Mars Makes Movie Execs See Red

John Carter is the latest in a string of movies set on the Red Planet that have all wound up in the red, financially. John Matson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“We open on a lone soldier walking through the desert. The year: 1861. The place: Mars!”

Who wouldn’t want to see that movie? A lot of people, apparently. Disney’s John Carter isn’t doing so well at the box office, nor with critics. It’s bringing back memories of Mars Needs Moms, one of last year’s biggest flops.

Should studios give up on the Red Planet? A look back at space sci-fi films does reveal a trend. The recent movies set on Mars—Red Planet, Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars—have not performed all that well. Total Recall was a hit, but it featured Arnold back when he was a movie star, not a politician. 


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


So, what do moviegoers seem to like? Aliens are great, as long as they’re on our turf: War of the Worlds, Transformers. And alien worlds seem to work, as long as they’re imaginary. Think Avatar and Star Wars.

Disney can at least take solace in the fact that John Carter isn’t bombing on the order of the Adventures of Pluto Nash. That 2002 Eddie Murphy lunar comedy made only $7 million on a $100 million budget. Maybe they should have given the money to JPL.

—John Matson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe