<p> <em>The Lorax</em>, the highest grossing movie of 2012 on opening weekend, provided at least temporary relief for Hollywood's anxiety over sinking movie attendance. But then came <em>John Carter</em>, the year's biggest opening weekend disaster, not because absolutely no one went to see it but because the computer generated visuals (not to mention the marketing) were costly. The contrast in ticket sales should remind the industry that 3D is no panacea. While both movies aimed to be visually eye-popping, <em>The Lorax</em> proved compelling to a wide audience while <em>John Carter</em> drew a puzzled “Huh?” </p> <p><em>John Carter </em>isn't much worse than many other CGI blockbuster wannabesexcept for a plotline that's a little hard to follow and not worth the effort. Like many recent hits and flops of its sort, <em>John Carter </em>depends on seen-it-before, not-so-special SFX. The dialogue is unconvincingsometimes downright stiltedand the actors are given little to do but try to look serious in their silly costumes. <em>John Carter's</em> box office failure has more to do with executives and “creatives” who imagined they could produce a huge audience (and a new franchise) out of material relatively few people care about. </p> <p>2012 marks the centenary of the publication of Edgar Rice Burroughs\' <em>A Princess of Mars</em>, the pulp novel <em>John Carter</em> is based on, but the hundredth anniversary hasn't generated a great clamor of excitement. While Burroughs' Martian series continues to have its fans, it has also served as an object lesson in how not to write science fiction. The author is better remembered for introducing the world to Tarzan, a fictional character universally recognized with a long life on film. Mention John Carter and most of us would be forgiven for misidentifying him as an obscure Congressman from a Southern state. </p> <p>Especially disappointing (or puzzling) about <em>John Carter</em> is the role of esteemed director Andrew Stanton, the helmsman at Pixar Studio behind the amusing <em>Finding Nemo</em> and the brilliant <em>WALL-E</em>. Did working with live actors flummox him? Was he shooting from a ridiculous script as studio executives hovered over his shoulder like buzzards? Is this a sign that Pixar is going to the dogs rather than the rats? An animated version would have been a much better ideaand they should have called it by its given (and catchier) name, <em>A Princess of Mars</em>. <em>John Carter</em> sounds like an indie film about a disgruntled insurance salesman. </p> <p>Someone's head will probably roll down the Hollywood hills. Reportedly costing $350 million to make and market, <em>John Carter</em> took in only $30.6 million on opening weekend and receipts plunged steeply the following week. Of small comfort for the producers are the reports that <em>John Carter </em>is big in Russia, where fascination with the red planet Mars has never flagged. </p>
