Talk:John Carter (film)/Archive 1

How?

Does anyone know anything about this movie? I loved the series, but the heroine of the novel is *gulp* naked. Actually, all the inhabitants of Barsoom are. Are they just planning to put clothes on all the actors or are they planning the have them strut around as Burroughs intended? Or are they opting for just topless-ness? The latter two would for sure force it to at least an R rating. I doubt Paramount would want to sacrifice ticket sales to the restrictive rating. Anyone have any more info? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm just assuming but I think it's a pretty fair assumption, given it's Hollywood, that it won't really stay true to the book. And not just for nudity reason either -- I can't think of any adapted movie that was reasonably strictly-true to its original book story. But yeah, nudity is probably also why even the characters in Richard Corben's "Den" weren't as naked as they were supposed to be in Heavy Metal: The Movie... and that was Heavy Metal for crying out loud. I think the most nudity you'd see would be the nudity seen in the Conan The Barbarian movies, a couple pairs of boobs here and there but doubtfully full-Frazetta frontals. --I am not good at running 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read any of the comic book adaptations (DC or Marvel) from the past, you see they put them in exotic clothing. Loinclothes and harnesses and the like. Heck, this is what I had always imagianed they were wearing when I read the original books. --Emb021 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Really necessary?

I had the link to the IMDb at the bottom of the artcile, so why did Phil Boswell come along and change it to his custom message? Wasn't the explicit link good enough (or even better)? The only argument I can see to using the template is consistency. Yes, consistency is nice, but what if you hate the wording of the template? Particularly, I object to wikilinks in the External links section (it's confusing for newbies). Until someone can answer these objections, I'm reverting it back to my previous version. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Describe external links. The "External links" section is not a privileged part of the article: there is no restriction on having internal links to clarify the relevance of the various external links shown. The IMDb templates imdb title and imdb name have been created to bring uniformity to movie references: if you don't like the format, discuss it on the relevant talk page(s). Having answered your question, I'll reapply the change; I'll consider whether we should do similar for movies.com although there's only about 9 hits on Wikipedia for that right now: maybe we should link to that site more as well. --Phil | Talk 08:39, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I put my comments there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Move to John Carter of Mars

Since the name of the movie has officially been changed, should we move this article to John Carter of Mars (film)? If no one objects in a few days, I'll do the move. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Added Details from October 5, 2005 Variety Article

Variety ran an article today on the flick, so I added a lot of details. This picture hasn't even been greenlit, so the 2006 release date was really speculative; I rewrote that. Paramount is the releasing studio, not the producer, so producer information was added. Kerry Conran is out as director; Jon Favreau replaced him. Mark Protosevich wrote the script, so I added that -- rewrite is by Kruger. The article also suggests the movie is based on more than one novel, a la Master and Commander. The studio will also franchise if successful. I think that about covers my redo. David Hoag 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rights

How can someone possibly get the film rights to a public domain story?

I only think the first few stories are public domain, having passed out of copyright. The last few stories are still under copyright protection. Therefore, the Burrough's estate still owns the IP of John Carter and related stories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc (not 'the estate') owns a trademark on the names, as well as trademarks on such other properties as Tarzan. Theoretically, anyone should be able to make the film, but no one could sell it *as* Barsoom, John Carter, and so on (just like no one without permission can sell a Tarzan movie as such). The IP of John Carter, Barsoom, and so on in copyright form is fair game (and if some of the stories are still not in public domain, it's only those portions that can't be derived from). However, by using the trademark trick, ERB, Inc. has effectively bypassed copyright law to restrict use of something and defeat the spirit of the public domain. I, for one, find this utterly reprehensible, and would cheer if legal action to stop this sort of thing from being possible successfully occurred.

Speculation

Given that this project has been on/off since the 1930s and still hasn't made it, it seems rather speculative to me to say that "this time it's going to happen. No really...". The history and present status of the project is certainly worth discussing but I think we should be careful about predictions. The opening paragraphs in particular are worded as if it's a foregone conclusion that the film is going to happen this time. While I sincerely hope that it is, I don't think that we should make the assumption. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Plug pulled?

If it's true that the plug has been pulled on the latest attempt to film Princess of Mars, perhaps the title should be moved back to A Princess of Mars (film) and reworked so that the latest is treated as just one more attempt. Nareek 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear it was cancelled? It seems to me it is just in development hell. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's from an unsourced edit made to the A Princess of Mars that I've since reverted--the editor may well have pulled it out from his or her nether region. Nareek 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Frazetta's involvement???

