Say Goodbye to Any Chances of Seeing a 'John Carter' Sequel Soon

March 19, 2012
Source: Deadline

John Carter

It doesn't sound like we'll be going back to Barsoom anytime in the near future. Despite some strong praise and a hopeful fanbase, Disney just couldn't figure out how to properly market John Carter (of Mars) to get theaters seats filled. Being up against Universal and Illumination Entertainment's family film The Lorax didn't help matters any as the film kicked Carter's ass two weekends in a row. Now the chances of a sequel to a film that crafted a promising world and delivered some truly thrilling action and exciting adventure are slim as Disney has revealed they're likely losing about $200 million because of the film's poor performance.

Not only is this sad news for those of us that really enjoyed the epic space adventure, but it's even worse for those who didn't give the film a chance. They truly don't know what they're missing. While some have criticized the film for having elements of Star Wars, Avatar and plenty other sci-fi films, the fact is that the story on which the film is based inspired those stories. The film taking cues from the films that took notes from Edgar Rice Burroughs' sci-fi classic is just going full circle. And it's not as if there weren't plenty of original characters and creatures in the film to keep audiences interested.

Lynn Collins' is easily as much of a poster girl for teenage boys as Carrie Fisher became decades ago, especially after that metal bikini is Return of the Jedi. The alien races are interesting and there's a slew of civilizations that make for a rich universe. Carter himself is no Han Solo, but he's selfless hero, the kind that you love to see develop and come into their own, especially over multiple films. Finally, it's a story that takes you to another world, but with all the familiarity of stories that take place right on our own planet. The film is derivative in a sense, but not so much that you know what's going to happen and can't get lost in the story.

While it may not be as innovative or mind-blowing in special effects as a film like Tron, I could easily see this generating enough of a cult classic status to generate a sequel in about 20 years. It's truly disappointing that a much less entertaining and satisfying film as The Lorax, which seems to have been crafted to sell SUV's and other such items more than anything, actually dominated the superior film at the box office. Actually i09 has a fantastic write-up that perfectly describes my rage and anger that John Carter has fallen so hard, and that we may never see a sequel come out of an exhilarating sci-fi adventure as this.

Find more posts: Development, Movie News, Sci-Fi



Well said.  Couldn't agree more. 

HealthyPoison on Mar 19, 2012


I really liked the special effects in this film.  For a CG heavy movie I was surprised of how many practical sets and locations that they used.  Did a great job in selling them.

Anthony Lopez on Mar 19, 2012


Thats too bad I really liked this movie a lot. The soundtrack is great too I might add 🙂 

Markj765 on Mar 19, 2012


The marketing campaign for this *was* terrible. I didn't get any sense of excitement from the ads. 

DaveLister_JMC on Mar 19, 2012


ditto, i almost didn't watch the movie because of the ads and now i DEMAND a sequel.......

Jericho on Mar 19, 2012


Yep.  Agree with you on that one.  My interest came primarily because I'd read the books, and also knew of the long history in trying to make a movie based on the characters and stories.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


My Feelings exactly. Saw the first preview and on, and thought it looked mediocre at best. Really a bad job in advertising, and giving people an idea of what this movie was. I so glad I saw it, and really wish they would make another!

Guest on Mar 21, 2012


Agree, terrible marketing. I bet only 1 out of 10 people under 40 knew who the John Carter character were. Disney screwed this up badly and it is a pity because I really liked it. And judging from the 7.1 score and almost 20000 votes on imdb so did many others.

AFredrikA on Mar 21, 2012


I actually got interested by the online commercials. Saw it on the front page of Youtube and actually ignored it a few times then I was like oh what the heck why not especially after seeing a few scenes, clicked it and went into automatic "*o* I MUST/WILL SEE THIS!" mode. I then clicked to find out more and learned it was a book,and all its significance,etc. Then I was deadset on seeing it, who wouldn't be. I'm waaay under 40 (17 years old), my mom is in her forties. I was interested, mom said it looks boring/stupid and said things like "it cant be all that or that big of a deal" even after seeing it I liked it and she still said it was boring/stupid. -.- Given she enjoys Twilight movies,I dont have to say more. Even my dad didnt even know what John Carter was and he's over 60, I said it was a book and what not and he zoned out x) Some people are just pessimistic and ignorant of actual literature. Like the article above said Lorax sold better and now Hunger Games (I'm not knocking Dr.Seuss who doesn't like Dr.Seuss? nor am I knocking Hunger Games given I have yet to read it or any of these new "teen books",read one and well, you know).  So yeah, its not even really an issue of "younger audiences/audience below 40" not wanting to see it or having interest. There were 3 year olds and up in the theater when I went. A lot of my frends went to see, although the other half never heard of the movie nor the book and they are the "book hungery" half (they read all day everyday sevreral books). From my side, more younger people know of this than older, the older people I know never heard of it (book or movie). Where this movie loses is 1)Promotion 2)Timing 3)Disney. I also think to stop some criticsms like "it copied star wars" and "it copied avatar" and whatever else, they shoulde have have an ad or two that stated THIS CAME FIRST/INSPIRED THOSE/OVER 100 YEARS IN MAKING, something, because some people need it billboarded into their faces and before hand to shut them up. In fact it was that info that sealed the deal for me. maybe we should all hate this, practically everyone hated Twilight and look how they kept making more XD

Anonymous on Mar 27, 2012


It's very sad indeed.  I feel really bad for Stanton.  The guy, who has a gift for storytelling, put his neck out for the material to deliver the best film he could.  Instead it was taken down by a cartoon that no one will remember.  Even sadder still is the notion that Hollywood will now begin to take even LESS risks (that isn't saying much), and will pave the way for more crappy remakes, sequals and found footage shite that we've become so used to seeing (although Chronicle rocked my world).  Very sad. 

Carlo on Mar 19, 2012


Yeah, unfortunately for him, it turns out he isn't as visionary as he thinks he is. Using the whole "Star Wars & Avatar were inspired by this so it's OK if it feels like them" is a stupid argument, BECAUSE the well has been drained, you have to innovate. A good book doesn't always mean it'll be a good film. You say it was taken down by an unmemorable cartoon, but for many, it seems JC was itself unmemorable. Take even less risks? Some people don't get it. Just because a movie is a remake, a sequel or found footage doesn't mean it's going to be bad. Look at 21 Jump Street or last year's Fox duo of X-Men and Apes. You yourself mention Chronicle. It's what the person at the helm does with what they have and Stanton screwed up. I'm not sure to trust this disparaging of Stanton in the press, but if it were true he said he couldn't make a movie with $5m, then he's obviously less of a creative than everyone's making him out to be. FACT: Movies are made to make money. No one pumps in cash to have a movie no one wants to see. This site and other film bloggers were up in arms last year when Guillermo del Toro's project was cancelled, but how short-sighted can one be? He hasn't made very commercial films and a $150m R-rated horror film? Sure, we would like to have good films be made, but do they really need such a high price tag? Apes and X-Men were produced for less than that, the former might even be less than $100m. District 9 was made for what, $30m? So, back to John Carter, did it really need $250m to tell its story? Avatar cost less than that. The Dark Knight cost less than that. Transformers 3 cost less than that. You don't spend $250m to rehash films made before. 

Ho on Mar 19, 2012


 you need to check your facts. you are so wrong. avatar cost less than $250 million to make? HA! it cost over $150 million just to PROMOTE it!!! I think the budget was just right for this movie, it just should've been used smarter... Such as the advertising for the movie. I almost skipped it, and I'm such a movie buff, I see a movie in theaters at least once a week. But once seeing the film, I was very entertained, and the ending was not at all what I expected! Overall a great movie...

joemama on Mar 30, 2012


I honestly enjoyed it. For something that's written nearly 100 years ago with the amount of creativity that most movies today haven't 'rebooted', I found it pretty refreshing, engaging and fun. It's sad to see this one fall like that. But then again.. look at Firefly. Another well put article, FS. 

Nick Sears on Mar 19, 2012


"But then again.. look at Firefly.." Not just FIREFLY--you can add BLADE RUNNER, the 1982 remake of THE THING, DUNE....the list goes on.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


What a great movie. i wont give up on a sequel until it hits DVD sales.

Robert on Mar 19, 2012


Lets face it! Sadly there are millions of idiots that don't know how to enjoy such an intellectual film like John Carter. Look around, they're everywhere! There's even one running for president. 

Jedibilly on Mar 19, 2012


I think I'll survive without ever caring about this movie.

Blurb on Mar 19, 2012


I'm sure it was a fine, if not splendid film, but let's not get high and mighty calling those who didn't enjoy it idiots, and praising it as an "intellectual film".

gpak on Mar 19, 2012


The movie was entertaining enough in its way but to describe it as “intellectual” is hilarious. Not even Burroughs’ stories, for all their originality and fun ideas, could be described as “intellectual” – Burroughs wrote pulp fiction at its finest and while we can describe him as a great writer of pulp fiction (just as we can describe Conan creator Robert E. Howard as a great writer of pulp fiction), let’s not confuse this fiction with great writing. Dostoyevsky wrote great fiction, Burroughs wrote great entertainments. And as an adaptation, Stanton's movie is in no way superior to the source material.

Gerard Wood on Mar 20, 2012


Intellectual film? It´s the greatest thing I´ve ever heard. Hope you will find the DVD next to Ingmar Bergman's films. Perhaps if Disney would have marketed it as an intellectual film and presented it to the Cannes festival... You are fantastic. Please, don´t grow up.

JM on Mar 20, 2012


No he is already president. But I see your point, he is running again

Guest on Mar 21, 2012


This was not only a financial nightmare - it was a creative nightmare.  Many fanboys (and girls) dreams for a great "John Carter" movie were crushed by Disney.  Here is a hilarious review by a drunken Finnish film critic who loved the books as a boy growing up in Finland (and, yes, his dreams for this one was crushed by Hollywood).

jillkennedy on Mar 19, 2012


After seeing you post for the reading of the "drunken Finnish film critic" page in about a half dozen other forums you have attended, I gave it a read. Even knowing going in it was going to be a bash on the film, it wasnt funny.  At best it reminded me of bad fart jokes. Maybe its a "Finland" thing. By no means does it deserve the publicity you are giving it in all your posts.

Deadplant on May 26, 2012


Really? There are so many story problems with the film. This premature ejaculation is ridiculous. It isn't as bad as made out to be, but it's nowhere near this holy status that film bloggers have adorned onto it. 

Hi on Mar 19, 2012


What a relief!

Zeus on Mar 19, 2012


I think this movie would be more successful if it was released in the summer instead of in the middle of march. For a such big budget film, it would be smarter to release the film when school is out.

Truong18 on Mar 19, 2012


 That sucks...but at least we get to suffer through another Avatar movie...yay.

Xerxexx on Mar 19, 2012


I gotta say, Xerxexx...this film did not deserve the crap that was heaped on it.  The long knives were out for it months before.  Well...I liked the film a lot.  And if it's any comfort, more people liked this film than hated it.  Some of the best compliments came from SF/Fantasy writers who were inspired by Burroughs' works when they were younger, such as Peter David and Michael Moorcock (and I would take their opinions any day over some schmendrick critic). I'm p'od that we won't get a sequel and that the towel was thrown in so early....but at least after all these years, there was a John Carter film.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


Hear! Hear!

Xerxexx on Mar 20, 2012


Not only was marketing for it awful (can't tell you how many friends would see commercials and ask "what the hell?"), it also seems like budgeting was poorly planned.  You don't spend hundred of millions on an action-sci-fi-adventure film, stick its release in March, advertise a little ahead of time, and expect to make money back.  Either make it lower budget ($100 million?) and keep the release and marketing, or spend the money and go all out saturating TV with commercials and give it a solid summer weekend. So yeah, the demise of the film itself was poor advertising, but if they hadn't spent so much to begin with and not known what sort of movie they were actually planning to make, it wouldn't have been a financial flop and could have built up a modern fan base.

waffles on Mar 19, 2012


I always thought Jan-March was a dead time for movies.  Poorly planned indeed. 

Solo_Calrissian on Mar 20, 2012


I can't believe no one gave it a chance! When I saw the trailer a year ago, I thought it looked like Star Wars/Meets Prince of Persia which didn't inspire much interest. But STILL, I took two seconds to research and found out how integral this series is to the entire fantasy genre and I read the books. I was so pumped for the film, and while its not nearly perfect, its still a great movie! Its not a "take everything serious" sci-fi like Dune or a totally "fun for the whole family" Disney movie, but more of an adventure fantasy film. Some parts reminded me of classic Indiana Jones adventure scenes, other parts were like a historical epic and over all I was entertained throughout. Stanton did a good job of re-arranging book elements to wrap up into a single film while leaving all the material for sequels...Thus why its such a heart-breaker that those sequels won't be made. This film deserved a lot more attention and even with its horrible ad campaign, I still don't understand why nobody payed attention. In essence "Princess of Mars" is father to adventure/sci-fi in the same way that Lord of the Rings is to the fantasy genre.

James Alexander Peters on Mar 19, 2012


I applaud you. Researching is something 99+% of the public would never take time to do.

Herlod on Mar 20, 2012


"But STILL, I took two seconds to research and found out how integral this series is to the entire fantasy genre and I read the books." That, James, is the key.  You DID your research.  Many of the critics slamdancing on this film couldn't even bother to do so.  Granted, Disney should have made some effort to talk about the film's literary roots, but still, the fact that people couldn't even bother to run a search on Google is perplexing, to say the least. "This film deserved a lot more attention and even with its horrible ad campaign, I still don't understand why nobody payed attention." Sadly, the long knives were already out for this movie, based on bulls**t articles and talk ONLY of the budget.  Worse films have awesome trailers and marketing, whereas this film was so much better than what the trailers would have you believe (but in all honesty, I had read the books, so I was familiar with the characters and story).  If it means any consolation, remember that something similar happened to DUNE back in 1984.  And let's face it, some of the movies considered the best by critics today were lambasted and flopped when they came out.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


That drunken Finnish review is hilarious and silly. A movie is a movie and a book is a book. They can never be the same. Especially the movie will never be as you imagined it when you are reading the book! John Carter is an entertaining movie and for one is looking forward for a sequel.

Drafunt on Mar 19, 2012


"Especially the movie will never be as you imagined it when you are reading the book!" Solid point.  The movie will NEVER be 100% faithful to the source novel, and in fact, many great films based on stories or novels never have been (BLADE RUNNER, f'r instance, and THE DAY THE EARTH STOOD STILL).

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


Said it when they announced the title that naming the Film John Carter was a bad idea from a PR standpoint.  Should of stuck with the original title of Princess of Mars or The Gods of Mars which is more sci-fi sounding.  Its a shame because I loved this movie way more then I did Avatar.

Zederok Alario on Mar 19, 2012


this is a very fun movie. its really sad, because ERB's barsoom really needs to see the big screen, and this film did deserve a sequel. But sadly, i bet around half the U.S. doesnt even know this film is in theatres or what its even about. also sad because the next book, The Gods of Mars, is very cool and would make a great movie im sure.

Rpswim10 on Mar 19, 2012


I'm glad there will be no sequel. After seeing this movie the night it opened, there is no WAY I will ever trust its sequel to be good. Come on guys, the movie was SO BAD!!! Maybe it was fun for those who read the books, but those who didn't - well, I was wondering which ones were the bad guys again throughout the movie - red or blue capes? And I was wondering - what was the difference, anyway, and why was I supposed to care?

littleup on Mar 20, 2012


 And anyone claiming it got great praise, great reviews, is just plain selecting reality. Yes, there were good reviews. There was also a whoooole bunch of bad ones. A 51 score on Metacritic is nothing to be proud of.

littleup on Mar 20, 2012


Screw Metacritic.  Did you bother to check the audience's reactions? And I read some of those negative reviews--and you know what?  The critics were lazy, not even bothering to mention the film's literary roots and going the "safe" route--blasting the film because, in their eyes, it "ripped off" AVATAR, STAR WARS, and numerous other films.  And it was clear that most of them were ready to lay into the film even before they saw it. Look, I can get that people didn't like the movie--if they saw it and weren't satisfied, that's all right--it's their informed opinion.  But when it comes to SF, Fantasy, or Horror, mainstream critics are openly hostile to films from these genres.  SF and Fantasy writer Michael Moorcock said it best about critics: "... most critics carry too much attitude baggage to be any use...Movie critics, like most critics, are too immersed in convention to recognise something new. It takes years and the opinion of people who celebrate innovation to change those attitudes."

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


 Thanks for an intelligent reply. You're right that critics might not be the best people to look to for an opinion - but then we shouldn't care about their praise, either 🙂 Hm, as I was one of ten people in the theater - four of which were my group - I don't have enough information about audience reactions. I agree that criticizing the similarity to other movies is not justified and that the fact that this story was the source for those other films should be respected. But I'm not going to overlook the fact that I found the plot muddled just because it's from a possibly good book - you know why? Because they didn't adapt it faithfully. I'm hearing that the world of Mars was dying in "A Princess of Mars", and Wikipedia tells me that the Therns don't appear until the second book. Why this plot mixing? It seems so unnecessary!! So I see no need to mention the literary roots if they've been mangled up like this, definitely not as an asset of the film. Anyway, I was hoping for a really great movie and was disappointed, and I believe that it was a big corporate screwup. That's why I'm so bitter!

littleup on Mar 20, 2012


And thanks to you for an intelligent reply as well. Sorry that you did not like the film, but at least you saw it. To be fair though...the reason for the plot mixing (bringing in the Therns) is that, well, the first novel really does not have a main villian.  Sab Than only comes in towards the end of APOM, whereas in the film he is given a much greater role.  And to be fair, it is mentioned in the film that Mars (Barsoom) is dying.  At least that's what I remember. And to be fair....any story that is adapted to the big screen from a novel will always undergo changes, even if it's part of a series. One example would be the animated adaptation of the Japanese SF novel YUKIKAZE and it's sequel--the adaptation changed around several plot elements from both books and gave a completely different ending....and yet, it was still relatively faithful to the books (and I'm using this as an example because both the anime and the books have been translated into English--my Japanese, to be polite, sucks). Also, just out of curiousity--have you read the books or at least the first three, starting with A PRINCESS OF MARS? And I agree with you about there being a corporate screwup!

