Scott Mendelson

GET UPDATES FROM Scott Mendelson
 

Going Broke Chasing Boys: Why Disney Ditched Princesses for John Carter

Posted: 03/ 9/2012 9:17 am

If you've seen the trailer for the upcoming John Carter, you know that not only does it not look like it cost $300 million, but it so painfully feels like a Mad Libs male-driven fantasy blockbuster that it borders on parody.  If you've seen the film (or read my review), you know it's a stunningly convoluted and relatively unengaging film that suffers from core story problems that could have been fixed at the pre-production stage.  It's no secret that Disney thinks it has a boy problem. One of the reasons it bought Marvel just over two years ago was to build up a slate of boy-friendly franchises.  And the last few years have seen an almost embarrassing attempt to fashion boy-friendly franchises (Prince of Persia, Tron: Legacy, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, I Am Number Four, Fright Night,  and Real Steel), only half of which were even as successful as their alleged flop The Princess and the Frog (which obviously grossed 'just' $267 million on a $105 million budget because it starred a character with a vagina).  We can only ponder the reasons why Disney decided to outright state that they were never going to make another fairy-tale princess cartoon again, even after Tangled became their most successful non-Pixar 'toon since The Lion King, but I'm pretty sure Disney won't be making such statements about boy-centric fantasy franchises anytime soon.

Now we have John Carter, which allegedly cost $250-300 million (if not more). It's being released in March, where only one film (to be fair, Disney's Alice In Wonderland) has ever even grossed $300 million.  Hell, in all of January-through April, there have been just five $200 million grossers (The Passion of the Christ, Alice In Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, 300, and Fast Five).  So you have yet another film that basically has to shatter all records regarding its release date in order to merely break even.  But that's okay, thinks Disney, because John Carter is a manly science fiction spectacle so it is surely worth risking the bank.  Disney is so desperate to not only chase the young male demos that is willing to risk alienating the young female demos that has netted it billions of dollars over the many decades.  What they fail to realize is that the success of the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise (especially the first three films) was rooted in telling a story that crossed gender lines.  All-told, the original trilogy actually revolved around Keira Knightley's character, and her journey from daughter of privilege to outlaw pirate.  I Am Number Four is a perfect example of this clear misunderstanding.  Disney and Dreamworks decided to cash in on Twilight by making a variation told from the point of view of the super-powered teen boy, a story which turned the 'Bella' character into just another stock love interest to be sidelined for the third act.

If you look at Disney's future slate, with the arguable exception of Pixar's Brave (the first Pixar film to feature a girl, a warrior princess no less), they have almost no female-driven movies between now and 2014.  Oh wait, I'm sorry... they did re-release Beauty and the Beast in 3D and will re-release The Little Mermaid in 3D at the end of 2013.  My mistake.  I may complain about the frenzy of upcoming live-action fairy tale adaptations, but at least those are big-budget movies centering around a female protagonist.  It would seem that Disney, as a corporation, genuinely places less value on the female audience than the male audience.  Money is money, and sweaty bills from girls should be just as green as bills from boys.  Yet Disney apparently so disdains its core audience (young girls) that it not only has stopped chasing them (in the knowledge that they will buy princess merchandise anyway) but has risked untold millions on the most generic possible new franchise, with no star power and little to distinguish itself from a hundred other such films, purely because 'it's a boy movie.'  In a way, Disney has become just like the Democratic Party, risking alienation of their base because they know that the young girls (and their parents) won't really ever jump ship.

 

Follow Scott Mendelson on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ScottMendelson

'FONE FINDS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 28
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Unitynow8
Liberal World Citizen
08:45 PM on 03/11/2012
I enjoyed John Carter. My only complain is the princess eyes where electric clue, ok so she is from mars, they should have used a completely out of this world eye color instead of that blue it just looked fake
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
01:00 PM on 03/11/2012
The problem with your premise is that Disney has catered more for girls than boys for many years. Attempting to strike a balance is only wise. Hardly grounds for such hysteria. Look at what is on the planning board. "Brave" has a strong female hero. "Maleficent" also seems designed to appeal to the feminine more than the masculine. Disney still pushes their Fairies and their Princesses. Good for them to have some pirates and swashbucklers too.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
pixeloid
Reality has a liberal bias.
10:44 PM on 03/10/2012
Such an awful review from a professional critic means it must be a good movie well worth watching. Why do people take the opinions of critics (food, film, art, music, book) seriously? In general, they're people that studied some kind of art, but because of a complete lack of talent or ability, have completely failed. The only way they remain relevant is to spend their life denigrating the works of others. What a useless profession.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
04:56 PM on 03/12/2012
This is not a review, merely a business/social editorial surrounding the film. Try clicking on the link for the actual review contained in the article. Not everything about movies constitutes a review...
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
02:54 PM on 03/10/2012
Not "convoluted" in the least. The plot elements work very well indeed. Hardly seems like it runs more than two hours it moves along so brickly. My hope--and that of my wife and my 19 year old son--is that, despite the reviews from those who have decided to drub this movie, it makes sufficient money that "John Carter: The Gods of Mars" appears on the screen in a few years.

