Just to weigh in on John Carter, we just saw it on IMax. It was wonderful. You must like action/adventure. We give it two thumbs up. Jim
On Mon, Mar 12, 2012 at 10:45 PM, Bruce Hershenson < [email protected]> wrote: > I went tonight with my 9 year old son, his uncle, and his grandpa, Russ > Cochran, among the greatest Burroughs fans of all time. > > The problem with the movie is that we three old fogies liked it a lot, and > my 9 year old thought it pretty silly! > > It was surprisingly faithful to the books, and it is fun for any fan of > them. > > Too bad it will lose money, because I would love to see the Tarzan books > done just the same way, with the apes animated as the Tharks were, and > being just as true to those books. > > But I imagine that will have to wait quite a while! > > Bruce > > On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 5:04 PM, David Kusumoto < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, >> the NY Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected >> from the overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest >> financial disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of >> "Carter's" fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business >> standpoint for a film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND >> to market. How can you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons >> who are more avid movie goers than older people, who tend to stay home. >> >> This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today >> adopting a "point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a >> blank check based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and >> "WALL-E." Disney apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy >> like Stanton - that the result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" >> fiasco (which occurred after UA gave Cimino a blank check after his prior >> success with the "The Deer Hunter" in 1978-79). >> >> While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production >> chiefs still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This >> is a country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the >> American-centric drive of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated >> audiences in the U.K., for example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in >> "Bridge Over the River Kwai," the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day >> landing in "Saving Private Ryan," the casting of Steve McQueen and James >> Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even today, a U.S. film that does >> poorly here but makes up its investment overseas is considered a blemish to >> its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's "Waterworld," last year's >> "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the latter which nearly >> destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for U.S. films is not >> in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end, for all the >> clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still geared >> towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall >> poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in >> temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can >> still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen >> is still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One >> thing for sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and >> director Stanton's original plans to make two sequels of this film in the >> years ahead are dead. >> >> >> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all >> >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 09:55:41 -0400 >> From: [email protected] >> >> Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent >> To: [email protected] >> >> True, "John Carter" is meaningless except to ERB fanboys, but Disney >> has had terrible luck with any movie with "Mars" in the title. Both last >> year's Mars Needs Moms and, from years ago, Misson to Mars were major >> flops. So Disney may be shying away from the whole Mars thing. And if they >> weren't before, they sure will now. >> >> Dave >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> *From:* David Kusumoto <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Sunday, March 11, 2012 3:39 AM >> *Subject:* Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent >> >> The sad thing is a film like "The Artist," which has done poor business >> in the U.S. despite winning the Oscar last month for Best Picture - is not >> considered a flop because it had a modest production budget. (BTW, if you >> haven't seen that film yet, hold your dollars; the film is being released >> on DVD next month.) But "John Carter," despite its merits, is headed >> toward becoming one of the biggest box office flops in Disney's history. >> Some say the film, which cost a whopping $250 million to make, may even >> lose this weekend's Friday through Sunday box office in the U.S. to "The >> Lorax." CinemaScore, the market research firm, says "John Carter's" >> demographic is running at 65 percent male, indicating the picture turns off >> women. The business projections for "John Carter" are so dire - that >> there's talk Disney may lose $100 million to $165 million on the picture. >> Audiences have no clue about much of this negative chatter of course, but >> some analysts say Disney made a huge marketing mistake with the film's >> title, which only resonates with Burroughs fans and to comic-book fanboys - >> by dumping its original working title, which was a more intriguing and >> mysterious, "John Carter on Mars" - and not just "John Carter." >> >> Los Angeles Times: >> >> http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story >> >> Entertainment Weekly: >> http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/10/box-office-john-carter/ >> >> ------------------------------ >> Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 21:14:38 -0800 >> From: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent >> To: [email protected] >> >> Very happy to hear these comments, as a long time Edgar Rice Burroughs >> fan. >> Always thought the Barsoom adventures would be fantastic on the big >> screen. >> Ari >> >> --- On *Sun, 11/3/12, Richard Auras <[email protected]>* wrote: >> >> >> From: Richard Auras <[email protected]> >> Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent >> To: [email protected] >> Received: Sunday, 11 March, 2012, 3:14 AM >> >> Caught it last night myself and can echo your sentiments. Best movie >> I have seen in a while. >> >> ------------------------------ >> *From:* "[email protected]" <[email protected]> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Sent:* Sat, March 10, 2012 7:17:47 PM >> *Subject:* [MOPO] John Carter: excellent >> >> What an amazing science fiction movie...maybe one of the best for some >> time...highly recommended. >> >> Philipp >> >> Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T >> >> >> >> Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com >> ___________________________________________________________________ How >> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: >> [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF >> MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. >> >> > > > -- > Bruce Hershenson and the other 24 members of the eMoviePoster.com team > P.O. Box 874 > West Plains, MO 65775 > Phone: 417-256-9616 (hours: Mon-Fri 9 to 5 except from 12 to 1 when we > take lunch) > our site <http://www.emovieposter.com/> > our auctions <http://www.emovieposter.com/agallery/all.html> > > <http://www.emovieposter.com/unused/signature/20111028Frankensteinemployeegroupphotosignature.jpg> > > Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com > ___________________________________________________________________ How > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: > [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF > MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content. > > -- Jim Gresham 18501 Henry Ct Ray Mi 48096 586 677-7669 www.greshamsinc.com www.childrenofthenightbook.com www.theyreherealreadybook.com Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com ___________________________________________________________________ How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List Send a message addressed to: [email protected] In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
