.jpg)
This is the story of a guy called John Carter. He’s a protagonist from a series of Edgar Rice Burroughs science fiction novels. The first is called “The Princess of Mars” because the book is as much about Dejah Thoris, the titular princess, as it is about Carter. Today Disney releases its adaptation of the book, called “John Carter.”
Wait, what? “John Carter” sounds like an Oscar-bait movie about an unassuming middle management guy who has a mid-life crisis and learns the meaning of family, or something like that. It definitely doesn’t bring the genre “space epic” to mind. So what gives?
“The Princess and the Frog” didn’t make enough money, and the company’s marketing team decided to blame that on the word “princess.” It scares the guys away, you see. Because, as many have pointed out, no male has ever watched or enjoyed “The Princess Bride.” No, men just won’t go to see movies that star women or that even might have women in them for too long, and obviously there’s an important difference between man money and lady money and Disney wants the former.
The title was amended to “John Carter of Mars.” At least we still know that this is a science fiction movie, but it’s confusing because John Carter’s not actually from Mars. Not to fear, that title didn’t last long anyway.
Disney’s 2011 March flick, “Mars Needs Moms,” tanked. The crack marketing team from the House of Mouse determined that this time the culprit was the word “mars.” So now that’s out.
Next Disney worried that no one was interested in this movie, what with it starring princesses living on other planets. It released a series of unclear, inexplicable trailers, the only identifiable bit the fact that it stars a big muscly guy doing a lot of alpha-male things. While not wearing very much of a shirt, because they do have to placate those pesky women.
This February a bunch of rumors hit the Internet claiming that “John Carter” was doing abysmally with test audiences. There was even a quote floating around saying something like “women have roundly rejected the movie.” Oh us ladies, we make so much trouble.
It sounds like “John Carter” is about to go down as an expensive, embarrassing flop for Disney. I’m a little peeved at this point so I couldn’t care less, except for one thing: Disney’s going to find a way to blame this on another word, rather than get to the real root of the problem.
Or rather, several problems. First, the intense gender-based marketing. To be fair there is sadly an element of truth behind that in our society, that in general men want to watch different things than women. That’s why geeky girls like me get left in the dust; I would have gone to see a good adaptation of “The Princess of Mars.” But now I’m left angry that Disney feels that I, a lifelong Disney fan, is of less value because of my gender and that any trace of a woman in the film title must be erased.
It’s a move insulting to both men and women, saying that the presence of the latter scares away the former. It gives neither gender any credit, and basically insults the entirety of the audience. Classy move, Disney.
But the main issue is that Disney’s ignoring the real problem: maybe its creativity isn’t always what it once was, and people aren’t interested in special effects flicks with no substance. Instead, Disney’s trying to blame everything on wording in titles. Next time, my dear friend, expend that energy on better creative processes instead of clueless market research.
Related Articles:
Tangled: Hand Drawn vs. Computer Animation
A Study in Princesses: Giselle and Tiana
Exploring the Original Snow White
*(This image by NASA is licensed under the NASA Attribution License.)