PDA

View Full Version : John Carter



ThePhantasm
2012-03-09, 06:22 PM
If you have any love for sci fi go see John Carter. I know the marketing for it has sucked big time but the movie really is good. Better than all the Star Wars prequels, I thought. Lots of fun, sympathetic characters, lots of adventure... I loved it.

t209
2012-03-09, 06:26 PM
If you have any love for sci fi go see John Carter. I know the marketing for it has sucked big time but the movie really is good. Better than all the Star Wars prequels, I thought. Lots of fun, sympathetic characters, lots of adventure... I loved it.

Too bad it took 90 years to become popular. Do you know that the author of John Carter wrote Tarzan?

Weezer
2012-03-09, 06:47 PM
Have you read the book? How true to the story is it?

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-09, 06:47 PM
Better than all the Star Wars prequels, I thought.That's like saying that having a meal prepared for you is better than being a hostage in a violent criminal's car as he slams it into a brick wall at 120 miles per hour.

On that note, why did they feel such a desperate need to leave the OF MARS out of the title? :confused:

Axolotl
2012-03-09, 06:53 PM
I'm planning on seeing this tomorrow if I get the chance.

What's really interesting is how Disney have set it up to fail with the marketing.

Morph Bark
2012-03-09, 07:01 PM
That's like saying that having a meal prepared for you is better than being a hostage in a violent criminal's car as he slams it into a brick wall at 120 miles per hour.

Aside from Jar-Jar, I thought the prequels were sorta enjoyable.


I was rather surprised with this movie coming out though, with it being based on such an old book. Wasn't familiar with it before now. Trailer certainly makes it look interesting to me.

Eldan
2012-03-09, 07:03 PM
I have gone into a bookshop and bought a copy of the Mars Trilogy for my classics shelf. Perhaps I'll even go see the movie.

I was only familiar with it indirectly, via Otherland.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-09, 08:26 PM
On that note, why did they feel such a desperate need to leave the OF MARS out of the title? :confused:

Watch through to the end of the film and you will understand. That's all I'll say. It has a reason and it makes sense.

As far as faithfulness to the books - there are some differences and some things that were added. But largely the film seemed faithful to the feel, setting, characters, and overall story of the books (at least, as far as I remember them). Overall it is a really fun experience. I guess if you are a total purist you might be disappointed, but movies are a different medium than books... overall it is faithful and I don't see any reason why John Carter fans should be disappointed.

One thing I should note... they did import some things from the later sequels into the main story (this film is mainly based on Princess of Mars). But I understand why they did it - mostly to set up a trilogy better and connect future films to the main story. They weren't really additions or alterations that I felt too bothered by. Your mileage may differ.

And yes, I knew that the guy who wrote it wrote Tarzan (I've read the books) :smallwink: .

Kindablue
2012-03-09, 09:28 PM
What's really interesting is how Disney have set it up to fail with the marketing.

I just found out that Willem Dafoe is in this.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-09, 11:16 PM
Watch through to the end of the film and you will understand. That's all I'll say. It has a reason and it makes sense.


Can you please at least confirm

It's not a Planet Of The Apes Ending, where he was actually on Earth in the future or something?

Because that would give me the need to reach out through the internet and punch every person involved in making this movie.

Coidzor
2012-03-09, 11:20 PM
On that note, why did they feel such a desperate need to leave the OF MARS out of the title? :confused:

I heard they thought it was too corny and would be a turn-off to women who would otherwise want to see it or get dragged there by significant others. But that was basically hearsay from an article on slate.com.

As a side note...

Did anyone hear anything about this movie at all before it came out?

I only just noticed because of the slate article and this thread.

Kindablue
2012-03-09, 11:40 PM
As a side note...

Did anyone hear anything about this movie at all before it came out?

I only just noticed because of the slate article and this thread.

Yeah, I did; the last time I went to the movies was Christmas day, and if I remember correctly there was a poster for it on the wall. It looked pretty brainless and didn't really interest me until now, though.

Lord Seth
2012-03-10, 03:36 AM
That's like saying that having a meal prepared for you is better than being a hostage in a violent criminal's car as he slams it into a brick wall at 120 miles per hour.Please. The prequels were by no means good, but they are not that bad.


On that note, why did they feel such a desperate need to leave the OF MARS out of the title? :confused:Better marketing most likely. The "of Mars" just seems superfluous and unnecessarily makes the title longer.

TheCountAlucard
2012-03-10, 03:42 AM
The "of Mars" just seems superfluous and unnecessarily makes the title longer.I really don't think it does. I talked to people who said the then-upcoming movie looked neat, but asked me, "Why is he superstrong and whatnot?", to which I replied, "It's because he's on Mars, where the gravity isn't as strong," to which they replied, "He's on Mars? :smallconfused:"

MLai
2012-03-10, 07:09 AM
1. What do you guys mean that Disney messed up on the marketing? Do you mean Disney didn't market it? I knew about this movie since late 2011, and I'm not a big film buff. And I'm in Singapore.

2. Taking out "of Mars" is stupid, because it removes all context. John Carter of Mars does not sound corny; that's like saying "A Space Odyssey" needs to be taken out and the title should only be "2001." Disney is a moron for that much I'll agree.

Eldan
2012-03-10, 07:25 AM
I've been to the cinema half a dozen times, maybe, this past year, twice in the last month, and I've never seen a trailer. I've also never seen a poster before it started. So, yeah. At least around here, the marketing is horrible.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-10, 08:42 AM
Can you please at least confirm

It's not a Planet Of The Apes Ending, where he was actually on Earth in the future or something?

Because that would give me the need to reach out through the internet and punch every person involved in making this movie.

No, it isn't that. :smalltongue:

It has more to do with JC's character arc. That's all I'll say.

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-10, 09:34 AM
No, it isn't that. :smalltongue:

It has more to do with JC's character arc. That's all I'll say.

So you're saying there's a neat little arc where John is initially reluctant to get involved, and then gradually comes to fully accept himself as John Carter Of Mars and learns to be the hero of these people? Something like that? Because I'd watch that plot arc. It's tried and true.

(I'm just making random stabs in the dark)

ThePhantasm
2012-03-10, 10:06 AM
So you're saying there's a neat little arc where John is initially reluctant to get involved, and then gradually comes to fully accept himself as John Carter Of Mars and learns to be the hero of these people? Something like that? Because I'd watch that plot arc. It's tried and true.

(I'm just making random stabs in the dark)

You are a genius. Right on the money. In fact, at the end of the film he accepts that he is John Carter of Mars and the titles come up: JOHN CARTER OF MARS. End credits.

Mauve Shirt
2012-03-10, 10:33 AM
Better marketing most likely. The "of Mars" just seems superfluous and unnecessarily makes the title longer.

I think it's pretty bad marketing to not give any indication of what the movie is based on in the title. Some of us don't know the name of the protagonist of books we've only vaguely heard of. I was completely confused by the trailer and probably won't see the movie.

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-10, 10:46 AM
I think it's pretty bad marketing to not give any indication of what the movie is based on in the title. Some of us don't know the name of the protagonist of books we've only vaguely heard of. I was completely confused by the trailer and probably won't see the movie.

Yeah, the trailer was totally unimpressive to me. I don't feel like the "of mars" would've changed it a GREAT deal- It's pretty obvious from the trailer that there's aliens and wizards and all sorts of weird stuff going on. It being mars specifically wouldn't have changed it much for me.

I'm only interested because other people saw it and said it was good, basically.

JadedDM
2012-03-10, 10:56 AM
RE: The title

Disney is kind of paranoid about titles, afraid of putting off one gender over the other. They are convinced the reason The Princess and the Frog didn't do as well as they had hoped was because it had the word 'princess' in the title, and therefore no boys wanted to see it. That's why they changed Rapunzel to 'Tangled' and heavily promoted the male lead of the movie over Rapunzel herself in hopes of getting the boys to come.

So they weren't going to name the movie after the book, The Princess of Mars, because they were afraid boys wouldn't go to a movie with the word 'princess' in the title. So they changed it to John Carter of Mars...but then were afraid that no girl would want to see a movie with the words 'of Mars' in it, because as we all know, girls hate science fiction..? Anyway, so they dropped the 'of Mars' from the title, and now nobody has any idea what this movie is about (at least, not from the title alone).

shadow_archmagi
2012-03-10, 11:06 AM
(at least, not from the title alone).

Well, to be fair, lots of movies have titles that really don't tell you anything about the film-. Pink Panther, Final Countdown, Cop Dog, X-men...

Eldan
2012-03-10, 11:20 AM
Well, to be fair, lots of movies have titles that really don't tell you anything about the film-. Pink Panther, Final Countdown, Cop Dog, X-men...

Ah, yes. A friend once explained to me that the movie was called "X-Men" because it was about mutated X-chromosomes.

Bhu
2012-03-10, 11:22 AM
RE:

So they weren't going to name the movie after the book, The Princess of Mars, because they were afraid boys wouldn't go to a movie with the word 'princess' in the title. So they changed it to John Carter of Mars...but then were afraid that no girl would want to see a movie with the words 'of Mars' in it, because as we all know, girls hate science fiction..? Anyway, so they dropped the 'of Mars' from the title, and now nobody has any idea what this movie is about (at least, not from the title alone).


Actually there's already a Princess of Mars. Asylum did one of their usual knockoffs and used that for the title. It came out a year or two back.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-10, 01:13 PM
I think it's pretty bad marketing to not give any indication of what the movie is based on in the title. Some of us don't know the name of the protagonist of books we've only vaguely heard of. I was completely confused by the trailer and probably won't see the movie.

Would "John Carter of Mars" really have cleared things up that much more for you? I'm not sure the titled matters much. The story itself is hard to market because it is a bit pulp science fictiony - think of Flash Gordon and whatnot but not THAT cheesy. I love that classic science fiction feel though, and this movie really had it. What I love is that it isn't even really modernized like so many of Azimov's stories have been upon being turned into films. It probably isn't for everyone, but I'm glad I saw it.

I'm glad for once Hollywood went with a classic sci-fi story like this instead of something gimmicky that would be easier to market to the masses but less enjoyable in the long run. I'm hoping word of mouth with make up for this film's marketing foibles, because I liked it. FWIW I plan on seeing it again.

P.S. The soundtrack is wonderful. Michael Giachinno may be a new up and coming John Williams.

Sunken Valley
2012-03-10, 01:34 PM
I heard they thought it was too corny and would be a turn-off to women who would otherwise want to see it or get dragged there by significant others. But that was basically hearsay from an article on slate.com.

As a side note...

Did anyone hear anything about this movie at all before it came out?

I only just noticed because of the slate article and this thread.

