or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Carter - Page 9

post #241 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DERG View Post

If this was one of your favorite novels of your youth, you won't be disappointed.

And I wasn't.

Just got back from seeing it in 3D (which not only wasn't distracting, but looked quite good for a post-conversion). Very enjoyable, with yet another nice score from Michael Giacchino. They made some worthwhile changes to the novel (thank goodness everyone doesn't communicate via telepathy) and one not so good change (too bad the princess isn't naked through the entire picture). I also loved how the special effects didn't call attention to themselves; much of it looked like it was filmed on location at those Barsoomian cities. Editing was a little uneven and the screenplay could have made a couple of things clearer. Best part was how sympathetic the main characters were, much more so than in the books. I really, REALLY wanted him to get the girl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vracer111 View Post

I received an e-mail from DMR advertising the movie...and oh boy was that advertising horrible

Agreed, the entire advertising campaign has been horrible: not just the trailers, but what's with those stupid posters. Reminds me of how Warners promoted 'Iron Giant'.

Like you, I will definitely see the film again theatrically.
post #242 of 544
I've got a hankering to see this one again myself. I particularly liked Stanton's change on how Carter was transported to Mars, the scenes between JC and Matai Shaing which illuminated the role and power of the Therns and of course the end. As stated, both Kitsch and Collins looked great and had great chemistry...of course it helped that even my old libido wanted me to transport to Barsoom to mash it up with Dejah. Collins was feisty and translucently beautiful...even though she wasn't naked (bad choice Disney).
post #243 of 544
I enjoyed it for what it was. I dont understand why its getting panned as much as it is. Still Disney imo did not market it as well as they should. I know people who thought it was a space Gladiator type movie.
post #244 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

I dont understand why its getting panned as much as it is.

Ditto.
post #245 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

I dont understand why its getting panned as much as it is.

I don't think it is getting panned, at least not by audiences. Most who went to see it enjoyed it. It's not getting much critical acclaim, but neither are any of the top box office movies in theaters right now. Even the Lorax wasn't reviewed that great and it's doing fine.

The main problem is that it's not a story that is easily summed up in a logline (and even if you did, you're likely to get some "It's about what?) Combine that with the atrocious marketing, it's not surprising it's where it is at. Not doing terrible, but not doing great.
post #246 of 544
Disney has a longstanding practice of marketing, re-marketing, packaging, re-packaging, and selling action figures, movie-themed toys, video games, etc. I do not doubt that they will recover their investment on John Carter. I do not doubt that they will make one, or possibly two sequels - now that the CGI and graphic designs are all done for Barsoom, the sequels can be made at a quarter the cost of the original.

Look for "Barsoom" to show up at all the Disney theme parks. Look for Tharks, banths, Woola dogs, and giant white apes. Look for temporary red tattoo kits, plastic swords, Thark rifles, etc.

In short, they are gonna make a big score. Even Disney's failures make more money than other studio's successes, when you count all the merchandise and the theme park tickets.
post #247 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Look for "Barsoom" to show up at all the Disney theme parks. Look for Tharks, banths, Woola dogs, and giant white apes. Look for temporary red tattoo kits, plastic swords, Thark rifles, etc.

In short, they are gonna make a big score.

I dunno. All that stuff costs money to create. Just because Disney makes it doesn't mean that it will sell. They've made a few flops (like Atlantis) and swept them quietly under the rug when the movie missed. Maybe making a video game or something along that line. If John Carter doesn't catch on like wildfire, I can see something similar.

Plus, Disney is the king of direct to video sequels of even their classics. I can see that happening.
post #248 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Disney has a longstanding practice of marketing, re-marketing, packaging, re-packaging, and selling action figures, movie-themed toys, video games, etc. I do not doubt that they will recover their investment on John Carter. I do not doubt that they will make one, or possibly two sequels - now that the CGI and graphic designs are all done for Barsoom, the sequels can be made at a quarter the cost of the original.

Look for "Barsoom" to show up at all the Disney theme parks. Look for Tharks, banths, Woola dogs, and giant white apes. Look for temporary red tattoo kits, plastic swords, Thark rifles, etc.

In short, they are gonna make a big score. Even Disney's failures make more money than other studio's successes, when you count all the merchandise and the theme park tickets.

