Ray Bradbury’s Problem with John Carter

“The bigger your market, Montag, the less you handle controversy, remember that! […] People want to be happy, isn’t that right? […] Don’t we give them fun? That’s all we live for, isn’t it? For pleasure, for titillation? And you must admit our culture provides plenty of these.”

               -Fire Captain Beatty- 

Although not his sole intention in Fahrenheit 451, Ray Bradbury predicts and warns about the future of entertainment and in general America. In a recent article, Disney reported that it was going to have to eat nearly $200 million on its 3D, special effects darling John Carter, and for any cinephile (including this one), this could not be a more pleasing sight. (Although I have not seen it in theaters and will not, so as not to support it. It's doing so well without my help anyways.)The film seems to be another factory-made, big-budgeted blockbuster hopeful that flopped. But the intriguing part about Disney’s failure is that John Carter is a perfect example that there is a problem with the state of Hollywood, a good problem, if the movie industry adapts. So what is this “problem?”

John Carter looking bewildered at a book burning on Mars. "What's the problem?" he asks.

The internet: with it, a niche attitude has been created, not only in the United States, but all around the world. People are able to surf and find anything they are interested in, as specific and obscure as it may be. Whether someone is interested in Crunkcore or 1990’s-era Nicktoons, or whether someone is into men, women or animals for example, the internet is the place to be. Along with having access to that information, there are also small communities for said interests—minority groups, if you will—concerned exclusively with this type of entertainment. So why is this a concern for Hollywood?

Well, let’s put it in an economical context. Disney is recently declaring a $200 million dollar loss on the film John Cater, which, in its second week of release, has plummeted nearly 55% in revenue from ticket sales from its opening week. So why is this important, and why is this not just another flop? Who made the film: Disney—a giant, super-wealthy corporation. Who was their audience: everyone—the average Joe (or rather John). Disney wants everyone to see the film (including those into animals) so that it can recuperate its nearly 250 million dollar budget, and then some (ten-fold would be great.) Naturally, they are a business and want to make as much profit as possible; so in doing so, they try to appeal to the most general audience—the least common denominator.

Speaking of films that appeal to the least common denominator...

Why does the movie industry, and specifically Disney, have this attitude? Well according to Boxofficemojo.com, these are the statistics: on average, while the number of movies being made since 2001 has been wavering but been generally consistent, the total gross of films and the average price per ticket (by more than a dollar since 2001) has been steadily rising perennially; however, the number of total tickets sold has been decreasing since the peak year of 2002 (the immediate post-9/11 year.) Although these numbers can be interpreted in many different ways, and the reliability of said statistics may not be entirely accurate, what seems to be occurring is that while films garner record profits, less and less people go to the movies each year. Their audience is decreasing.

In fact, since 2001—the pivotal year—this decline in movie theater attendance has been attributed to increasing, cheaper-rental outlets (like Netflix, Redbox, etc.), but more recently, to the rise of the internet and movie bootlegging. At the same time, there seems to be a generalized trend in the content of film. For example, it seems that there are more film sequels, trilogies, or franchises; there is an increased number of remakes, superhero movies, and movies based on other popular material like book series’ and comic books; there are a lot more rehashed ideas (not that this did not exist before) with a bunch of glitzy special effects that create an even greater divide between actuality and fantasy.

It is difficult to pinpoint an exact moment or film that caused this trend, or the belief of this trend, to manifested itself, which makes it possible that, in general since the start of the millennium, record profits and decreasing attendance have developed concurrently. However, if you compare the average film budget in 2001 to the average film budget in 2011, it leaps from around 50 million to about 139 million dollars, compared to the ten years prior, approximately 25 million to 50 million from 1991 to 2000. Granted, these numbers are not set in stone, but what can be gleaned from them is a huge change, budgets have nearly tripled in the past decade, whereas only doubling the decade prior. Ticket prices have also increased at a greater rate from 2001 to now, compared to the decade prior (1991-2000). It seems safe to say that Hollywood is riding high on the waves of this trend, all the while making “beaucoup dolares.”

So, what is the point of this? Well, recently there has been an increase in anti-piracy legislation greatly aimed at restricting the internet. But why would Hollywood really care? They are still making a bunch of money. An interesting fact to note, that in post September 11^th America, there were claims of government officials meeting with Hollywood executives to “share […] the themes we’re communicating at home and abroad of patriotism, tolerance, and courage.”

Murica!

If this were to be correct, it would make sense that the government and Hollywood would want to restrict the internet, having less people use it to download freely “indie” or “subversive” films that do not align with what the government propagates. (Now, now, I’m not trying to proliferate a Hollywood/government propaganda conspiracy; I’m just trying to present the possibility of one.) It would make sense, that they would want audiences to increase—to flood, even—to the movie theaters. This is Hollywood’s current concern anyways, the decrease in theater audiences.

This is why such a big flop in John Carter could be important and beneficial to us as the audience. It would benefit companies like Disney to restructure what films they approve for production, to take on a new business-model, to separate themselves from the government (look at how well the government is running their business.) For example, if they start making six smaller-budgeted films rather than one John Carter-esque, huge-budgeted film, it would be easier to recuperate the money. It is easier to gain back 50 million dollars than 300 million dollars isn’t it?

Granted with more films on the market at lower budgets viewers would have more choice (oh no! wouldn’t want that! People thinking different things?!). And this would seemingly just disperse the already sparse theater-going public just creating more flops, right? Not necessarily. Assuming—hoping—that these films were of better quality and Hollywood lowered ticket prices, more people would go to cinemas, pumping more of that green into the economy. But also, studios could afford to do because they would not need to recover 300 million dollars for every film. So if audiences would increase, more people would see more films, it would be easier to gain back smaller budgets. And, if one film were to be very successful, the rewards would be extremely lucrative.

There is less risk, less chance of flopping a 50 million dollar film that Hollywood thinks “no one will see,” rather than a 300 million dollar film like John Carter that everyone has already seen. The movie industry appealing to a more diverse audience would be more beneficial for the audience, for the companies, and for the economy. Diversity is good. Look at the internet for example. If everyone keeps seeing John Carter in droves, what’s to say the makers of these films won’t start telling us that books are evil, that we should burn them?