DID YOU READ

The more people bash “John Carter” the more I want to see it

john-carter-02222012

Posted by on

Disney’s massive franchise starter “John Carter” doesn’t open for another two weeks, but it feels like it’s already been written off as a huge flop. For months, the narrative in the media about the film has gone something like this: “The trailer is horrible and the tracking is soft and the film went way over an already-high budget, so therefore it’s going to be huge disaster.” The latest — and, let’s hope, final — piece in this narrative, comes from The Daily Beast, where a lengthy article about the release of “John Carter” calls it “Disney’s Quarter Billion Dollar Fiasco.”

The marketing for “John Carter” is terrible. I’m sure the tracking numbers are soft. I have a hunch the film did go over budget. Maybe it is “a quarter billion dollar fiasco.” My question to you is this: why does any of that matter? All of those things can be true, and “John Carter” might still be a fantastic movie. In fact, most of the things people are propping up as evidence that “John Carter” is doomed to failure sound to me like reasons to look forward to the film. The more people bash this thing, the more I want to see it.

Take The Daily Beast’s article, which is largely a production and marketing history, interspersed with anonymous negative quotes from rival studio executives (these people, I’m sure, have no reason to want to see “John Carter” fail, and are speaking, no doubt, from a totally unbiased position). Here is the part of author Chris Lee’s account that really caught my eye:

“Stanton’s distinctive shooting style helped inflate the price tag. Known for his dogged perfectionism and penchant for reshooting scenes until he finds the proper balance of tone, emotion, and action—simple enough to do when your actors are animated—the writer-director dragged out physical production on ‘John Carter’ with a seemingly endless roundelay of reshoots, and reshoots of reshoots, done piecemeal around the world.”

In the context of Lee’s piece, this statement plays mostly as condemnation; Disney bet on this untested animator to make their latest live-action tentpole, and they paid the price with a “billion dollar fiasco.” But what is Lee really saying here? Here’s how I read it: Stanton is a perfectionist — which, apparently, is not only a rarity in Hollywood, but a despised rarity at that — and in moving to live-action, he trusted the same battle-tested formula that had worked for him on two of the finest animated features ever made (“Finding Nemo” and “WALL-E”). Why is any of that a bad thing?

Okay, so he might have gone over budget (Stanton has repeatedly insisted he did not, although if his budget was $250 million to begin with, as The Daily Beast reports, that’s not exactly cause for celebration). Who cares? Unless you’re a Disney stockholder or employee, that is literally none of your concern. For everybody else, going over budget is a good thing, because it means instead of throwing up their hands and walking away from the project, Disney invested more money to make sure that Stanton got to make exactly the film he wanted to make. Again, why is that a bad thing?

Here’s another eye-opening quote from The Beast piece:


“‘We’ve got a director here who made us billions of dollars over the years, fine, let him have a vanity project,’ surmised an executive at another studio, who, like just about everyone interviewed for this story, requested anonymity for fear of burning bridges. ‘But you minimize your risk as much as possible. To make something on this big a budget with no stars? Unless you’re Peter Jackson or Jim Cameron, it’s unheard of.'”

So Disney is taking a risk. Don’t we like when studios take risk? Don’t we complain when they stick to the old way of doing things? Don’t we bitch when they make the same movie over and over? Why is Disney getting raked over the coals for taking a chance on something — especially before the movie’s actually opened?

Part of the risk this nameless executive is referring to is the fact that the title character of “John Carter” is played by Taylor Kitsch, a young actor who spent years on the cult high school football series “Friday Night Lights” but has never headlined a major studio release. The spotlight on Kitsch is particularly intense in this case because while “John Carter” features other famous actors, including Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church, many are playing motion captured six-armed aliens, making the relatively unknown TV star practically the only human face of the franchise.

But just because Kitsch hasn’t opened a big movie before doesn’t mean he can’t. My wife and I are currently in the midst of discovering “FNL” via a lengthy Netflix marathon; through the first three seasons, we’ve watched Kitsch mature as an actor before our eyes. We were just remarking a few nights ago how his character, Tim Riggins, has gone from one of our least favorites to the guy we’re watching the show specifically to see. My wife thinks he’s cute and I think he’s a good actor despite the fact that my wife thinks he’s cute. That is a rare combination for a handsome leading man.