Just one problem with this theory, Gary. Kids are not showing any interest in the movie or the character. I asked my teenage nephew if he was going to see it, and he said that it looked "boring." Kids don't buy toys, videogames or theme park tickets for things they think are boring.
post #249 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Look for "Barsoom" to show up at all the Disney theme parks. Look for Tharks, banths, Woola dogs, and giant white apes. Look for temporary red tattoo kits, plastic swords, Thark rifles, etc.

Let's add the Plantmen to the list, (The Gods of Mars) which I'm guessing will be in the sequel.
post #250 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

I don't think it is getting panned, at least not by audiences.

True, even on other forums, folks who have actually seen the movie have generally positive comments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulpa View Post

The main problem is that it's not a story that is easily summed up in a logline (and even if you did, you're likely to get some "It's about what?)

Summing up the story to its basic elements (disenchanted soldier enters another world, falls for princess, leads natives) has the other problem of making it then sound like an 'Avatar' rip-off. That's why the fan-based trailers were smart enough to put the story in context by hinting at its history ("inspired 100 years of filmmaking"). Wish Disney marketing had had such wherewithal. Again, reminds me of Warners and 'Iron Giant'.
post #251 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

True, even on other forums, folks who have actually seen the movie have generally positive comments. Summing up the story to its basic elements (disenchanted soldier enters another world, falls for princess, leads natives) has the other problem of making it then sound like an 'Avatar' rip-off. That's why the fan-based trailers were smart enough to put the story in context by hinting at its history ("inspired 100 years of filmmaking"). Wish Disney marketing had had such wherewithal. Again, reminds me of Warners and 'Iron Giant'.

Good point. I can only recall one trailer that even mentioned "...before Avatar, before Star Wars there was John Carter..." or something to that effect. Seems Disney should of pushed that point a bit more.
post #252 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Just one problem with this theory, Gary. Kids are not showing any interest in the movie or the character. I asked my teenage nephew if he was going to see it, and he said that it looked "boring." Kids don't buy toys, videogames or theme park tickets for things they think are boring.

Aha, if the princess was naked he might be more interested.
post #253 of 544
I'd like to see that in 3d......
post #254 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by thehun View Post

Aha, if the princess was naked he might be more interested.

Well, if Disney had taken the effort to push the boundaries of PG-13 with some jeweled pasties and a G-string, at least the male teenagers would have been interested. I still remember the stir caused by the Princess Leia costume when she was chained next to Jabba the Hut.
post #255 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

Well, if Disney had taken the effort to push the boundaries of PG-13 with some jeweled pasties and a G-string, at least the male teenagers would have been interested. I still remember the stir caused by the Princess Leia costume when she was chained next to Jabba the Hut.

I remember the outfit worn by Ornella Muti when she made her entrance in Flash Gordon. Hubba Hubba!
post #256 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Just one problem with this theory, Gary. Kids are not showing any interest in the movie or the character. I asked my teenage nephew if he was going to see it, and he said that it looked "boring." Kids don't buy toys, videogames or theme park tickets for things they think are boring.

Disney failed (deliberately? my theory here has to do with their recent 'Avatar' deal...) to throw their marketing prowess to woo the teenage crowd and totally ignored the under 13 crowd/families. With a few less h*lls and d**mns, a little less sword fighting and tune up the bar/brig scenes this movie would have been fine for older children/families ala the 'Star Wars' movies. Now I haven't read the books and obviously there are some strong adult themes (including religious elements) so this 'santization' would be a duel-edged sword. On one hand Disney could be dishing out happy meals, action figures, flying vehicles and toys for JC (who wouldn't want a cuddly Woola!) On the other the diehard Burrough's/book fans would have been disappointed with this watered-down treatment. At least the merchandising/marketing $$$ would have given us a few more nice action/adventure movies on Barsoom.
post #257 of 544
Just saw this in Real 3D.

Kinda dorky, but lots of action....with not a very deep story.

Some thoughts
....
Too much ripping off of SW (or is it the other way around?).
The hero was not very virtuous (a serious problem in a movie like this).
It was hard to believe a dazzling princess would fall for a self-centered guy.
Doing a movie about Mars, based on the views of science at the time of ERB, was simply a dumb idea (Mars with an atmosphere?).

However, on the plus side, the action is pretty good and does help brush over some of the problems.
SFX is very good...lottsa eye-candy.

All in all, this is a movie that should have been made 40, 50, 60 years ago, not in 2012.
post #258 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Just saw this in Real 3D.

Kinda dorky, but lots of action....with not a very deep story.

