The autopsy began before the corpse was even on the slab.

Mr. Beaks takes the film-journalism world to task for how they covered JOHN CARTER leading up to its release.

I’ll add an insight of Jean Cocteau's from 1948, those quaint times when tentpole movies only cost a couple million dollars:

The main danger confronting [film], not only in France but in all the countries of the world, is the amount that it costs and the fear of taking risks imposed on us by the money that producers invest. This deprives [film] of those contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and marvelous failures that allow art to overcome inertia and to break with habit.

I’m holding off on writing my thoughts about JOHN CARTER, as it’s the first film of 2012 that made me want to immediately watch it a second time.

But I will say this… None of us see a financial loss or gain if JOHN CARTER does well or poorly at the box-office. The financial success of the film has no impact on the quality of the film, as the film was made and finished long before any revenue was generated. Let the people who are actually invested in the success or failure of a film worry about its financial prospects. Why can’t we just celebrate the contrasts, experiments, flights of daring and, yes, even the marvelous failures?

Surely we have much more to gain from encouraging a conversation about film that ignores financial success and failure. No one comes out of a film saying “I really love the part where the studio made a lot of money releasing it” or “I really liked the film until I realized the studio lost money on it.”