Chrisisall
Master Member
Re: John Carter
Precisely.:unsure
Precisely.:unsure
John Carter (Post-release)
- Thread starter Vivek
- Start date
Re: John Carter
Exactly my emotions. SO wanted to be swept up into the world of Barsoom, as with LOTR for Middle Earth. We never got that, in fact they shied away from an expansive vision - why did more than half the film have to be set at night or underground?!
Exactly my emotions. SO wanted to be swept up into the world of Barsoom, as with LOTR for Middle Earth. We never got that, in fact they shied away from an expansive vision - why did more than half the film have to be set at night or underground?!
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: John Carter
Is there any attempt in the movie (or the books) to explain how a civilization has gone unnoticed on Mars and how John Carter is apparantly breathing air?
Is there any attempt in the movie (or the books) to explain how a civilization has gone unnoticed on Mars and how John Carter is apparantly breathing air?
Re: John Carter
Well, A Princess of Mars was published in 1912, I believe. Loooong before anyone figured out Mars was a dead planet. You can retcon some bogus Barsoom isn't really Mars, Carter just thought it was Mars because thats all he knew BS, but why bother.
Well, A Princess of Mars was published in 1912, I believe. Loooong before anyone figured out Mars was a dead planet. You can retcon some bogus Barsoom isn't really Mars, Carter just thought it was Mars because thats all he knew BS, but why bother.
rodneyfaile
Sr Member
Re: John Carter
To me, that is why it was a poor choice as a big budget movie. Instead of inspiring imagination, it strains the ability to suspend disbelief.
To me, that is why it was a poor choice as a big budget movie. Instead of inspiring imagination, it strains the ability to suspend disbelief.
Chrisisall
Master Member
Re: John Carter
How could it be noticed in the 19th Century? And the orbital shift that began the decline changed the air & water composition to create the Mars we see today.
Jedi2016
Sr Member
Re: John Carter
While I do agree somewhat with the article that Vivek posted, it does try to take the blame away from where some of the fault really does lie. The studios alone weren't to blame for JC's failure. The biggest mistake the filmmakers made (Stanton in particular if the stories are to be believed) was assuming that everyone already knew who John Carter was. That was the biggest conceit throughout all of the marketing, was making the average moviegoer feel like an idiot for having to Google the name. Myself included. I've read some Burroughs, but I hadn't read this Burroughs.
Going back to the style and time period of the film, I think today's moviegoing audience has grown beyond that point. Most people just can't get sucked into those kinds of stories the way they could a hundred years ago. That's why you don't see anyone trying to do a word-for-word adaptation of any story from that long ago, be it Bram Stoker or H.G. Wells or Jules Verne or any of them. They just don't work anymore, except for what they are. And Joe Consumer doesn't care about that.
If you bear in mind when the story was written, the movie actually plays a lot better. That style was very prevalent in that time period, and it comes across in the film.
While I do agree somewhat with the article that Vivek posted, it does try to take the blame away from where some of the fault really does lie. The studios alone weren't to blame for JC's failure. The biggest mistake the filmmakers made (Stanton in particular if the stories are to be believed) was assuming that everyone already knew who John Carter was. That was the biggest conceit throughout all of the marketing, was making the average moviegoer feel like an idiot for having to Google the name. Myself included. I've read some Burroughs, but I hadn't read this Burroughs.
Going back to the style and time period of the film, I think today's moviegoing audience has grown beyond that point. Most people just can't get sucked into those kinds of stories the way they could a hundred years ago. That's why you don't see anyone trying to do a word-for-word adaptation of any story from that long ago, be it Bram Stoker or H.G. Wells or Jules Verne or any of them. They just don't work anymore, except for what they are. And Joe Consumer doesn't care about that.
Chrisisall
Master Member
Re: John Carter
At some point, you will. Retro will become the new, er, old... or new... well, you know what I mean.
Camaro91
Well-Known Member
Re: John Carter
I just watched it and actually liked it. It's not the best movie but it's pretty good.
When I saw the previews for it I was like eh I never read the books before and my Dad knew who John Carter was. But the movie did a good job of explaining who he was and his story so from my stand point of a non John Carter follower I liked the movie.
I just watched it and actually liked it. It's not the best movie but it's pretty good.
When I saw the previews for it I was like eh I never read the books before and my Dad knew who John Carter was. But the movie did a good job of explaining who he was and his story so from my stand point of a non John Carter follower I liked the movie.
JasonofTigerclaw
Well-Known Member
Re: John Carter
The short answer is yes, in the books they do explain how there is a very thin atmosphere on Barsoom. The movie actually strayed fairly far away from the source material, but it took elements and (mostly) characters (in name and physical features only) from the first three books.
Burroughs wrote these books for his kids prior to creating Tarzan, and they are easy reads, but are very much in the category of "Pulp Fiction". Saying that, they were my first introduction to the Sci-fi genre as a kid, and still some of my favorite books to read.
