What does the looming write-off from John Carter portend for the films in Disney's pipeline?
Disney will be very nervously watching the production of yet another $200M+ western -- Johnny Depp's The Lone Ranger. The difference of course is that Depp is a huge box office star whereas none of those in Carter are. But even with Johnny, audiences who were unimpressed with back to back Western-set duds (see also Cowboys and Aliens and Jonah Hex) are unlikely to give The Lone Ranger the same reception they gave Pirates.
When Pirates I came out it seemed fresh and fun and was Johnny's first blockbuster after years of making his mark in smaller, quirky productions. But the last three pirates films were awful (including two by Gore Verbinsky who is also helming Lone Ranger) and there may also be a bit of Johnny fatigue settling in since he has hardly left blockbuster territory and seems content to play variations of Cap'n Jack. His Dark Shadows is coming out in two months and the absence of a trailer has had movie writers buzzing.
On the other hand, Journey 2, the sequel to Warner's mid-budget Journey to the Center of the Earth which abandoned Jules Verne's serious dramatic tone and turned it into a children's comic adventure fantasy has been a huge hit. I would imagine that the folks at Disney would look at those results, look at the potential budget battles in making Verne's 20,000 Leagues with David Fincher who has never made a PG-13 film before, and may opt to follow Warner's lead into a more kid-centric movie.
All this circles back to the observation I made earlier that pre-production in 20,000 Leagues seems to have been halted and what that may mean for Cleopatra. If Disney has second thoughts about doing 20,000 Leagues using Fincher's vision (just as Netflix seems to be having with House of Cards), he will be free to do Cleopatra as soon as Roth finishes the script. That would make a late 2012 start a strong possibility.
Netflix and MRC Hit Fincher Reality with 'House of Cards'
Surprise.
In a much ballyhooed deal that was too good to be true, Netflix and MRC (Media Rights Capital) outbid HBO to stream and finance, respectively, the $100-million production "House of Cards," an American remake of the 1990 hit Brit TV series about a politician's rise to the top. Now on the verge of production, reality intervenes.
Kevin Spacey, who is one of six executive producers along with his Trigger Street partner Dana Brunetti, stars with Robin Wright Penn in the "Richard III"-inspired story, which "Ides of March" Oscar nominated co-writer Beau Willimon describes as "bad people doing bad things in the world of Washington." (Video below.) Willimon has been working with the project's uber-boss, executive producer David Fincher, for months; the start date has been pushed from March to April.
Yes, Netflix and MRC managed to get hold of prime content that HBO wanted. (HBO refuses to license its high quality exclusive content to Netflix, which recently lost its Starz deal.) But are these distributor/financeers equipped to supervise production with such high-level talent? (This isn't Netflix-backed "Puffy Chair.")
Of course, THR reports, Fincher wants more money. Why wouldn't he? Although he showed his ability to shoot frugally on $40-million "The Social Network," which was a high-profile but not overtly commercial project, Fincher tends to spend heavily on such studio projects as "The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo," which was exquisitely executed and won the editing Oscar, but too expensive at $90 million. Most directors are more invested in making their films and series come out as well as possible than the bottom line.
Whether or not "House of Cards" keeps Fincher, many in Hollywood are skeptical about how you commit to spend $100 million on 13 much less 26 episodes in advance, before you've seen them, and before they have proven that they will draw an audience. A-list talent like Fincher require careful handling from supervisors with power, such as producer Scott Rudin or Sony's Amy Pascal. MRC, which tends to be hands-off with productions like "The Adjustment Bureau," is on the hook for the money; Netflix is the distributor. Will MRC chiefs Asif Satchu and Modi Wiczyk get tough? That is the question.
'John Carter' Premiere: Fascinating Disaster
Disney optioned the rights to "A Princess of Mars" for director John McTiernan ("The Hunt for Red October"); then producer James Jacks gave it a whirl at Paramount with Guillermo del Toro and digital techno-whizes Robert Rodriguez ("Spy Kids"), Kerry Conran ("Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow") and finally, Jon Favreau. When Paramount let go of the rights, Favreau went on to direct "Iron Man."
Watching like a hawk the entire time was Pixar writer-director Andrew Stanton, now 45, who grew up on the Marvel Comics Martian novels, and waited 36 years to grab the rights. Disney's then-chairman Dick Cook scooped them up and green-lit a $250 million feature to be adapted and directed by Stanton. (He eventually brought in writers Michael Chabon and Mark Andrews.)