Is there any better source regarding Frazetta's involvement with the Rodriguez version? The linked to story from Aintitcoolnews.com simply says, "If Rodriguez was able to convince Frank Miller that he can reproduce SIN CITY's look onscreen, one can only imagine what would happen if he signed Frazetta to help steer the John Carter film's palette." While Frazetta has done a lot of John Carter paintings over the years, I haven't found any indication he did any work for Rodriquez's attempt. Jccalhoun 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Carolco

I put a {{Fact}} tag on the line about the film's increasing budget being partly/contributing to the bankruptcy of Carolco. Unless someone can find an actual source, this is very highly doubtful seeing that the film was only in pre-production and Cruise was only in negotiations at that point. Had he signed and had some sort of pay or play deal, that would be one thing. But Carolco's troubles came from film's that had already gone way over budget and then failed to make money, like Cutthroat Island and Showgirls (plus the owners' lifestyles and buisness expenses). The John Carter project contributed about as much as their office rentals: some, but not really. RoyBatty42 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content in the article could citation. Hopefully, I can get around to cleaning it up, and additionally address the Carolco information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pixar

Seems the project is now at Disney, Favreau is out and it will become a Pixar film according to a side-item in a story on Yahoo about Joss Whedon departing Wonder Woman. I'm lousy with doing the reference tags, so here's the info: [1] RoyBatty42 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb page is now up. link --211.27.219.22 10:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Disney/Pixar" section --- specifically the 2nd paragraph -- needs to be checked for grammar/accuracy. Also, since WP's policy is not to cite blogs as sources, I am hesitant to even include the entire 2nd paragraph at all as it does not really add any usable information to the article. SpikeJones 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article needs a massive clean-up. I'd suggest being bold in re-shaping the article's content -- I doubt that you'd decrease its quality. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Robert Sanchez (2007-05-21). "Exclusive POTC 3 Coverage: Pixar Heads Lasseter and Catmull on John Carter of Mars!". IESB.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adapting the 11 Volume series...

Really? My assumption was that were adapting 1 or a little more... but forcing all 11 into one film? That seems odd.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a little bit of a mess, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's true. It'd be a representation of the character as he's been written in these volumes, probably. In the meantime, the article could use a definite clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just pointing out that the openning line was misleading and badly worded.

Still is.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? I fixed the sentence so it's clearer that the project is about the character and not about the 11-volume series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Better. As you say, whole thing needs a clean-up, though.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I set up a Google Alert some time ago to capture relevant headlines for this project. This article should be merged per the notability guidelines for future films, though. Some examples of merges can be seen here. I'll see about adding substance here first, then merging it to a more appropriate article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

First and Second Novel

At least some part of the second novel (gods of mars) was used as the basis for the screenplay. Matai Shang is not introduced until the second novel but is listed as a character in the film. This page needs to be edited to reflect that at least some parts of the second novel will be in this film (how much? only Andrew Stanton knows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.81.239 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There exists no Moab County in Utah

I changed the information on this page from 'Moab' County to Grand County. The desert city of Moab is located in Grand County. I don't believe I changed it correctly though. Someone might fix it? Thanks.

Rights

I'm confused as to why there would be "rights" that need to be bought for a film version of A Princess of Mars. Isn't the book in the public domain? john k (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe the rights to movies based on the books belong to the Edgar Rice Burroughs Estate, and that is who they are administered by. So, yes, the book is in the public domain now, but the rights aren't. The copyright to the characters in the books are still owned by the estate. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IANAL either, but someone above explained it as a trademark issue rather than copyright. To my layman's ears that makes perfect sense. If this is true, it's a real shame, as it severely undermines public domain. -- Nils (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution - the story is in the public domain, so change the names of the characters and republish it. John Carter can become John Cartwright. But is any of this really necessary? The Asylum did their own version of the movie, did they get permission from whoever owns the characters?173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