Some thoughts
....
Too much ripping off of SW (or is it the other way around?).
The hero was not very virtuous (a serious problem in a movie like this).
It was hard to believe a dazzling princess would fall for a self-centered guy.
Doing a movie about Mars, based on the views of science at the time of ERB, was simply a dumb idea (Mars with an atmosphere?).

However, on the plus side, the action is pretty good and does help brush over some of the problems.
SFX is very good...lottsa eye-candy.

All in all, this is a movie that should have been made 40, 50, 60 years ago, not in 2012.

not a deep story...

Nope it's pulp fiction. Burroughs wrote this over 100 years ago, heavily influenced by 19th century fantasists, but his audience were nickle magazine buyers looking for cheap thrills. As he got more successful, he published his stories as novels...none of them deep.

ripping off SW...come on .

The hero was not very virtuous...

As written JC is very 2 dimensional. Most of his stories in all his series feature the hero chasing after the love interest who's in peril from the dastardly bad guys. Stanton humanized JC, making him a man who had lost everything. I thought it worked very well. Dejah was also fleshed out and much more interesting. If Stanton had stayed with the ERB formula, the film would have been a disaster.

hard to believe the princess would fall for the self centered guy...

All chicks fall for the dude with great abs, plays hard to get and has a mysterious, painful past. I thought you knew this.

dumb idea...

Hey, you've got to suspend disbelief for most movies. In this case, you've got an established mythology. You buy in or don't. It's not supposed to make sense except within the rules of the story...not real life. They couldn't make this movie 40, 50, 60 years ago. They tried.

All in all, Stanton took the story, left in the key elements, changed some for the better and made a ripping yarn.
post #259 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

All in all, this is a movie that should have been made 40, 50, 60 years ago, not in 2012.

It's the 100th anniversary of the original story, so it was probably coming out no matter what.


Remember in 1992 when we had a bunch of movies about Columbus, and just about all of them sucked? Yeah...
post #260 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post

They couldn't make this movie 40, 50, 60 years ago. They tried.

First attempt, almost 80 years ago:

post #261 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Too much ripping off of SW (or is it the other way around?).

The other way around. The book was written in 1912; Star Wars 1970s. Shouldn't be too hard to figure that one out. But no one really ripped off anyone. Harryhausen, Lucas, Spielberg & Cameron were all very aware of & inspired by Burroughs & made movies they could do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

Doing a movie about Mars, based on the views of science at the time of ERB, was simply a dumb idea (Mars with an atmosphere?).

In the book, not the film, Burroughs describes an atmosphere plant to answer that one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

All in all, this is a movie that should have been made 40, 50, 60 years ago, not in 2012.

It was wise not to try. I can only imagine how ridiculous some of these characters would look in makeup instead of CGI. To see had bad, just check out the '70s Doug McClure films "At the Earth's Core" & The Land Time Forgot". I'm sure Burroughs rolled in his grave over those disasters
post #262 of 544
One more time: Edgar Rice Burroughs never wrote any Science Fiction. He did NOT have any background in Science. He only wrote Fantasy, and it was actually pretty inconsistent fantasy, because he had no patience for editors and never did a second draft. The John Carter stories are riddled with continuity problems, and things that are just flat out impossible.
post #263 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary McCoy View Post

One more time: Edgar Rice Burroughs never wrote any Science Fiction. He did NOT have any background in Science. He only wrote Fantasy, and it was actually pretty inconsistent fantasy, because he had no patience for editors and never did a second draft. The John Carter stories are riddled with continuity problems, and things that are just flat out impossible.

So what? Light speed is impossible, but this is done in plenty of films. Blue Na'vi's are not real but I'm sure supported but true science. And, who hasn't got a good lightsaber in their back pocket just in case the Storm Troopers drop-in stirring up trouble? I love them all because they're fun; & so was Burroughs books. Look, it's a movie. Nothing more than that.

Those "absent" editors found plenty of holes in Burroughs "Tarzan of the Apes". Apparently, Burroughs didn't know there were no tigers in Africa! The editors substituted lions, panthers, etc to correct this but in many cases forgot to remove the pin-stripe references to tigers. My English teachers hated Burroughs & wouldn't permit me to do book reports of his books. But, I read them anyway. Richard A. Lupoff's Burroughs biography referred to him as the "Master of Adventure". Perhaps "Master of Fantasy" would be more appropriate.
post #264 of 544
Actually, ERB is the very epitome of what was commonly called a "hack writer". He never studied English, or Literature, or Writing. He moved from his original career of enlisted US Army soldier through a variety of jobs, and his only training was reading other pulps before he became one of the most popular pulp writers. Then he became a WW2 war correspondent while in his late 60's.
post #265 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by DERG View Post

So what? Light speed is impossible, but this is done in plenty of films.

