QuoteReplyTopic: Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER Posted: March 14 2012 at 10:43am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While JOHN CARTER certainly would qualify as a 2012 RAZZIE® Contender if we looked only at Box Office vs. Production Budget (B.O. MoJo LINK) its 51% positive rating at R.T. (LINK) is not significantly low enough to justify its being given an Official Forum. So this Member-Started discussion will have to suffice.
For those curious about the Industry's take on this film, here's a LINK to read a surprisingly candid account from the L.A. Times about JOHN CARTER's box office woes, bluntly headlined "CRASH LANDING" in the print edition...
There are times when an actor is in a bad movie and an average one in the same year and only gets nominated for the former, and other times gets nominated for both. Since some of the actors in this movie have other movies coming up, which do look like Razzie material... I'd say this movie's loss could make it a contender.
A 200 milion dollar loss... Does this mean that it might become the biggest box office bomb of all time? Because Cutthroat Island, the current film biggest bomb, only seems to have losted 147 million dollar (adjusted for inflation) according to wikipedia link
If that's the case, I think that it may even deserve a spot on the nomination-ballot for worst picture...
Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While JOHN CARTER certainly would qualify as a 2012 RAZZIE® Contender if we looked only at Box Office vs. Production Budget (B.O. MoJo LINK) its 51% positive rating at R.T. (LINK)is not significantly low enough to justify its being given an Official Forum. So this Member-Started discussion will have to suffice.
For those curious about the Industry's take on this film, here's a LINK to read a surprisingly candid account from the L.A. Times about JOHN CARTER's box office woes, bluntly headlined "CRASH LANDING" in the print edition...
No, I don't want John Carter to be a major contender. The only nomination I might agree with is Taylor Kitsch for Worst Actor (He's also set to star in Battleship and Oliver Stone's Savages), but even then, I'm still iffy on the idea.
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are much more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.
I vote NO on the RAZZIE John Carter proposition. Audiences and critics apparently don't mind the film itself, and if One For the Money, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, and A Thousand Words have anything to say, it's that John Carter isn't hated enough. Yes, I understand that the Los Angeles Times thinks it's bound to lose 1/5 of a Gigadollar, but at most, it should receive a Governor's Special Award just like From Justin to Kelly got for worst underachievement in dancing in the 2003 RAZZIES. It shouldn't receive any mainline nominations, let alone Worst Picture.
EDIT: I've also come up with two ad campaign scripts for this proposition based on the previous three posts.
"Film critics at the Los Angeles Times say John Carter is doomed to lose 1/5 of a Gigadollar at the box office. It smashes the previous record of 16 years; Even with inflation considered, Cutthroat Island only lost 147 Megadollars. Furthermore, many stars of John Carter have more projects scheduled for later this year that the RAZZIES expect will be bad enough for them to target, and the John Carter proposition provides more opportunity for nominations. Vote YES on Prop John Carter and show Disney the error of their ways."
"John Carter has about half-and-half approval rating with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. Many films from the winter of 2012have earned their RAZZIE prospects, starring such actors as Eddie Murphy, Nicolas Cage, and Katherine Heigl, all with more troubled careers than the stars of John Carter. RAZZIE voters can't afford to let such films as A Thousand Words, Battleship, One For the Money, and The Three Stooges dodge nominations for the sake of nominating Carter. Vote NO on Prop John Carter. The RAZZIES have bigger fields to harvest!"
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
The film itself is probably not a Razzie contender, but if we gave an award for Worst Idea For a Movie, it would have to be the leading contender. Did anyone at Disney really expect contemporary audiences to remember the John Carter character, or buy into the idea that life is possible on Mars? That kind of thing thrilled readers in 1912, but in 2012 we have learned a couple of things.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
I think the main reason that this was such a mega bomb was that Andrew Stanton expected everyone to know what John Carter was. This article here* mentions several gaffes he made and the reason why Disney gave him so much money. Brand isn't enough, you have to give people who aren't aware of the source material a reason to watch. Does anyone think that more people would've seen 21 Jump Street in its opening weekend based on its brand alone?
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I actually think the film's biggest problem, aside from it being based on an obscure century-old novel (elements from which had already been cadged by countless other movies) was that it was horribly marketed. Starting with their removing the word "MARS" from the title, almost every decision about how to sell this movie was inept. As was mentioned above, simply the name JOHN CARTER as a title meant nothing to 99% of their target audience. Add to that the fact that almost every promotional item for the film made it look like it was ripping off creatures and situations from other movies (when in truth it was the other way around) and the fact that their leading man was an unknown/untried actor who brought nothing to the film or its marketability, and you have a perfect storm of crappy decision making and movie marketing. I've heard from those who've seen it that the film itself is actually not that bad, yet the campaign for it made JOHN CARTER look lame...
I am against putting this into consideration for Worst Picture. If you account for its worldwide gross, then you would notice that its net loss is only $80 million, not $200 million. Furthermore, I don't see how a film with a Tomatometer rating of 51% is going to stand out among low ratings like "One for the Money", "The Devil Inside", and "A Thousand Words" when it comes to choosing the candidates for Worst Picture. Plus, there are bigger potential disasters on the horizon like "Wrath of the Titans", "The Three Stooges", "Battleship", "That's My Boy", "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2", and "The Biggest Movie of All Time 3D" if it comes out this year. The odds are not in "John Carter"s favor here.
To make money, a movie has to double its budget and advertising costs. That's why Disney is saying it may lose $200 million instead of $80 million, Miguel.
Joel Schumacher is history's greatest monster!-Robot Chicken https://twitter.com/SchumacherH8r Next-up: The Adventures Of Ford Fairlane
I can't believe some of you people. Who the f honestly thinks this picture should even be considered for the Razzies? I don't see why this thread was approved in the first place?
Being a bomb (also that 200 million loss is not the final number, that is only Disney) is the worst excuse to have a picture be nominated. It it did get nominated, it would only add a blow to the Razzie's being credible. This is the worst Hollywood has to offer, not the biggest money-losers Hollywood has to offer.
Besides looking at the poll is flat out embarrassing. A film shouldn't be looked at based off it's box office, but by how much you enjoyed it.
Have you even bothered to read the posts in this thread, whats? So far, nobody that has offered an opinion has expressed the affirmative view that it should be seriously considered for Worst Picture.
Head Razz merely offered the question as to whether or not a film that bombed this bad at the box-office should be considered. It apppears that the consensus is no.
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken
And yet I shrug everytime I see that poll and find that the whole It is a Razzie/ It is Not a Razzie vote is almost identical.
I just hope it gets no Razzie nominations (I really don't think it's that likely). I could understand when Green Lantern was up for consideration, but if JC somehow manages to get nominated, I would puzzled as to why.
As I mentioned on the last page, the only nomination I can see this getting is Worst Actor for Taylor Kitsch, and that's only because he's also going to be in Battlesh*t.
Joel Schumacher is history's greatest monster!-Robot Chicken https://twitter.com/SchumacherH8r Next-up: The Adventures Of Ford Fairlane
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You can vote in polls in this forum
Share Topic
Printable Version
Delicious
Digg
Facebook
Furl
Google Boomarks
Google Buzz
MySpace
Newsvine
reddit
StumbleUpon
Twitter
Windows Live
Yahoo Bookmarks
Topic Search 
Topic Options
Post Options
Quote 
Topic: Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER