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


I didn't read the books (yet), thanks to mom walked into movie 5-10 minutes late, had 2 VERY HYPER/possibly sleep-fighting little kids (maybe one was a toddler)talking and narrating almost the whole thing through, a guy kicking my seet, a coupleshouting at each other "no no babe go around the people no go this way dont walk through the screen NOOO/what/go around/WHAT?What are you saying?" at each other, and I still liked it and followed it enitrely. If you couldn't follow what's going on and can't determine who's bad, that's you and it enjoying it/being able to follow the story or tell who the bad people in the movie were had nothing to do with having read the books prior or not. I don't even see how you couldn't understand what was happening o.o it was pretty easy to follow. Unless you saw it at the same time/place I did, to which I guuess I can understand it being hard to focus...

Anonymous on Mar 26, 2012


You were wondering which ones were the bad guys again throughout the movie - red or blue capes?  Yea, that was really hard to follow... better stick with all the other Disney movies.

Jon on May 26, 2012


Ethan, I have never so quickly forgotten the experience of watching a scfi as I did with this film. It was lame - just admit it. 😉

Me on Mar 20, 2012


Ethan, I have never so quickly forgotten the experience of watching a scfi as I did with this film. It was lame - just admit it. 😉

Me on Mar 20, 2012


Haven't seen it yet, might now after this article.... LOL. So at least that'll help 😀 

Daniel Vu Tran on Mar 20, 2012


 it is 3D fault

Morris Morad on Mar 20, 2012


nope. This was a good movie. I think they will make money on it eventually. and I LIKE that disney is investing in movies like this. 1. "Original" - as much as that is possible today. 2. Family Friendly...mostly 3. Lots of fun. Was it a Star Wars level But considering all the other "blockerbuster" movies coming out this summer and the HORRIBLE price to go to the movies, there was a lot more working against this movie other than the movie.

l.21 on Mar 20, 2012


i'll add to that,i wanted to see this in 2D not 3D...but what did local cinemas do...either one or 2 performances a few days in 2D...which was no good to me or see it nearly every hour performances in i did'nt bother...and i love sci-fi....shame...

Kelv on Mar 20, 2012


 Absolutely agree.  Will end up seeing it - but waiting till I can make it to one of the two daily 2d screenings.  12 or 6 o'clock.  Ridiculous.  First blockbuster that 3D killed?  Will see it to support the genre, but really, just nothing that made me go "holy crap!  I gotta see that!!"  Seems like just another CG-fest with a Mad Libs-like script.  Maybe it was historically the first such "script", but it's joining the film party pretty late.  Also, being a sci-fi fanatic, I question the quality of the story coming from a book series written over a hundreds years ago... yet is just being adapted for film - and that I had never heard of previously.  Just raises red flags - not putting it down.  Oh, and Disney.  When I think "Disney", "kick ass sci-fi flick" is generally not something that I associate with the name.  If I had kids though, I probably would have been first in line. 

bozo connors on Mar 20, 2012


"Also, being a sci-fi fanatic, I question the quality of the story coming from a book series written over a hundred years ago... yet is just being adapted for film - and that I had never heard of previously." But as an SF should realize that it's only due to the technology of today--CGI--that this story is being able to be made into a film.  And as an SF fanatic, you should have been aware of these stories and the impact they had on modern SF (not trying to be condescending here--I'll save my bile for movie critics suffering from NIA/HUA disease--but you can just search online and find out about it). I liked the movie (but I saw it in 2D), and in my view, they did a damned fine job on it.  You might think differently when you see it, but you should try to anyway.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


It's too bad they didn't focus on teaching the audience about the character and it's history in science fiction, instead of going with the standard route of flashy CGI. I envision a commercial with some collage of the original art off the books and a voice over or something. *shrug* Also, I wonder if it would have piqued more interest if it was an R since the safe PG-13 route did't help it out much.

