Jump to content


Photo

John Carter (Of Mars): The Movie


  • Please log in to reply
909 replies to this topic

#721 username

username

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 13 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:14 AM

I felt like John Carter delivered the kind of Hollywood escapism I've been wanting from films for the past decade. It not only nails the right tone and spirit of the source material, but does so in a way that's surprisingly organic. The humor, romance, and action have a natural, genuine flow- something that's become a rarity in blockbusters these days.

I agree it's depressing that many moviegoers today seem more interested in mocking a film's box office failure than actually giving it a chance. Even though the internet has created an environment where just about anything can be a successful blockbuster, that's typically only true if a strong marketing campaign is able to generate positive buzz around it first.

Perhaps the greatest compliment I can pay John Carter is to simply say that it stayed with me afterwards- something no film has been able to do for a very long time. I didn't just fall in love with Princess Dejah Thoris, I actually believed she was worth the effort to try and reach Mars. That's what movies used to do to me as a kid, back when I would walk out of a theater to find that the world outside no longer looked quite the same anymore.

Here's one of the better reviews I've seen, and it touches on a similar theme. I had many of the same criticisms concerning the film's script, but the bottom line is that they just didn't matter.

http://www.rabbitroo...me-young-again/

When I walked out of the theater on March 9th, I was teetering on the verge of conversion. I felt a little like I’d just seen a new Star Wars movie, with a dash of Indiana Jones thrown in, but I was bothered by some perceived second act clunkiness, some thinly written scenes, some general goofiness, and, oddly enough, a nagging suspicion of its “almost-greatness.” My reaction was ambiguous, but I couldn’t shake the film. I couldn’t shake the feeling that for two hours, I’d been a kid again, peering wide-eyed into a fantastic world just beyond the world I could see.


PS. FWIW, I notice that John Carter's expected net loss is now being reported as $166 million instead of $200 million. Too bad it had to lose so many theaters to The Hunger Games, otherwise there may have been a real chance of mitigating the damage even further.

#722 Ironhand

Ironhand

    The Mad Playwright

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint Louis, MO, USA

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:33 AM

It's weird, but after multiple viewings, my biggest criticism of the film hasn't even been mentioned (if it has by some blogger or reviewer, then I must have missed it - sorry). The biggest plot hole that I saw was that it sure seemed to take a looooong time for Sab Than and Dejah Thoris to get married, and during that same period Carter manages to get an awful lot of stuff accomplished. Even assuming that she put on her dress early in the morning and the wedding procession took all of that day and late into the night, during the same time period Carter was able to escape from Zodanga, travel all the way to Thark, get thrown in the arena, become the Jeddak of Thark, rally the Thank forces, travel by banth all the way to Zodanga, and from there travel all the way to Helium via a one man flyer just in time to crash the wedding. Of course, if we're going to criticise the film for this, then I would also have to point out that in the Empire Strikes Back, Luke manages to complete several weeks or even months worth of Jedi training in the same time it takes Han and Leia to travel to an asteroid field and then to Cloud City, seemingly just a few hours or days at the most, not to mention that Vader manages to get back to his Star Destroyer ahead of Leia and Lando. The latter plot hole was so obvious that Lucas tried to fix it in the special edition, but in doing so he really only managed to make it more glaringly obvious IMO.

Hey, Amster, have you ever gotten married? It takes MONTHS! And every day seems like a year! And the last day seems like a lifetime. The rings, the guest list, the caterers, the bridesmaids' dresses... :unsure:

And of course, on Mars they have to wait for the two moons to conjunct.

Edited by Ironhand, 26 March 2012 - 03:39 AM.

"Did you deem yourself strong, because you were able to twist the heads off civilized folk, poor weaklings with muscles like rotten string? Hell! Break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull before you call yourself strong. I did that, before I was a full-grown man...!" - Conan, in "Shadows in Zamboula", by Robert E. Howard
"... you speak of Venarium familiarly. Perhaps you were there?"
"I was," grunted [Conan]. "I was one of the horde that swarmed over the hills. I hadn't yet seen fifteen snows, but already my name was repeated about the council fires." - "Beyond the Black River", by Robert E. Howard

Read my Conan screenplays at The Scrolls of Ironhand (in particular my transcription of THE FROST GIANT'S DAUGHTER in Act II of "The Snow Devil") at
http://www.scrollsof...d.us/index.html or at
http://www.delicious...ic=ConanProject

#723 Majere

Majere

    Adventurer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 342 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Shanghai

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:44 AM

As of today, John Carter has officially grossed over $179,000,000 worldwide. I don't see how it doesn't hit $200,000,000 after next weekend.

When it is all said and done, I truly believe the film will at least break even if not turn a small profit, especially after DVD sales.

Which will leave us with some interesting questions, namely, how does a movie studio with as much experience as Disney botch the release of a legitimately good film, and do so while (supposedly) spending $100,000,000 on marketing?

Question number two, is there any studio out there willing to pick up the rights to a John Carter sequel, the way Disney did with the Chronicles of Narnia? I still think this franchise could prosper with the right people at the helm. A smaller budget, much better marketing, and a proper release date could make all the difference.
"The Perfect Blossom is a rare thing. A man could spend his entire life searching for one, and it would not be a wasted life."

#724 amster

amster

    Maladjusted to the point of pychosis

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside the ordered universe, where the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 03:00 PM

As of today, John Carter has officially grossed over $179,000,000 worldwide. I don't see how it doesn't hit $200,000,000 after next weekend.