The short answer is yes, in the books they do explain how there is a very thin atmosphere on Barsoom. The movie actually strayed fairly far away from the source material, but it took elements and (mostly) characters (in name and physical features only) from the first three books.
Burroughs wrote these books for his kids prior to creating Tarzan, and they are easy reads, but are very much in the category of "Pulp Fiction". Saying that, they were my first introduction to the Sci-fi genre as a kid, and still some of my favorite books to read.
Ronan87
Sr Member
Re: John Carter
John Carter was a fun afternoon at the movies.... movie. It was different and original (i sure as heck never heard of it before). It was fun to watch.
Battleship sucked... it just sucked... It felt like a movie some iditos in a suit would think of... oh wait...
John Carter was a fun afternoon at the movies.... movie. It was different and original (i sure as heck never heard of it before). It was fun to watch.
Battleship sucked... it just sucked... It felt like a movie some iditos in a suit would think of... oh wait...
Re: John Carter
Whoa, just looked the art book up at amazon. Another book that went through the roof price wise ...
Whoa, just looked the art book up at amazon. Another book that went through the roof price wise ...
transformershy
Member
Re: John Carter
Never went and saw this because it was a Disney movie XD
Never went and saw this because it was a Disney movie XD
Re: John Carter
I paid about $75 for it in a bricks-and-mortar. What's it fetching online? And yes, I can't believe I'm being this lazy, but I am, sue me.
I give the film about a 5.8, but the book a 7.5.
I paid about $75 for it in a bricks-and-mortar. What's it fetching online? And yes, I can't believe I'm being this lazy, but I am, sue me.
I give the film about a 5.8, but the book a 7.5.
Re: John Carter
Congratulations on the single most useless post I have ever seen, anywhere. :lol
Congratulations on the single most useless post I have ever seen, anywhere. :lol
Re: John Carter
I loved this film. Unfortunately, it harkens to an older audience that remembers serialized Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. It reminded me vaguely of 20,000 Leagues in terms of Disney adaptations. Obviously, not to the level of excellence (actors) but very much the same spirit. It also had some of the same marketing and audience capture issues as Sky Captain. I loved the look of this movie, the realization of Woola, and the obvious art design influences of Frazetta, Corben, and Vallejos. I lived the books as a kid so I was pretty damn happy this was made and fairly true to source. Box office successes aside, I thought this was what Avatar should have been. I will indeed own It on Bluray 2d and 3d.
As to marketing, I watched the broad release trailer again on iTunes. I remember seeing it in the theatre and being suspicious the movie would suck. I do wonder whether the lackluster marketing was intentional. Very misrepresentative to the spirit of the film. The articles on the Lorax and Battleship seemed spot on.
Very sorry it tanked. It didn't deserve that. It was not the greatest movie I've seen this year (that honor goes to Cabin in the Woods for humor and originality alone), but I would have liked a sequel.
My 2cents here.
Doc
PS: maybe a live action Den of Earth with an appeal to an older audience with a solid R rating would succeed. John Carter was the stuff of my preeteens, Heavy Metal solidly my teens.
I loved this film. Unfortunately, it harkens to an older audience that remembers serialized Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon. It reminded me vaguely of 20,000 Leagues in terms of Disney adaptations. Obviously, not to the level of excellence (actors) but very much the same spirit. It also had some of the same marketing and audience capture issues as Sky Captain. I loved the look of this movie, the realization of Woola, and the obvious art design influences of Frazetta, Corben, and Vallejos. I lived the books as a kid so I was pretty damn happy this was made and fairly true to source. Box office successes aside, I thought this was what Avatar should have been. I will indeed own It on Bluray 2d and 3d.
As to marketing, I watched the broad release trailer again on iTunes. I remember seeing it in the theatre and being suspicious the movie would suck. I do wonder whether the lackluster marketing was intentional. Very misrepresentative to the spirit of the film. The articles on the Lorax and Battleship seemed spot on.
Very sorry it tanked. It didn't deserve that. It was not the greatest movie I've seen this year (that honor goes to Cabin in the Woods for humor and originality alone), but I would have liked a sequel.
My 2cents here.
Doc
PS: maybe a live action Den of Earth with an appeal to an older audience with a solid R rating would succeed. John Carter was the stuff of my preeteens, Heavy Metal solidly my teens.
Last edited:
Contec
Master Member
Re: John Carter
In the first book Mars have huge (old) machines that start to malfunction and they are locked away and not many people know the password to the doors.
The first book ends almost the the same way as Arnolds Total Recall movie.... Get your ass to mars- fight the bad guy's-save the girl (princess) start the air machines..:thumbsup
In the first book Mars have huge (old) machines that start to malfunction and they are locked away and not many people know the password to the doors.
The first book ends almost the the same way as Arnolds Total Recall movie.... Get your ass to mars- fight the bad guy's-save the girl (princess) start the air machines..:thumbsup
Similar threads