Mickyw33 on Mar 20, 2012


"It's too bad they didn't focus on teaching the audience about the character and it's history in science fiction, instead of going with the standard route of flashy CGI." Yep, there was a failure to do this.  But then again, the critics should have done this as well, and they just slagged it off.  There were articles discussing the film's literary roots, and anyone could just run an online search and find out more about these books and ERB, for that matter. But the CGI wasn't flashy--it helped to tell the story, not the other way around....just sayin'.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


The marketing push should have started with the books. Hell, the first 3 are in public domain. Wouldn't have cost anything to get the storyline out there ahead of time.

Herlod on Mar 20, 2012


Yes Ive seen John Carter twice and plan on going again. I've even posted it on my facebook for people to go see it. Its a great movie ! Disney needs to fire everyone that did the marketing. I fell asleep watching Avatar. Remember Star Wars and Star Trek fans are the loyalist of all. Star Wars and Star Trek were thought to be a flop at first. Whos laughing now? John Carter has more adventures then Star Wars, Harry Potter or Twilight. Just gotta market better . If you can get them to see it theyll be hooked and youll be laughing all the way to the bank.

ward on Mar 20, 2012


Blame marketing all you want, truth is, the movie is average at best. Plain and simple. It's been all done before and even if the story is a 100 years old, besides some excellent visuals, what else does the movie bring to the table? Doesn't matter if you think JC has more adventures then the movies we already know, its just too late.  I wont even try to understand how someone could endure this movie 3x.

Buzzfunk on Mar 20, 2012


Only studio plants see it twice and plan to see it again and again.

Max Renn on Mar 20, 2012


Studio plants?  Really?  I saw 4 times in the theatre.  Didnt know anything about it until I saw it the first time.  Was hooked after that.  Some people just didnt like it, the ones that got it, seem to be pationate about it.  A plant though?  that logic just doesnt hold up.  "Lost in Translation" (IMO, worst movie EVER) and people flocked and praised the pile of .... .  With your logic, ALL of those people would have had to have been planted by the studio as well.  (End of rant)

Korbin on May 26, 2012


It borrowed from too many other movies like LOTR and Transformers. Taylor Kitsch's abs were fun to watch, though. 😉 But what was up with the aliens with four arms? Weird.

Valerie Atherton on Mar 20, 2012


"But what was up with the aliens with four arms? Weird" Hmmm....because that's how they were described in the book A PRINCESS OF MARS...which was published years before LOTR and TRANSFORMERS and AVATAR, for that matter. And as for the film "borrowing" from too many other movies--that's like saying that Spielberg's 2005 remake/retelling of WAR OF THE WORLDS ripped off INDEPENDENCE DAY.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


The John Carter universe should be reborn on cable: Showtime, HBO, AMC, Bravo. Movie studio marketers can't deal with nuance.

Lerryjee on Mar 20, 2012


A full-on series like GAME OF THRONES or THE WALKING DEAD....hmmm....that could be better.  Heck, it could work as an animated series, provided it was done with respect to the source material (more like Bruce Timm and company with BATMAN: THE ANIMATED SERIES, or better yet, hand the animation over to a Japanese studio like Production I.G. or Studio 4C). "Movie studio marketers can't deal with nuance." Very true--and neither can movie critics, for that matter.

Scopedog on Mar 20, 2012


Hellz yeah.  Pull a page out of Spartacus. Make 1-hr episodes. 

Solo_Calrissian on Mar 20, 2012


Bummer.  Reminds me of Golden Compass.  I really dug that one.   

Solo_Calrissian on Mar 20, 2012


Oh good. Not that the money will be be invested anywhere else great but still, wasn't a great movie to begin with. Wasn't bad but wouldn't see a second and only saw the first because it was on. Navy does have the benefits of seeing theater movies and not worrying about wasting money on them.

Tra la la la la di da on Mar 20, 2012


Considering an insane budget, I think the movie could've used a little star power, specially when so much money was on the line. I personally didn't care for both leads. William Dafoe was the most interesting actor there but he was an alien. I'm still thinking who would be a better Dejah Thoris though.

Omar Manigque on Mar 20, 2012


Saw this (summer) flick last night. A bit odd, it being march and all. And I really enjoyed it. Great movie. As the credits were rolling my thoughts were on why the hell not more people went to see this and that it was sad we won't get a series out of this. And the marketing was a bit odd. How they did not see how to market the movie, is baffeling. The answer is: Lynn Collins. Center it all around her and it would have done so much better at the boxoffice. If I was 10 again, I would go all looney toons over this movie. With the marketing rotating more around Lynn Collins, both girls and boys would have flocked to see this. And incase anyone is wondering why Disney has claimed defeat allready, I think it's due to letting shareholders know whats going on, and to avoid stock manipulation? So far the old world has John Carter's back, hauling in most of the $180 million at the boxoffice, but its likely twice the budget is needed to cover the costs alone, + the $29.99 they spent on marketing. If they start a toyline, then all might be saved? I mean if Ben10 toys can make $2billion, I'm sure John Carter could haul in a few hundred million in this market?