History section should be deleted

The MOS:Film does not call for a "History" section, so it should be deleted. I think that there are some good nuggets of information within the current "History" section that could be put into the "Production" section, but in an effort to bring the article up to standards, we should consider deleting the "History" section. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines try to recommend best practices for certain topics. The "History" section is really part of the overall production history. Most of the history falls under the "Production" section, but sometimes the history is extensive enough to be in its own section. See Production of Watchmen, for example. I don't think we should delete it, but if editors want to separate the previous production attempts from the actually successful production, we could create a sub-article. My feeling is that the "History" section is not quite long enough to do a worthwhile content fork. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe just renaming the section to the production section will suffice. I agree, an entire new article is probably not the best option here, but if we move a few items around, I think we can get the article in better shape. I'm working on re-writing a few of the sections, as well as adding sources. I'll be sure to post my draft before making any major changes, but I'll keep your opinions in mind regarding the History section. Thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the history section in my draft, and decided not to remove much of the information. Basically, I just removed non-sourced information and a little information about the Lord of the Rings background. I also did a little bit of work on the plot and the introduction paragraph. The most important item I would like to change is the film genre. All reports thus far have indicated that it is an action adventure film, not a science fiction fantasy film. Finally I added a few additional "see also links." Because these edits are not as substantial as originally intended, I'll go ahead and make them today. I'm open to keep the conversation going about the edits. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just implemented these edits. Here's a summary of the edits made with an explanation:

• Fixed infobox. There was some information missing as well as incorrect information.
• Switched genre from "science fiction fantasy" to "action adventure" because all information released so far has indicated that it is an adventure film. Perhaps we should switch it to a "science fiction adventure" film. I also revised some information in the introduction paragraph, inlcuding adding Lyndsay Collins to the producers.
• There are a number of times in the article where Pixar is reference as the studio. It's actually Disney.
• Cast section - added sources and removed a few non-sourced cast members.
• Revised plot, but it still needs work. I've never read the book and I'm not sure how closely the movie follows the book. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
• Added sources to production section.
• Added two links to the "See Also" section.

Let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss my edits and/or the article. Thanks --TravisBernard (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon Favreau cameo not bulleted

I noticed he's listed under the cast section, but is there any reason why his name isn't bulleted? It just seems a little off. Any thoughts here? --TravisBernard (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Marketing section (re: Super Bowl spot)

It has been confirmed that the film will have a Super Bowl commercial. Is this worth adding now, or should we wait until after the game? --TravisBernard (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC) I had seen the Super Bowl commercial.--KF5LLG (talk) 12:17, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Pixar animation box at bottom

While Andrew Stanton is attached to the project, it isn't a Pixar Animation film. We should probably remove this and replace it with some sort of Disney Films box. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I found this interview with Stanton in which he confirms that it's a Disney film and that Pixar aren't involved (http://blastr.com/2009/01/wall-e-helmer-andrew-stanton-talks-john-carter-of-mars.php). I've removed the Pixar template, but unfortunately there doesn't appear to be a similar Disney template with which to replace it. Barry Wom (talk) 18:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Watched

This is not the place for unverified claims, original research, or petty bickering
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Whoever wrote the source material section hasn't watched the actual movie. The movie is based more on the first three books, and is not just a retelling of the first. - comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.139.70.237 (talk) 14:07, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I have alreaady watched this movie because I have special military privlages, and it fairly seems as good as the book, so it is the same.--KF5LLG (talk) 03:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Thank you for the information; once March 9 arrives, perhaps you could help by adding the film's plot under a "Plot" section? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Sorry, but I can't. I am only 11 years old. But the whole of the film is that John Carter(Confederate Soldier) is captured by the Union, but then barely escapes. He goes into a cave, where there is a pale bald man with a robe on, who tried to kill Carter. John Carter shoots this man dead, and before the man dies, he is holding a necklace, and he wants John Carter to repeat him and hold the necklace. He did so. He went to Mars. His body on Earth was merely asleep,thus a copy of him that he controls was born on Mars.KF5LLG (talk) 12:16, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Please do not reveal the plot here; there are people who will want to watch this film, and you are spoiling it for them. Besides, revealing the plot before release is technically copyright violation (Disney has placed an embargo on anything containing the film's plot). Please avoid this practice. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC) I can see your point here. But he is an 11 year old kid and normal readers don't usually go on the talk page anyway. There should be a 'contains possible spoilers' on the talk pages if there shouldn't' be any spoilers. I've seen spoilers on talk pages. And if it's apparently based on the first three books, then people could have read them already, so it's not a 100% original plot. If Disney don't want people knowing the plot then they would try to take the books off the shelves. And I think the embargo was more to do with early reviews than a plot that people could find from the books anyway.Charlr6 (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2012 (UTC) I have undone your edit. Do NOT edit another user's comments. Striking through them IS editing. Whatever the reasons, YOU are not allowed to do this. And as for the plot embargo lecture, seriously ? The Yeti (talk) 14:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I have responded to your edit; go check it and come back here. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 15:20, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I just watched the movie this evening (3 Mar 12), and other than the names of characters and places, it bears very little resemblance to the book. 66.232.248.203 (talk) 05:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC) For the record, Disney can place any embargo it wants to, but it's completely voluntary for anyone to follow and in no way carries any force of law. A brief plot description in no way whatsoever constitutes copyright infringement. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:55, 4 March 2012 (UTC) No, an embargo means a copyright enforcement on the plot; if Disney releases a synopsis then that is perfectly usable. Details of the film plot are copyrighted (at least they were until the embargo lifted) and even on talk pages, copyrighted material is not allowed. I have clarified this quite some time back with an administrator Moonriddengirl, so yes I do know what I'm talking about and people can spare me all the "Fuck off idiot" talk. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 17:04, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I know you were saying what people might say, but I've never seen swearing on a talk page on Wikipedia before, and you should watch your language, I don't ever remember there being a policy to allow the occasion swearword, even if it's just describing what people can do. And if it's such a big deal that the kid released parts of the plot on here, then delete them so then Wikipedia won't get sued by Disney for copyright infringement. But as the film is released now, then there would be no point. So delation of the spoilers could have temporally happened.Charlr6 (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Hello! It was not me who said that in case you don't know. If you can't see, I was quoting. Stop getting on my back all the time. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 05:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC) It wasn't you who said that? Then who as it appears in your comment and I don't see it written anywhere else on the page to be quoted. But I didn't say that you weren't quoting. And you didn't need to write that as an example, you could have just wrote it like this "... people can spare me all the "f**k off idiot" talk...", you didn't actually need to use the word. That's what I was saying then. But people should be on your back actually using the word, even if you were quoting someone else (and I can't see that written anywhere else) you could have still wrote it like I did or in a different way, like "... people can spare me all the "get off Wikipedia you idiot" talk...", "people can spare me all the "shut up you idiot" talk". It still shows exactly what 'talk' you are talking about. And I've never seen your name before on Wikipedia and I don't think I've ever encountered you on another page so I've never been on your back, I was just saying that you didn't need to use the actual word. Charlr6 (talk) 13:11, 10 March 2012 (UTC) By your highly naive logic, this talk page is the only talk page on Wikipedia. Go see The Yeti's talk page history (it may still be there actually). Yes I can directly quote it, and I have seen many people do it without even a sign of moral policing, so you can keep all that to yourself. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:26, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Did I say it was the only talk page? I said that I've never seen swearing on a talk page, I've heard that there has been but it gets removed. But you don't need to directly quote it, you can just say "F**k off idiot" instead, its exactly the same as people reading it aren't going to read "F asterisk asterisk k", they will read the actual word as they know the asterisk's are covering two letters. Now you are on my back for saying that you didn't need to say the exact quote, and I never saw that you said anywhere that you were quoting from someones talk page except your last comment that I am replying to. But I've never seen swearing on Wikipedia talk pages in the years I've been on Wikipedia, I just hear from administrators and Wikipedia editors that if there is some, it does get deleted. And swearing can come across as NPA, it doesn't matter if it's quoting or not as someone could still get offended. If anything I am trying to help you and suggest in the future write it with the asterisks in, people will still know what you are talking about and in the future if you do it they may find it insulting even if its a quote or they may not like the use of it and report you just because you swore, doesn't matter what context you used it in, quote or non-quote. Charlr6 (talk) 13:44, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Ooh, never seen swearing. Where have you been? Yes, swearing was present and it was not in asterisks. What do you think? I didn't go to WP:ANI? All they did there was to give a light warning peppered with "you were right underneath" etc. I really don't want to prove the friends circle's usefulness in certain contexts, so drop it. I will put it in asterisks in the future, thank you very much. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:57, 10 March 2012 (UTC) I said I've been on Wikipedia for a few years and I've never seen it because from what I've read it gets deleted. I was trying to help you, but I'll be the mature one now and leave. Sorry for trying to help. No need to be such a "B asterisk asterisk c h". Charlr6 (talk) 14:15, 10 March 2012 (UTC) The insult has been noted. Now scram. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:33, 10 March 2012 (UTC) Guys... Very simple solution to this: WP:VERIFIABILITY, WP:NOTFORUM. Those two things should have been the only response to this. What the hell does this have to do with article improvement? Nothing! How is it verifiable that anyone here has seen it? It is not! End of this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:47, 4 March 2012 (UTC) What you say, Ian, is true; for Wikipedia, we wait until the film is out before writing a detailed synopsis, and before then, for purposes of verifiability, we footnote whatever limited plot claims we make. You're correct. However, someone not in or of the United States who's making completely untrue claims about American copyright law that other editors may take seriously needs to be called out. Despite what User:Ankitbhatt claims, the Walt Disney Company's desires do not trump the First Amendment. No, of course, we can't commercially publish a novelization of the script, but we have every right to give a brief plot synopsis in a newspaper article, a magazine article or an encyclopedia article, to blog about it, talk with others about it, and otherwise communicate about it. Unless User:Ankitbhatt is an American copyright attorney or someone in a related field such as journalism who has experience with copyright issues, making unfounded claims is dangerous and does a disservice to other editors. --Tenebrae (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2012 (UTC) I haven't had the time to visit this page before, but I must congratulate Tenebrae for the extraordinarily successful mudslinging campaign being kept up here. Excellent work. When one can't explain things decently, best to resort to dirty barking. Keep up the great work; I'm quite a fan. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 14:38, 9 March 2012 (UTC) Both of you, stop. You're both right. Disney did have an embargo, but that deal was with the people who saw the movie early. Wikipedia never made any sort of deal with Disney along those lines, but it still has the verifiability guidelines. That last bit, WP:V should have been all that was brought up for this discussion. Quit fighting. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

