i got the impression that because i paid for and enjoyed the movie,i was being belittled,thats why i pulled you up on it,you explained and its cool mate,just another lost in context disagreement!!!

I think the reason there's no toyline comes from the fact that a lot of major movies have had toylines that flopped. Dark of the Moon did not do very well at all as far as TF toys go. Avatar, one of the most successful movies in the world was a miserable failier as a toyline. Hell, even Star Wars is currently floundering.
Thor, Captain America both successful movies with toylines that performed miserably. Pirates of the Caribbean as well.
No need to get into the movies that were complete box office flops with toylines that were complete flops. (Green Lantern, and the afore mentioned Tron)

Except it's completely not. The Princess of Mars predates Avatar by nearly a century.
John Carter at one time was going to be the world's first feature length animated movie, predating Snow White by a few years. (Except studio executives backed out just before it went into full production believing no one in their right minds would want to watch a movie set on an alien planet)
While I could be wrong on this part, I don't think Disney making a John Carter movie is anything new, either. I think they've had the lisence and been developing this for a fair few years now, too.
The Princess of Mars has quite a history to it. The commercials that say "Before Avatar, Before Star Wars" are well within their rights.
Kinda like saying Lord of the Rings is a Generic Dragonlance.

Sad times, isn't it?

I think it looks cool but I wonder what they chose as the storyline, I mean there is so much reference material. I mean Burroughs did create Tarzan and look how many movies and books and comic books and tv shows that had, of course different times and what not but I definitively wanna see a decent swords & sorcery type flick this year and so far this fits the bill...for me that is, atleast until Wrath of the Titans.

Well its certainly NOT Avatar,im not really up on all the backstory,from what i read they adapted the original book virtually as it is,as i said i really enjoyed it,you should give it a chance and go watch it,you may be surprised,or check out some reviews and see if its your kind of film before you go??

I definitely want to see the movie, it's just that the theatre experience has gotten so expensive for me that I have to be very picky about what I go see throughout the year. I've already made a commitment to see Avengers, my wife is taking me to see the last Twilight film (trade-off for Avengers), and I think there's one other we're planning on seeing, but I can't recall it now.

Maybe if I can catch a matinee showing at the cheap theatre, I might be able to swing it. Otherwise, it's "wait until it hits DVD/BD/Netflix" time.

Yes. Yes, it is. I think a lot of studio execs these days are looking at box office hits like Avatar, Harry Potter and Transformers as setting the baseline for action films, rather than simply setting a record.

my dad REALLY wanted to see this cause he grew up reading the novels way back in the day.

Yeah, but with ticket prices these days that means about 40 people went to see it.


This is kind of off topic, but something that always bothered me was ranking the success of a movie based on how much money they make. Why do they not count actual ticket sales?? When Star Wars (original trilogy) was out it probably cost a nickel to go to the movies... I paid $10 for a friggin' matinee last Sat. (I'm not really looking for an answer.. just venting)

Not only that, but they also just about only rank a movie's success based on how much money it made on it's opening weekend.

Jurassic Park may not have made as much money as Avatar or Transformers did, but that sucker was in mainstream theaters for over a year before it went to dollar theaters And was there for quite some time before it went to video. I remember seeing it in the mainstream theaters on it's 1 year anniversary.
To me, that is as big a sign of success (if not more) than how much it makes on it's first weekend, in a time when blockbusters are in theaters for maybe 4 months, then out on DVD half a year after it's original release.

TV networks are no better anymore, either. If a show does not absolutely dominate it's timeslot and sends other networks scrambling to move or cancel their shows, then it gets axed. Doesn't matter if it's ratings were respectible, and made money for the network.
(Like Terra Nova for example: Fox admits they were pleased with the performance, it made them lots of money, and it held a strong episode to episode ratings following. The second episode retained a near 100% of it's ratings following the pilot, which is a record. But last I heard, they still haven't decided if they'll renew it because it didn't dominate it's timeslot.)

Sad times indeed.

Avatar, while it had a cliche premise, was a much more epic movie. The visuals from John Carter can't compete.

Both were good movies but Carter was more original.

Avatar's toyline did bad because the toys were bad. Same thing with Star Trek, movie was phenomenal but the toys were disappointing. Cheap and underwhelming, hyped for their iTags which really, no one was going to use. Neat but come on, if that's where the budget went, that was a mistake.