I heard about it because Andrew Stanton directed it.

Coidzor
2012-03-10, 03:44 PM
So worth seeing then?

Axolotl
2012-03-10, 03:58 PM
Just got back from seeing the film and I have to say it's pretty darn awesome, the only films in the past decade or so that's it's really comparable to is The Star Wars prequels and Avatar, and it's far better than both of those. It's got the awesome action scenes of the prequels but without all the nonsense of the story (by which I mean the plot makes sense, the setting on the otherhand is just blatently weird) and it's Native American stand in aliens are both cooler and less annoyingly perfect than the Na'vi.

It's just an all round cool film, now it's not deep in any way, it's not 2001 or anything but it reminds me alot of say the original Star Wars Trilogy or the 1980's Flash Gordon (although it's less camp than that) or David Lynch's Dune. Especially in the way it just dumps this relentlessly bizarre setting on you with little to no explanation, just to give you an idea of it the opening shows a walking city, it's enemy city (called Helium) and then cuts to an airship battle.

It's not perfect, the plot's generic and it's coll Sci-Fi concepts suffer from everyone and their dog having copied them for the past 100 years, the bad guys aren't really explored and sadly Willem Dafoe and Dominic West are horribly underused. Also there are a few comic relief scenes that look like they're from a Pixar film and show that not everything translates well to live action (fortunately they still serve to make the film weirder).

But seriously if you liked Star Wars or Avatar or Dune you really should see this, it's just an awful lot of fun.

Saph
2012-03-10, 05:15 PM
Have to agree with the majority: taking "Of Mars" out of the title was a bit of a weird decision. "John Carter" sounds like a contemporary film about a guy working an office job.

That said, now I've seen how excited early-SF fans are about the production I'm tempted to go see it!

MammonAzrael
2012-03-10, 05:30 PM
I have never heard of this film before curiosity at the title caused me to click on this thread. This does not speak well of the films marketing.

However, this thread has raised my interest, and now I may well go to see this movie. Thanks, word-of-mouth promotion! :smalltongue:

Axolotl
2012-03-10, 05:38 PM
However, this thread has raised my interest, and now I may well go to see this movie. Thanks, word-of-mouth promotion! :smalltongue:Please do, if only because marketing vampires have already declared the movie a bomb (and have been predicting it would be for several months now) and anthing which shows them as being wrong is a good thing overall.

Especially if The Phantom Menace 3D is showing, just see John Carter instead, it's much better.

MammonAzrael
2012-03-10, 05:41 PM
Please do, if only because marketing vampires have already declared the movie a bomb (and have been predicting it would be for several months now) and anthing which shows them as being wrong is a good thing overall.

Especially if The Phantom Menace 3D is showing, just see John Carter instead, it's much better.

I was at a theater the other week and saw that was playing. My soul cried a little at the thought of going to see it. :smallamused: (I generally hate 3D, and it certainly won't "improve" Episode 1)

Lord Fullbladder, Master of Goblins
2012-03-10, 05:58 PM
I heard about the movie early in 2011, not entirely sure how at this point, doesn't really matter, my interest (okay, excitement) piqued on account of that time I stumbled across my father old and dusty copy of Synthetic Men of Mars (the eigthth book, featuring a clone army and brain transplants) a few years ago. I have since raided a used book store for several more, but haven't gotten around to reading them yet.

JadedDM
2012-03-10, 07:28 PM
At Rotten Tomatoes, it's at exactly 50% (84 fresh reviews, 83 rotten reviews). Wow, that's pretty divisive. I guess it's one of those movies you are either going to love or hate?

Dark Elf Bard
2012-03-10, 07:31 PM
I am loving it

One thing I didn't get:
The whole "copy of myself" thing. Anyone explaining?

Also, it did say "Of Mars" at the end!

socialprimate
2012-03-10, 07:42 PM
The movie is really fun - I thought Andrew Stanton (director of WALL-E and Finding Nemo) brought great animator's sense of visual humor and action to this live action movie. There are a few two many plot lines for a 2hr movie, and some aren't resolved. But the Tharks are great - both the animation and the voicing (I thought Willem Dafoe was great!) and JC jumping over Martian landscapes is great - so head out tonight and go see it!

Dark Elf Bard
2012-03-10, 07:44 PM
The movie is really fun - I thought Andrew Stanton (director of WALL-E and Finding Nemo) brought great animator's sense of visual humor and action to this live action movie. There are a few two many plot lines for a 2hr movie, and some aren't resolved. But the Tharks are great - both the animation and the voicing (I thought Willem Dafoe was great!) and JC jumping over Martian landscapes is great - so head out tonight and go see it!

The jumping was great. I wanna be a Thark for Halloween.

But, the flying scenes are TOO shaky.

Axolotl
2012-03-10, 07:45 PM
At Rotten Tomatoes, it's at exactly 50% (84 fresh reviews, 83 rotten reviews). Wow, that's pretty divisive. I guess it's one of those movies you are either going to love or hate?It's understandable, it isn't really the sort of film for critics and I get what that sounds like but what I mean is, it's very weird, it doesn't shy away from all the odd names that Burroughs came up with, it never really expains anything about why Carter's on Mars or why he has superpowers but at the same time it has a very formulaic main plot, so unless your into wacked out Sci-Fi it wouldn't be surpriseing that it doesn't play well with critics. That Disney have already helped create the narrative that it's a huge bomb doesn't help.

I remember the Watchmen film getting similar reviews and probably for the same reason, it expected the audience to just go with all the weirdness, and alot of critics didn't because they don't go to the cinema to see glowing blue naked guys.


One thing I didn't get:
The whole "copy of myself" thing. Anyone explaining?
What I think it means is that when Carter activated the medallion the ninth ray stuff takes records his body and creates an exact duplicate of it on Mars, it's like a teleporter only the original body is left unharmed and his conciousness is transferred to the duplicate. I think that's how it works anyway.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-10, 07:51 PM
I am loving it

One thing I didn't get:
The whole "copy of myself" thing. Anyone explaining?

Also, it did say "Of Mars" at the end!

If I understood rightly,

JC was "telegraphed" to Mars. That is, a copy of his body was created on Mars and his consciousness was moved to that body. But his earth body, sans consciousness, remained on earth. It as the original must be protected while he is on Mars.

Dark Elf Bard
2012-03-10, 07:53 PM
How long was he gone? The Union guy was a Skeleton when he woke up...

Also, what happened to his body on Mars when he woke up??

ThePhantasm
2012-03-10, 07:58 PM
How long was he gone? The Union guy was a Skeleton when he woke up...

Also, what happened to his body on Mars when he woke up??

In the books, if I remember correctly, he returns and finds his body in a burial ground or some "afterlife" place or something. I think people on Mars assume he died. Its been awhile since I read it though.

MLai
2012-03-10, 09:18 PM
Awesomeness, I love pulp retro sci-fi with all the weird corny outdated names and concepts! Maybe the advanced aliens have advanced hand-held phones the size of their heads, with a 2-ft antenna? :smallbiggrin:

Gonna go watch it this week on my day off.

Jayngfet
2012-03-10, 11:42 PM
Saw it. Loved it. Currently checking out the books.

The aliens stole every single scene they were in due to their freakish, many limbed awesomeness. The backstory was a bit cliche but does it's job.

My main problem is the whole "Tharks do not fly" thing, considering they seem willing to fly en masse with the slightest provocation.

Sneaky Weasel
2012-03-11, 01:22 AM
I laughed, reading all the replies to this, because it seems that most people had never heard of the books, and were maybe going to check them out after watching the movie. For me, it's the other way around. When I was younger I read all of the Mars books, and thought they were awesome. Back in 2004 or something, I remember a rumor that a movie was in production, but after a while I dismissed them, thinking it would never happen. I am unbelievably excited that it's actually happening, and I will go to see the movie as soon as possible. I'm actually looking forward to John Carter as much or more then the Hobbit.

MLai
2012-03-11, 01:47 AM
I know of John Carter from the Frank Frazetta paintings.
http://www.notzombies.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/frazetta-jc1.jpeg
Frank makes anything good.
I would never read John Carter. I mean c'mon, that's like asking me to read Tarzan.

Jayngfet
2012-03-11, 01:55 AM
I laughed, reading all the replies to this, because it seems that most people had never heard of the books, and were maybe going to check them out after watching the movie. For me, it's the other way around. When I was younger I read all of the Mars books, and thought they were awesome. Back in 2004 or something, I remember a rumor that a movie was in production, but after a while I dismissed them, thinking it would never happen. I am unbelievably excited that it's actually happening, and I will go to see the movie as soon as possible. I'm actually looking forward to John Carter as much or more then the Hobbit.

I'd have loved to have read the books as a kid, however finding either a copy of them or someone who'd heard of them was basically impossible. They're less well known than a lot of other, so exposure to them is a bit difficult when even getting later Narnia books is a challenge in some places.

Hopefully that'll change in the future though, now that the movie is out. I expect the books will be out in wider range and hopefully that'll spark interest in future adaptations down the road if this doesn't pan out.

MLai
2012-03-11, 02:39 AM
You're assuming the books are still interesting and good, when read by our generation.
I don't know. Are they?
For example, would you want to read Tarzan, now? What would you get out of it, for your time spent?
Because there are so many sci-fi books that are *truly* great that I haven't read yet.
I have different standards for books as opposed to movies.

Turcano
2012-03-11, 06:08 AM
Jimmy McNulty is one of the villains. It's kind of hard to describe how surreal that is, but it's a lot like Kevin Bacon playing the villain in the X-Men prequel.

EccentricCircle
2012-03-11, 06:22 AM
I first read the books about a year ago, (the first three are in the public domain, and so available on kindle/net etc) I'd say that the plot is very dated, and doesn't really ring true to my 21st century sensibilities, but that what makes the book a classic is the detail of the world building. Burroughs really went all out in creating the ecology and culture of his world, and is arguably one of the first to do so. The film is an excellent reprosentation of that setting, with an updated plot that is more attuned to modern tastes. I really enjoyed the film.

On the note of how Carter gets to mars, I believe in the books it's sugested to be a kind of astral projection. In the same way that when you go to the Astral Plane in D&D your body remains on the prime material unconsious and inert. In this case he's being projected to a planet rather than a plane.

Ellardin
2012-03-11, 08:36 AM
How long was he gone? The Union guy was a Skeleton when he woke up...

Also, what happened to his body on Mars when he woke up??

Since he does not have an original body on mars, it disappears. When the Thurn teleported him back to earth, he disappeared from mars, and when the princess turned around she assumed he had gone back to earth.

Think of it as Astral projection, but your spirit solidifies into a body.

