AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › John Carter (2D)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

John Carter (2D)

post #1 of 49
Thread Starter 
Got and watched this one last night. Never bothered to see it in the theater due to poor word of mouth and what was arguably one of the worst promotional campaigns for a major motion picture in recent memory.

Surprisingly, it *is* a bit better than I expected but still far from great or even memorable in a quirky sort of way like say, David Lynch's "Dune" was. The wrap-around story that concerns Carter and "Ned" was actually the most rewarding part of the movie, the end kind of took me back to the ending of George Pal's "The Time Machine." One thing kind of bugged me about the soundtrack score - there's a 6 note "heroic" theme that sounds almost identical to that used previously in X-Men 3... maybe I'm just dreaming.

I breezed through the deleted scenes - most feature unfinished or missing effects, some to the point static line drawings of characters are used for placement of future (unfinished) CGI characters which is kind of funny to watch at times.

The Blu-ray presentation is pretty typical for this sort of giant budget green screen effects-laden flick. The indoor photography mostly seemed to be unusually dark and murky to the point there was some black crush in places. Sound was good, although the low freq sub sounded a bit muddy - not anywhere as tight as say, the "War Of The Worlds" or "Cloverfield" audio reference BRs. Vocals are pretty upfront and distinctive, something many big action movie BR releases seem to have a problem with these days.

Recommended for a single viewing for the whole family but little replay value... imo.
post #2 of 49
already available on br? boy what a turkey of a movie.
post #3 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Partyslammer View Post

Got and watched this one last night. Never bothered to see it in the theater due to poor word of mouth and what was arguably one of the worst promotional campaigns for a major motion picture in recent memory.

Surprisingly, it *is* a bit better than I expected but still far from great or even memorable in a quirky sort of way like say, David Lynch's "Dune" was. The wrap-around story that concerns Carter and "Ned" was actually the most rewarding part of the movie, the end kind of took me back to the ending of George Pal's "The Time Machine." One thing kind of bugged me about the soundtrack score - there's a 6 note "heroic" theme that sounds almost identical to that used previously in X-Men 3... maybe I'm just dreaming.

I breezed through the deleted scenes - most feature unfinished or missing effects, some to the point static line drawings of characters are used for placement of future (unfinished) CGI characters which is kind of funny to watch at times.

The Blu-ray presentation is pretty typical for this sort of giant budget green screen effects-laden flick. The indoor photography mostly seemed to be unusually dark and murky to the point there was some black crush in places. Sound was good, although the low freq sub sounded a bit muddy - not anywhere as tight as say, the "War Of The Worlds" or "Cloverfield" audio reference BRs. Vocals are pretty upfront and distinctive, something many big action movie BR releases seem to have a problem with these days.

Recommended for a single viewing for the whole family but little replay value... imo.

Stunning film, 99% of people that hated it never actually saw it.
post #4 of 49
It will be interesting to see if the BD sales of John Carter outperform those for The Asylum studio's mockbuster|knockbuster direct-to-video|Syfy Channel offering, Princess Of Mars (link).
post #5 of 49
I'm pretty sure that John Carter will sell more copies.
post #6 of 49
Ill definitely get this.
post #7 of 49
Liked the film. Wanted to love it, but ended up liking it (enough to buy the BD).
post #8 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Liked the film. Wanted to love it, but ended up liking it (enough to buy the BD).

Ditto
post #9 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by sdurani View Post

Liked the film. Wanted to love it, but ended up liking it (enough to buy the BD).

same... saw trailer, thought "this is going to be awesome", went to see it, thought it was pretty good
post #10 of 49
I liked it -- the 3-D was actually excellent -- but it really came down to the lead being so one-note. Put another actor other than Taylor Kitsch in there and it's entirely possible the film didn't disappoint financially the way it did.
post #11 of 49
I didn't catch the film in Theaters, but I have the 3D version pre-ordered on Amazon. I can't wait to check it out!
post #12 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Stunning film, 99% of people that hated it never actually saw it.

+1.

Reminded me so much of Flash Gordon, which I love.
post #13 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by cobolisdead View Post

I didn't catch the film in Theaters, but I have the 3D version pre-ordered on Amazon. I can't wait to check it out!

You won't be disappointed by the 3-D, it's outstanding IMO.
post #14 of 49
This movie will develop more of a following when people give it a shot on video. I enjoyed it and I wish it could have earned enough money to get a sequel.
post #15 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by raoul_duke View Post

+1.

