John Carter - Page 17

OMG Becky,..this was so bad. What are some of you smoking? really....this wasn't just bad, it was an abomination. I don't see how "any" kid with a normal brain will like it either since it was a Disney film. What a POC this was. Wow, can't believe I went through so much trouble this week to hunt down a copy at my BB. There was no BD only the dvd which was also a rental copy was ironically stupendous. Well, for those who actually can have any fun with this...a BD will be justified as the PQ is off the charts. If dvd's can look this good, I don't need BDs.

Smoking indeed. I have the 3D, BD, and DVD. I viewed the DVD for the commentary and it's nowhere near as good as either of the BD versions included. Detail, especially, is compromised on the DVD.

While it had good word of mouth, it also had an ad campaign that laid out what the film was about, and that was the main advantage over JC.

"You saw Iron Man, The Incredible Hulk, Thor, and Captain America, right? Well, they're all in a film together. Go see it!"

Pretty much everyone on Earth knew what the Avengers was about and where the characters came from ("Those comic booky things, right?), even if they didn't have a desire to go see it.

But that's not the only factor... it helps that all these movies from the first Iron Man to Capt. America were all highly entertaining, and as it's been said numerous times, Robert Downey Jr. is simply too cool to make a movie fail The Avengers is a team work yes, but without him, hmmm I have some doubts... Even the ones not familiar with Iron Man and the marvel world love the character because of RDJ. But credit where credit's due too, The Avengers is a very good and well done movie period, from everyone involved. I particularly like how Chris Evans is shaping his career. I remember the first time I saw Fantastic Four, I never heard of him and thought this guy has a great presence and has the potential to be a big star. He was my favorite character in the weak FF franchise (well there's Jessica Alba too of course) and he's about the only reason I still want to watch them every once in a while.

John Carter is a different story. No big bankable names attached, a dull title, a questionable ad campaign, and well, simply a lack of interest from the public... a 250 million budget was insane for this production imo, what were they thinking at Disney?? After Prince of Persia and The Sorcerer's Apprentice I would have been more careful...

And yet all those factors are absolutely forgiven had the movie been good, it wasn't...it was a big stinker. I was hoping this could be another 5th element were it bombed at the BO and with critics but became a cult following but my hopes were dashed about 5 min into the movie my gut tells me this isn't good. I'm watching it, watching it...and like nothing happens that I could even comprehend or find remotely interesting. Trying to salvage anything if there was something...the girl was was really hawt but was given nothing. And what kid can even understand or follow the adult oriented plot/script so Disney lost on both ends on this one once the word is out when people start seeing on dvd. Expect this to be on showtime or TBS very soon.

I like the source material. I liked the movie. It was a little long and the ending was off. I'd like to see a sequel.

I just posted my opinion in the 3D content thread but again, I just watched it and thought it was good and so did my wife. Never read any of the books but found the movie very decent as was the 3D.

Rented JC (2D) from Redbox yesterday (hard to find this title locally on DVD). Word of mouth drove me to it, plus the fact it's so elusive. I liked it. A lot. I only became aware of JC when someone here started a thread about 2 years ago (Books You'd Like To See Made Into Movies). Maybe knowing nothing about the books helped me enjoy it.

Found the CG well done, except for the flying ships early in the movie. The rest looks fantastic, especially the rendering of the native Martians; their character-design while not totally original, is quite realistic. There were a couple of places where the movie looked as though it had some digital "multi-pathing", but I'll blame that on the deep scratch on the rental disc. Plotwise, I only question Carter's "swordplay", but enjoyed the ride, nevertheless.

Strongly recommended as a rental, but am sure I'll eventually purchase.

Seems to be a lot of love coming forth for this movie. I liked it too and wonder if it was just bad timing on the release that drove this movie to fail at the box office. It wasn't a perfect movie, but was better than many. It was a good popcorn movie. I'd watch a sequel, but I don't see it happening.

AMEN!!..What a bunch of baloney this movie was..it was so bad on so many levels...If I had to say something positive it would only be about the "dog".. OMG!!.

i didnt think it was that bad. just watch it for the hollywood stuff and you'll enjoy it.

Yeah I've seen much worse, [Immortals comes to mind] it was passable nothing to write home about, but surely worth a rental.

