 2020
20681 0
Hot
KK
Kevin Klemme
August 12, 2019
7320 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 19, 2023
3805 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
December 14, 2023
3333 0
Hot

Mycelia Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 12, 2023
1990 0
O
oliverkinne
December 07, 2023
2486 0

River Wild Board Game Review

Board Game Reviews
O
oliverkinne
December 05, 2023
2169 0
O
oliverkinne
November 30, 2023
2394 0
J
Jackwraith
November 29, 2023
2921 0
O
oliverkinne
November 28, 2023
1931 0
S
Spitfireixa
October 24, 2023
3574 0
Hot
O
oliverkinne
October 17, 2023
2573 0
O
oliverkinne
October 10, 2023
2442 0
O
oliverkinne
October 09, 2023
2220 0
O
oliverkinne
October 06, 2023
2439 0

Outback Crossing Review

Board Game Reviews
×
Bugs: Recent Topics Paging, Uploading Images & Preview (11 Dec 2020)

Recent Topics paging, uploading images and preview bugs require a patch which has not yet been released.

× Talk abut Movies & TV here. Just tell us what you have been watching. Have hyper-academic discussions on visual semiotics. Whatever, it's all good.

Just saw John Carter...

More
12 Mar 2012 11:28 #118910 by Mr. White
Read quite a few reviews yesterday and most who have seen John Carter are saying it's 'Good' to 'Great'. On the other hand, most of the detractors claiming it's a Prince or Persia or Conan '11 are those who haven't seen it. Understandably, the recent trailers led one to believe it's along the lines of Clash of the Titans.

Now, I don't know if _any_ of the following is true, but a lot of fans are talking about the following.

Apparently, there's been some leadership changes over at Disney and new boss doesn't want old boss' project to do well. One, so that new boss looks better and Two, so that new boss doesn't have to work on follow-up sequels or what not of old boss and can work on new boss projects. Additionally, the high cost of this film may not necessarily be due to the film itself, but that it's common practice to roll things like new office buildings and such into a film's cost.

Again, not sure if it's true, but doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility. I mean, this thing has been horribly mis-marketed. Not only are the recent trailers doing the film a disservice (when you actually see one - where these on TV?), but where's the hype, merchandizing, promotions, etc that usually come with this type of film? All's been quiet.

Anyway, I'm going on Wednesday and it sounds like it's a great old-timey matinee epic and expecting to have a lot of fun.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 15:29 - 12 Mar 2012 15:29 #118943 by ZMan
Replied by ZMan on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...

Jeff White wrote: Now, I don't know if _any_ of the following is true, but a lot of fans are talking about the following.

Apparently, there's been some leadership changes over at Disney and new boss doesn't want old boss' project to do well. One, so that new boss looks better and Two, so that new boss doesn't have to work on follow-up sequels or what not of old boss and can work on new boss projects. Additionally, the high cost of this film may not necessarily be due to the film itself, but that it's common practice to roll things like new office buildings and such into a film's cost.


Usually when there is a regime change (and I did not hear of one for Disney) they stop greenlighting the old boss's projects. Since them ovie released it was probably still in production (or in post production) and I doubt the new boss would go crazy spending money to balloon a budget to discredit the old boss.

I don't know about the bad marketing. I know they pushed it everywhere: I saw it on tv many a time. And there were at least three different trailers. Didn't they also do a Super Bowl ad?

Honestly, I cannot imagine what they could have done marketing-wise so I do not understand the talks of bad marketing.

While I'm here, what I loved about the Dejah role - and I agree with Skeletor's remark about them not hating each other in the beignning which is trite - but that she kept POSSIBLE SPOILER











"agreeing" to take Carter to where he wanted to go but in reality was always leading him to her home and her cause.
Last edit: 12 Mar 2012 15:29 by ZMan.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 16:07 #118946 by wice
Replied by wice on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...

ZMan wrote: Honestly, I cannot imagine what they could have done marketing-wise so I do not understand the talks of bad marketing.


For starters, they could have given it a title like "The Princess of Mars" instead of "John SmithCarter", so people (other than the sci-fi übergeeks, a whopping 1% of the whole population) instantly know that it's a sci-fi/fantasy action/adventure movie, and not a film about an accountant's cumbersome life. Most people don't watch trailers to find out which movies they want to see, they just go into the cinema when they have some time, look at the titles on the screen on the wall of the box office, and buy the tickets on a whim, so a catchy title is important.

They could also have made it clear, that it's a 100-year-old classic story, by the author of the Tarzan books, and not a rip-off/remix of Star Wars and Prince of Persia. Yeah, I saw a couple of clueless "reviews" that essentialy said that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 17:34 #118968 by SGT Dave
Well the receipts are coming in, and it's not good. At the current rate, it's headed to lose $165 MILLION.

What went wrong? Interestingly enough, this is the live action debut og Pixar alum, Andrew Staton (Finding Nemo and Wall-E). By comparison Mission Impossible:GP is the live-action debut of Brad Bird (Incredibles). So what did they do different (if anything). Haven't seen JC yet, so I can't compare th two. MI:GP is a very different product. Great teen-ager, young adult popcorn film. JC is supposed to be (based on marketing) family matinee faire.