Can Kitsch open a billion dollar movie? Maybe, maybe not. But why not give him a chance? The same thinking that says Taylor Kitsch can’t open a movie before he tries is the same thinking that got Jeremy Lin bounced from one basketball team to another by skeptical talent evaluators who saw an unorthodox player and decided, without due consideration, that he “couldn’t play.” We’ve all seen how that’s turned out these last couple weeks.

Okay, so “John Carter”‘s marketing is crummy. That’s what happens when your head of worldwide marketing resigns right in the middle of the campaign. It should be no surprise that the subsequent trailers, posters, and Super Bowl commercials have all been lackluster. Despite what Disney’s surveys or polls said, I would have never in a million years changed the title of “John Carter of Mars” to just “John Carter,” allegedly out of fear women wouldn’t see a movie with “of Mars” in the title. I checked on this with my own wife: she says she probably wouldn’t, but notes that the simple “John Carter” isn’t much better unless it’s a big-screen adaptation of “ER.” And she is interested to see Tim Riggins on Mars.

Regardless, bad marketing — even a bad title — doesn’t equal a bad movie. And vice versa; the marketing for “Transformers: Dark of the Moon” was outstanding while the movie itself was, uh, let’s say instanding. The same stories written about “John Carter” are the same stories that were written about “Titanic,” another insanely expensive movie with a perfectionist director and unknown stars. Things don’t work, can’t work, won’t work — until they do.

Perhaps the advertising is a portend of a doomed production. Maybe when the movie comes out, I’ll hate it more than everyone who’s trashed it sight unseen. But at least I’m going in with an open mind. A bold director, a talented lead, and a few hundred million dollars? What could go wrong?

Are you looking forward to “John Carter?” Tell us in the comments below or write to us on Facebook and Twitter.

Watch More
FrankAndLamar_100-Trailer_MPX-1920×1080

Bro and Tell

BFFs And Night Court For Sports

Bromance and Comeuppance On Two New Comedy Crib Series

Posted by on

“Silicon Valley meets Girls meets black male educators with lots of unrealized potential.”

That’s how Carl Foreman Jr. and Anthony Gaskins categorize their new series Frank and Lamar which joins Joe Schiappa’s Sport Court in the latest wave of new series available now on IFC’s Comedy Crib. To better acquaint you with the newbies, we went right to the creators for their candid POVs. And they did not disappoint. Here are snippets of their interviews:

Frank and Lamar

via GIPHY

IFC: How would you describe Frank and Lamar to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Carl: Best bros from college live and work together teaching at a fancy Manhattan private school, valiantly trying to transition into a more mature phase of personal and professional life while clinging to their boyish ways.

IFC: And to a friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Carl: The same way, slightly less coherent.

Anthony: I’d probably speak about it with much louder volume, due to the bar which would probably be playing the new Kendrick Lamar album. I might also include additional jokes about Carl, or unrelated political tangents.

Carl: He really delights in randomly slandering me for no reason. I get him back though. Our rapport on the page, screen, and in real life, comes out of a lot of that back and forth.

IFC: In what way is Frank and Lamar a poignant series for this moment in time?
Carl: It tells a story I feel most people aren’t familiar with, having young black males teach in a very affluent white world, while never making it expressly about that either. Then in tackling their personal lives, we see these three-dimensional guys navigate a pivotal moment in time from a perspective I feel mainstream audiences tend not to see portrayed.

Anthony: I feel like Frank and Lamar continues to push the envelope within the genre by presenting interesting and non stereotypical content about people of color. The fact that this show brought together so many talented creative people, from the cast and crew to the producers, who believe in the project, makes the work that much more intentional and truthful. I also think it’s pretty incredible that we got to employ many of our friends!

Sport Court

Sport Court gavel

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to a fancy network executive you met in an elevator?
Joe: SPORT COURT follows Judge David Linda, a circuit court judge assigned to handle an ad hoc courtroom put together to prosecute rowdy fan behavior in the basement of the Hartford Ultradome. Think an updated Night Court.