Reminded me so much of Flash Gordon, which I love.

Exactly! It's the sci-fi movie I've always wanted.
post #16 of 49
Some of the worst promotions I have ever seen were for this film. The biggest shot in their own foot was releasing this through Disney. Just flogging the Disney logo in the promos made it seem far less like sci-fi and far more like JarJar Goes To Mars.

I plan to give this a shot when it comes out...
post #17 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

The biggest shot in their own foot was releasing this through Disney.

??

It wasn't "released through" Disney, it was a Disney picture all the way through. Or did you mean under the Walt Disney Pictures brand instead of under one of their other studios?

On the bright side, the marketing exec responsible for the poorly handled publicity for the movie was let go.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/enter...ecutive/51401/
post #18 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brandon B View Post

??

It wasn't "released through" Disney, it was a Disney picture all the way through. Or did you mean under the Walt Disney Pictures brand instead of under one of their other studios?

Absolutely. Let's face it, when you see the Disney logo, you aren't thinking of Omar Sharif riding to the well... the marketing looked childish, felt childish, and as I am not a child, I did not have any interest in seeing it. Only after reading about it and it's sci-fi history as well as a setting synopsis (Civil War soldier ends up on Mars) did it generate any interest. The Disney promos made it look like another ADHD friendly CGI twitchfest.

Quote:


On the bright side, the marketing exec responsible for the poorly handled publicity for the movie was let go.

Good, he earned it...
post #19 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by MEC2 View Post

Absolutely. Let's face it, when you see the Disney logo, you aren't thinking of Omar Sharif riding to the well... the marketing looked childish, felt childish, and as I am not a child, I did not have any interest in seeing it. Only after reading about it and it's sci-fi history as well as a setting synopsis (Civil War soldier ends up on Mars) did it generate any interest. The Disney promos made it look like another ADHD friendly CGI twitchfest.



Good, he earned it...

You are so right kids don't see movies, its lucky no kids saw Star Wars
post #20 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

You are so right kids don't see movies, its lucky no kids saw Star Wars

Hmmm, you aren't actually defending this failed marketing campaign are you? They had it wrong from the start in dropping "Of Mars" from the title. A friend told me he had no idea it was even a Sci Fi movie based on the posters he'd seen. The only good poster they had was the one for the 3D IMAX release.

If anything deserves to carry the blame for the poor box office, it's the marketing campaign.
post #21 of 49
The director of the film, Andrew Stanton, was responsible for the trailers, not the marketing executive that was let go. Staton basically had veto power over most aspects of the marketing campaign and the guy who let go wasn't even the person who was in charge of marketing for that particular project (that person was so frustrated with everything going on behind the scenes that they resigned).

But it's probably best not to go to much into the marketing behind this movie - if you're curious, the information is out there and only a search away. Certain people got worked up about it in the original thread for this title and it ended up being deleted.

This film ended up being a lot better than the marketing led me to believe it would be. Even if it's wildly successful on home video, however, the extent of the failure at the box office probably means there will never be a sequel, unfortunately. Though I'd certainly love to be proven wrong.
post #22 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

Hmmm, you aren't actually defending this failed marketing campaign are you? They had it wrong from the start in dropping "Of Mars" from the title. A friend told me he had no idea it was even a Sci Fi movie based on the posters he'd seen. The only good poster they had was the one for the 3D IMAX release.

If anything deserves to carry the blame for the poor box office, it's the marketing campaign.

People can't make their own minds up? Jack and Jill was really a better trailer?
post #23 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

Hmmm, you aren't actually defending this failed marketing campaign are you? They had it wrong from the start in dropping "Of Mars" from the title. A friend told me he had no idea it was even a Sci Fi movie based on the posters he'd seen. The only good poster they had was the one for the 3D IMAX release.

If anything deserves to carry the blame for the poor box office, it's the marketing campaign.

The reason they dropped "Of Mars" from the title is they didn't want another movie with Mars in the title after the flop "Mars Needs Moms" from the year before.
Totally agree that they dropped the ball on marketing of this movie.
post #24 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd371 View Post

The reason they dropped "Of Mars" from the title is they didn't want another movie with Mars in the title after the flop "Mars Needs Moms" from the year before.

That was asinine, moronic thinking ("oh, the content of MNM or the "needs moms" part of the title couldn't possibly have had anything to do with the movie's failure. It HAD to be Mars in the title"). Idiots.
post #25 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

Stunning film, 99% of people that hated it never actually saw it.