While this is not Burroughs' "A Princess of Mars", it IS Burroughs' Mars and Burroughs' John Carter brought to the screen in a fashion that I would never have thought possible just a few years ago.


Rate the movie? Highest marks! It succeeds in taking us to Barsoom. It places us among the green Martians in the ancient ruins of the once great cities of a dying planet. It gives us the airships that Burroughs wrote of, the great city of Helium, the incomparable Dejas Thoris, the loyal calot Woola and so many elements that Burroughs created, while weaving a story more complex than the original novel.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
SeanMartin
Everything in moderation.
11:51 PM on 03/09/2012
True story: a friend of mine in California wrote the original children's book that "Mulan" was based on: Bob wound up doing three or four more things for Disney. Some years after Mulan was released, he managed to get copies of the original reader reports on his first treatment for the film. The very first question Disney asks its readers of potential scripts: "What are the merchandising opportunities in this film?" That's the VERY FIRST QUESTION, guys.

Whether it's a princess film or John Carter of Mars, Disney isnt about making movies. It's about selling *stuff*. They dont need a movie in the theatres to sell some little girl in Iowa yet another princess toy at WalMart.

Dont worry about their core market, bud. It's doing just fine.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
02:56 PM on 03/10/2012
What "stuff" is out there for the John Carter movie?

Haven't seen a bit yet.

Rather like the FIRST Pirates of the Caribbean in that respect. Only later, once they found out what they had on their hands--and recall that "critics" generally poked fun at the very idea of a "movie based on an amusement park ride"--did Disney start marketing toys and the rest.
02:44 PM on 03/09/2012
he can't even come close to Andy Whitfield, shirtless or performance-wise
02:08 PM on 03/09/2012
I don't care about whether a movie is female driven or not; I just want it to be good, and John Carter does not look good.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
02:57 PM on 03/10/2012
It is good. Excellent, in fact.

Better than I had hoped.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
FearlessFreep
A radical leftist with a JS Woodsworth avatar.
01:21 PM on 03/09/2012
I hope Disney changes their minds and makes THE SNOW QUEEN.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mustraline
12:59 PM on 03/09/2012
Both the author and Disney have the wrong premise. Current social dogma states that supporting girls must be a zero sum game. Boys necessarily HAVE to lose. Think not? TV is an important image maker. Look closely at commercials. Boys and men are rarely seen and seldom featured... unless it is in an intellectually challenged atmosphere. And boys have suffered for nearly 20 years.

The correct premise should always be that supporting girls and boys is a force multiplier.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
05:44 PM on 03/10/2012
Exactly.

This is what happens when misandry poses as feminism and remains unchallenged.
12:47 PM on 03/09/2012
Rocketman. Boys always appreciate a good fart scene.
photo
thorrsman
Why should I define myself by quoting others?
02:57 PM on 03/10/2012
Wrong.
07:41 AM on 03/12/2012
The normal ones do.
photo
jimdcb911
All gave some, some gave all.
12:25 PM on 03/09/2012
The movie is based on the Egar Rice Burroughs novel Princess of Mars. John Carter was the main character in this book and the first three books of his Martian series.
photo
HUFFPOST BLOGGER
Scott Mendelson
Film critic/pundit for Mendelson's Memos, Valley S
12:49 PM on 03/09/2012
I am aware...
photo
LazarusDurden
To Make A Long Story Short...
11:53 AM on 03/09/2012
The Democrats = Disney? Great argument Scott but stick to movies rather then politics. Apples and Oranges on that score brother.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:27 PM on 03/09/2012
yeah that kicker was very jarring!
photo
liberalsrheros
GOP's voter suppression, an insult to veterans.
09:13 AM on 03/11/2012
funny though, a piece on alienating an audience, with one sentence at end likely to have the same effect on 80% of the readers.
11:29 AM on 03/09/2012
I'm starting to crush on you. :)

I said this ten years ago and I'll say it now--the key to HUGE box office success is to make an action picture with a woman at the center, who has to choose between a good boy and a bad boy. Titanic, Twilight, the Pirates of the Caribbean. If you have that basic plot outline, you can make it as testosterone-filled as you like.
photo
sve
Behave yourselves!
11:08 AM on 03/09/2012
Who can forget "Brother Bear"? What about more coming of age movies starring talking animals?
10:34 AM on 03/09/2012
I have spent the last 15 years raising boys. Every week, our house is filled with boys - friends, friends of friends and some kid no one seems to know.

My sons have a large selection of movies. However, there are only six movies that our boys and their friends have watched over and over again, year after year.

National Treasure I and II
Sahara
Christmas Story
Sand Lot
Stand by me.
Ocean's eleven

These movies hold the key to the boy demos.
11:17 AM on 03/09/2012
that's 7 movies...... hope your boys count better than you do.
11:38 AM on 03/09/2012
In the life of a mom, a set counts as one. Only box to dust.