Light speed is possible, or else light wouldn't travel at that speed. Faster-than-light speed is impossible, by our current understanding of physics.
post #266 of 544
Seems fans want more!

According to MTV News, fans of the recently released, summarily forgotten "John Carter" are already petitioning Disney to make a sequel. Normally studios wait to see if a film will be successful or not to decide such things, but whatever.


So far, the movement's Facebook page has garnered over 1,800 members, seemingly signifying that a potential "John Carter II" could make at least $23,600. (Note: said figure is based on our completely unfounded assumption that the average theater ticket costs $12.50.) Will Disney be able to ignore such staggering, monumental profits? Only time will tell.


Meanwhile, "John Carter I"as it presumably will come be called the futurehas collected a meager $35 million domestically, and $106 million (and counting) around the world. Which puts it only $150 million in the red, at least as of right now. However, those figures leave out the countless millions Disney spent marketing the cinematic disaster. So the film has probably lost a lot more than that. Anyway, has any unprofitable movie ever garnered a sequel? We suppose if the producers of "Atlas Shrugged, Part I" can go forward with their plans for that franchise, anything is possible
post #267 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Light speed is possible, or else light wouldn't travel at that speed. Faster-than-light speed is impossible, by our current understanding of physics.

To be more precise, light speed is impossible (by our current understanding of physics) for anything (such as people and spaceships) with a non-zero rest mass. The not-really-particles-and-not-really-waves that make up light are different.

As for the whole "the science is ridiculous" argument about John Carter, yes it's unscientific, but why should that keep anyone from enjoying the story, any more than Star Wars or LOTR or Harry Potter?
post #268 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wytchone View Post

Seems fans want more!

Anyway, has any unprofitable movie ever garnered a sequel?

Off the top of my head, Tron.
post #269 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Temple View Post


not a deep story...

Nope it's pulp fiction. Burroughs wrote this over 100 years ago, heavily influenced by 19th century fantasists, but his audience were nickle magazine buyers looking for cheap thrills. As he got more successful, he published his stories as novels...none of them deep.

It's shallow "pulp" science fiction.


Quote:


ripping off SW...come on

From a MOVIE POV (I can't speak about the novel), this film re-purposes some stuff from SW....and yes, I realize GL probably was "inspired" by ERB's novel.
For better or worse GL got it up on the screen first and this movie reminds me of a lot of the SW flicks.

As in:
"Mars" looks too much like Tatooine, especially TPM.
The speeders from ROTJ.
The arena scene from AOTC.
The flying barges with the deck guns are similar to Jabba's.


Quote:


The hero was not very virtuous...

As written JC is very 2 dimensional. Most of his stories in all his series feature the hero chasing after the love interest who's in peril from the dastardly bad guys. Stanton humanized JC, making him a man who had lost everything. I thought it worked very well. Dejah was also fleshed out and much more interesting. If Stanton had stayed with the ERB formula, the film would have been a disaster.

JC spent too much of the movie concerned with gold to be a hero one can really root for.


Quote:


hard to believe the princess would fall for the self centered guy...

All chicks fall for the dude with great abs, plays hard to get and has a mysterious, painful past. I thought you knew this.

Actually, all females I have ever met are more attracted to $$$ than anything else.


Quote:


dumb idea...

Hey, you've got to suspend disbelief for most movies. In this case, you've got an established mythology. You buy in or don't. It's not supposed to make sense except within the rules of the story...not real life. They couldn't make this movie 40, 50, 60 years ago. They tried.

Like I said earlier, John Carter from Mars is not something the majority of today's film-goers are familar with....the kids have never heard of it.
And the big audience that would have been drawn to it (decades ago) are dead or too old to care.
post #270 of 544
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

From a MOVIE POV (I can't speak about the novel), this film re-purposes some stuff from SW....and yes, I realize GL probably was "inspired" by ERB's novel.
For better or worse GL got it up on the screen first and this movie reminds me of a lot of the SW flicks.

The thing is that if they didn't include a lot of that stuff then it really wouldn't be a John Carter story adaptation. Most of what's in the movie is also in the stories.

It'd be like trying to make a Moby Dick adaptation, and then say "well, we can't have them on the water chasing a whale, Spielberg already made a movie about a big sea beast hunted by some dudes on a boat."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home