John Carter (US - DVD R1 | BD RA)
Walt Disney Studios reveals the final details and highres artwork for the film
Title: John Carter (IMDb)
Starring: Taylor Kitsch
Released: 5th June 2012
SRP: $29.99 (DVD)
Further Details:
Walt Disney Studios has announced DVD ($29.99), Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($39.99) and 4-disc 3D Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($49.99) releases of John Carter for June 5th. The only extra material on the DVD release will be an audio commentary with the filmmakers and a 100 Years In The Making featurette which follows the journey of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ story, from its origins as a pulp novel to its arrival onscreen. The Blu-ray releases will include the DVD features, plus Deleted Scenes with Optional Commentary by Director Andrew Stanton, a Disney Second Screen feature, a 360 Degrees of John Carter feature, and Barsoom Bloopers. The 4-disc release will also include a digital copy of the film. We've attached package artwork below:
Quote: As a warrior lost on Earth, John Carter is magically transported to Mars, where the fate of the planet and its people ultimately rest in his hands. With surprising new powers, and epic battles, he rises to become the man he is meant to be and the hero he truly is.
News by Tom Woodward
Starring: Taylor Kitsch
Released: 5th June 2012
SRP: $29.99 (DVD)
Further Details:
Walt Disney Studios has announced DVD ($29.99), Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($39.99) and 4-disc 3D Blu-ray/DVD Combo ($49.99) releases of John Carter for June 5th. The only extra material on the DVD release will be an audio commentary with the filmmakers and a 100 Years In The Making featurette which follows the journey of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ story, from its origins as a pulp novel to its arrival onscreen. The Blu-ray releases will include the DVD features, plus Deleted Scenes with Optional Commentary by Director Andrew Stanton, a Disney Second Screen feature, a 360 Degrees of John Carter feature, and Barsoom Bloopers. The 4-disc release will also include a digital copy of the film. We've attached package artwork below:
Synopsis
Quote: As a warrior lost on Earth, John Carter is magically transported to Mars, where the fate of the planet and its people ultimately rest in his hands. With surprising new powers, and epic battles, he rises to become the man he is meant to be and the hero he truly is.
News by Tom Woodward
Advertisements
Existing Posts
From Wikipedia:
"Stanton often rejected marketing ideas from the studio, according to those who worked on the film. Stanton's ideas were used instead, and he ignored criticism that using Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", a song recorded in 1974, in the trailer would make it seem less current to the contemporary younger audiences the film sought. He also chose billboard imagery that failed to resonate with prospective audiences, and put together a preview reel that did not get a strong reception from a convention audience. Stanton said, “My joy when I saw the first trailer for Star Wars is I saw a little bit of almost everything in the movie, and I had no idea how it connected, and I had to go see the movie. So the last thing I’m going to do is ruin that little kid’s experience.”
Well done Andrew Stanton!
"Stanton often rejected marketing ideas from the studio, according to those who worked on the film. Stanton's ideas were used instead, and he ignored criticism that using Led Zeppelin's "Kashmir", a song recorded in 1974, in the trailer would make it seem less current to the contemporary younger audiences the film sought. He also chose billboard imagery that failed to resonate with prospective audiences, and put together a preview reel that did not get a strong reception from a convention audience. Stanton said, “My joy when I saw the first trailer for Star Wars is I saw a little bit of almost everything in the movie, and I had no idea how it connected, and I had to go see the movie. So the last thing I’m going to do is ruin that little kid’s experience.”
Well done Andrew Stanton!
jmm wrote: We have seen some c**ppy cover art from many studios, so c**ppy actually that trying to rank them somehow usually feels like sarcastic hyperbole.
But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.
Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.
No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.
I completely agree. It's like Disney is doing everything they can to make this movie fail. These are really the worst covers I've ever seen for a home-video release.
But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.
Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.
No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.
I completely agree. It's like Disney is doing everything they can to make this movie fail. These are really the worst covers I've ever seen for a home-video release.
We have seen some c**ppy cover art from many studios, so c**ppy actually that trying to rank them somehow usually feels like sarcastic hyperbole.
But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.
Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.
No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.
But this has to be some of the WORST cover art of ALL TIMES, worthy of a place at the Top-10. And that's no hyperbole. I wish it was, but it is not.
Both the concept and the execution are so weak, so poor and careless, so wrong, that I am really at a loss.
No matter how poorly this movie did at the box office, there is always some effort and time devoted to how a movie will be released to the home theater market, so that cover is not just bad, is DELIBERATE. The reason why the marketing people at Disney has deemed that appropriate is completely beyond me. It's almost like they are trying too hard to keep having a self-fulfilling prophecy, making this as much of a commercial failure as possible.
