I am still confused about why "John Carter" failed at the box office. The movie took in almost $300 million and yet it is remembered for being one of the biggest flops of 2012. Most movies in 2012 didn't bring in $300 million so why are they better movies than "John Carter"?
I don't know if Taylor Kitsch should have been cast in the role but I think he did a fine job with the movie. I just can't understand why so many people in America dissed the movie. It's full of adventure, has beautiful women, cool scifi special effects, and even some great retro footage set in New York with a young Edgar Rice Burroughs.
Burroughs loved to put himself into his John Carter novels. I remember reading those books as a kid and thinking it was kind of cool that Burroughs would show up every now and then as a character in one of his own stories. He was a master of using second person viewpoint to introduce a first person viewpoint.
So seeing a young Edgar in the movie made it special for me. It was like he made a cameo in his story again 60 years after his death.
There are some stories about infighting at Disney over the movie. I hardly knew it was being made. They kept everything so secret I don't see how people could have known about it in advance. Maybe that was the problem. I think "John Carter" should have had a huge build up. Instead it was WHAM! BAM! Thank you Sam! and we're on to the next big flop starring Taylor Kitsch, "Battleship".
I actually really enjoyed "Battleship" too. It was an interesting story. Maybe its weak box office was tainted by all the bad press "John Carter" got. That's a shame.