Same i thoroughly enjoyed it. Im glad i bought it and will watch again.

I was over at a family gathering and they were watching JC so I had to sit through this crap again and it wasn't any better. In fact, you can see even more stupid things. For instance, does anyone notice how dumb and ridiculous Taylor kitsch looked in the 1st 30 min of the movie. I mean Cmon...they're in 16 or 17th century europe and he looks like some conan or chippendale dancer dressed up in some banker garg it was sooo hideous and stupid. The guy stuck out like in bad way it looks like some joke or punk scene, I just couldn't believe it. Oh btw, after an hour everyone started messing around with their cell phone, talking, goofing off, couple folks nodded off taking a nap... and next thing you know nobody is watching it...not even some of the kids they scattered off and played games on the pc.

19th century America. Says so on-screen right after the titles: "New York City, 1881".

The exterior urban shots and soundstage recordings were made at Shepperton Film Studios in the UK. The problem being, they were supposed to be in post Civil War Virginia - and instead they have that distinctly Victorian England look. Zoey67 was correct about both the area and the character, who in fact looks too contemporary.

If it was supposed to be Virginia, why does the movie explicitly say "New York City" on the screen?

You know something is bad when the only entertainment comes from everyone in the room demanding to see The Avengers trailer over and over again . Why did it turn out so horrible ?

Captain John Carter of Virginia was in fact a relative of E.R. Burroughs, generally accorded the title "Uncle", but in fact was an ageless, immortal being who had always appeared to be in his 30's throughout the centuries. At least, that was the way ERB wrote it. Even if the movie makers transplanted the locale from rural Virginia to NYC, the people and the sets were from Victorian England.

I suppose they thought we would not notice.

Why is it such an issue (Virginia vs. NY)?? He is from Virginia, that doesn't mean he can't travel to NY every once in a while...?

And the Mars landscape was from Utah. So what? My only point was that the sequences being discussed don't take place in "16 or 17th century europe" nor "post Civil War Virginia" because it says as much explicity on the screen. Nothing more complicated than that.

Correct, I suppose. The opening scenes of the BOOK were set in Virginia, but the MOVIE has all sorts of changes besides that. The cave was also in Colorado in the book.

Edit: If we are talking TRUTH here, then ERB was not actually a member of a genteel, aristocratic and wealthy Virginia family. I suppose he fancied himself that way.
Edited by Gary McCoy - 6/25/12 at 8:47am

It seems like Paramount didn't learn anything about changing titles to a guy's name. They had nice title One shot now officially called Jack Reacher. For me I know this will be a good film as Cruise doesn't make too many crappers but for everyone else using a guy's name to draw box office is not a good idea. ...

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=91997

What about "Jerry Maguire" then?

That's one of a few exceptions. But my main point is from the very recent bomb and fail of JC that I would assume the studios would take notice that's all. Again for me it's not big deal, I'm talking about the majority average moviegoer.

The Jack Reacher novels are contemporary, with the oldest being published in 1997, and sixteen more since then. While not exactly as well known as Harry Potter, he probably has about the same cache as Jason Bourne did when he jumped from the novels to the big screen (especially considering before the 2002 movie came out the last Bourne novel was published in 1990.) I think more than a few people recognize the name.

John Carter last appeared in an ERB penned novel in 1964 (and before that, 1948.) And Disney's marketing really whiffed on providing any sort of context of who JC was or what importance he had on adventure stories over the past 100 years.

It's not that movie titles that have a proper name are a bad idea (Michael Clayton did okay, too.) It's how the marketing handles it.


I think a bigger issue with the Jack Reacher film is that 5'6" Tom Cruise is being asked to play a character that is described as being 6'5" and able to kick just about anyone's ass using brute strength.
Edited by Tulpa - 6/27/12 at 4:20pm

Isn't this true of many of his action roles.

Yeah, but usually they get around it by casting people around his height so he looks more or less average. If he's to play the human room divider that is Reacher, what are they going to do, cast guys like Verne Troyer?

Don't know the character at all, but I'm 6'5". If I were cast in a movie and didn't have to stand in a hole (like Howie Long), my character would be 8' tall. You better believe that the height factor will be totally ignored and his antagonists won't be taller than 5'4".

How 'bout these guys?