Bhu
2012-03-11, 03:30 PM
I'd have loved to have read the books as a kid, however finding either a copy of them or someone who'd heard of them was basically impossible. They're less well known than a lot of other, so exposure to them is a bit difficult when even getting later Narnia books is a challenge in some places.

Hopefully that'll change in the future though, now that the movie is out. I expect the books will be out in wider range and hopefully that'll spark interest in future adaptations down the road if this doesn't pan out.


http://www.edgarriceburroughs.ca/worlds/barsoom.html

theres the first 6

Project Gutenberg and some of the other free text sites have his stuff too but i think its still just these 6.

Lord Seth
2012-03-11, 03:55 PM
I think a few people commented that they didn't think the marketing was good, but...well, it's made nearly half its budget back already. That seems pretty good.

Gwyn chan 'r Gwyll
2012-03-11, 04:08 PM
They're WAY over-advertising it here. Every single poster in every other subway stop, plus people standing around on street corners handing out various swag. They had so-called "collectible trading cards". My friend got some for kicks. I read the first thing it said on it "Tark Tarkus is Jeddac of the Tharks".

Then I gave up on the movie. Seriously? Tark Tarkus is Jeddac of the Tharks? WHY.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-11, 04:10 PM
They're WAY over-advertising it here. Every single poster in every other subway stop, plus people standing around on street corners handing out various swag. They had so-called "collectible trading cards". My friend got some for kicks. I read the first thing it said on it "Tark Tarkus is Jeddac of the Tharks".

Then I gave up on the movie. Seriously? Tark Tarkus is Jeddac of the Tharks? WHY.

You gave up on the movie because of... trading cards? I'm not sure I follow.

Marketing doesn't always reflect on the production of the film, you know. Especially in this case.

SoC175
2012-03-11, 04:22 PM
One thing that bothered me was how inconsistent his "increased strength" was played out. In one scene he punches one of the Martians and that single blow instantly kills him and flings his corpse through the entire room and in several later things a single one of the Martians grabs him and he's completely unable to break the hold while judging from the feats of strength he performed early he should be able to rip out all four arms of his captor with ease.

IHMO it's simply not consistent throughout the movie

danzibr
2012-03-11, 04:31 PM
Friggin' loved this movie.

Cheesegear
2012-03-11, 04:37 PM
Hopefully that'll change in the future though, now that the movie is out. I expect the books will be out in wider range and hopefully that'll spark interest in future adaptations down the road if this doesn't pan out.

I found all 11 on Amazon for my Kindle for 99c. Considering it's 20th century sci-fi, it's actually pretty good.

Soralin
2012-03-11, 05:12 PM
It's old enough to be out of copyright, so you can actually (and legally) get it for free from Project Gutenberg: http://www.gutenberg.org/

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/search.html/?default_prefix=author_id&sort_order=downloads&query=48

Jayngfet
2012-03-11, 07:27 PM
One thing that bothered me was how inconsistent his "increased strength" was played out. In one scene he punches one of the Martians and that single blow instantly kills him and flings his corpse through the entire room and in several later things a single one of the Martians grabs him and he's completely unable to break the hold while judging from the feats of strength he performed early he should be able to rip out all four arms of his captor with ease.

IHMO it's simply not consistent throughout the movie


That really bugged the crap out of me. Early on he pretty much rips chains apart like wet tissue, then towards the end no matter how hard he pulls similar chains won't come off.

But otherwise his strength feels consistent enough, though not perfect. He killed one Thark with a single blow, then once he has a couple of swords in his hand he basically walks through an entire hoard and takes town about four to a swing.

Rae Artemi
2012-03-11, 10:06 PM
Have you read the book? How true to the story is it?

In my opinion, it was pretty true to the book in spirit, much less so in the details. If you go into it expecting a shot for shot remake of the book, you will be sorely disappointed, but it still tells a good story and will hopefully get more people interested in the books.

Though I do have to wonder how they are going to handle some of the changes in the future movies...


You're assuming the books are still interesting and good, when read by our generation.
I don't know. Are they?

I am a seventeen year old boy with the knowledge and technology to access pretty much any source of entertainment I could want with minimal effort. I downloaded A Princess of Mars a few days ago and am now working my way through the third book whenever I get bored of all of that technology at my fingertips. I am more interested in them than pretty much any other Sci-fi novel I can remember reading recently, and am enjoying them more than I did, say, Lord of the Rings or Narnia.

So, yes, they are still interesing and good when read by our generation.

The Underlord
2012-03-11, 10:17 PM
I just saw it. I liked it, it wasn't particularly good, but it was entertaining. According to my dad, it really captured the feel of reading the books. My favorite scene is probably
JC is cutting through the hordes of tharks and he has flashbacks about his dead wife

Weezer
2012-03-11, 10:47 PM
In my opinion, it was pretty true to the book in spirit, much less so in the details. If you go into it expecting a shot for shot remake of the book, you will be sorely disappointed, but it still tells a good story and will hopefully get more people interested in the books.

Though I do have to wonder how they are going to handle some of the changes in the future movies...




And that's all I could hope for, the plots themselves were never all that important, but more the feel. Glad to hear the captured it.

Killer Angel
2012-03-12, 07:33 AM
Aside from Jar-Jar, I thought the prequels were sorta enjoyable.


Jar-Jar version in Darths and Droids is far better than the original. :smallbiggrin:

And he's a genius (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0122.html).

danzibr
2012-03-12, 07:33 AM
Oh yeah. I calculated how much higher you should be able to jump on Mars. My brother said Mars's gravity is about 60% ours. Going off of this, if two objects went straight up with the same initial velocity, the object on Mars would go not quite twice as high.

Axolotl
2012-03-12, 07:59 AM
Oh yeah. I calculated how much higher you should be able to jump on Mars. My brother said Mars's gravity is about 60% ours. Going off of this, if two objects went straight up with the same initial velocity, the object on Mars would go not quite twice as high.Your brother is wrong. Mars has just over a third of earth's gravity.

danzibr
2012-03-12, 08:33 AM
Your brother is wrong. Mars has just over a third of earth's gravity.
Well, in that case you'd be able to jump not quite three times as high.

Morph Bark
2012-03-12, 09:26 AM
Jar-Jar version in Darths and Droids is far better than the original. :smallbiggrin:

And he's a genius (http://darthsanddroids.net/episodes/0122.html).

This is true.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-12, 10:36 AM
Better than all the Star Wars prequels, I thought.

To many people that's a REALLY low bar. Just so you know.

Bhu
2012-03-12, 11:25 AM
I think a few people commented that they didn't think the marketing was good, but...well, it's made nearly half its budget back already. That seems pretty good.

Not quite Opening weekend was 30.6 mill domestic, 70. some million international for just over 100 million. The film was 250 million to make, and the advertising budget (including the changes they mad in marketing partway through) is rumored to be about another 50 mil or more. Generally the revenue a film takes in the second week unless it becomes a runaway hit is half of what it took in the first roughly, and it spirals down pretty quickly. They might make some money off dvd release, but there'll be marketing costs for that release as well as the costs of production. I'd be surprised if we saw any sequels that werent direct to video.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-12, 12:35 PM
I just saw it. I liked it, it wasn't particularly good, but it was entertaining.

I don't see how a story like that could be any other way.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-12, 01:56 PM
To many people that's a REALLY low bar. Just so you know.

I used it as a recent example. It is really low bar for me too. So is Avatar. But what sci-fi fantasy is there these days that isn't that low bar?

TheEmerged
2012-03-12, 03:39 PM
Saw this. Loved this. I say without hesitation I enjoyed it more than any movie I saw last year.

The earlier poster that said it was truer to the spirit than the letter of the book nailed it, frankly.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-12, 04:10 PM
So Doug Walker has managed to prove Linkara's point out him NEVER doing research incredibly correct.

He has apparently never even heard that this was based on a book series and note how he should have looked that up... (http://thatguywiththeglasses.com/videolinks/thatguywiththeglasses/bum-reviews/34544-john-carter) (1:30 second video)

...then right after saying that he then proceeds to make fun of funny names. In this day and age there is zero excuse to talk about anything without at least tapping it into wikipedia once in your life..

H Birchgrove
2012-03-12, 04:15 PM
You're assuming the books are still interesting and good, when read by our generation.
I don't know. Are they?
For example, would you want to read Tarzan, now? What would you get out of it, for your time spent?
Because there are so many sci-fi books that are *truly* great that I haven't read yet.
I have different standards for books as opposed to movies.

Well.

People still read Walter Scott, James Fenimore Cooper, Jane Austen, Charles Dickens, Rudyard Kipling, Arthur Conan Doyle, etc "classic" authors.

Tarzan is often mentioned in the same context as Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Superman, and other world famous characters who have outlived their respective creator(s).

As for John Carter, if the novels are seen as clichéd, it's because the novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs ("ERB") *started* those clichés. Without ERB, no "Lensman" by Doc E.E. Smith, no Flash Gordon by Alex Raymond, no "The World of Null-A" by A.E. van Vogt, no "Dune" by Frank Herbert, no "Star Wars" by George Lucas, and so on. It's like how clichéd "Bullit" or "Dirty Harry" may be seen by some modern day viewers, because so many film makers have aped (heh) those films.

While ERB was clearly a racist who probably had wanted the South win the American Civil War, it's surprising how modern some of his ideas are in John Carter: the nudism, the criticism of organized religion (in the later novels), human/alien relationships (including romantic and sexual ones), the evident respect and friendship between John Carter and Tars Tarkas, the criticism against eugenics, war, suppression of emotions, etc.

The Barsoom series are also interesting if read as "hard" SF (even if they're not): the idea of using the solar wind to provide energy, the idea to use radium to make weapons, using the difference in gravity between Earth and Mars to explain John Carter's strength decades before Joe Shuster and Jerry Siegel did the same to explain the strength of Superman, the concept of a dying world, the concept of war due to limited resources, robots, advanced surgery, etc.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-12, 05:10 PM
I used it as a recent example. It is really low bar for me too. So is Avatar. But what sci-fi fantasy is there these days that isn't that low bar?

This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_and_Aliens_%28film%29). That's right. I think that film is great and people underrate it.

Herpestidae
2012-03-12, 05:27 PM
John Carter is sort of like the Michael Bay Transformers movies.

If you (like me) like your Sci-Fi for the "That's really cool" or "That's really interesting" factor, you will enjoy the hell out of it. But it's not winning any Oscars.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-12, 05:40 PM
I knew about John Carter from some comic book/geek websites, around 2011. The first trailer made me think the film would be mediocre.