IFC: How would you describe Sport Court to drunk friend of a friend you met in a bar?
Joe: Remember when you put those firecrackers down that guy’s pants at the baseball game? It’s about a judge who works in a court in the stadium that puts you in jail right then and there. I know, you actually did spend the night in jail, but imagine you went to court right that second and didn’t have to get your brother to take off work from GameStop to take you to your hearing.

IFC: Is there a method to your madness when coming up with sports fan faux pas?
Joe: I just think of the worst things that would ruin a sporting event for everyone. Peeing in the slushy machine in open view of a crowd seemed like a good one.

IFC: Honestly now, how many of the fan transgressions are things you’ve done or thought about doing?
Joe: I’ve thought about ripping out a whole row of chairs at a theater or stadium, so I would have my own private space. I like to think of that really whenever I have to sit crammed next to lots of people. Imagine the leg room!

Check out the full seasons of Frank and Lamar and Sport Court now on IFC’s Comedy Crib.

Watch More
Brockmire-103-banner-4

Millennial Wisdom

Charles Speaks For Us All

Get to know Charles, the social media whiz of Brockmire.

Posted by on

He may be an unlikely radio producer Brockmire, but Charles is #1 when it comes to delivering quips that tie a nice little bow on the absurdity of any given situation.

Charles also perfectly captures the jaded outlook of Millennials. Or at least Millennials as mythologized by marketers and news idiots. You know who you are.

Played superbly by Tyrel Jackson Williams, Charles’s quippy nuggets target just about any subject matter, from entry-level jobs in social media (“I plan on getting some experience here, then moving to New York to finally start my life.”) to the ramifications of fictional celebrity hookups (“Drake and Taylor Swift are dating! Albums y’all!”). But where he really nails the whole Millennial POV thing is when he comments on America’s second favorite past-time after type II diabetes: baseball.

Here are a few pearls.

On Baseball’s Lasting Cultural Relevance

“Baseball’s one of those old-timey things you don’t need anymore. Like cursive. Or email.”

On The Dramatic Value Of Double-Headers

“The only thing dumber than playing two boring-ass baseball games in one day is putting a two-hour delay between the boring-ass games.”

On Sartorial Tradition

“Is dressing badly just a thing for baseball, because that would explain his jacket.”

On Baseball, In A Nutshell

“Baseball is a f-cked up sport, and I want you to know it.”


Learn more about Charles in the behind-the-scenes video below.

And if you were born before the late ’80s and want to know what the kids think about Baseball, watch Brockmire Wednesdays at 10P on IFC.

Watch More
Brockmire_101_tout_2

Crown Jules

Amanda Peet FTW on Brockmire

Amanda Peet brings it on Brockmire Wednesday at 10P on IFC.

Posted by on
GIFS via Giphy

On Brockmire, Jules is the unexpected yin to Jim Brockmire’s yang. Which is saying a lot, because Brockmire’s yang is way out there. Played by Amanda Peet, Jules is hard-drinking, truth-spewing, baseball-loving…everything Brockmire is, and perhaps what he never expected to encounter in another human.

“We’re the same level of functional alcoholic.”


But Jules takes that commonality and transforms it into something special: a new beginning. A new beginning for failing minor league baseball team “The Frackers”, who suddenly about-face into a winning streak; and a new beginning for Brockmire, whose life gets a jumpstart when Jules lures him back to baseball. As for herself, her unexpected connection with Brockmire gives her own life a surprising and much needed goose.

“You’re a Goddamn Disaster and you’re starting To look good to me.”

This palpable dynamic adds depth and complexity to the narrative and pushes the series far beyond expected comedy. See for yourself in this behind-the-scenes video (and brace yourself for a unforgettable description of Brockmire’s genitals)…

Want more about Amanda Peet? She’s all over the place, and has even penned a recent self-reflective piece in the New York Times.

And of course you can watch the Jim-Jules relationship hysterically unfold in new episodes of Brockmire, every Wednesday at 10PM on IFC.

Watch More
Powered by ZergNet