David Banner on Mar 20, 2012


To market a sequal, there must be star power. Introduce a new character that comes in the following book with someone people flood the theatres to see (i.e. Brad Pitt, Antonio Banderes, Megan Fox, what have you). This dream of a sequal has it's life on the line, so ANYONE with star power and acting ability is welcome to join the cast as far as I'm concerned

Jacob S. S. on Mar 23, 2012


I liked the film a lot--and I'm an ERB/JC purist.  Could they have done a better job with the JC character--big time. Even if they wanted the different back story, could have then used that as a character develoment basis, which they kind of did, but very poorly-kind of one step forward, one step back, rather than consistent progress to a true hero.  Taylor K was probably a B (though better writing on his character, again, would have help him too). Lynn collins was an A+, not just for looks, but for making Dejah what she was.  The Pixar pieces were great, and Woola gave the kids something (my nine year old liked it better than Star Wars!).  How do they not advertise Stantons credentials? How do they not note it is from the creator of Tarzan-something everyone knows? Why a meaningless title? If not mars-"Barsoom!" with some great action sequence tralers, but also the personal love story? ("Will you fight for Barsoom?; No, I will fight for you."). If the fact we all know folks don't live on Mars, it's okay to "reimagine" that a bit--worm hole technolgy could just as easily take you to a Barsoom around a different star-it really doesn't have to be Mars. And where's the merchandising?

Guest on Mar 25, 2012


I just wish to thank Disney for making a movie I have been waiting for for many many years. I hope they make the second part of the three book sequel.

Musket33 on Apr 27, 2012


this was one heck of a movie, i have seen it twice makes me feel like we can get to the another world, I agree with few people on this forum, that the publicity for this movie was terrible & also the trailer, anyway I suggested this film to many mates of mine & guess what did they said? Awesome!

shaz on May 18, 2012


I must say the marketing was terrible I didnt see the movie right away because i was confused as to if it was a movie for 10 year olds or if someone in their 20s would like it. Once i was convinced by my brother to watch it I realized how great it was. I even asked his will there be a sequel right after. I am sad to hear that it did so poorly Disney really messed this up with their poor marketing but at least it has lead me to a great book series I have now started! 

Llololl on May 29, 2012


 2 words BAD MARKETING, is a good movie. If disney used:… Based on the Barsoom series by Edgar Rice Burroughs, the same creator of Tarzan! … it would sell 5 times more… definely BAD Marketing, and not a bad movie. And talking about bad marketing I almost don't see wall-e, bad marketing instead, pixar studios saves it's marketing, my wife don't want see and love the movie. I dont know who was Edgar Rice Burroughs afther search on wikipedia I discover that he write Tarza also... why Disney don't use it? Tarzan belongs to disney. I would watch this movie on theater with my wife is i got this info. It is time for new marketing team. Not better actors or director or special effect  or write better script. It is the second movie that comes from Disney that got it. Oh for those that not know, Disney buy Pixar as it buy Marvel. Microsoft does not have the best OS but have the best marketing ... Marketing sells.

Marco Paluan on May 30, 2012


So sad that this movie did so terribly in the box office. I loved this movie! I just saw it today and I remember seeing the trailers and just not interested, but actually seeing this I've been hooked. I hope there is some way a sequel can be made. But just incase, I'm gonna have to read the books as I wait for something that most likely will never be.

Marcus 728 on Jun 8, 2012


Such a good film, jsut watched it on blu-ray and i carnt understand why apparently it did soooo bad, its made by diseny so it was never going to have swearing and blood and guts was it really. but you dont need them points to make a good film, John carter was an excellent film in my opinion!

John C 2012 on Jun 9, 2012


Hi. I DEMAND D.E.M.A.N.D. A SEQUEL!! -Lefuse- I love this movie so much! I am so quoting the part where John says, "I have the feeling where you leave a light burning or a door open". It feels like..there's something missing you know?

Angelre0807 on Jun 10, 2012


I predict this film will ultimately prove successful, but it will happen over time.  Star Trek didn't have that great a following in the beginning, but once it was canceled, it didn't die.  Its fan base grew.  So will John Carter's.  Slowly people will discover it.  The DVD sales will take up the slack from the box office loses if they can get their marketing act together here.  More and more interest will develop and eventually, the demand for a sequel will prevail.  Just hope it happens before all the stars become middle aged. 