Then I got news about it on newsfeeds from Disney on Facebook. The trailers got more promising. Now, it's on cinema. I plan to go and watch it. :smallsmile:

Jayngfet
2012-03-12, 06:55 PM
Not quite Opening weekend was 30.6 mill domestic, 70. some million international for just over 100 million. The film was 250 million to make, and the advertising budget (including the changes they mad in marketing partway through) is rumored to be about another 50 mil or more. Generally the revenue a film takes in the second week unless it becomes a runaway hit is half of what it took in the first roughly, and it spirals down pretty quickly. They might make some money off dvd release, but there'll be marketing costs for that release as well as the costs of production. I'd be surprised if we saw any sequels that werent direct to video.

I think that's the main problem with the movie: It was really, REALLY expensive to make. A wikipedia scan reveals The Lorax was made with under a third of that. The first Pirates movie cost almost half. It cost 50 million more to make than Toy Story 3 or Cars 2. The amount of money Disney spent on this is quite frankly staggering even before Marketing.

Even if Marketing didn't drop the ball so thouroughly or The Lorax wasn't out in time to provide such insnane competition John Carter would be hard pressed to make that back on box office sales alone.

I mean it looks freaking amazing and the budget was well spent, but this movie wound up being so bloated it was more or less distined to only just make it's budget back. Doing any more would mean it needs to be as much of a runaway hit as the first Toy Story was, if not more.

Rappy
2012-03-12, 07:37 PM
I must say that I enjoyed the film. Even if

the inclusions of Edgar Rice Burroughs himself

was somewhat awkward in my mind, the movie was a fairly good interpretation of A Princess of Mars, and felt in many ways just like what I would have envisioned myself.

Janus
2012-03-12, 08:08 PM
I really enjoyed the film. Like Prince of Persia, it wasn't amazing, but it was still a lot of fun. I'll buy it when it comes to DVD.

I felt that many of the changes from the book were well done, and I appreciated that Dejah Thoris wasn't the only woman fighting in the red Martian armies.
One change that felt like a copout (though probably helped save the movie's pacing) was
Carter immediately learning Barsoom's language. I prefer how in the books he had to learn the language like a child, which resulted in him first coming off too strong on Dejah Thoris and later accidentally demanding she sleep with him.


While ERB was clearly a racist who probably had wanted the South win the American Civil War
You could argue that, but at the same time it's interesting that the white martians are probably nastier than the black martians.
Speaking of which, if they do a Gods of Mars film, I'm curious how they're going to handle the black martians.


This (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cowboys_and_Aliens_%28film%29). That's right. I think that film is great and people underrate it.
Eh, I like the beginning of the film, but I think it really goes downhill fast when Olivia Wilde comes back to life and the amnesia subplot is taken care of with some sort of "Magic Native American Juice."

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-12, 08:26 PM
I think that's the main problem with the movie: It was really, REALLY expensive to make. A wikipedia scan reveals The Lorax was made with under a third of that. The first Pirates movie cost almost half. It cost 50 million more to make than Toy Story 3 or Cars 2. The amount of money Disney spent on this is quite frankly staggering even before Marketing.

So for movies considered overly-budgeted disappointing geek movies I immediately thought of Superman Returns... to find out it had a budget of 209 million. And that's y'know Superman, legendary namebrand icon of everything American.

And apparently the entire LotR trilogy cost 281 million.

I mean even allowing for some inflation... who the hell was writing these checks?

Bhu
2012-03-12, 10:04 PM
http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

Jayngfet
2012-03-13, 01:20 AM
So for movies considered overly-budgeted disappointing geek movies I immediately thought of Superman Returns... to find out it had a budget of 209 million. And that's y'know Superman, legendary namebrand icon of everything American.

And apparently the entire LotR trilogy cost 281 million.

I mean even allowing for some inflation... who the hell was writing these checks?

Well a large part of it is the set and setting. LotR is easy, since a lot of it takes place in the woods or somesuch and the people are largely human with some minor adjustments or a some kind of latex/makeup combo for orcs. Once you've got props and costumes that's a one time cost you can recycle. Outside of the big battles or REALLY big crowd shots the CGI doesn't need to be so complex compared to JC.

John Carter meanwhile had the Tharks, which are so incredibly nonhuman and well made you need to digitally remake every single thing about them individually for each scene. I mean you might copy and paste the larger elements but it probably takes a dozen people a month just to get one of them in the foreground to move properly for thirty seconds. Once you pay those people for that month that becomes upwards of 10k. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the Tharks alone took a hundred million to do once you factored in all the equipment they had to buy and the VA's that had to be payed off.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-13, 06:54 AM
Eh, I like the beginning of the film, but I think it really goes downhill fast when Olivia Wilde comes back to life and the amnesia subplot is taken care of with some sort of "Magic Native American Juice."

I think the whole film keeps a gritty western style that seamlessly adds an alien invasion story. As for the plot point you mentioned, it was pretty awkward, but one bad plot element isn't enough to ruin a film. Return of the Jedi had the Empire defeated by ewoks and that's still a great film.


As for John Carter of Mars, not sure if I'll see it. The marketing for the film looks really bad, but I've heard good things about it.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-13, 09:57 AM
As for John Carter of Mars, not sure if I'll see it. The marketing for the film looks really bad, but I've heard good things about it.

If you liked Cowboys vs. Aliens, I'm pretty sure you'll like John Carter. I'd give it a shot.

Weezer
2012-03-13, 10:29 AM
As for John Carter of Mars, not sure if I'll see it. The marketing for the film looks really bad, but I've heard good things about it.

This (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html)is actually an interesting article I just came across that describes why the marketing was so bad. Seems like the director micromanaged the marketing a bit too much and assumed that John Carter/Barsoom had name recognition with the general public when it really doesn't. This explains the fact that none of the trailers really give any hint as to what is going on, but instead work under the assumption that you're aware of the source material.

PPA
2012-03-13, 11:47 AM
You're assuming the books are still interesting and good, when read by our generation.
I don't know. Are they?
For example, would you want to read Tarzan, now? What would you get out of it, for your time spent?
Because there are so many sci-fi books that are *truly* great that I haven't read yet.
I have different standards for books as opposed to movies.

Well, the version of Tarzan you probably picture in your head has about as much to do with the Tarzan in the books as do Dracula and Frankenstein's widespread pop-culture iterations with the original versions created by Stoker and Shelley.

I read most Tarzan and John Carter books in the last few years (thanks Project Guttenberg) and I can tell you that they're a lot of fun and surprising in many respects. Of course, if you feel you can dismiss a book you've never even leafed through because you already know everything there is to know about it based on a movie you saw or what somebody told you, I guess that's your right as well.

Dr.Epic
2012-03-13, 12:54 PM
This (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html)is actually an interesting article I just came across that describes why the marketing was so bad. Seems like the director micromanaged the marketing a bit too much and assumed that John Carter/Barsoom had name recognition with the general public when it really doesn't. This explains the fact that none of the trailers really give any hint as to what is going on, but instead work under the assumption that you're aware of the source material.

Well, better the marketing be bad and the film good than vice versa. Am I right?

Weezer
2012-03-13, 01:09 PM
Well, better the marketing be bad and the film good than vice versa. Am I right?

In some ways yes and in others no. When you have a crappy flick that's marketed well you're simply left with yet another crappy film. But when the movie is good yet flops anyways due to bad marketing, thus killing any chances for a sequel you're left with the thought of 'it should've done so much better', which in some cases is worse, depending on how good the movie is.

danzibr
2012-03-13, 01:18 PM
Well, better the marketing be bad and the film good than vice versa. Am I right?

In some ways yes and in others no. When you have a crappy flick that's marketed well you're simply left with yet another crappy film. But when the movie is good yet flops anyways due to bad marketing, thus killing any chances for a sequel you're left with the thought of 'it should've done so much better', which in some cases is worse, depending on how good the movie is.
I actually... have to agree with Weezer. I would *love* to see a sequel to this movie, but without it raking in the cash that probably won't happen. :'(

ThePhantasm
2012-03-13, 02:55 PM
I actually... have to agree with Weezer. I would *love* to see a sequel to this movie, but without it raking in the cash that probably won't happen. :'(

I know. I'm really bummed about it. It deserves a sequel.

Janus
2012-03-13, 03:33 PM
I know. I'm really bummed about it. It deserves a sequel.
Especially since Gods of Mars had the most intriguing plot of the first three books, in my opinion.
I should probably read the rest of the series.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-13, 04:57 PM
Well, better the marketing be bad and the film good than vice versa. Am I right?

Here you are wrong because unless anyone is claiming this film is instant-classic/Oscar-worthy/the-New-Black/Better-Then-XYZ or whatever... we have an okay to good film with bad marketing, a bloated ridiculous budget, and now near zero possibilities for a sequel.

Also its entirely a false premise this is not a mismarketed film it is a throughly misproduced film. It should have been made on far less money and someone should not have given a director on his major first live-action project so complete control... and told said director that John Carter is your neighbor's name, not Tarzan.

Tiktakkat
2012-03-13, 06:11 PM
I saw it this afternoon.

I think it is complete garbage.
If you are into being amazed by special effects, and are willing to be taken in by feeble trope use, and don't mind barely functional story, then I suppose it could be seen as interesting.

As for the books, it had none of the spirit. If anything, the characters pretty much demonstrated the exact opposite of the spirit of the characters in the books, making it a complete and uttery mockery.

In general, I would rather have to watch the Dungeons & Dragons movie on loop for an entire day than have to watch this again.

MLai
2012-03-13, 06:17 PM
I saw it this afternoon.
In general, I would rather have to watch the Dungeons & Dragons movie on loop for an entire day than have to watch this again.
LOL, that's really harsh.
But it's difficult to say anything against that since you're one of the few who actually read the Barsoom novels.
I guess I'll know for myself after I watch it this morning. Hooray for days off.
I intend to support this movie with my dollar since retro sci-fi is a much better mine for Hollywood to reap than Spiderman for the Nth time.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-13, 08:32 PM
I've read the first three novels and I loved it. Others in this thread who have read the novels enjoyed it as well. Tiktakkat's opinion seems a bit overexaggerated. There's no way watching Dungeons and Dragons the movie on a loop for 24 hours would be better than watching John Carter. No way at all. D&D the movie is unbearably awful.

danzibr
2012-03-13, 08:39 PM
I've read the first three novels and I loved it. Others in this thread who have read the novels enjoyed it as well. Tiktakkat's opinion seems a bit overexaggerated. There's no way watching Dungeons and Dragons the movie on a loop for 24 hours would be better than watching John Carter. No way at all. D&D the movie is unbearably awful.
Agreed. With everything.

Well, except reading the first three novels. I'm partway through the first one. I have to admit, I like the movie better so far. In particular... how he gets to Mars in the books is just like, "wth?" I'll have to read further before I form a complete opinion though.