“When you’re 10 or 11 years old, and you’ve discovered girls, but they haven’t discovered you yet," Stanton said at a recent Q & A, "and you’re reading about this ordinary guy that’s suddenly extraordinary on another planet, he’s got the coolest best friend, the coolest pet, and he’s winning the heart of the most beautiful girl in the universe, that’s like a checklist of everything you’ve ever wanted."
But as great a writer/director/animator as Stanton has been at Team Pixar, he's unproven in live action and he's no Spielberg, whose brand name pulls audiences to a movie. And "X-Men: Wolverine" co-stars Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins, with underused "Rome" supporting players Ciaran Hinds and James Purefoy, aren't marquee movie stars who put butts in seats like Johnny Depp or Angelina Jolie.
Giving Stanton, despite the credit he's due for his crucial participation in Pixar's unprecedented run of 12 blockbusters--Oscar-winning "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E" earned $1.3 billion worldwide-- a live-action movie of this magnitude to supervise was a huge gamble. At Pixar he was a vital part of a team who were reliant on rewrites and animatics and constant changing of the story until each film played perfectly. Animation is the last part of the Pixar process.
Live action is a whole other universe. When I saw "John Carter" at its LA Live premiere, I could see so many things that might have been fixed by an experienced studio production team. For the most part, Disney let Stanton do his thing until he showed them a rough cut. The frustration is that the main story elements--gravity-enhanced jaded ex-soldier Carter (Kitsch), who can leap across the barren Barsoom landscape (Utah), his romance with spoiled Martian princess Dejah Thoris (Collins), alliance with honorable Thark chief Tars Tarkas (voiced by Willem Dafoe) and various battles with Martian creatures and armies--work well. The best thing in the movie is his toothy pet Woola--animated, natch (see clip below). But so much also goes wrong.
For starters, the film (which gains nothing from retrofitted 3-D) opens badly in the middle of a Martian air battle, and takes far too long to bring Civil War vet Carter to red planet Barsoom. The crucial design of the green nine-foot-tall, tusked and four-armed green Tharks is misguided (too close to Jar Jar Binks), many of the large-scale air battles are murky and over-pixelated, and Collins as the Princess of Mars boasts a clearly fake Brit accent. These are fixable mistakes among many, many more.
At the after-party, Stanton explained his deep passion for the material, and said that the film couldn't have been done any sooner with pre-existing technology, or any cheaper either. He also says he relied on pre-planned reshoots (no way Disney had eighteen days in mind). He pays no heed to news reports or critics, he just tunes into his own drummer. So much so that he has already written the second installment of his planned trilogy. Only if the first film delivers a near-impossible $700 million will that happen.
Jacks argues that Conran could have done the film for half as much. Check Conran's pitch video below, which captures just the right feel for Barsoom. While cinephiles may know that George Lucas and James Cameron raided these novels as inspiration for "Star Wars" and "Avatar," the fact remains that audiences are clueless about this world. (Here's Stanton's profile in The New Yorker and more recent interviews with the LAT's Geoff Boucher and Harry Knowles; video of his recent TED Talk, "My Life in Story, Backwards" is below. )
In October 2009, incoming Disney chairman Rich Ross faced a project that was well under way, with millions already spent. And under boss Robert Iger's directives, Ross let go of many of Disney's experienced production, distribution and marketing professionals. When the studio tested the movie's "materials" --characters, title, designs--they did not play well with audiences. Burroughs' Martian novels are not as well-known as his "Tarzan" series, which fueled countless film iterations over the decades.
An inexperienced chairman like Ross--relying on a new marketing team run by industry outsider MT Carney-- didn't know how to place the movie inside the proper genre context, the male sci-fi fantasy universe. Instead the studio, with so much investment on the line, took the mass-audience "appeal-to-everyone" approach. Disastrously, in an effort to draw women, they got rid of the most commercial element of the project. By trimming "John Carter of Mars" to "John Carter," they lost Mars. (More details at Thedailybeast.)
Whatever the pluses and minues of outgoing studio chief Dick Cook, he was an ace marketer who would never have so mishandled this campaign. "John Carter" was generic: its standalone JC logo meant nothing. And as terrific as Canadian hunk Kitsch ("Friday Night Lights") is in this movie--and he's going to be a star from here, with tentpole actioner "Battleship" and Oliver Stone's drug cartel thriller "Savages" coming up--he's hardly a marquee draw at this point.
