 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 21, 2014 - 5:56 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
johnjohnson
(Member)
|
Disney’s 2012 summer tentpole John Carter might have failed at the box office, but that doesn’t mean that cinema audiences will never again get the chance to visit Barsoom alongside the former Civil War captain. Or, at least, that’s what the estate of the character’s creator is hoping.
In a statement released by Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc., the company announced that movie rights to the John Carter of Mars series have reverted from Disney back to the estate, and that it will be “seeking a new studio to continue this seminal Sci-Fi adventure.”
Disney confirmed that the rights had reverted back to ERB, Inc., but had no further comment when contacted.
James Sullos, president of ERB, Inc., is quoted as saying that the estate will be looking for “a new partner to help develop new adventures on film as chronicled in the eleven Mars novels Burroughs wrote. This adventure never stops.” He also mentions Warner Bros.’ plans for a new Tarzan film, saying that John Carter of Mars has the potential to “become another major franchise to entertain worldwide audiences of all ages.”
Disney’s John Carter, co-written by director Andrew Stanton and novelist Michael Chabon, stumbled at the U.S. box office upon its release two years ago, although it did perform better internationally. Although producers had initially talked about working on follow-ups to the movie, its domestic performance ensured such plans never reached fruition.
When asked by THR whether Taylor Kitsch would continue to play Carter in any future project, Sullos replied that he couldn’t comment before entreating into discussions with an interested studio. “We have no preconceived notion at this time of how this adventure will be further advanced,” he said, adding that ERB, Inc. “hopes to find a studio that believes that this massive adventure story can continue to entertain audiences of all ages around the world.” He cited the international box office (while the movie only made $73,078,100 in the U.S., it took in $211,061,000 internationally) and domestic DVD sales of the Disney film enjoyed as a sign of the franchise’s potential.
The announcement about regaining movie rights to the character is the second announcement ERB, Inc. has made regarding the property this year. In May, the company partnered with Dynamite Entertainment to relaunch the John Carter comic book franchise.
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/john-carter-movie-rights-regained-742702
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The title John Carter had almost zero audience recognition up until the moment it became an embarrassing flop.
No studio is gonna burn their fingers on that property for a long time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, 'Scope, I found it to be a pretty terrific movie. Overall, I think its international earnings and video sales have seen it come near break-even.
If they'd marketed it correctly, it would have done much better.
And there is a lot of power in the John Carter tales...much better than most of the sci-fi/fantasy tripe being done today...IMO, of course.
I'm with you, Ron.
Besides, the character of John Carter is a real hero, not like all these shoot-'em-up drug lords with their endless car chases... Can't stand those movies. Went to see FROZEN last year, I think it was, and the 5 previews were all for pretty much the same kind of movie: gun battles, car chases, leggy women, scruffy men, explosions. They were all alike; only the titles were different.
One challenge with the John Carter books, though: he is only the central character in the first 3 books. After that, his son and daughter have books, and then there are other Americans who make the jump to Barsoom. Carter by that point is a more peripheral presence.
I loved Andrew Stanton's JOHN CARTER. Saw it 4 times in theatres. Wonderful adventure romance, like the movies I gawped at in my youth. So sorry Disney manhandled the publicity, so that you couldn't even tell what kind of film it was. They really screwed that one. (Although, to be honest, I hear it was Stanton himself who directed the campaign. Go figure...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If they'd marketed it correctly, it would have done much better.
Yes, I quite enjoyed it as well. One of the few movies I went back to the theatre to see again.
But I couldn't get anyone to go with me. They just weren't interested in the poster or title. But those who I've shown it to on DVD have liked it.
But the marketing was bizarre in its attempt to hide any reference to what the movie was about.
The poster showed a guy in shorts walking towards you. Take my money now! I don't see how teenage sci-fi fans could've passed that up. Looked like a surfing movie poster to me. Or something. Maybe it was supposed to Rorschach-like where you project your own interpretation onto the poster.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