Starbuck_II
2012-03-13, 10:13 PM
I saw it this afternoon.

I think it is complete garbage.
If you are into being amazed by special effects, and are willing to be taken in by feeble trope use, and don't mind barely functional story, then I suppose it could be seen as interesting.

As for the books, it had none of the spirit. If anything, the characters pretty much demonstrated the exact opposite of the spirit of the characters in the books, making it a complete and uttery mockery.

In general, I would rather have to watch the Dungeons & Dragons movie on loop for an entire day than have to watch this again.

Well, the D&D movie was excellant so there is that. The main issue is you have to get the DVD because they cut a lot of good scenes in D&D movie. So many good ones too. Better story if you watch them.

But I liked John Carter. I really hope they do sequels. The ending was amazing. And i love that "reptilian doggie" he meets/has.

Turcano
2012-03-14, 01:02 AM
I've read the first three novels and I loved it. Others in this thread who have read the novels enjoyed it as well. Tiktakkat's opinion seems a bit overexaggerated. There's no way watching Dungeons and Dragons the movie on a loop for 24 hours would be better than watching John Carter. No way at all. D&D the movie is unbearably awful.

I don't agree with his opinion, but as a member of the minority that hates Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings, I can understand it.

Lord Seth
2012-03-14, 02:10 AM
This (http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html)is actually an interesting article I just came across that describes why the marketing was so bad. Seems like the director micromanaged the marketing a bit too much and assumed that John Carter/Barsoom had name recognition with the general public when it really doesn't. This explains the fact that none of the trailers really give any hint as to what is going on, but instead work under the assumption that you're aware of the source material.I'm uncertain about some of the things the article says at the start, though. It compares John Carter with The Lorax by saying that John Carter grossed $30.6 million domestically total so far while The Lorax grossed more than double that its first weekend...the problem is that that's ignoring international gross. From what I can tell, The Lorax has had a very low international gross so far, whereas John Carter's international gross has been much larger than its domestic gross, thus giving it a much higher total gross than that $30 million implies (at present, it's $100 million). Granted, The Lorax still has a higher total gross than John Carter, but it's not as large as the article leads you to believe. Still, an interesting read regardless.

Maybe part of the reason for the high international gross versus the lower domestic gross is that it was promoted better in other countries?

MLai
2012-03-14, 04:12 AM
Saw John Carter today.
It was alright... Take away all the CGI alienfolk, and you have a movie somewhat better than Prince of Persia. In terms of moviemaking, Avatar was better.
This is not an opinion on the books, which I have not read. Especially for books written exactly 100 years ago. If Burroughs in 1912 came up with solar gliders the size of jumbo jets, and the concept of discovery/attainment by mortals of a "god-like" energy source (think nuclear), and the concept of a "dying planet" (think ecology), then you gotta give the old man props. I don't know how much of it was from the books and how much from modern rewriting. I'm figuring it's all from the books, since the director absolutely worships Burroughs.
My reasons for why it's only "alright":
1. The actors. Aside from the princess and the Tarks, all MEH. When I care more about the CG characters than the protag, there's a problem. This is coming from a viewer who actually cared about Tom Cruise's character in Last Samurai.
2. I come out of it seeing no reason why women/girls would want to watch this movie (other than if they like retro sci-fi). Therefore should have kept "Of Mars" in the title.
3. The movie did a GREAT job with the Tarks, portraying them as realistic "aborigines," unlike the hippy version in Avatar. Which is why my immersion was kinda broken when they suddenly turned into Defenders Of Justice in the last 1/2 hour of the movie. According to the movie, there are no formal relations (at all) between this particular (obviously major/strong) Tark tribe and the city of Helium... so why would they suddenly get involved in their politics.
The only reason I can see, is if Carter promised the tribe all the booty of the Walking City. The tribe successfully invaded the city; I expected to see some major pillaging/looting! When the tribe attacked the red-cloaks outside of Helium, I expected the Tarks in the flying barges to be tossing out dead bodies of the citizens of the Walking City in order to completely demoralize the red-cloak army ("Here's what we did to your city while you were busy off attacking Helium!"). Otherwise the battle should not have gone so well.
None of this happened. We're talking about a people who would kill their own young, just because they don't hatch on time. Yet they don't pillage/loot the defeated? The Tarks went from realistic, to whitewashed.
4. The script... I read in a review "this had the potential to be so much more"... yes I'd have to agree. Cut out the story-within-a-story (his nephew), I don't care if it was in the book or not. With the extra 15 minutes you saved, flesh out the Mars plot better. For example, I can understand why the Princess didn't just lop off the Warlord's head when she had the chance, but it wasn't because the movie laid it out I had to guess. If Barsoom is so fleshed-out (as ppl say the books accomplish), then I want to see it. I want to be watching this movie and saying "Wow, it's like I'm watching Dune politics." Otherwise I feel like I'm watching Prince Of Persia politics (not a compliment).


Maybe part of the reason for the high international gross versus the lower domestic gross is that it was promoted better in other countries?
Maybe... different tastes?
1. Non-English speakers would not laugh at the weird names.
2. Non-English speakers would not find Carter jumping all over the place as weird (think Crouching Tiger).
3. Asians wouldn't be as exposed to English/American sci-fi culture that followed Burroughs (Dune, Star Wars [srsly]), so Barsoom wouldn't seem as passe to them.
4. Europeans (French, Italians) have some tripped-out sci-fi concepts/styles. Look at their comic books. They're probably a lot more inclusive and curious in their tastes, such as appreciating retro.


Well, the D&D movie was excellant so there is that.
What?

The main issue is you have to get the DVD because they cut a lot of good scenes in D&D movie.
Define "good".

Jayngfet
2012-03-14, 04:58 AM
Honestly it's a matter of North American marketing to Non North American marketing. The American trailers all make it seem like some kind of weird thing centered largely around the Tharks with no framing or plot revealed.

Whereas the Japanese trailer actually frames it as Burroughs writing from Carters notes, hints at his backstory, and gives a better picture of the actual plot of the movie.

I mean the first version got me into the movie, but if I didn't read reviews ahead of time I'd have been disappointing because even though I love the Thark designs, they didn't make as much of the movie as I was initially promised.

Brave had similar issues marketing wise. The American trailers focused way too heavily on the wedding aspect and how Meridia is a tough grrrl who don't need no man, whereas in Japan they didn't even mention the wedding and just said that she made some kind of mistake that curses everyone, and that, shockingly, her entire story revolves around adventuring and figuring out what happened to the last poor shmo that made this mistake.

Tiktakkat
2012-03-14, 12:21 PM
I don't agree with his opinion, but as a member of the minority that hates Peter Jackson's adaptation of Lord of the Rings, I can understand it.

I am part of that minority too. :smallbiggrin:


This is not an opinion on the books, which I have not read. Especially for books written exactly 100 years ago. If Burroughs in 1912 came up with solar gliders the size of jumbo jets, and the concept of discovery/attainment by mortals of a "god-like" energy source (think nuclear), and the concept of a "dying planet" (think ecology), then you gotta give the old man props. I don't know how much of it was from the books and how much from modern rewriting. I'm figuring it's all from the books, since the director absolutely worships Burroughs.

They are not exactly solar gliders, but yes. And they are actually bigger than jumbo jets in the books, with some carrying 10,000 men, or wings of smaller fliers like an aircraft carrier.
It is not exactly nuclear energy, but yes, though it is not used as in the movie.
The planet is not dying from exploitation, but yes.

Not included were the incendiary and explosive "radium" bullets (depleted uranium and phosphorus?), and the atmosphere plant (maintenance rather than altering terraforming), super strong aluminum alloys, and lots of telepathy/telempathy. A later book featured transplants up to the level of full body transplants of brains, followed by vat-created artificial life.

Yes, ERB had a lot of wild ideas.

Lord Seth
2012-03-14, 01:49 PM
Maybe... different tastes?
1. Non-English speakers would not laugh at the weird names.I didn't think the names were that weird, and honestly I don't think weird names would be a hinderance anyway.

2. Non-English speakers would not find Carter jumping all over the place as weird (think Crouching Tiger).I haven't seen the film, but based on the previews, I didn't see anything weird about it.

In fact, the fact Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon did so well in the US kind of negates your point anyway.

3. Asians wouldn't be as exposed to English/American sci-fi culture that followed Burroughs (Dune, Star Wars [srsly]), so Barsoom wouldn't seem as passe to them.It's my understanding that Star Wars is pretty well known internationally.

4. Europeans (French, Italians) have some tripped-out sci-fi concepts/styles. Look at their comic books. They're probably a lot more inclusive and curious in their tastes, such as appreciating retro.Can't comment on this one.

I still think it might have just been better marketing.
Brave had similar issues marketing wise. The American trailers focused way too heavily on the wedding aspect and how Meridia is a tough grrrl who don't need no man, whereas in Japan they didn't even mention the wedding and just said that she made some kind of mistake that curses everyone, and that, shockingly, her entire story revolves around adventuring and figuring out what happened to the last poor shmo that made this mistake.Oh yeah, I remember seeing the Japanese trailer for Brave (with subtitles, of course). It made it look way better than the American ones I saw. Honestly, the only thing about the American trailers that made me think anything other than "enh" was that it was from Pixar.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-14, 02:17 PM
You could argue that, but at the same time it's interesting that the white martians are probably nastier than the black martians.
Speaking of which, if they do a Gods of Mars film, I'm curious how they're going to handle the black martians.

Ah, that is true, but the White Martians were, IIRC, portrayed more like they were albino rather than "North European" (perhaps an inspiration for Michael Moorcock for his Elric of Melnibone stories?), and the Black Martians looked more "Asian" rather than "African" aside from their skin colour.

That being said, I have the suspicion that John Carter was and is more progressive than his creator chronicler. Not to mention that nothing stops John Carter to develop analogous to how Tarzan has done in comics and films (in which he became a champion of the environment and animal welfare).

Janus
2012-03-14, 02:43 PM
Ah, that is true, but the White Martians were, IIRC, portrayed more like they were albino rather than "North European"
Actually, I think the Therns had the same skin tone as Carter. I seem to remember in either Gods or Warlord that when people were trying to figure out what he was, they remarked that he had a Thern's skin but his hair was too dark (and when he wears a blond wig later nobody questions that he's a Thern).

H Birchgrove
2012-03-14, 03:28 PM
Actually, I think the Therns had the same skin tone as Carter. I seem to remember in either Gods or Warlord that when people were trying to figure out what he was, they remarked that he had a Thern's skin but his hair was too dark (and when he wears a blond wig later nobody questions that he's a Thern).