Disney then made another crucial error, opting not to promote the movie to its prime demo at Comic-Con in July, but keeping it with the Disney line-up at D 23, where the presentation bombed. You could sense the chill in the room. It just didn't feel like your cookie-cutter Disney movie.
Hollywood insider Ricky Strauss, Disney's more experienced new marketing head, came into a tough situation and started to right the ship by admitting that yes, the core target audience was male--young males, the ones who tune into the fanboy demo, who should have been targeted at Comic-Con last summer. That was a start, and sure enough, Knowles, who had been a producer on the Jacks "John Carter of Mars" at Paramount, gave the film a rave.
But the damage had been done. Iger may have wanted to break his studio away from its hidebound traditions and practices. But he did so at a cost. The write-off on this movie will be one of the biggest in Hollywood history.
A sampling of reviews, clips and trailers below:
THR:
"This Disney extravaganza is a rather charming pastiche, if perhaps not
one with sufficient excitement and razzle-dazzle to justify the
reported $250 million production budget. Neither classic nor fiasco, the
film will likely delight sci-fi geeks most of all, but there's enough
here for general Disney audiences as well to generate solid box office
worldwide,..If 'Avatar' had never existed, it's possible that 'John
Carter' would have seemed like more of a genre breakthrough,..Although
the result is quite a mishmash, dramatic coherence prevails over visual
flair; the colors, skin tones, image sharpness and cohesion of diverse
pictorial elements are less than stellar, although the 3D is effective,
with comparatively little brightness sacrificed by donning glasses."
Empire:
"Stanton has built a fantastic world, but the action is unmemorable.
Still, just about every sci-fi/fantasy/superhero adventure you ever
loved is in here somewhere."
CinemaBlend:
"What shocks me most is Stanton’s apparent lack of command over a story
that sprawls in various directions without saying much. This is a Pixar
veteran whose credits include the 'Toy Story' franchise, 'Finding Nemo'
and the flawless 'WALL-E.' Could he not see that he lacked a firm grip
on his film’s narrative?"
TotalFilm:
"If history has taught filmmakers one lesson, it’s that if you’re going
to make a movie about Mars, it had better star Arnold Schwarzenegger
and a lady with three boobies. Otherwise? Forget it. So, maybe the
smartest thing 'WALL.E' director Andrew Stanton has ever done was
chopping the words 'Of Mars' off the title of his first live action
movie,..The problem for Andrew Stanton’s blockbuster adap is that, a
century later, we do have 'Star Wars,' 'Star Trek' and 'Avatar.' Sadly,
John Carter has come a little too late to his own party and all the
other boys and girls have eaten his cake and popped his balloons,..A
handsome new sci-fi adventure that feels rather familiar. Enjoyable
enough while it lasts, 'John Carter' is big on ambition and
disappointingly short on action."
HitFix:
"I think they've fumbled the sales pitch completely, but if you're
willing to look past that and go the theater, 'John Carter' is
transporting in exactly the way I want my escapism to be. Richly
imagined, robustly performed, and directed with the evident enthusiasm
of someone who's been dreaming about Barsoom his whole life, 'John
Carter' is a gem."
8 Ways Johnny Depp Tattered His Own Legacy Before The 21 Jump Street Remake Even Had A Chance
By Agent Bedhead | Posted Under Seriously Random Lists |
I don’t expect this to be a popular post for many reasons but not
least of all because (almost) everyone loves Johnny Depp. Several of his
(earlier) movies are on my must-see list, and he’s an undoubtedly
talented actor. By all accounts, Depp is also great to his fans when he
meets them in person. However, the man is seriously losing his cool
factor, and I doubt that the upcoming 21 Jump Street remake will
make us forget Depp’s legacy any more than his own actions over the past
decade. So let’s run down the reasons how Johnny Depp has willingly
chipped away at his own reputation: For Doing That Fourth Pirates of the Caribbean Movie: Because we don’t necessarily blame him for selling out, but keeping it going past a trilogy seems rather extreme. He’ll be back for a fifth movie too, so he can collect more of that stupid money.
For Referring To Photoshoots As “Rape”: Because sure, getting dressed up all nice and having your picture taken to promote your own career is just like being sexually violated.
For Dissing America. And France Too: First, he described the U.S. as a dumb puppy, but then he complained about how France was greedy, so he can’t live there either. Make up your mind, Johnny.