Waverider on Jun 10, 2012


Here is what I meant from my last post. I meant, if, you don't do a sequel, we will feel like this movie just...died. I'm reading the books but they still don't fit the movie it feels like..

Angelre0807 on Jun 11, 2012



Angelre0807 on Jun 11, 2012


Just saw it on demand a couple of hours ago, and I saw it straight twice! It was awesome! I'm so dissapointed there isn't going to be a second one, but yes I think marketing is definetly to blame.

Anna on Jun 15, 2012


This movie rocked! I pray if disney dont make one, another film company should. It had everything an audience could ask for! At least fire the IDIOT who was behind promoting it. I DEMAND A SEQUEL!

Dylan Morris on Jun 16, 2012


Looooooved this movie!!!

Rebecca on Jun 22, 2012


Its a great movie, good spicy story, audience were not disappointed by watching this movie at all, but definitely will if the sequel of this movie is not made.

Swapnil Lokegaonkar on Jun 24, 2012


I think that the "George lucas's, Steven Spielberg's, Ridley Scott's and John Cameron's" should pay tribute to their "Idea-bringer" and actually finance a sequel and maybe put in some of their ideas!! BillyC

BillyC on Jul 1, 2012


I really think this movie deserves a sequel! I think that there are too many jaded idiots out there, that always have too much criticism because they think that is what the public wants to hear. If it was not their idea then it's a horrible idea!

Firebird on Jul 5, 2012


just watched it the other day have just seen it again now it brillant one of the best films i have seen in ages i am very disapointed they are not doing another i want to know more .

carla on Jul 11, 2012


John Carter was an amazing film and i am definitely disappointed that their wont be a sequel coming out anytime soon. It truly was made wonderfully and the original writer of the comic serious would be proud to see such a film produced, so disappointed that it didn't get to attention it deserved.

Fan on Jul 16, 2012


I thought it was a great so what if it reminds us of star wars.How about those remakes.Stop making remakes.

maria martinez on Aug 9, 2012


I am in the MIDDLE of watching this movie. I have 35 minutes left to go. I borrowed the DVD from a friend and let me tell you?!?!?! WHAT THE HECK!!! Agreed. Marketing was terrible. Agreed. Timing was terrible. Also, now, the lead is being hailed possibly as a film curse. He has had three flot films.. But guess what, they all had bad timing, and bad promo... But maybe it is him... But Ilove this movie, and like I said, I still have the end to watch. It takes me away, it makes me believe, and it turns the imagination on. Way better than most any movie I have seen of late. Seriously... I WANT A SEQUEL!!! And I'm not even done with it!!!! So people... I would to rally you to start a petition... LET US HAVE OURSELVES ANOTHER JOHN CARTER!!! What do we say?!??!!

Colin M on Aug 10, 2012


Was a good film andbits a shame that we might not see a sequel. Truly found it to leave an impression on me. People didn't give this movie a chance but which I can understand from its poor marketing campaign.

hi on Sep 8, 2012


horrible movie a real joke. No sequel will ever be made thank god.

Steven Barez on Dec 9, 2012


I'm disappointed I wanted another one since I enjoyed the first.

rich on Jan 5, 2013


the movie was awesome i hope they produce the next one

benedict on Mar 15, 2013


for those who liked this film sadly i was very disappointed i thought disney would take a more to the book adaption so they could spread it over 3 movies or so but they didn't this movie has aspects of All the books...really sad that the ending is the end of the princess of mars and the rest has them going to where he shows up after the end of the princess of mars no actual showing of the battle he and the tharks had or anything very sad adaptation

didn't like it on Apr 29, 2013


I want more I read those books when I was a kid .Loved them and always thought that they would make excellent movies do people know that those stories were written in 1911 way before star wars or any now know sagas or sci fi I want more I want more!

dotar sojat on Jul 9, 2013


I liked the movie, i liked the books better, BUT, it didn't stray any farther from the actual books, then say, twilight did, or the HP movies did, or several of the remakes of Zane grey books to movies or E.G. Burroughs "Tarzan" for that matter, I have never seen a Movie industry who didn't feel the need to "correct" a legendary authors Writings, its an ego thing and to be honest, I've never understood WHY they never made a movie from " The Outlaw Of Torn".

Allen Sliffe on Oct 12, 2013

New comments are no longer allowed on this post.



Subscribe to our feed -or- daily newsletter:
Follow Alex's main account on twitter:
For the latest posts only - follow this one:

Add our updates to your Feedly - click here

Get the latest posts sent in Telegram Telegram