I stand corrected then. :smallsmile:

McStabbington
2012-03-14, 04:00 PM
Brave had similar issues marketing wise. The American trailers focused way too heavily on the wedding aspect and how Meridia is a tough grrrl who don't need no man, whereas in Japan they didn't even mention the wedding and just said that she made some kind of mistake that curses everyone, and that, shockingly, her entire story revolves around adventuring and figuring out what happened to the last poor shmo that made this mistake.

Actually, Brave is an excellent example of how to market successfully, whereas John Carter is a clear example of a marketing failure.

Film marketing is a technique that has been reduced down to a science by Hollywood, and a good marketing campaign follows a certain formula. Step One is to introduce a one minute teaser trailer. The point of the teaser isn't to tell the story. It's to raise the awareness of the film, and give a general sense of the theme. So for instance, the teaser trailer for The Dark Knight (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWw0ov-cAUg) contained no footage from the film. It does, however, lay out exactly what the central difficulty of the film will be: Batman is going up against someone he truly can't predict or intimidate in the Joker. And it does it with a short bit of dialogue from characters we're already familiar with. To the extent that the teaser from Brave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYg0VgPy6Uk) differs, it's that they're also trying to establish the protagonist's character and explain why, if we do see the film, we should root for her. Which it succeeds at wildly.

Then comes the first movie trailer. The trailer should give us a general idea of what the plot is going to be about without giving up too much information. Additionally, it should also try to allay any concerns that have cropped up in test audiences and/or surveys about the film. So again, to use TDK as an example of a very well-marketed film, the first trailer (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jqq4j52Fb4) brilliantly takes on the central concern that everyone had about the film, namely "The Joker is . . . Heath Ledger? The guy from 10 Things I Hate About You?" And suddenly, everyone went from that sentiment to "Holy *#$%! The Joker is going to be soooo cool!" As a consequence, interest in the film went through the stratosphere. Brave's trailer isn't quite as seamless, because again they're dealing with a new character rather than established characters like Batman and Joker. But it effectively conveys what the plot is going to be about while establishing the character of Merida (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHWDA_6e3M). From there, it's mostly a matter of keeping interest high by releasing a second trailer and film clips.

By contrast, this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8xblwyKtfo) is the teaser trailer for John Carter. I'll pause here and let you watch it. Tum te tum. Tapping my foot here.

Okay, finished? All right, having watched it, and assuming for the moment that this is the first time I've ever heard of John Carter, let me ask you a very simple question: what exactly is the theme of this movie? Because if I had to guess, I would muddle through for about fifteen seconds before venturing "John Carter is a generic action hero?" Really, the messages I'm getting about this film are entirely muddled. The color palette and vistas suggests it's a Western film, the clothing he wears suggests it's a low budget knockoff of sword and sandals where, once again, they don't actually wear armor, and the space aliens suggest science fiction. Now, while two of those things can work together, all three suggest a film with a muddled theme. Moreover, I don't know anything about John Carter's motivation. What the deuce does John Carter want, and why are these mystic pronouncements important to him? Because if they're not important to him, they're not important to me. Which is why I had no interest in seeing the film despite the marketing.

Lord Seth
2012-03-14, 04:47 PM
To the extent that the teaser from Brave (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tYg0VgPy6Uk) differs, it's that they're also trying to establish the protagonist's character and explain why, if we do see the film, we should root for her. Which it succeeds at wildly.Not for me. The only reason I would've even remembered that trailer was the fact it had "Pixar" on it. Otherwise I probably would've forgotten it within an hour.
Brave's trailer isn't quite as seamless, because again they're dealing with a new character rather than established characters like Batman and Joker. But it effectively conveys what the plot is going to be about while establishing the character of Merida (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TEHWDA_6e3M). From there, it's mostly a matter of keeping interest high by releasing a second trailer and film clips.Actually, that doesn't really tell me much of anything about the plot. All I get from the trailer was "oh, there's a girl who wants to do guy things! How quaint." Yeah, not something I was excited over at all.

Now compare that to the Japanese trailer I think I mentioned earlier. Take a look (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zzSqWUmlts). I feel I learned a lot more about it from that. That got me interested in the movie on a level outside of "oh, it's Pixar's newest film." And I'm not the only one. I've seen a lot of comments about it comparing it unfavorably to the American trailers. Heck, half of the comments on the video are just people saying it's way better than the American one.

Brave's trailers--the American ones, anyway--might have been better than John Carter's, but they really made no impression on me.

McStabbington
2012-03-14, 05:27 PM
I'm not going to say you're wrong about what you got from the trailers, since you are after all the only one who knows what interests you and what doesn't. And not every marketing campaign gets everyone interested.

But that being said, I do think you are drawing too little from the trailer. Clearly this is a hero's journey story, where the unlikely hero must overcome the prejudice that comes from his (or in this case, her) status and use their native talent to accomplish something heroic. What that heroic thing is we're not sure, beyond the fact that it probably involves a bear that her father faced and failed to defeat, but it's important to reveal just enough without giving the whole game away. But as far as the plot, the character, and why the plot is important to the character goes? It's pretty solid.

And to judge by the 94% "Want to see" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with an intensity rating of 9.5, it's done a fairly good job of convincing people to see it.

Demons_eye
2012-03-14, 05:31 PM
I'm not going to say you're wrong about what you got from the trailers, since you are after all the only one who knows what interests you and what doesn't. And not every marketing campaign gets everyone interested.

But that being said, I do think you are drawing too little from the trailer. Clearly this is a hero's journey story, where the unlikely hero must overcome the prejudice that comes from his (or in this case, her) status and use their native talent to accomplish something heroic. What that heroic thing is we're not sure, beyond the fact that it probably involves a bear that her father faced and failed to defeat, but it's important to not reveal just enough without giving the whole game away. But as far as the plot, the character, and why the plot is important to the character goes? It's pretty solid.

And to judge by the 94% "Want to see" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with an intensity rating of 9.5, it's done a fairly good job of convincing people to see it.

To be fair we have no idea how much that is based on the trailer alone. I loved the trailer for John Carter and wanted to see it when I first saw it. Hell my boss told me about the books before and I didn't remember about it until she told me they were making a movie about them and I said "That's John Carter?!"

Really knowing the plot of the movie didn't change my readiness to see it.

McStabbington
2012-03-14, 05:37 PM
. . .We know based on what Roger Ebert would call the Law of Narrative Economy. If you've got 2 minutes to establish a setting, a general idea of what the story is about (perhaps "plot" is too specific a word) and a protagonist, then you don't waste your time with extraneous stuff. Since we see the father talking about the bear, and we later see her with the bear, it's not hard to draw the reasoned inference that a bear is involved in the hero's journey she's clearly undergoing in the rest of the trailer, where she's resisting the set role she has to play and instead Jumping at the Call (won't link to TVTropes).

Demons_eye
2012-03-14, 05:39 PM
. . .We know based on what Roger Ebert would call the Law of Narrative Economy. If you've got 2 minutes to establish a setting, a general idea of what the story is about (perhaps "plot" is too specific a word) and a protagonist, then you don't waste your time with extraneous stuff. Since we see the father talking about the bear, and we later see her with the bear, it's not hard to draw the reasoned inference that a bear is involved in the hero's journey she's clearly undergoing in the rest of the trailer, where she's resisting the set role she has to play and instead Jumping at the Call (won't link to TVTropes).

And? How many people are just going to see it because its a Pixar movie, how many people have told their friends about it. Not saying it didn't do it job just saying you can't account "94% "Want to see" rating on Rotten Tomatoes, with an intensity rating of 9.5" just because of the trailer.

Lord Seth
2012-03-14, 05:42 PM
. . .We know based on what Roger Ebert would call the Law of Narrative Economy. If you've got 2 minutes to establish a setting, a general idea of what the story is about (perhaps "plot" is too specific a word) and a protagonist, then you don't waste your time with extraneous stuff.Which is why it was absolutely critical we see a guy mooning someone else? Or why we saw a random guy bragging about his son's accomplishments that appeared to have nothing to do with anything?

Really, the trailer was full of extraneous stuff rather than using that amount of time to try to make the whole thing feel more cohesive.

Tiktakkat
2012-03-14, 10:42 PM
While ERB was clearly a racist who probably had wanted the South win the American Civil War, it's surprising how modern some of his ideas are in John Carter: the nudism, the criticism of organized religion (in the later novels), human/alien relationships (including romantic and sexual ones), the evident respect and friendship between John Carter and Tars Tarkas, the criticism against eugenics, war, suppression of emotions, etc.

ERB is clearly a racist?
Say what?
There is nothing in John Carter to suggest ERB was some kind of neoconfederate revisionist, and less to support any charge of racism.

Also, the "nudism" is relative.
They don't wear jackets and trousers, so by then contemporary standards they were "naked" - except for their fighting harnesses and jewelry of course, but they were not all streakers.

Jayngfet
2012-03-15, 03:54 AM
I'm just gonna weight in with my two cents. Ignoring the superior international trailers, here's what I thought of Brave vs John Carter marketing wise.

With Brave I heard about it years ago and what little we had looked cool, but as more information was revealed I got more and more turned off to the whole thing. I mean of all the plots you can make a movie about, not getting married HAS to be one of them? I mean realistically all she can do is run away and find some other love interest. Most of what we see of the Bears is downplayed in order to play up Meridia whining about a historically inaccurate wedding.

John Carter I didn't hear anything about until like, a week or two before it came out but it hooked me immediately on just the TV spot. Who the hell is John Carter and why is he interacting with all these cool green spacemen? Who are these aliens anyway and why are they forming this big angry hoard to fight these other guys? Wait, he's fighting monsters in an arena now? He's in space or something?

I mean one just kind of hands you an incomplete premise and little else. The other gives you a lot of individual details and a partial skeleton of the plot and lets your imagination fill in the rest, which is really a lot more powerful becausee it makes you spend the extra five seconds thinking intead of immediately filing the thing away in the back of your head.

The Glyphstone
2012-03-15, 06:22 AM
ERB is clearly a racist?
Say what?
There is nothing in John Carter to suggest ERB was some kind of neoconfederate revisionist, and less to support any charge of racism.

Also, the "nudism" is relative.
They don't wear jackets and trousers, so by then contemporary standards they were "naked" - except for their fighting harnesses and jewelry of course, but they were not all streakers.

Well, when he meets Deja for the first time, she's wearing nothing but jewelry. That's pretty naked.

MLai
2012-03-15, 11:47 AM
Wow you weren't kidding. The English Brave trailer was horrible. I literally had no interest in watching it after that trailer, figuring it's something along the lines of Hoodwinked.

That completely reversed after watching the Jpnese trailer.