Uninspiring artwork is uninspiring.
Have to laugh at the fact the covers are reversed. Why couldn't they make two separate covers instead of two mediocre ones?
In my opinion, the cover art shown here illustrates the real reason why this movie failed to generate any major attention and enthusiasm from the public.
Look at ALL the posters and trailers for this film. All you see is bland, uninspired and derivative visuals. It looked like a B-grade Avatar set in the desert, with an Attack of the Clones coliseum battle thrown in.
Don't get me wrong, I saw the film in 3D and it was enjoyable, but there was barely one thing I hadn't seen many times before.
The rationale that the original story came way before all of the films it inspired is irrelevant. Andrew Stanton's massive Pixar success made him arrogant and he thought he do anything.
Wrong.
Look at ALL the posters and trailers for this film. All you see is bland, uninspired and derivative visuals. It looked like a B-grade Avatar set in the desert, with an Attack of the Clones coliseum battle thrown in.
Don't get me wrong, I saw the film in 3D and it was enjoyable, but there was barely one thing I hadn't seen many times before.
The rationale that the original story came way before all of the films it inspired is irrelevant. Andrew Stanton's massive Pixar success made him arrogant and he thought he do anything.
Wrong.
Wilson Bros wrote: djblack1313 wrote: i feel bad for Taylor Kitsch. if his BATTLESHIP movie flops right after this one did.......
...then he's sunk???
THE WILSON BROS
Battleship is doing very well overseas and it doesn't come out in the US for another 3 weeks almost
...then he's sunk???
THE WILSON BROS
Battleship is doing very well overseas and it doesn't come out in the US for another 3 weeks almost
i expected this to be horrendous given the reviews and the poor box office turnout but i really really enjoyed this. it felt like an old school sci-fi flick, really fun stuff.
I do find the marketing behind this movie very strange. This had a ridiculously enormous budget and should have been promoted heavily for months and months beforehand and given the 'summer blockbuster' treatment. Instead, Disney kept this movie so quiet and barely promoted and it's almost as if they didn't care. Very odd considering the movie is actually good. It had a bit of a National Treasure vibe about it and they did great. I dont know, I don't get it at all.
I do find the marketing behind this movie very strange. This had a ridiculously enormous budget and should have been promoted heavily for months and months beforehand and given the 'summer blockbuster' treatment. Instead, Disney kept this movie so quiet and barely promoted and it's almost as if they didn't care. Very odd considering the movie is actually good. It had a bit of a National Treasure vibe about it and they did great. I dont know, I don't get it at all.
I enjoyed this movie a lot. It definitely captured the spirit of the source material. Also, Amazon.com has updated with the movie's release date: it comes out June 5th.
John Carter was great--had the media not been so quick to label it a flop, it probably would have attracted a larger audience. Will definitely be purchasing this.
Isn't John Carter that guy from ER?
Disney seems to be trying hard to make the most terrible artwork, trailers and marketing campaign they can for this movie. Seriously, you call that a cover?
Very enjoyable sci-fi fantasy, shame it was a total flop.
Very enjoyable sci-fi fantasy, shame it was a total flop.
How come whenever Disney decides to go to Mars it results in a recording-breaking flop?
This movie was such a flop and I have no interest in this movie at all pass
John Carter is on the left for the SD and on the right for the Blu-ray lol.
The only reason I might watch this is Willem Dafoe.
The only reason I might watch this is Willem Dafoe.
djblack1313 wrote: i feel bad for Taylor Kitsch. if his BATTLESHIP movie flops right after this one did.......
...then he's sunk???
THE WILSON BROS
...then he's sunk???
THE WILSON BROS
i feel bad for Taylor Kitsch. if his BATTLESHIP movie flops right after this one did.......
It's a good job that the star didn't also direct, as nothing could have been more alienating than the movie starting with the words "A Kitsch Film..."
THE WILSON BROS
THE WILSON BROS
I'm not sure if the artwork will change, but the advantage of the movie being a flop is that they have absolutely no quotes to contaminate the cover with!
If Disney really did spend $100 million on promotion, they didn't do a very good job of stretching their dollar. For a $250 million film, it was not a very high-profile or aggressive campaign.
I'm not sure the movie can shake that "$200 million loss" tag anytime soon, but it's worth noting Disney's announcement only referred to losses for this quarter. It seems unlikely they'll end up losing that much over the long term.
