19
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2023
19 points (100.0% liked)
Moving to: m/AskMbin!
2 readers
5 users here now
### We are moving! **Join us in our new journey as we take a new direction towards the future for this community at mbin, find our new community here and read this post to know more about why we are moving. Thank you and we hope to see you there!**
founded 1 year ago
I still maintain that while not the same disaster as a film that it was as an investment, John Carter was muddy, its source material was past its sell-by date, and it topped out at "okay." I'm not at all sure added marketing budget would have made enough additional fans to have made it worthwhile.
The John Carter source material was so old that I imagine the movie was championed by dinosaur executives who remembered loving it when they were kids. Their underlings were afraid to say no.
That probably isn’t how things went down, but it’s my head canon.
IIRC it was a passion property for Andrew Stanton, who was coming off of one of the most insanely good Pixar resumes in an era of amazing Pixar resumes.
Unfortunately, when something is old and influential, a modern audience is going to have seen things influenced by it for decades, and the original can sometimes become a kind of "inside baseball" that only appeals to the passion of people who are into the historical context of their fields.
Nobody is making millions off of Citizen Kane or Metropolis.