Andrew Stanton teases unmade John Carter sequels

News Simon Brew 9 Jun 2014 - 06:32
John Carter

John Carter director Andrew Stanton has teased the two sequels that never were...

It's been just over two years now since Andrew Stanton's live action take on John Carter was released into cinemas. A hugely expensive project for Disney, the film nonetheless took $284m at the global box office, but was savaged by many. That said, the film still has a dedicated fanbase, many of us here amongst it.

However, the commercial performance of John Carter meant that plans for sequels were scuppered. Director Andrew Stanton has instead chosen to tackle Finding Nemo sequel Finding Dory. But on his Twitter account, he's now teased the John Carter sequels that were planned, but are never now meant to be.

Firstly? There was to be this one...

And then...

It's a pity we'll never get to see the John Carter saga completed on the big screen. The film's available on DVD and Blu-ray though if you fancy giving it a chance...

Follow our Twitter feed for faster news and bad jokes right here. And be our Facebook chum here.

Disqus - noscript

Following the novel series, I see. Would have been awesome. They could have carried on into animated stuff after the first three. Oh well. :(

A much misunderstood masterpiece.

On every cinematic element it succeeds brilliantly.

Its a shame that these will never see the light of day - JC is an underrated movie, albeit a bit muddled in the middle section. I saw it again recently with my young son and he really enjoyed it. I suspect that the huge expense was the reason for its critical mauling - critics were sharpening their pens before they saw even one frame of footage.

I've never seen it, but the reason besides the bad title that it failed is that the monsters and stuff in it looked like something from the 80s and were too kiddy and goofy looking. Plus it looks too "mature" for like kids under 10, and too kiddy for anyone older. Teens / young adults / adults see that it's from Disney and figure that it'll be sappy and kiddy. There's more of an appetite nowadays for at least a little more edge in sci-fi / superhero movies. And on TV game of thrones is pushing it much farther. Disney thought any big budget film they'd make would be successful and in the 80s / 90s it would've. But it had the problems for audience that I listed and therefore it was a flop.

I really enjoyed that movie, mainly because I was reminded of seeing Star Wars as a kid. Quite fitting, considering how most scifi-adventure can be traced to Burroughs. Even though the Barsoom-franchise didn't take off as planned, I hope that Abrams' new Star Wars-movie will be able to capture the same pulp-y retro-feel as the the original trilogy and John Carter did.

Loved this movie as it reminded of those old swashbuckling adventure films that I used to watch when I was younger and the pulp sci-fi stories like the Buster Crabbe Flash Gordon serials. With the book and comics rights reverting from Disney back in the hands of Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc, maybe the movie rights will be next now that Disney has Star Wars for their cashcow/plaything.

I really enjoyed John Carter. I think too many people missed the point and thought it was ripping off all the films that actually ripped off the original books.

I loved this film. I saw it in the cinema with my gf and her daughter (who was 7 at the time). We all enjoyed it. I loved the tongue-in-cheek of humour of moments such as Bryan Cranston's character constantly getting knocked down during Carter's escape attempts (and the extra restraints they keep adding to prevent the next attempt) along with James Purefoy's guard trying his best to get Carter to take him prisoner to aid another escape later on.
The fish-out-of-water element felt very Buck Rogers (I'm thinking more of the Gil Gerard Glen Larson series) complete with warring factions and scantily-clad attractive princesses.
The poster lookedlike the film was all CGI, and appeared to sell itself on a scene similar to Attack of the Clones' arena scene, which was off-putting to me, despite the trailer selling it. I took a chance though and was glad I did. Such a shame that the series died with this one, all due to the desire of journalists to see it fail, panning it ahead of release in order to sell their mags.

I couldn't bring myself to watch JC all the way through, it was just too dull and unimaginative. The source material was all there, and ripe for a treatment that did NOT look derivative, it just would have taken some visual invention. But I guess Stanton figured if Star Wars etc drew from Barsoom, he could just throw out a pale imitation of those movies and that would be fine.

So now the company that brought you a weak, watered-down Barsoom movie is going to make the great Star Wars films that George Lucas couldn't? Good luck with that.

Adding a somewhat contrary view to some of the comments below (and always acknowledging that enjoyment of films etc is entirely subjective), I thought John Carter was truly awful. Never mind criticism of the lead's acting (bad) or the plot (worse), the whole thing was just so very dull that by the end I just wanted it all to be over. I watched this without any knowledge of the books on which it was based and with a reasonably open mind, never being one to follow the "it was/will be a flop so can't be good" school of film criticism, but I can honestly say that in my view this film truly deserved everyone negative review it got. As for any sequels, beyond my utter lack of surprise that they'll never happen based on the first film, I would note that the supposed titles would (based on the complete hash up that the marketing team made of the first one) likely not have existed including, as they do, the words "of Mars", which the studio and all involved seemed so desperate to avoid. It was almost as if Disney knew this was a stinker when they assigned the marketing job to their least competent PR team. The only good thing about the experience? It meant that I have still yet to see Lone Ranger, their next high profile flop, as this one reminded me why sometimes it is best to listen to popular opinion.

It was a decent movie, and it went down because of the enormous budget. I would have seen the second and third movie.

Great analysis considering you never saw it ;) I really enjoyed it and think it deserved to do much better, but it was more in the style of Indiana Jones/buster crabbe matinees than audiences are used to I think.

John Carter felt derivative due to how many works that have been influenced by the original writings. Everone had aped all of its content years before. It wasnt a bad film. Bit overstuffed. But nowhere near as bad as made out. It was a marketing bomb. How no one made a foll of that weird cute dog creature i will never know.

Well They had rights to the first four i believe.

John Carter was better than Godzilla.

Good movie that was spoiled for me as it deviated enormously from the book in places, but if you hadn't read the books then it wasn't a bad popcorn film.

I felt it was really dull. Such a shame.

Damn it I LOVED that movie! It was my favourite that year and everything the Star Wars prequels should have been. Agh. There's an alternate universe where JC made a packet and launched a series of wonderful films.

Ooh, interesting comparison! For me, neither film made me feel for the characters, so they were similar in that regard. Godzilla certainly had better _moments_ than Carter, but in my mind they were equally flawed.

I really enjoyed JC. Loved the combination of the historical and SF. Good performances too, although Dom West was surprisingly forgettable.

Rights? Princess of Mars was written in 1912. Burroughs died in 1950.
According to Wikipedia, at least the first 5 books (and thus the character, John Carter, Barsoom, etc) are out of copyright, So you can read them at Project Gutenberg.

It's bollocks that any "rights" at all exist from a book over a century old and an author 64 years in the ground. But proving it in court would be expensive.

I hate to pick on any individual person but this film needed someone who oozes charm and charisma from the screen in the lead role. I also thought the prologue could have been edited down - it felt waaaaay too long. but yeah I wouldn't mind seeing what they did in a sequel.

Ive got a feeling that Guardians of the Galaxy is going to be this years big turkey, it just looks to stupid and is unknown by most non comic book geeks

Wow. Brave call. It's only a matter of time before it happens to Marvel, though. That being said, a lot of their films were unknown by most non comic book geeks.

yea but characters like iron man, thor, etc.. are pretty easy to comprehend compared to a talking racoon with a massive machine gun and a tree man! I hope its good because it does look more original than all the other current superhero films, but im not getting my hopes up.

Im actually now thinking it could fail in a similar way as the green lantern did than john carter (ie. it may make most of its money back but not enough to warrant a sequel)

Sponsored Links