How "John Carter" Bomb Could've Been Prevented

  Disney's science fiction epic "John Carter" is now considered one of the biggest bombs of all time, and is being compared with films such as "Ishtar" and "Heaven's Gate."  It is subject to several media parodies, making fun of the film.  It has only gained $66 million as of April 11th 2012, according to boxofficemojo.com (It does have a solid $263 million worldwide, but that's still not enough).  And we can't forget its awful current 50% on rottentomatoes.com.  I have seen "John Carter" twice now and I think it is one of the best science fiction epics of all time.  I also think critics would've called it this if not for all the bad buzz around it.  But people love watching a bomb go off, and "John Carter" was the unlucky film it happened to. Now, here are my opinions on how this could've been prevented.

If only Disney...

Didn't make the white ape scene a key part of marketing: Nearly every ad for the movie included the scene where John Carter fights off two giant white apes in an arena.  Truth is, it looks a lot like "Attack Of The Clones," a movie many people disliked.

Made ads more appealing to families: The ads are very serious and violent, and yes the movie is serious and violent, but it also funny and light at several points.  When you see the Disney logo in front of a movie that is very violent, you must be sure to include humorous moments in the marketing.  I recommend using Woola the lizard dog.

Paid attention to love story in marketing: What do "Gone With The Wind," "Titanic" and "Avatar" all have in common? They are some of the biggest movies of all time and they all have epic love stories. "John Carter" does too, but you wouldn't know that from the advertisements.  They clearly gave no appeal to have the population, and they definitely paid the price for it.

Didn't scratch off the "Of Mars:" After "Mars Needs Moms" bombed last March, Disney immediately changed "John Carter Of Mars" to "John Carter."  Now, audiences were scratching their heads wondering where the heck this movie took place. They do care. Now, people are going to think Mars movies by Disney are "cursed," which is really not true.  "Mars Needs Moms" bombed for different reasons, and "John Carter" bombed partially because of "Mars Needs Moms."

Made a three minute trailer: "John Carter" has a lot of plot in it, and none of the trailers really established it.  A trailer three to four minutes long could truly get the story across, and audiences would actually care.

Very specifically noted movies it inspired: While at the last minute they did, they should've pushed to note "John Carter" was based off an influential story from 1912, not a ripoff of other science fiction films.  Contrary to several directors' belief, audiences aren't that smart, and will falsely accuse it of ripping off other films.

Didn't make the awful Super Bowl ad they did: The Super Bowl is the most watched television event of the year, and for decades studios have been using it to truly get people interested in their films.  And when I saw the "John Carter" ad, I realized this movie would have a rough run.  Even after all that criticism for its theatrical trailer, they failed to establish any identity.

Created false anticipation: Going back to the "audiences aren't that smart" thing, if Disney had created dramatic "In X days" advertisements, or teasers for trailers, audiences would think they care about a movie they actually didn't originally.

Put Andrew Stanton's name in marketing: It obviously put Disney in an awkward position, having the director of a PG-13 science fiction, only have a history as the director of "Wall-E" and "Finding Nemo." But putting his name in marketing, but not saying what he's made, would probably help.

 And also, if only Andrew Stanton...

Changed Taylor Kitsch's outfit: The truth is John Carter's appearance is very reminiscent of Dastan's in "Prince of Persia."  From the ads you'd think "John Carter" was a sequel.

Used better 3D: The 3D isn't necessarily bad, but it's nothing special.  While the medium has gotten some criticism, for the past three years the top movie has been, in fact, in 3D.