Amph Disney's JOHN CARTER (Trailer inside)

1. What does me liking Sherlock Holmes got to do with anything?

2. I've never seen Dragonlance.

I was just posting my impression based on the trailer. I don't know whether the story is original or an adaptation of something, but that's what it looked like to me. *shrug*

 

These books were written 100 years ago, and if anything, George Lucas and James Cameron were the ones borrowing from Burroughs.

Besides, the only reason Lucas put a damn blood sport arena in Attack of the Clones was because he saw how much money Ridley Scott's Gladiator brought in and figured "Hey, nerds will love this if I make it bigger, louder, and with lightsabers."

As for Avatar...the humans arent taking over Martian bodies. So that argument is null and void.

 

1. Both are adaptations of pulp classics.

2. But I'm sure you understood what I meant, right?

Ah, the arrogance of the wilfully ignorant.

 

The books may have been written a hundred years ago. The problem is the movie is being made now.
It looks like a total composite. The director doesn't get to say, "These books were written before Avatar, etc." and have the audience memory wiped.
I can't believe they didn't think to at least try and have it not look so much like existing material.

 

Once again: should Peter Jackson have changed the look of the elves because they had become omnipresent in popular culture thanks to Dungeons & Dragons? No, right? I'm glad it might look to the uneducated in the works of Burroughs like a composite: it just shows how many storytellers have drank from his fountain. The movie might be a piece of crap, sure, but it's not going to be because Lucas decided to have his own Barsoom with Geonosis.

 

Agreed.

Though isn't the "look of the elves" in LotR, insofar as their ears are concerned, somewhat contentious?

 

That's a big stretch though... No one looked at the LOTR trailer and said, "That looks exactly like.. "

It's not fair that this looks like an Avatar (which sucked anyway) ripoff with AOTC for good measure but it does.

I'm not questioning the creative decision, just the business one.

 

Sure, it's a brave decision, but what else can you do, other than not shooting the movie? Changing it beyond recognition? Making a movie inspired by A Princess of Mars? I wouldn't throw a fit if they had done that, but I'm glad thy went with a close adaptation: the material is absurdly cinematic for its age. It deserves to be known by a major audience.

And who knows, maybe the Avatar comparisons are going to help the movie more than hurt it. Time will say.

 

was this a comic book or something?

 

lol, really? I had no idea.

 

Now That's How You Market John Carter.

Shame Disney can't figure it out.

 

TBH the advertisement around here is actually what made me want to see the film...I had been hesitant beforehand. Not that I think they've handled it well overall. They should have started with just John Carter, and ended with that as the title. Because the posters look so badass when that's all they say with no hint of anything else.

 

I like the official trailers and I like the fanmade trailer linked above. I read two John Carter books in my youth and I'm keen on seeing the film version, which I think looks spectacular.

Incidentally, my wife, who never heard of John Carter, was impressed by the trailer enough to want to see the movie. That's the definition of effective marketing.

 

I think Disney is already looking to write this off some how. Early reviews haven't been to favorable, and some say the budget ballooned from it's 175 million to like 250. I really don't see this movie making it's money back.

Maybe going animated would have been a better route.

 

My hope escalated once I learned that Andrew Stanton directed it, but yeah...maybe this will prove that he should stick with animated features. Still...it might be good.

 

They wouldn't have, they chose live action + the pixar guy to direct it for a reason.

 

Rather good final trailer

 

Article

Interesting projections on how much Disney could lose, or possibly even make, on this.

 

What's interesting is that no JCers posted their thoughts on the movie here. lol
I guess no one saw it.

 

I saw it with my son and his best friend. It was a brilliantly rendered, beautiful movie with a good (if hardly fresh) storyline. We loved it. The theater we watched it in was packed. It was a Saturday at a cinema cafe, though, and the audience was almost all families. I think the problem with the movie was that they couldn't decide who they were marketing the movie to.

I was unfamiliar with the story so I never had any nerdgasms or anything. The whole "Mars" thing almost put me off completely since it just seemed kind of a silly idea today. Btw, for this reason, I think it'd be a terrible idea to make Stranger in a Strange Land without taking some serious artistic license with the original story.

At the end of the day, I watched this movie for the same reason I watched Prince of Persia--it was the closest thing to interesting to watch on the weekend in question.

But like I said, it was fun.

 

I've read the two Barsoom novels ages ago and found them a bit dry. They seem a tad naive nowdays, however considering they've been written almost a century ago, it is a pretty cool concept. And I wouldn't mind seeing the SF cliches that were inspired by Burroughs in the first place; cliches are cliches for a reason - if it wasn't appealing it would not have caught on to become a cliche.

I'm going to see the film in a few days, expecting it to be entertaining at least, but not looking for something 'meaningful' or 'different'.

 

I watched it on opening day and was nearly bored out of my skull by the bad exposition, uninteresting characters and dreary writing.

It's not like I went in wanting not to like it; in spite of all the bad press, I was kind of hoping it would be OK. Sadly, it wasn't. This was also the first time I ever noticed other viewers walking out halfway through the movie on an IMAX theater.

The latest box office figures seem to confirm it's going to have a very brief run in theaters - it was down by about 60% on the 2nd weekend, and with "Hunger Games" coming out next Friday, I don't think it's got much of a chance domestically.

The article posted earlier suggested there was still a chance the movie would not be such a huge money loser for Disney; though the prospects of a sequel seem decidedly bleak at the moment. But, who knows? Maybe they'll create a "John Carter" ride for the theme parks?

 

possibly the worst movie I have seen this year.

The previous post explained the major flaws in it.

The worst is that it was boring. That is unforgivable.

 

I went to see it on opening night and then again this weekend. I loved it, I didn't find it boring, in fact I get bored really easily in movies and this one didn't bore me at all. I didn't mind the "cliches." Actually the story felt a lot fresher than I was expecting considering how influential the books were on science fiction.

I thought the story moved along at a nice clip and the action was fun, there were a couple of really amusing moments where I laughed pretty hard - the sequence of John getting increasingly more incarcerated as he tried to attack Brian Cranston, and the bit with him learning to walk/leap on Mars, along with every time the Tharks called him "Virginia" . I loved Dejah tons, and I thought Taylor Kitsch and Mark Strong did a great job, the effects were great, I didn't have any problems with the CGI like I was expecting to (I saw it in 2D, not sure if the 3D was worth it). It reminded me a lot of Prince of Persia, which was one of my favorite movies of 2010, a fun, easy to watch, family-friendly sci fi action flick with insanely attractive leads.

 

I completely agree with Dani on everything.

I will also add that I can't recall a movie since maybe Mr. & Mrs. Smith that offered equal amounts of eye-candy wrapped in pretty-damned good acting for both genders. Lynn Collins and Taylor Kitsch are two of the most beautiful people I've seen on screen in a long time. And they're completely believable and entertaining actors, too.