Tiki Snakes
2012-03-15, 11:57 AM
Wow you weren't kidding. The English Brave trailer was horrible. I literally had no interest in watching it after that trailer, figuring it's something along the lines of Hoodwinked.

That completely reversed after watching the Jpnese trailer.

I suspect that the American trailer might just be the more accurate of the two, however.

Bhu
2012-03-15, 12:45 PM
ERB is clearly a racist?
Say what?
There is nothing in John Carter to suggest ERB was some kind of neoconfederate revisionist, and less to support any charge of racism.

Also, the "nudism" is relative.
They don't wear jackets and trousers, so by then contemporary standards they were "naked" - except for their fighting harnesses and jewelry of course, but they were not all streakers.

Try reading his Pellucidar series. There are several races of black men that have tails and are described as being monkeylike or apelike, a common racist theme of the time.

McStabbington
2012-03-15, 02:20 PM
Which is why it was absolutely critical we see a guy mooning someone else? Or why we saw a random guy bragging about his son's accomplishments that appeared to have nothing to do with anything?

Really, the trailer was full of extraneous stuff rather than using that amount of time to try to make the whole thing feel more cohesive.

With respect, there's a difference between "stuff that's extraneous" and "stuff that doesn't appeal to me". The hard and simple truth is that despite the financial success of movies like Wall-E or Star Wars, or the artistic success of movies like the Iron Giant, there are a lot of parents who simply do not accept that a kid's movie can also have artistic value. That was what the little bears are there for: to say to those parents that this movie also has exactly what you expect from a kid's movie. Namely, cute animals cause wacky hijinks in the form of the broadest possible physical comedy. Hilarity ensues. Call it the Timon and Poomba Effect. You don't like it. I don't like it. But this is about marketing a movie successfully, not demonstrating that it's Shakespeare for kids.

Tiktakkat
2012-03-15, 08:38 PM
Well, when he meets Deja for the first time, she's wearing nothing but jewelry. That's pretty naked.

So once, as a newly taken prisoner?
That doesn't exactly make everyone completely nude all the time.
And she did still have her jewelry.


Try reading his Pellucidar series. There are several races of black men that have tails and are described as being monkeylike or apelike, a common racist theme of the time.

I've read all of his Pellucidar series.
There are indeed several races of prehumans, one that has tails, another that is ape-like and even speaks the language of the mysterious race of great apes that raised Tarzan. All are a basic projection of Darwin's Theory of Evolution at the time, being nothing more than the ever popular missing links.
There are also clearly white men that are described as utterly savage, and with no redeeming human qualities, just as the Therns are brutal cannibals in the Barsoom series.
Burroughs featured quite a few heroic black supporting characters in his various books. He also featured an almost overwhelming preponderance of villains who were white.
His works may not meet current standards, but then neither do Mark Twain's to some people. Particularly when compared to someone like Lovecraft or Robert E. Howard, ERB is clearly not typical of his time in how he regarded race, and definitely far from being labeled a racist.

An Enemy Spy
2012-03-15, 08:49 PM
Hey, shut up you guys! Some of us haven't seen it yet!:smallbiggrin:

Janus
2012-03-15, 09:50 PM
So once, as a newly taken prisoner?
That doesn't exactly make everyone completely nude all the time.
And she did still have her jewelry.
I'm pretty sure when he first wakes up on Barsoom, he says that he's completely naked, and I seem to remember him mentioning the same about all the martians, aside from weapon trappings and jewelry.

H Birchgrove
2012-03-15, 10:54 PM
ERB is clearly a racist?
Say what?
There is nothing in John Carter to suggest ERB was some kind of neoconfederate revisionist, and less to support any charge of racism.

Also, the "nudism" is relative.
They don't wear jackets and trousers, so by then contemporary standards they were "naked" - except for their fighting harnesses and jewelry of course, but they were not all streakers.

John Carter's family were slave owners, fer Pete's sake. :smallsigh:

Another ERB protagonist, Carson Napier of Venus, supported the actions of the Ku Klux Klan.

If you think nudism is about exhibitionism, then you don't know what nudism is. It's *not* about making the (human) body more sexualized, quite the opposite, in fact.

(For example, Robert A. Heinlein, who was a nudist, had to build walls around his property so people wouldn't stare (and probably take photos of him) when he walked around naked in his garden.)


Well, when he meets Deja for the first time, she's wearing nothing but jewelry. That's pretty naked.

Indeed.


Try reading his Pellucidar series. There are several races of black men that have tails and are described as being monkeylike or apelike, a common racist theme of the time.

I haven't read those, but I'm not surprised.


So once, as a newly taken prisoner?
That doesn't exactly make everyone completely nude all the time.
And she did still have her jewelry.

You know why the Red and Green Martians only dress in jewellery (and if necessarily, in armour)? Because they dress only to enhance the beauty of their bodies, not to conceal their bodies, because they're not ashamed of their bodies, and have no reason to be ashamed of their bodies.


I've read all of his Pellucidar series.
There are indeed several races of prehumans, one that has tails, another that is ape-like and even speaks the language of the mysterious race of great apes that raised Tarzan. All are a basic projection of Darwin's Theory of Evolution at the time, being nothing more than the ever popular missing links.
There are also clearly white men that are described as utterly savage, and with no redeeming human qualities, just as the Therns are brutal cannibals in the Barsoom series.
Burroughs featured quite a few heroic black supporting characters in his various books. He also featured an almost overwhelming preponderance of villains who were white.
His works may not meet current standards, but then neither do Mark Twain's to some people. Particularly when compared to someone like Lovecraft or Robert E. Howard, ERB is clearly not typical of his time in how he regarded race, and definitely far from being labeled a racist.

Robert E. Howard actually changed his views on people of colour, paradoxically at the same time when he became friends with Lovecraft. Howard discovered the narrative traditions amongst African Americans, recognised their qualities, and realised that people of colour weren't inherently evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard%27s_character

MLai
2012-03-16, 06:16 AM
That was what the little bears are there for: to say to those parents that this movie also has exactly what you expect from a kid's movie.
I was amused to see that in the Jpnese Brave trailer, the 3-bear-cubs scene was turned (hilariously) into a build-up/ foreboding scene, rather than being the physical comedy scene it was supposed to be.


Princess wearing nothing but jewelry
Wait, did I blink and miss something good in the movie?? :smalleek:

The Glyphstone
2012-03-16, 06:18 AM
Wait, did I blink and miss something good in the movie?? :smalleek:

That's in the book it's based on. obviously, they gave her clothes for the screen.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-16, 12:57 PM
Can we stop talking about the real-world racism / civil war crap and get back to talking about the movie, please?

Back on topic, I've been listening to the soundtrack for JC by Michael Giacchino and it is superb. Sounds like a mix between William's Indiana Jones & Star Wars, mixed with a bit of Giacchino's LOST. Might be MG's best score.

ThePhantasm
2012-03-16, 01:06 PM
Can we stop talking about the real-world racism / civil war crap and get back to talking about the movie, please?

Back on topic, I've been listening to the soundtrack for JC by Michael Giacchino and it is superb. Sounds like a mix between William's Indiana Jones & Star Wars, mixed with a bit of Giacchino's LOST. Might be MG's best score.

Avilan the Grey
2012-03-16, 01:13 PM
That's in the book it's based on. obviously, they gave her clothes for the screen.

There are also the comic books.

Tiktakkat
2012-03-16, 01:39 PM
John Carter's family were slave owners, fer Pete's sake. :smallsigh:

So are pretty much every race on Mars.
One might note that those Martians that routinely enslave members of other races are invariably evil, while those races that enslave members of their own race are generally good. That's a rather interesting commentary.
Overall, the number of times ERB's heroes act to free slaves, even when slavery is an


Another ERB protagonist, Carson Napier of Venus, supported the actions of the Ku Klux Klan.

No he didn't: http://www.erblist.com/erblist/ven1sum.html
The managing editor's note covers that one reference.


You know why the Red and Green Martians only dress in jewellery (and if necessarily, in armour)? Because they dress only to enhance the beauty of their bodies, not to conceal their bodies, because they're not ashamed of their bodies, and have no reason to be ashamed of their bodies.

No, it is because they have no need of clothes because of the Martian environment, and reserve furs for sleeping. This is contrasted by the Yellow Martians who live at the north pole and wear furs regularly.
Again, you are confusing "not wearing suits and dresses" with "not wearing anything at all".


Robert E. Howard actually changed his views on people of colour, paradoxically at the same time when he became friends with Lovecraft. Howard discovered the narrative traditions amongst African Americans, recognised their qualities, and realised that people of colour weren't inherently evil.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Howard%27s_character

"Changed" admits there was something that needed changing in the first place. That he mellowed is certainly admirable; that it was because he met someone worse is less impressive. Rather than refute what I said, that link proves it.

I'm not saying nobody should read REH, or HPL for that matter, just because of their beliefs.
I am just pointing out that if you want to see what such beliefs look like read their works, and you should quickly realize that ERB is quite different from them.

Cazaril
2012-03-16, 08:47 PM
Jumping into the thread late to say that I definitely enjoyed the movie.

I've always been aware of the existence of the books, since my dad is a big fan, but I didn't start reading them until I heard about the movie. I got done the first three before it came out.

As an interesting note, my brother pointed out that the differences in plot between the books and the movies can be explained by the narrative frame of the movie, with the young Burroughs as a character; the movie depicts the "real" events, whereas the books are how Burroughs chose to interpret them for the readership of the time. Perhaps he felt that revealing

the fact that the Therns are operating on Earth would panic people, and so changed the parts about the 9th ray and the medallions for the books. In fact, since in the books the Therns aren't even mentioned until Book 2, perhaps Burroughs initially thought it best to not even talk about them at all. And some of the other differences are easy to explain this way as well; for example, in 1912 the idea of Dejah Thoris being both a scientist and a princess would have been too strange for the readership, so he cut that part out and just portrayed her as a princess.

I'm sure that's nothing like what the director had in mind when he set up that narrative frame, but it's interesting to think about, and might mollify some purists. :smallbiggrin:

CGforever!
2012-03-18, 09:02 PM
If you have any love for sci fi go see John Carter. I know the marketing for it has sucked big time but the movie really is good. Better than all the Star Wars prequels, I thought. Lots of fun, sympathetic characters, lots of adventure... I loved it.

I read this post about a week and a half ago, and it helped me decide to see John Carter. Good decision.

Bhu
2012-03-20, 08:18 AM
http://movies.yahoo.com/news/john-carter-loss-expected-200m-205152656.html

ouch

looks like marketing budget was another 100 million

Mindartis
2012-03-20, 08:46 AM
Jumping into the thread late, apoligies if I bring something up that has already been discussed. I loved the movie, and am currently reading the books. I loved the giant book namedrop that was in it, and I liked how it was accurate it is with the book (so far as im not done with it) All in all, it was a very good movie.