What could they have done marketing-wise? This is what I think:

Should this have been a PG movie? I don't care what you wanted. Every semms to want darker this and darker that, ad nauseum. But from a business perspective, this movie could have beat out week 2 of the Lorax, if they had dropped some of the cussing, and taken out some blue blood. Then market more toward the 5-12 market. In my opinion, this doesn't dimish the final product. only 10% of movies made are G or PG, and they make 60% of the cash. A 5 year isn't going to the movies by themselves, that's 2 tickets sold for the same amount of effort. I might take my 10 year old. Maybe. If it were PG content across the board, I'd take him and his 4 year old brother without hesitation. The first 3 Star Wars were PG then, and would still be PG now.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 18:21 #118983 by ZMan
Replied by ZMan on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...

wice wrote: For starters, they could have given it a title like "The Princess of Mars" instead of "John SmithCarter", so people (other than the sci-fi übergeeks, a whopping 1% of the whole population) instantly know that it's a sci-fi/fantasy action/adventure movie, and not a film about an accountant's cumbersome life. Most people don't watch trailers to find out which movies they want to see, they just go into the cinema when they have some time, look at the titles on the screen on the wall of the box office, and buy the tickets on a whim, so a catchy title is important.

They could also have made it clear, that it's a 100-year-old classic story, by the author of the Tarzan books, and not a rip-off/remix of Star Wars and Prince of Persia. Yeah, I saw a couple of clueless "reviews" that essentialy said that.


***Ok, I can buy that. I guess they could have played up the classicness of the story and the pedigree of the author. I think Princess of Mars would have turned off male viewers - though not Loter :) Pretty Pink Princess of Mars.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 18:33 #118986 by Black Barney
shaddap Sgt Dave. You're not allowed to even discuss how good or bad a movie might be until you've seen it. Otherwise Sag has a coniption(sp?) fit.

and in case you didn't know who Sag was, here's a recent picture!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 19:11 #118997 by SGT Dave

Black Barney wrote: shaddap Sgt Dave. You're not allowed to even discuss how good or bad a movie might be until you've seen it. Otherwise Sag has a coniption(sp?) fit.

and in case you didn't know who Sag was, here's a recent picture!


Says the the guy that called it a dumb movie out of the gate without seeing it.

I'm not discussing a movie; I'm discussing marketing.

Now go back to watching Steel Magnolias.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 19:15 #118998 by Black Barney
I was also discussing the marketing and ONLY the marketing but my comment was maybe too cloaked for people to see its real meaning?

It's the same thing as when Sucker Punch came out. I saw the ad and thought it will draw dumb people in droves.

I was commenting on the marketing. I have no intention to see that movie. I didn't think it looked especially good and haven't heard good things either from people I trust.

At this point, I should probably see it just so I can write a review proper

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 19:53 #119005 by Notahandle
Black Barney wrote:
" I didn't think it looked especially good and haven't heard good things either from people I trust."
You don't trust us Barney? *sob* (Quite a few in this thread have said it's very good.)
The following user(s) said Thank You: Black Barney

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 19:55 #119007 by Black Barney
You dumdums like Ameritrash games! I can't trust you dorks for anything!

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 21:54 #119034 by Sagrilarus

Black Barney wrote: I was also discussing the marketing and ONLY the marketing but my comment was maybe too cloaked for people to see its real meaning?


Yeah that's it Barney. You were too cunning for the rest of us to keep up.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Black Barney

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 22:51 #119041 by lfisher
Replied by lfisher on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...
At least it made 70M overseas. I wonder how it was marketed over there.

Yeah Barney, if that was your impression from the marketing, that's a big part of the problem right there.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 23:10 #119043 by mikecl
Replied by mikecl on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...
Well I saw it on the weekend and it's ok. There IS probably 250 million worth of special effects and it's an epic story told on a grand scale BUT it's souless. It fails because you don't care about the characters. The only emotional attachment I felt was to that big 'ol alien puppy dog.

I couldn't have cared less about anyone else. It's dazzling eye candy though and that alone made me take another look at the old 1979 SPI board game John Carter: Warlord of Mars. What's that you say?! A-NOTHER board game from that era that only produced war and fantasy games!!! Why there seems to be more every day from the golden age of gaming.

I can't say the cardboard chits and paper map hold up well today though :-p.
So to recap....John Carter: wonderful eye candy with a poorly realized paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 23:19 #119044 by lfisher
Replied by lfisher on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...

wonderful eye candy with a poorly realized paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.


Except isn't this the formula for almost all blockbusters??
The following user(s) said Thank You: Notahandle

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
12 Mar 2012 23:46 #119049 by mikecl
Replied by mikecl on topic Re: Just saw John Carter...

lfisher wrote:

wonderful eye candy with a poorly realized paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

Except isn't this the formula for almost all blockbusters??

Absolutely! But it has to fix at least one of those two things. Usually it can get away with the paper thin plot. It's the souless characters that's the real killer...although as H.L. Mencken observed, "no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."

I'm sure he meant Canadians too...or DID he?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Moderators: Gary Sax
Time to create page: 0.177 seconds