Disney Lost JOHN CARTER Rights; Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. Plan More Films

Disney Lost JOHN CARTER Rights; Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. Plan More Films

In March of 2012, Disney announced that it lost $200M on Andrew Stanton's John Carter. So, it should come as no surprise that Disney has allowed the film rights to John Carter to revert back to Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.. Come check it out.

By nailbiter111 - Oct 21, 2014 12:10 PM EST
Filed Under: Other
Source: blogs.indiewire.com
There's no doubt that Disney had high-expectations for John Carter when they bestowed a hefty budget upon Andrew Stanton's 2010 sci-fi/adventure film. Now for most films earning nearly $300M at the worldwide box office would be deemed a success but the production budget was nearly as much as its earning. And remember, that's just the production costs. When all was said and done Disney said that the film cost them a whopping $200M. Geesh! That put the kibosh on any further tales of John Carter. Director Andrew Stanton was so oppomistic that he had title cards made for potential sequels: "Gods of Mars" and "Warlords of Mars."

Now Disney has allowed the rights to John Carter to revert back to the Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc. and they plan to try once again to create a movie franchise out of the material. President of the Edgar Rice Burroughs Inc., James Sullos, issued the following statement:

John Carter of Mars was the creative stimulus behind such movie classics as Superman, Star Wars and Avatar. Edgar Rice Burroughs was the Master of Adventure and his literary works continue to enjoy a world-wide following. We will be seeking a new partner to help develop new adventures on film as chronicled in the eleven Mars novels Burroughs wrote. This adventure never stops. Along with a new TARZAN film in development by Warner Bros., we hope to have JOHN CARTER OF MARS become another major franchise to entertain world-wide audiences of all ages.”
From Academy Award® - winning filmmaker Andrew Stanton ("WALL-E") comes John Carter - a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). Based on Edgar Rice Burroughs’ classic novel, John Carter is a war-weary, former military captain who’s inexplicably transported to Mars and reluctantly becomes embroiled in an epic conflict. It’s a world on the brink of collapse, and Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands. Stunning special effects, great characters and villains - John Carter is a heroic and inspirational adventure that will thrill you beyond imagination.
REAGAN Interview: Jon Voight On His Approach To Playing A KGB Agent And Pandemic Challenges (Exclusive)
Related:

REAGAN Interview: Jon Voight On His Approach To Playing A KGB Agent And Pandemic Challenges (Exclusive)

REAGAN Interview: Dennis Quaid & Penelope Ann Miller Explore Ronald And Nancy's Hollywood History (Exclusive)
Recommended For You:

REAGAN Interview: Dennis Quaid & Penelope Ann Miller Explore Ronald And Nancy's Hollywood History (Exclusive)

DISCLAIMER: ComicBookMovie.com is protected under the DMCA (Digital Millenium Copyright Act) and... [MORE]

ComicBookMovie.com, and/or the user who contributed this post, may earn commissions or revenue through clicks or purchases made through any third-party links contained within the content above.

1 2
SimyJo
SimyJo - 10/21/2014, 12:20 PM
Good!, the mouse has lost interest! - because throwing shitloads of money at something does not necessarily equal a good film / adaptation. Hope someone else has better success!.
kylo0607
kylo0607 - 10/21/2014, 12:21 PM
This is bad news. I may be in the minority, but I enjoyed this film. Enjoyed in the cinema. In my opinion, this was how a Planet Hulk film should look like, but without the Hulk. It had some cool action and visuals. Too bad that it flopped.
drfate
drfate - 10/21/2014, 12:21 PM
Shame. I liked the last movie. Let's see if someone else can work it.
Liderc
Liderc - 10/21/2014, 12:21 PM
Good luck with that lol. That movie was possibly the worst movie I've ever seen.
DrRockit13
DrRockit13 - 10/21/2014, 12:25 PM
I actually liked this film. So I'm glad we will be getting more.
Jayce81
Jayce81 - 10/21/2014, 12:26 PM
I thought John Carter was excellent and I'm bummed that we didn't get a sequel in that universe.
JAC
JAC - 10/21/2014, 12:27 PM
I never saw it but I heard it was pretty good. I'll see if I can watch it this week.
Blackspider2408
Blackspider2408 - 10/21/2014, 12:28 PM
I don't think it will phase them since they have Star Wars and marvel
TheDarkPassenger
TheDarkPassenger - 10/21/2014, 12:28 PM
I remember watching what was supposed to be a super emotional scene with John Carter slaughtering an army while remembering burying his wife. Then it showed that weird dog thing open its huge mouth and swallow a guy in a hilarious and fake looking way.
GareBear36
GareBear36 - 10/21/2014, 12:30 PM
Normally I judge a movie based on how much I play on my phone during it. During this movie, I caught myself watching Netflix on my tablet... Yea...That good.
Mankzin2
Mankzin2 - 10/21/2014, 12:30 PM
They failed at marketing this movie correctly.
McGee
McGee - 10/21/2014, 12:31 PM
I read A Princess of Mars once when I was in middle school, and it wasn't even assigned reading.

That makes me better than all of you.

MonsterSquad35
MonsterSquad35 - 10/21/2014, 12:33 PM
This movie stunk.

Plain and simple.

I'd rather watch Critters 1-4 on repeat. Actually, Critters 1 was a great movie.

"CRITES!"
PAF
PAF - 10/21/2014, 12:33 PM
Sad. This movie was good. The marketing was horrible.
Graz
Graz - 10/21/2014, 12:36 PM
SAC!
TheBuoyWonder
TheBuoyWonder - 10/21/2014, 12:38 PM
I liked the movie.
Hoped for sequels since it kinda ended on a cliffhanger.
Bah
HavocPrime
HavocPrime - 10/21/2014, 12:39 PM
I thought it was great and I hope they do make the rest of what Stanton was going to do.

Without Taylor Kitsch though, as he is a terrible actor.
Dmon
Dmon - 10/21/2014, 12:40 PM
I loved this movie. They should have called it Warlord of Mars or something and advertised it better. I would much rather watch this again than IM3, Thor or Thor 2 any day.
McGee
McGee - 10/21/2014, 12:40 PM
Why didn't they call it John Carter of Mars? That's way more interesting than "John Carter". This is why "John Wick" will fail.
djv1985
djv1985 - 10/21/2014, 12:41 PM
Someone needs to remind the estate that the first five books in the series are in the public domain which means they have no right to the stories and or trademark of the original characters and any characters that are part of the first five books.

Why Disney, of all companies, wont point this out is beyond me. Dynamite comics were taken to court just a while back over the story and I'm sure they won because the stories were deemed in the public domain - Just change the title - Hero of Mars, Champion of Mars hell call it Champions of Mars and bring in Tarzan.

These stories are already free for everyone in the US and soon will be the case in the rest of the world, this company has been in trouble before for doing the same thing and demanding money for it. Sorry but I'm gonna start working on my own version JOHN CARTER OF MARS.
JorL5150
JorL5150 - 10/21/2014, 12:49 PM
Well this makes me in the fringe minority here - but I LIKED it.

(Not as fringe as the sect of Mormons I'm starting up though - those regular Mormons are way too mainstream and worldly )
HeisenbergSaysRelax
HeisenbergSaysRelax - 10/21/2014, 12:53 PM
I was always under the impression that the John Carter characters (as well as Tarzan and most of everything else Burroughs has done) was in the public domain and, therefore, the rights couldn't revert, since nobody can own the rights to something within the public domain, they can only own the rights to their specific interpretation (Disney's fairy tale adaptions come to mind).

So...Not sure what this is all about. You'd think Disney would know better.
beane2099
beane2099 - 10/21/2014, 12:54 PM
I thought that movie was awesome. But Disney doesn't deserve the rights after the way the execs played around with it. Just to get back at the previous administration they let it tank and also set back Andrew Stanton's career as a live action director.
SimyJo
SimyJo - 10/21/2014, 12:57 PM
yeah, they could of added like 30-40% better uptake of the movie just by not changing the title at the last minute. ....and the warlords of mars would of added more clarity - they committee and guy who made the decision to drop the title should of been fired.
Joementum
Joementum - 10/21/2014, 1:12 PM
Kind of hard imagining a better production Mars and its' races..
ruadh
ruadh - 10/21/2014, 1:14 PM
@McGee
"Why didn't they call it John Carter of Mars? That's way more interesting than "John Carter". This is why "John Wick" will fail."

While I agree about the "of Mars" thing, and I also cannot stand movies named after a character with a boring name, the Wick trailer is probably too badass for the serious action fan to turn down. Also, Jerry Maguire did alright didn't it? But basically, John Wick, Jerry Maguire, and John Carter all sound like boring business executives you may meet in the ballroom gathering of some hotel in Chicago. And certainly not a movie I want to watch.

ruadh
ruadh - 10/21/2014, 1:16 PM
Also, I am one who enjoyed the film. Despite the title, and the horrendously bad marketing campaign, I liked the movie. I can't imagine a smaller budget would help another version at all, so I don't really have much hope for some else's take on it.
Emjeed
Emjeed - 10/21/2014, 1:21 PM
Watch. WB is about to buy the rights and have another franchise in their stable.
McGee
McGee - 10/21/2014, 1:22 PM
The only other cliche I hate is naming a biopic after the person's first name or last name by itself. Ray. Patton. Milk. Bugsy. Hoffa. Nixon. Selena.
TheAbomination
TheAbomination - 10/21/2014, 1:23 PM
The movie wasn't bad. It was just marketed horribly.
1 2
View Recorder