Talya
2012-03-20, 08:54 AM
Can you please at least confirm

It's not a Planet Of The Apes Ending, where he was actually on Earth in the future or something?

Because that would give me the need to reach out through the internet and punch every person involved in making this movie.



It's fine, Glyphstone. It's really fine.


"...of Mars" is left out only temporarily. The movie starts off titled "John Carter," and finishes off titled "John Carter of Mars," when it's more appropriate to call it that.

Outstanding movie with really bad marketing. As the mother of a 9 year old boy, the movie utterly succeeded at captivating both my son and myself. "Epic" is a good description. "Clichéed" works, too, but it's based on a 100 year old novel. Burroughs likely invented the clichés.

Mindartis
2012-03-20, 09:43 AM
Question, does Disney own the rights to Burroughs writings? It seems that way, considering that they have turned two of his novels into movies.

Weezer
2012-03-20, 10:24 AM
Question, does Disney own the rights to Burroughs writings? It seems that way, considering that they have turned two of his novels into movies.

The books (at least the first bunch of them) are in the public domain, so I think that anyone is free to make derivative works from them.

Yora
2012-03-20, 10:28 AM
Did Disney ever made anything based on something they own?

One of the fierciest protectors of their copyrights is also the most prolific exploiter of expired copyrights of other people. :smallamused:

Lord Seth
2012-03-20, 11:10 AM
Did Disney ever made anything based on something they own?Pirates of the Carribean is an obvious one, as is anything involving the Muppets.

In terms of things that are upcoming, there's Iron Man 3 and The Avengers.

Yora
2012-03-20, 12:04 PM
Not that the first pirates movie had much original about it. It really was only Jack and Barbossa who god these insane performances by their actors that stand out. Everything else was really generic.

PPA
2012-03-20, 12:49 PM
Plus they didn't exactly invent the Muppets or the Marvel superheroes. I mean, legally owning the property and developing movies and whatnot from them is not the same as originality.

Also, Pirates of the Caribbean is very much based on the Monkey Island games and on Tim Powers' novel "On Stranger Tides," which had actually influenced the Monkey Island games in the first place. So, original? Again, that's a big no.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-20, 04:15 PM
Just happened across this today and thought I'd share:

John Carter loose Disney 200 Million (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/disney-says-john-carter-to-lose-200-million-in-the-quarter-through-march/2012/03/19/gIQABFclNS_allComments.html?ctab=all_&#comments)

Not having a fixation with Disney as a particularly evil megacorp I'm a little dismayed. Certainly wish it had happened to different movie though. I once again blame a disturbing over-investment of funds, there was so much spent it could never hope to be recovered.

Lord Seth
2012-03-20, 05:14 PM
Not that the first pirates movie had much original about it. It really was only Jack and Barbossa who god these insane performances by their actors that stand out. Everything else was really generic.You asked for them making something based on something they owned. I gave an example of them making something based on something they owned.
Plus they didn't exactly invent the Muppets or the Marvel superheroes. I mean, legally owning the property and developing movies and whatnot from them is not the same as originality.Again, all that was asked for was them developing a movie based on property they owned.
Also, Pirates of the Caribbean is very much based on the Monkey Island games and on Tim Powers' novel "On Stranger Tides," which had actually influenced the Monkey Island games in the first place. So, original? Again, that's a big no.So, essentially, you are arguing that I did not give examples that fit a criteria that was never given?

It's like this:
You: Give me a prime number.
Me: Okay, 3.
You: But just because it's a prime number doesn't mean it's more than 10! So it doesn't count.

It's essentially a non sequitur argument that tries to retroactively impose requirements that were never asked for.

Mazeburn
2012-03-20, 06:47 PM
Just happened across this today and thought I'd share:

John Carter loose Disney 200 Million

Not having a fixation with Disney as a particularly evil megacorp I'm a little dismayed. Certainly wish it had happened to different movie though. I once again blame a disturbing over-investment of funds, there was so much spent it could never hope to be recovered.

Bit sad about this as well, partly since I've got a bunch of friends who worked on it for just ages, and partly because I genuinely thought it was a good film. And plenty of worse films do way better. But it's the way it goes sometimes. :smallfrown:

Ashtar
2012-03-20, 07:24 PM
I went to see the movie on Friday night and enjoyed it a lot. I'm sad that Disney completely messed up the marketing of it. Due to all that, we'll probably never have sequels.

The only thing that bothered me was that it was in 3D and I had no other choice if I wanted to see it in the cinemas. 3D movies just "don't work" for me.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-20, 08:45 PM
Bit sad about this as well, partly since I've got a bunch of friends who worked on it for just ages, and partly because I genuinely thought it was a good film. And plenty of worse films do way better. But it's the way it goes sometimes. :smallfrown:

Problem of course being that for a movie with a larger budget then Avatar (if possibly less marketing) it has to be better then good. It has to be a phenomena, a cultural event. If not in quality but at least in revenue.

Diseny keeps trying to replicate PotC success but keeps having the same problems. The first Pirates movie, that Alice In Name Only, Prince of Persia... all aren't bad but they are really pretty generic. They're carefully crafted by the numbers to appeal, and in doing so loose something for it.

Pirates was really only a success because of spontaneity on Johnny Depp's part. If I recall properly the script called for Jack Sparrow to be essentially Errol Flynn. Depp decide to do his crazy take and it got thrown it was recognized to be gold. That's the sort of thing you can't manufacture but Disney keeps trying to find another hit franchise. Maybe they will stick to things they are better at for awhile after this.

PPA
2012-03-21, 04:01 PM
It's essentially a non sequitur argument that tries to retroactively impose requirements that were never asked for.

Actually, it's more like a comment building upon the intended meaning of Yora's post, and not even aimed at you per sé. She specifically mentioned originality and I elaborated upon that.

Sorry for mentioning the Muppets and the Marvel characters and offending you. It wasn't my intent at all, nor was it trying to "win" an argument or debate, since I wasn't even aware that it was taking place.

Sometimes the tone in which things are meant is lost in written communication, and the reader feels it's much more aggressive than intended. Apologies.

Talya
2012-03-22, 11:31 AM
Honestly, Disney should fire that entire marketing department.

They spent $100 million on marketing, and I didn't even hear about the movie until it was out for two weeks, and I'm both a movie buff and a huge Disney fan. (Of note, my son asked "Why is there no poster up for this movie at teh theater?" I replied, "There is, right there." He said "Oh, huh. yeah, I see it now. That's a boring poster." JCM is now his favorite movie.)

I'm glad I eventually did hear about it, because honestly, it was a great movie. It hit exactly where it was aiming for style, atmosphere, and target audience. But how can they spend $100 million and completely fail to notify their target audience?

bloodtide
2012-03-22, 12:04 PM
Honestly, Disney should fire that entire marketing department.

They spent $100 million on marketing, and I didn't even hear about the movie until it was out for two weeks, But how can they spend $100 million and completely fail to notify their target audience?

I vaguely heard about a year ago that this movie was being made...but then silence. The first time recently I heard about the movie were all the news reports that: ''This movie will bomb and flop'', and the movie was not even out at that time. I then watched the 'special' 5 minute trailer and saw the broadcast commercial trailer like twice. And now were back to:''It's offical, this movie is a bomb and a flop''.

So.......what exactly did they spend $100 million on?

comicshorse
2012-03-22, 12:25 PM
There seems to be a distinct difference between how marketing was handeled in the US to other places. Here in England I've been seeing trailers for John Carter fro weeks before I saw it. Trailers good enough to convince me to watch the movie ( though I'm an easy sell for sci-fi movies)

Thialfi
2012-03-22, 01:34 PM
There seems to be a distinct difference between how marketing was handeled in the US to other places. Here in England I've been seeing trailers for John Carter fro weeks before I saw it. Trailers good enough to convince me to watch the movie 9 though I'm an easy sell for sci-fi movies)

The film has done far better internationally than it has domestically. Maybe they saw this film as sort of like Thor and Tintin, where the subject matter appealled more to the international crowd and that is what drove those movies to profitability. Problem is Thor and Tintin at least held their own domestically and did very well overseas and John Carter was just did okay overseas and got crushed in the States.

hobbitkniver
2012-03-23, 12:51 PM
Saw it last night and we were the only people in the theatre. It was much less cliche than I expected and wasn't as predictable as I thought it would be. Overall, pretty good movie.

Soras Teva Gee
2012-03-23, 07:51 PM
I vaguely heard about a year ago that this movie was being made...but then silence. The first time recently I heard about the movie were all the news reports that: ''This movie will bomb and flop'', and the movie was not even out at that time. I then watched the 'special' 5 minute trailer and saw the broadcast commercial trailer like twice. And now were back to:''It's offical, this movie is a bomb and a flop''.

So.......what exactly did they spend $100 million on?

Superbowl ad almost certainly the largest piece of it.

Problem is it screamed "Generic Action MovieTM" and for all the money they surely spent for that time it had to compete with say The Avengers for attention. And frankly did a worse job then Battleship (yes, the game. There's a movie that deserves to bomb) at explaining what it was about.

comicshorse
2012-03-24, 07:13 AM
Superbowl ad almost certainly the largest piece of it.

Problem is it screamed "Generic Action MovieTM" and for all the money they surely spent for that time it had to compete with say The Avengers for attention. And frankly did a worse job then Battleship (yes, the game. There's a movie that deserves to bomb) at explaining what it was about.

Yeah it literally didn't occur to me until I started reading this thread but the trailers really explained nothing about what the film was about. I'd already heard of John Cater so didn't need the explanation and forgot other people would.

Turcano
2012-03-25, 03:38 AM
But how can they spend $100 million and completely fail to notify their target audience?


So.......what exactly did they spend $100 million on?

Come on, people. Cocaine buckets don't refill themselves, you know.

Bhu
2012-03-25, 09:44 AM
I vaguely heard about a year ago that this movie was being made...but then silence. The first time recently I heard about the movie were all the news reports that: ''This movie will bomb and flop'', and the movie was not even out at that time. I then watched the 'special' 5 minute trailer and saw the broadcast commercial trailer like twice. And now were back to:''It's offical, this movie is a bomb and a flop''.

So.......what exactly did they spend $100 million on?

Same thing politicians do. Buying ad time, printing posters, and making websites, and paying the staff of each of those endeavors. Why do you think political campaigns are so expensive these days? They may not have handled it well here but given the amount of international money its making they carpet bombed the airwaves elsewhere. That many ads costs a lot.