Prior to Carter I had only watched 1 trailer that randomly came on TV. Definitely could've used more promotion.

I agree the movie looks good, 1 worth seeing at the movies due to the amount of cgi and the gigantic battle scenes, but I feel that way about most saga movies, harry potter, lotr, etc. The new Titans movie looks good.

A few more than that, but I get your point. Maybe it will have a grassroots/cult following. Worked for Titanic.

It also has a lot to do with how many theaters that the movie opens on, too. Some movies make millions more than others because they were shown on an extra 500-1000 theaters than the other films.

I think the ranking system for successful theatrical films should be based on the number of tickets sold divided by the number of theaters it was shown on. That way, smaller debuts won't be overshadowed by summer blockbusters and there's no more adjusting for inflation, either. A movie ticket in 1930 is still a movie ticket today.

Also it would help resolve the issue about a movie having multiple theatrical releases (Gone With The Wind, Star Wars). Some movies, even if they are excellent films, may only get one theatrical release ever. Others may have several.

Home video should have a similar ranking system to music album sales. Just go by the number of units sold, rather than how much money the home release made. You could still break it down into DVD, BD, 3D, Combo and 3D Combo releases (or VHS/Laser-disc/Beta-max for the older films).

Haven't seen Carter yet, so I can't say. But I will say I wasn't nearly as impressed with Avatar as others have been. I felt the "Save the Environment" message and allegory was heavy-handed and its advocation of non-violent protest was rendered pointless considering how the film ended.

But I digress.

Definitely agreed. Unfortunately, for a toy line to be really successful, the source material has to be successful AND the toys have to be good. IMHO, Avatar and Trek didn't have that synchronicity.

Even Disney's marketing department admits they dropped the ball when it came to promotion for John Carter. I was able to see two trailers a couple different times., but not nearly as much advertising as I've seen for Avengers already.

Hey simmer down! If we do that the big guys up stairs in those big studios on their big cushy chairs lose money on the DVD/BD and network events such as the crapfests known as The Oscars and we cant have the little guys on top that takes big money out of the head honcho up at the top of the chain. Go back to sleep, now where did I leave that blue pill. :)

This is EXACTLY how i felt about Avatar,the "green" message was just ridiculously overwrought,and i just dont get what all the fuss was about,the only good thing to come out of seems to be that it has opened the door to more CG/effects heavy films being made...

i hated Avatar. great effects but terrible plot.

sooo John Carter worth seeing? haven't been to the theatres since Immortals and Drive.

I heard Drive was excellent all around, so don't go into seeing Carter thinking it'll be as good.

I'll put it this way, I wouldn't mind watching again, but it's not something I would be eager to buy on blu ray. There's neat plot twists and good fight scenes, but it's not as epic as it could've been. If you're fiending for a good adventure movie that stands out a bit you'll dig it. The rich backstory it draws from is relegated to nuggets of background info. It all boils down to an earthling mysteriously transported to Mars who runs into a princess who is being forced into a marriage to presumably save her city, meanwhile alien species are also present who could be allies or enemies. Carter is divided between returning home or fighting for a cause.

Somewhat cliche', you can tell how it'll end, except for a twist.

In some ways I think there wasn't enough action to make kids want figures. The action scenes are short and sweet.

OK, I gotta defend Avatar a bit, because nobody seems to lol, it was the first movie to use 3d technology in the masses, not to say it was the first ever to use 3d, but it was shot all in 3d, using 3d camera, technology never before made,used or concieved was made to make his film work, tons and tons fo cgi, plus this was a movie that was stuck in the directors mind and project pile for 20 years, he just needed the wait long enough for the technology to come available, to make the movie the proper way he invisioned it. It turned out to be the best selling, most seen movie of all time.

This is also 1 of 3 movies, he's making 2 more movies to create a trilogy, kinda like star wars, George Lucas waited years to gain the technology he needed to create the remaining 3 movies. I can only imagine how badass the next 2 movies will be, as like most good trilogies, the best is at the end. and the story seems more grand when you've watched the whole story unfold.

Yes the movie is kinda preachy, but there's a lot of good underlying messages besides don't fuck with mother nature, and to respect the earth, belief in one's self, one's identity, and sticking up for what is right, all noble beliefs, something today's culture of fb/twitter junkies could use more of.