For Owning His Own Private Island: Sure, it’s Johnny’s money, but owning a damn island just seems so douchey. So much for Mr. Rebel.
For Mucking Up A Hunter S. Thompson Movie: Remember how great Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas was as a movie? Then he went and starred in (and produced) a meek voice of celluloid and muted rage. Not cool.
For Blaming The Rum Diary’s Failure On Middle America: “Outside the big cities in the US, they don’t want intelligent films.” - Johnny Depp, The Guardian
For Falling Over Drunk & Stumbling On The Street: Get drunk all you want, Johnny, but keep it dignified and keep it indoors. At least he didn’t wet himself, right?
For Appearing In Every Damn Tim Burton Movie: Because there can always be too much of a good thing.
Agent Bedhead lives in Tulsa, Oklahoma. She and her little black heart can be found at Celebitchy.
Will Smith: former Fresh Prince whose career threatens to turn stale
He's teamed up with Tommy Lee Jones for Men in Black III, but Will Smith is too talented to be wasting his time on blockbusters
It's almost hard to remember at this point, but the former Fresh Prince of Bel-Air is a two-time Academy Award nominee, once for Ali in 2001, then again for The Pursuit of Happyness in 2006. The reason this fact is so easy to lose sight of is that Smith has spent most of his time padding his resume with brainless blockbusters like I, Robot and Hancock, roles that seem to only require of him that he be able to memorize lines and behave like Will Smith.
That's not entirely his fault. Like most actors who come from other disciplines, Smith was offered lots of roles that enable him to advance the Will Smith brand without expanding it. The Fresh Prince is a prime example; NBC approached Smith about starring in the sitcom, which was built around his goofy, affable, edgy-yet-family-friendly persona. Smith could have made his entire career out of cracking wise in run-and-gun summer action flicks, but in 1995 he took on the role of Paul, a gay con artist in Six Degrees of Separation. He didn't garner any nominations for his elegant, restrained performance, but he did win critical acclaim, and by choosing such an off-brand role, Smith made clear that his goal was to be an actor's actor, not coast by playing endless iterations of himself.
Then the strategy changed. After Independence Day and the original Men in Black, a pair of massively successful blockbusters that bowed exactly one year apart and grossed over a billion dollars combined, Smith put his focus on movies with big budgets and big paychecks. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, or with Smith deciding he wants to be the world's biggest movie star rather than an actor with a string of well-regarded but soon-forgotten prestige films to his credit. But between Six Degrees and both of his Oscar-nominated performances, Smith has demonstrated an incredible capacity for and dedication to the craft of acting. To prepare for his turn as Muhammad Ali, Smith endured six-hour workouts for five days a week to prepare his physique, and spent hours watching footage of Ali in order to replicate the boxer's unique accent and speech patterns. Compared to that, donning a black suit and battling green-screen aliens is practically a vacation.
It's understandable why Smith with do a film like Men in Black III: it's a high-profile, relatively low-commitment gig for which he'll take home a rumored $20m. That kind of dream job would be hard for anyone to turn down. But it's a shame that an actor and performer as prodigious as Smith wouldn't have greater ambition as an actor, rather than as a movie star. It isn't just MIB3. Smith's upcoming projects include After Earth, a sci-fi thriller set for release next summer, co-starring his son Jaden and directed by the increasingly disreputable M Night Shyamalan. On the sequels front, there's a third installment of the buddy-cop Bad Boys franchise in pre-production, and follow-ups to Hancock, Independence Day and I, Robot have been lurching through the development process, not to mention a second I Am Legend film – which would be a prequel, as Smith's character died at the end of the original film.
It's a professional agenda that seems likely to earn a lot of people a lot of money, especially Smith. What it doesn't seem likely to do is garner Smith any further prestige nominations, or force him to stretch beyond his thespian comfort zone. It's a real shame, considering Smith has the talent to rank among his generation's finest actors, not just its most bankable stars. But perhaps MIB3 is just the remedy for Smith's slide into professional complacency. In spite of the buzz surrounding the franchise's return, the film is hardly money in the bank. The second Men in Black, which came out five years after the original, earned 30% less worldwide than the original, and that's at a point when the franchise was still considered fresh. A decade later, when both summer blockbusters and movies about aliens look so much different than they did then (back when Smith could still credibly rap over the closing credits) it's not a sure bet that Men in Black will translate for a younger audience. Here's hoping it doesn't, if only so that Smith, who is working far below his potential, will be inspired to stop looking backwards and start challenging himself.
