Remember "John Carter," the ambitious sci-fi odyssey about a Civil War veteran who gets
whisked away to Mars?
If you don't, you're not alone — far fewer people went to see it than Disney had hoped,
and we think we finally know why.
Let's not mince words: "John Carter" was an okay movie.
Released in 2012 by Disney and based on a series of books written by Edgar Rice Burroughs
— the same author whose work led to Disney's "Tarzan" — the science fiction blockbuster
was intended to be a box office epic, perhaps on the same level as "Star Wars."
"Captain John Carter, Virginia."
"Voor… jeen-yah."
Instead, "John Carter" failed to charm audiences into spending their hard-earned cash, resulting
in an unprecedented loss for the Mouse that ended up somewhere around $200 million.
Most of the key elements for a resounding success were present: source material from
a famous author, a popular genre, and a big budget.
So, what happened here?
Where did the recipe break down?
There's no quick answer, but the last decade has seen a not insignificant number of theorists
taking a shot at a satisfying solution to one of Disney's largest failures.
While various sources cite different specific causes for the cinematic catastrophe, it seems
as if everyone agrees that "John Carter" was ultimately dead on arrival.
The film undeniably lacked star power: while the cast boasted the high-profile talents
of Mark Strong, Willem Dafoe, and Bryan Cranston, these artists were not cast in center-stage
roles.
Instead, the leads were given to comparatively unknown actors Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins.
Of course, bringing in new or less-known talent is a good thing — but it simply doesn't
lead to financial gain the same way that leaning on popular familiarity does.
If John Carter had been played by someone like Brad Pitt or Leonardo DiCaprio, things
might have gone a bit differently.
Further, the Edgar Rice Burroughs novels weren't and aren't mainstays in the modern zeitgeist,
so when Disney marketed the film by teasing it during a Super Bowl ad like it was a long-awaited
title, viewers were left scratching their heads.
For a blockbuster to function, someone in the forefront of the mix has to have social
currency: the more recent science fiction epic "Dune" combatted this same issue by drowning
the material in celebrity performers, a move that made younger audiences invested in a
story originally written in the 1960s.
By comparison, "John Carter" had a far longer gap between the novel and film, with far less
prevalent performers in its cast.
Should either of these interwoven factors be ignored, then the final product has to
stand solely on its own merit.
Unfortunately for Disney, though, "John Carter" was just okay.
It's by no means horrible, nor is it exemplary: it's simply adequate.
This is reflected by its Rotten Tomatoes scores — 52% from critics and 60% from audiences,
middling across the board.
According to Deadline, director Andrew Stanton was overly faithful to the source material,
following it so closely that it may have actually hurt the finished project.
"The movie was too similar to the book" definitely isn't a complaint that's heard very often.
Whether Stanton's faith to the source material is indicative of an earnest desire to represent
the story or a lackluster creative mind is not clear.
In fairness, these aren't even the only options — simply the ones that seem most likely.
That being said, the results of Stanton's artistic direction and casting indicate that,
regardless of intent, a different leader might have been required to shepherd "John Carter"
to victory.
For now, that's where the story ends.
In 2014, Disney lost the rights to the "John Carter" franchise, preventing any possibility
of a sequel or spin-off.
The Edgar Rice Burroughs estate has kept the property away from other studios so far, but
that doesn't mean they won't try again sometime in the future.
It's not impossible to make "John Carter" work on the silver screen — it simply has
yet to be done.