WHAT!?

How come there is no Plot summary?74.178.186.35 (talk) 22:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bomb

I wonder if anyone has written about disneys writing the film off as a bomb so early into its release. it seems premature, though its true technically at this point. also, if this is the standard now, to write a film off if it doesnt earn back within 10 days, thats very different than in the past. people have written about the new film cycles and getting high earnings the first week. a link to an article about this here would be good. (the reason i suggest this is that I and my wife both liked it, and she HATES blockbusters, so it has SOME sort of market out there, if not a huge one).Mercurywoodrose (talk) 06:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think you understood the statement released by Disney; they said that losses were for one quarter. John Carter will continue running for much beyond just this quarter. Besides, calling a film a "bomb" is premature so early in release and unless full release is complete, we cannot add its financial status into the article despite a large number of fancily-titled headlines declaring it as an Ishtar bomb etc. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:14, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

You probably should cover the multiple stories across the major film websites saying its a bomb and expected to lose $200 million, even if it has time left. If it somehow made billion dollars and was a success then you would still say that it was expected to be a huge bomb but became an unexpected success.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:17, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Its expected to lose $200 million. As I said, we should wait till the end of theatrical run to see how much it will actually lose in the end. Just after 10 days of release declaring a film a "bomb" is hardly proper. I think you mean something like a "Commercial Analysis" section right? Talking about its pre-release prospects, buzz etc. and then explanation of its end box office result? ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 13:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

We go off RS, they are currently saying it's a bomb, if that changes, we can change the article to suit. That disney had to issue a profits warning is notable in itself. --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:33, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

--- Sorry to point out but several RS also predicted nonsense budgets for the film and had written the film off as a bomb before release. That is NOT reliable, sorry to say. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:32, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Well I'm not saying call it a bomb. It isn't a bomb, its expected to be a bomb, its only been out two weeks and it fares better internationally, but it shoudl be mentioned that there is significant coverage that Disney at least 'expects' to write off 200 million and that it had been expected to lose money even before it was released. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 13:37, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. The fact that Disney themselves are predicting a $200m loss on the film in the first quarter, and the fact that Disney shares lost 1% on the announcement, is surely noteworthy. Barry Wom (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