I don't see how anyone that's a fan of old pulp adventures can hate this movie. I thought it captured the feel of that sort of fiction really well. I really enjoyed it and have my copy pre-ordered from Best Buy with the bonus disc.
post #26 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

Hmmm, you aren't actually defending this failed marketing campaign are you? They had it wrong from the start in dropping "Of Mars" from the title. A friend told me he had no idea it was even a Sci Fi movie based on the posters he'd seen. The only good poster they had was the one for the 3D IMAX release.

If anything deserves to carry the blame for the poor box office, it's the marketing campaign.

I made my own mind up and went and saw it, I never need to be told by marketing shame others in the world do really.

I thought the trailers were fine, there have been worse trailers in the past year
I don't think the pulp thing sells to Joe six pack plain and simple.

I have hundreds of people each week come in to my shop and refuse to rent amazing movies as they are over 2 hours long, are they right?

Make your own mind up, On Stranger Tides had a bad trailer ad worse reviews and was a billion dollar movie.
Your argument means nothing really except you have no faith in people to go beyond a trailer and that is really sad you think that.

Calling it John Carter of Mars would not have helped it, people will or wont see it, they wanted Adam Sandler in drag and that is what they saw.
post #27 of 49
Hey Mike people make up their minds based on the information they are given, and most people don't live and breath movies.

Your opinion seems to be that nothing would have been better than the way they marketed this movie, despite it being one of the biggest box office busts of all time yet those who have actually seen it are of the opinion that the film didn't deserve returns nearly as poor as it got.
post #28 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by dvdmike007 View Post

I made my own mind up and went and saw it, I never need to be told by marketing shame others in the world do really.

[...]

Calling it John Carter of Mars would not have helped it, people will or wont see it, they wanted Adam Sandler in drag and that is what they saw.

Sandler's movie wasn't exactly a resounding success either, which I haven't seen cause I hate Sandler's *cough* humor.

I don't consider myself a 'joe-six-pack' and I think I'm reasonably intelligent. Yet, I had no interest in seeing JC. I guess if the marketing campaign had been better and better targeted, Disney could have picked my interest a little more. It didn't. From what I've read and heard though, John Carter is a mediocre movie. Mediocre in the true sense of term, not really bad but not really good. Word of mouth was inexistant cause people weren't interested, they didn't care. Frankly, this story still doesn't interest me, but I'll rent it. I certainly don't need a marketing campaign to make my mind up, but sometimes it does help. Is ID4 a great movie? Nope. But its intriguing ads generated buzz and hype - in the end people wanted to see it, and they went.

When I see a trailer for a movie I've never heard of, if that trailer does its job then it will at least pick my interest. That never happened with John Carter.
post #29 of 49
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sean_O View Post

Hey Mike people make up their minds based on the information they are given, and most people don't live and breath movies.

Your opinion seems to be that nothing would have been better than the way they marketed this movie, despite it being one of the biggest box office busts of all time yet those who have actually seen it are of the opinion that the film didn't deserve returns nearly as poor as it got.

Battleship had a good trailer
post #30 of 49
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morpheo View Post

Sandler's movie wasn't exactly a resounding success either, which I haven't seen cause I hate Sandler's *cough* humor.

I don't consider myself a 'joe-six-pack' and I think I'm reasonably intelligent. Yet, I had no interest in seeing JC. I guess if the marketing campaign had been better and better targeted, Disney could have picked my interest a little more. It didn't. From what I've read and heard though, John Carter is a mediocre movie. Mediocre in the true sense of term, not really bad but not really good. Word of mouth was inexistant cause people weren't interested, they didn't care. Frankly, this story still doesn't interest me, but I'll rent it. I certainly don't need a marketing campaign to make my mind up, but sometimes it does help. Is ID4 a great movie? Nope. But its intriguing ads generated buzz and hype - in the end people wanted to see it, and they went.

When I see a trailer for a movie I've never heard of, if that trailer does its job then it will at least pick my interest. That never happened with John Carter.

Agree with everything you say although I don't think the movie is quite down to the level of "mediocre." On a scale of 1 - 10, 10 being best, I'd give it a 5. "Average."
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Blu-ray Software
AVS › AVS Forum › Blu-ray & HD DVD › Blu-ray Software › John Carter (2D)