In both cases, studio incompetence was a bigger problem than out-of-control auteurs. A bigger budget than should have ever been allocated. A ridiculous line of thinking that mistakes giving "creative freedom" to a director with "catering to every delusional whim" (therefore making it easier to argue taking away those freedom). A completely anemic and misguided marketing campaign and release.
And in both cases, the movie deserved a lot better. John Carter isn't a masterpiece - it doesn't have that special something to differentiate it from the general glut of would-be sci-fi blockbusters - but in a world where computer-generated idiocies like Pirates of the Caribbean and Transformers are considered tent-pole successes, there's no reason a film this reasonably well-made shouldn't have been able to carry a franchise.
In both cases, critics were ready to pile on the film before it was even released, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.
And in both cases, the losses are greatly exaggerated. The film's made $300 million worldwide, and Disney's still rolling in enough cash that this shouldn't be more than a blip. If it is, someone's cooking the books over there.
The fact is that movies like John Carter are still considered the bread-and-butter all-ages crowd-pleasing entertainments that corporate conglomerate force the studios to make. They'll probably think twice before giving someone too much "freedom", they'll probably stay away from movies with Mars (if the awful-looking, unnecessary Total Recall flops, believe me, that's what they'll blame, not the lack of originality), but this isn't going to change much... this isn't the 1970s, where the studios were just itching for an excuse to raze the entire business.
It's going to take a lot more flops than this, at a lot more studios than Disney, for Hollywood to ever reconsider the outdated fundamentals of the business they've held dear since the 80s.
reply
share