All this should be fine so long as we stick to what the sources actually say: Disney released a statement indicating that it expected the film to "generate an operating loss of approximately $200m during our second fiscal quarter ending 31 March". Who knows how much it will will make total, how much it will ultimately lose after the quarter, what the actual budget is, etc.--Cúchullain ^t/c 20:25, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely; as I pointed out, we can create a new "Commercial analysis" section and detail everything related to pre-release expectations in that. The lead section is absolutely inappropriate for the placement of such an announcement that only talks about a single quarter's losses. What people here are jumping on is the fact that it hasn't ended its run, so saying that the film will lose $200 million is WRONG. Its only Disney's SINGLE QUARTER losses. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 04:28, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed the wording and note added here as original research. The wording stated baldly that the film is one of the "biggest box office bombs in film history", but this was attributed to a cobbling together of sources to determine how much the film had lost. As I and others have said above, we really need to stick with what the sources actually say and attribute properly. What we can say is that Disney reported the film was expected to generate operating losses of about $200 for their fiscal quarter ending March 31. We can say that the media began reporting the film was a shaping up to be a box office loss (often using the term "bomb"), perhaps one of the largest ever. However, we can't draw conclusions ourselves – especially since the film is still out and will likely continue making money.--Cúchullain ^t/c 13:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I heard Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian ranting about the film on morning TV and he babbled that because the film features a past sequence and a science fiction sequence that it almost made his head explode. Why does anyone listen to such a person? (88.17.92.219 (talk) 20:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC))

Edit request on 26 March 2012

with the current numbers of the weekend John carter is no longer on the list of biggest box office bombs.

99.1.96.185 (talk) 14:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I removed it. I actually meant to before, so thanks for catching it.--Cúchullain ^t/c 14:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Since Cuchullain appears to have fulfilled the request, I've marked the request as answered. When handling Requested edits, please make sure to change "answered=no" to "yes". Thanks!   — Jess· Δ♥ 15:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request March 31

I found an article with the numbers for the opening in China which was projected to be 29.8 million, and also the article gives the total amount of money earned which is $264 million ...heres the article http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/29/john-carter-china-box-office_n_1387993.html

Is there a way of putting in a meta description in the source code? Someone/thing at Google has grabbed a single negative review for the description of this page in Google search results and it has been that way for weeks. UPDATED April 3 - Looks like it has been fixed. Thanks!

Total cost to produce, advertise and distribute the movie

According to the article, the budget was $250 million. That does not include distribution and advertising expenses. Does anyone know exactly what Disney spent on this movie so far? How close are they to breaking even?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:34, 16 April 2012 (UTC).

Reception Section

It can safely be said that John Carter received mixed reviews. However, the reception section seems to lean very heavily into the negative reviews. It could be better balanced out with snippets from positive reviews.~ (The Rebel At) ~ 21:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Budget

In the infobox, i think we should add the total of the budget including advertise and production. It is not that people can't calculate the total but it is confusing the way it is right now. Like is the money they spent in advertising also count in the money of production? Anyway I think it is better to add the total amount line, make it more clear.65.128.159.201 (talk) 21:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I just added a total, is that good enough? Krystaleen (talk) 04:03, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The infobox isn't the place for advertising costs; "budget" should be production costs only. Barry Wom (talk) 10:37, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

That's bizarre and not true. Marketing budgets aren't included because studios don't often make that public, because they aren't financed the same way as production budgets. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Marketing budgets aren't included because it's in the guidelines for the infobox: "Insert the approximate production budget of the film. This is the cost of the actual filming, and does not include marketing/promotional costs (i.e. advertisements, commercials, posters, etc)." Barry Wom (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

However, the film's box office performance put plans for sequels on hold.[

Are they really on hold, or is this just Disney-speak for cancelled?108.23.147.17 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:40, 21 April 2012 (UTC).

Is it even confirmed that it's on hold? Krystaleen (talk) 07:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

According to the cited source, "it's a virtual certainty that director Andrew Stanton's planned two sequels will never see a greenlight". 140.139.35.250 (talk) 20:06, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It's just the article writer assuming things though Krystaleen (talk) 02:53, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Home Media Section

I was thinking about adding a home media section to this article since Disney recently shared a press release announcing the film's home media release.

Typically I would move forward with these changes, but I have a WP:COI working on this article. I am aware of the Wikipedia community's policies regarding WP:NPOV, and would like a second opinion before going forward. If I do not hear back in the next couple days, I will proceed under the impression that these edits are acceptable.

--Togna bologna (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Went ahead and made these edits. Feel free to chime in if you have any changes!--Togna bologna (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2012 (UTC)