Anyway, loved the film. Had the kind of spirit movies had back in the late 70s/early 80s.
I'm not sure the movie can shake that "$200 million loss" tag anytime soon, but it's worth noting Disney's announcement only referred to losses for this quarter. It seems unlikely they'll end up losing that much over the long term.
Anyway, loved the film. Had the kind of spirit movies had back in the late 70s/early 80s.
They really need to revise the art to emphasize the best part of the movie by far: WOOLA!!! I loved that thing and I hope they have a featurette or two on it.
Release date is June 5th
I didnt care for this, didnt hate it but really hard to get into. I dont hate the cover like most of yall tho. Its not terrible
\
\
I love the movie. Agreed the cover art is terrible. They should add Of Mars to the cover art and the movie for DVD and Blu-ray, just saying
i've only heard really good things about this movie. it's a shame it didn't do better.
oh, awful cover art.
oh, awful cover art.
YlowBstard66 wrote: You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.
You ought to keep in mind that on average, studios earn approximately 55 percent of the final theatrical gross and that the marketing costs are not included in the production budget.
This film is a very serious flop, there is nothing exaggerated about it. Disney itself has issued a statement in which it admits an impending loss north of 200 million thanks to this release. http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disney-expects-...
You ought to keep in mind that on average, studios earn approximately 55 percent of the final theatrical gross and that the marketing costs are not included in the production budget.
This film is a very serious flop, there is nothing exaggerated about it. Disney itself has issued a statement in which it admits an impending loss north of 200 million thanks to this release. http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disney-expects-...
I really want to see this. I am a big fan of Edgar Rice Burroughs.
YlowBstard66 wrote: You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.
That said, as a movie it is flawed, but a fun experience anyway.
It is said that "John Carter" had a marketing budget in excess of $100 million. Then the theater chains still need to get their slice of the action. So as of right now, this movie is definitely on the top ten box office flops of all time. Not that has anything to do with the overall quality of the film, but this movie will be lucky to break even once DVD sales are added in.
That said, as a movie it is flawed, but a fun experience anyway.
It is said that "John Carter" had a marketing budget in excess of $100 million. Then the theater chains still need to get their slice of the action. So as of right now, this movie is definitely on the top ten box office flops of all time. Not that has anything to do with the overall quality of the film, but this movie will be lucky to break even once DVD sales are added in.
I really enjoyed it so I'll be getting it. Flop or not I was entertained.
You know, this film isn't as big of a flop as everyone thinks. It was in the US (grossing $66 million), but worldwide, it has exceeded it's budget in gross and right now sits as the 355th highest grossing film (worldwide) of all-time and it hasn't even opened in many countries. Sure Disney wanted more and definitely wanted a franchise, but on it's own, the flop talk is exaggerated.
That said, as a movie it is flawed, but a fun experience anyway.
That said, as a movie it is flawed, but a fun experience anyway.
The RRP on this is probably going to be $10,000 a pop. Not that Disney are trying to offset their losses or anything. Just by dropping the "Of Mars" piece from the title proved that there was a level of contempt towards sci-fi/fantasy audiences, not to mention that they were trying to market the movie as something other than what it actually was.
It was one of those films which failed to generate any interest with us, and the pile-driving marketing campaign only serves to alienate us from it further. This might be one which is best saved for watching on TV eventually.
THE WILSON BROS
It was one of those films which failed to generate any interest with us, and the pile-driving marketing campaign only serves to alienate us from it further. This might be one which is best saved for watching on TV eventually.
THE WILSON BROS
You know, it really feels like Disney bought into the impending flop mentality and gave up on this film before it was ever released. This early video info just feeds that feeling.
FOLLOW DVDACTIVE
Follow our updates
OTHER INTERESTING STUFF
Hot Interviews
Joe Lynch
DVD | HD | BD
David Hayter
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
David Prior: Part One
DVD
David Prior: Part Two
DVD
Ricky Gervais Part One
DVD
Thrilling Reviews
Accident
US - BD RA
Page Turner, The
US - DVD R1
Bourne Supremacy, The
US - DVD R1
Sleepless
UK - DVD R2
Strange Behavior: Special Edition
US - DVD
Hot News
Star Trek: The Animated Series
US - BD RA
Cardboard Boxer
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Into the Forest
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
The Wailing
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
The BFG
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Most Talked About
Ghostbusters: Answer the Call: Extended Edition
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
Captain America: Civil War
US - BD RA
Neon Demon
US - BD RA
Warcraft
US - BD RA
Star Trek Beyond
US - DVD R1 | BD RA
