John Carter is a dreadful film featuring an incomprehensible narrative, absurd characters lacking depth, and dialogues that are simply horrendous. Disney has already indicated that the film is expected to incur losses of $250 million, given the dismal initial box office earnings.
Based on my observations at a local cinema in West London, this estimate may actually be too optimistic, as John Carter seems set to be recorded in the annals of movie flops.
But how did we arrive at this point? Nobody aspires to craft a cinematic failure.
At the commencement of any film’s production, everyone involved is brimming with optimism and anticipation about the fantastic entertainment they are on the verge of creating, as well as the potential financial gains.
That must have been the sentiment when Disney chose to invest $350 million in John Carter.
Inspired by a character conceived by Edgar Rice Burroughs, known for also creating Tarzan, and with writer/director Andrew Stanton soaring high as a formidable force in Hollywood following the successes of his animated features Finding Nemo and Wall-E, all that was necessary were impressive special effects, which have become a staple in modern Hollywood, and a popular leading star.
U.S. TV star Taylor Kitsch volunteered for the role of the adventurous Carter, embarking on a 19th-century journey to Mars, where he encounters not only red dust but a variety of monsters.
With so many advantages, the film should logically have been destined for success. Yet, it joins the ranks of lavish films that are, once again, underperforming.
The key component that should have been the most economical throughout this entire venture, the screenplay, ultimately fell short.
Once derided as ‘schmucks with typewriters’, screenwriters have historically not been the most prominent figures in Hollywood, despite the fact that top-tier writers earn hefty sums today.
Nevertheless, the fundamental principle remains: without a solid screenplay, no amount of financial investment, star power, stunning visual effects, remarkable cinematography, or visionary direction can salvage a film.
This truth is well acknowledged within Hollywood; however, many people, including occasionally the writer/director himself, like Andrew Stanton, seem to overlook it.
Otherwise, how can we elucidate the catastrophe that was Heaven’s Gate, a film written and directed by Michael Cimino?
After experiencing both critical acclaim and financial success with The Deer Hunter, Cimino embarked on a journey in 1979 to create a modest $10 million Western featuring actors Kris Kristofferson and Christopher Walken.
Two years and $50 million later, he showcased an unviewable five-hour film to United Artists, the studio that had supported him.
In his book about the film titled Final Cut, former UA executive Steven Bach discussed how Cimino became enamored with the lavish visuals he was capturing, rather than focusing on the narrative he was supposed to convey.
The consequence, according to Bach, was that the audience experienced a form of sensory overload.
But why did United Artists allow Cimino to continue filming when it was clear the budget was spiraling out of control?
Essentially, this was due to some very sophisticated Hollywood-style contracts that safeguarded Cimino. More importantly, finishing the film was seen as necessary, given the situation.
An unfinished film holds little value, and at times it seems, or at least appeared to them, that the only remedy was to continuously invest funds in the hope that something extraordinary would emerge eventually.
It didn’t. Heaven’s Gate flopped at the box office, and less than a month later, United Artists found itself compelled to sell to MGM.
The Hollywood practice of hiring one uncredited screenwriter after another for a project can sometimes yield success, as seen with Gladiator, where British writer William Nicholson made a notable impact. However, it can also suggest that there were inherent issues with the movie’s concept from the outset.Earth, the film featuring John Travolta and based on the book by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard, had contributions from at least two writers.
An unimpressed American critic expressed his disapproval of their work, stating, ‘A million monkeys with a million crayons would be hard-pressed in a million years to create anything as cretinous as Battlefield Earth,’ referring to the film that cost $50 million yet only brought in $25 million.
In the case of the 2005 African adventure film Sahara, starring Matthew McConaughey and Penelope Cruz, it was not just the idea of too many cooks spoiling the script; there was also an overwhelming number of producers involved—20 in total.
One producer, a friend of mine, spent endless months stuck in the sands of Morocco as the budget ballooned to £152 million. Following the shoot, she needed to take a year off to recover from the challenging experience.
While it’s easy to chuckle at the ego of directors, the meddling of executives, the inflated vanity and demands of certain stars, and the staggering financial losses, it’s also simple to be wise in hindsight.
Had Ishtar, a 1987 ‘comedy’ about two lounge singers, been successful, no one would have taken issue with Dustin Hoffman and Warren Beatty’s perceived self-love on screen.
However, it flopped. The renowned American critic Roger Ebert deemed it ‘truly dreadful’—which was an accurate assessment of Hoffman and Beatty.
On a lesser scale, had the romantic comedy Swept Away in 2002 experienced the success of director Guy Ritchie’s later films, it wouldn’t have raised eyebrows that it appeared to be a vanity project for his then-wife, Madonna.
While I hesitate to offer much optimism for the creators of John Carter, given their track record, not all films that perform poorly in their initial weeks are doomed to be entire failures.
In 1982, Blade Runner had a disappointing debut in the U.S., shortly after E.T. had broken all records. However, it later enjoyed international sales, as well as TV and video rights, ultimately earning recognition as a classic in cinema history.
Whether this translates into an actual profit, however, is uncertain, as profit calculations can be murky in Hollywood accounting.
Interestingly, one film that reportedly managed to turn a profit against all odds was Cleopatra, the 1963 movie during which Elizabeth Taylor began her relationship with Richard Burton.
The film, plagued by Taylor’s fragile health and with director Joseph L. Mankiewicz rewriting the script nightly to adapt to the challenges of filming, cost an estimated $300 million in current dollars but managed to break even by 1973 through television sales.
Returning to John Carter, despite only eight viewers being present in the cinema when the lights came up the other night, Disney is not on the brink of bankruptcy due to its losses.
It will surely create other hits soon enough, but it is surprising that a company known for its keen understanding of public taste has misjudged this one so significantly.
So, what is the best approach to correct course?
It involves ensuring that the screenplay is solid before the filming begins and the hundreds of millions start pouring out.
by Helena Bryanlith