In closing if that doesn't turn your mind on the movie and what will be a trilogy, a good friend of mine told me she thought the Avatar people were sexy blue kitties, and the 2nd time I watched the movie I totally got what she meant and made me laugh, might make you do the same if you keep that in mind, lol.

I say go see it mate,all the points above are fair points but i really enjoyed it,just go with no expectations and enjoy it for what it is,when you see it you realise how much it has inspired other later sci-fi movies.


As for avatar,again all good points,but its another example of how being a master director doesnt make you a master storyteller,it will be interesting to see where Cameron takes the next two movies,but im still on the fence about if il actually watch em..

There's not going to be any sort of "grass roots" success for John Carter, no matter how much good word of mouth it receives. "Titanic" came out in an entirely different time and place for movies (before DVD was commonplace, when movies would play in theaters for months at a stretch if they did well enough...now no matter how successful a movie is, it's out of the theater in two months, tops because the DVD/Blu-Ray probably comes out a month or two after that).

It is unbelievably rare now for a movie to actually increase in grosses after its' opening weekend. John Carter may as well already be getting shuffled off to DVD/Blu-Ray, because it's basically going to lose all of its' screens after this coming weekend (to The Hunger Games and Wrath of the Titans). John Carter's best hope is for it to do really well overseas/outside the US, but even then the reports are saying the movie would have to make about $400 million total (between domestic, international, and home video) to really be considered a success.

And yes, when your movie costs $250 million to make, a $30 million dollar opening weekend is bad news. That's the same reason that Tron: Legacy and Green Lantern were considered "disappointments" despite making over $172 million and $116 million dollars, respectively.

hmmm i'll prolly end up seeing it before it leaves theatres possibly. just most of my buddies are pretty spread out now so haven't been going as often as i used to. going alone is cool but i love having those post movie discussions.

avatar was alright but those last 30 minutes after all the buildup really made the film for me since it was basically pocahontas in space... with mechs. and i can't knock cameron since aliens, terminator, and terminator 2 are some of the best action sci-fi films made in the past couple decades. but overall, avatar to me was an exercise in how to do 3D movie experiences correctly.

I feel you're a bit misinformed on your facts. As you pointed out it's not the first 3d movie.
But you're mistaken that it's the first to be filmed entirely in 3D.
3D cameras have been in existence for a while before Avatar. What makes Avatar so revolutionary in this field is that Cameron created a new kind of 3D camera technology, which didn't even get exploited very much (Requiring the theaters to use a different kind of glasses than the normal).

I'll be so glad when the 3D fad dies off.

I'm waiting for 4d, where the picture can actually touch you, lol.

LOL, I'll try to keep it down to a dull roar. ;)

And of course, YMMV on how "good" that technology is...

I'm certainly not knocking the effects in Avatar, as they were impressive (even when it wasn't in 3D). But technology/effects alone don't make a good movie. You have to have a story first. And to me, the story of Avatar fell flat. Yeah, the action scenes were pretty cool but they also ran in the face of the rest of the story. Even Cameron admitted that the ending was off-base, considering the general disposition of the Na'Vi (anti-violence + one-with-nature).

I find it hard to believe that Cameron was planning an Avatar trilogy from the start, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. And while Lucas may have waited to do the Prequels, it wasn't because he needed new technology to film them. Everything that was done in the prequels could have been done with then-current technology and would have been fine. Probably better from a story-telling point of view, since those restrictions tend make the writers more creative (IMHO).

Not into the furry scene, but I can see how one might interpret Avatar that way. Pretty sure Rule 34 applies as well.

Maybe now that the shine has worn off 3D tech, Cameron can focus more on the story and try not to brow beat the audience.

You have a point regarding ticket sales, but home video is an entirely different animal.

History is full of movies that underperformed or flat-out bombed at the theaters, only to have a new life on home video. That was my main intent behind the "cult following" comment. And that has nothing to do with how long a film was in theaters. It was also a friendly jab aimed at the Titanic fans who went to see that film multiple times during its theatrical run (for reasons I will never understand).

Obviously. My comment was in reference to the general state of movies and the fact that not too long ago, a movie that grossed $30 mil was considered a blockbuster.

Yes and i want Spartacus action figures.

Great movie. I want 2 build a huge thark army. this toyline could be one of the best seen 4 years. Cool charters, cool monsters, cool machines. Size 3.75 great. WAKE UP TOYMAKERS.