Actually, it's grossed $234,447,000, according to Box Office Mojo.

http://boxofficemojo...arterofmars.htm

I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, but it seems like it's destined to at least gross it's production budget before it's pulled from theatres, and the premature announcement of failure from from Disney probably lost them tens of millions in additional revenue. Someone decided to throw this film under the bus.
Posted Image
Money and muscle, that's what I want; to be able to do any damned thing I want and get away with it. Money won't do that altogether, because if a man is a weakling, all the money in the world won't enable him to soak an enemy himself; on the other hand, unless he has money he may not be able to get away with it.
--Robert E. Howard to Harold Preece, ca. June 1928--

#725 Cuchulain

Cuchulain

    Mauler of Shadizar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 26 March 2012 - 05:48 PM


As of today, John Carter has officially grossed over $179,000,000 worldwide. I don't see how it doesn't hit $200,000,000 after next weekend.


Actually, it's grossed $234,447,000, according to Box Office Mojo.

http://boxofficemojo...arterofmars.htm

I'm not prone to conspiracy theories, but it seems like it's destined to at least gross it's production budget before it's pulled from theatres, and the premature announcement of failure from from Disney probably lost them tens of millions in additional revenue. Someone decided to throw this film under the bus.


it really does sound like Disney had planned this as a big write off from the beginning and hadn't planned for it to have a good turn out. like part of the 100 million on marketing was also to pay off critics to give it a bad review and since that didn't work so well, they came out 10 DAYS after the release to hurt the sales by making their announcement condemning it to failure.

#726 Kortoso

Kortoso

    -=Reiver of the Western Marches=-

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,400 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern California

Posted 26 March 2012 - 06:03 PM

I'd chalk it up to pure stupidity before I'd buy into a conspiracy theory. :)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure
about the the universe." -Einstein

#727 terryallenuk

terryallenuk

    Barbarian from the British Isles

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,221 posts
  • Location:Redditch , England

Posted 26 March 2012 - 08:10 PM


Card has repeatedly called Edgar Rice Burroughs rubbish.

Which I suppose is fine, since I consider Card's work (including Ender's Game) to be far more rubbishy than anything Burroughs ever wrote. He's up there with Robert J. Sawyer on my "worst living sf authors" list.

Chis Tookey of the Daily mail slagged off JOHN CARTER massively, at the same time he praised HUNGER GAMES to the high heavens, that's OK cos Tookey's a wanker.


I know I always dread reading his reviews , he rarely likes my type of film unless , I think , it's one he's supposed to :wacko:

Terry

The Robert E Howard Comics Group is dedicated to the characters created by Robert E Howard that have appeared in comic book form from Marvel Comics , Dark Horse Comics , BOOM Studios, Cross Plains Comics , Dynamite Entertainment etc.

 

http://groups.yahoo....REHcomicsgroup/


http://www.facebook.com/rehcomicsgroup

 


#728 NikToo

NikToo

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:16 PM

Just saw this film last night, really the last chance I had since it finishes its run tomorrow night. My brother saw it and highly recommended it. I totally loved it. Great attention to detail, reasonably within the canon of the originals, and thoroughly entertaining. Just fortunate for the good guys that Dejah Toris wasn't hit by the ugly stick. ;)

All "superhero" movies these days are all about "origin story", as in our own dreadful Conan. This, however, is the origin story for all science-fiction. Without John Carter, no Flash Gordon. No Flash Gordon, no Star Wars, no Star Wars and we'd all be watching French arthouse films for the last 30 years.

It's really sad that the critics couldn't see this film for what it was: pure pulp science-fiction entertainment. It's supposed to be cheesy, it's supposed to have strange words like Therns, Jeddaks and Banths, and if it bears any resemblance to Avatar, it's because Avatar stole their story from John Carter, not the other way round. And it was still better made than all the Star Wars prequels and most modern movie dross. I also don't get the whole marketing thing making such an enormous loss, I certainly haven't noticed any mass marketing campaigns. Think it's Hollywood financing, like when they tried to say LOTR also lost money, it's just a tax dodge so Disney can write off some other losses against it. It's a great, great shame there'll never be a sequel, bit like Serenity. I think it speaks volumes that on IMDB the critic metascore is 51/100 but the median user review is 8/10. People that actually see it actually do like it. I just hope we get an extended DVD now with some nice extras to remind us what could have been.

If anyone on here hasn't seen it because of the critics, sod them all and go see it. You wouldn't be here if you didn't like that sort of movie. :)

Edited by NikToo, 26 March 2012 - 09:35 PM.

Let me live deep while I live.

Ride on, Kull of Atlantis; greater shall follow you; greater came before you.

#729 NikToo

NikToo

    Spear Carrier

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 43 posts

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:25 PM

It's weird, but after multiple viewings, my biggest criticism of the film hasn't even been mentioned (if it has by some blogger or reviewer, then I must have missed it - sorry). The biggest plot hole that I saw was that it sure seemed to take a looooong time for Sab Than and Dejah Thoris to get married, and during that same period Carter manages to get an awful lot of stuff accomplished.


Well, it would have been a pretty shite ending to the movie: "No, sorry, you're late, they got married weeks ago, mate." :)

I just wonder if the fact that Martians lay eggs was mentioned on the wedding night (http://barsoom.wikia...ki/Red_Martians). :D
Let me live deep while I live.

Ride on, Kull of Atlantis; greater shall follow you; greater came before you.

#730 theagenes

theagenes

    WarLord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 March 2012 - 09:47 PM


It's weird, but after multiple viewings, my biggest criticism of the film hasn't even been mentioned (if it has by some blogger or reviewer, then I must have missed it - sorry). The biggest plot hole that I saw was that it sure seemed to take a looooong time for Sab Than and Dejah Thoris to get married, and during that same period Carter manages to get an awful lot of stuff accomplished.


Well, it would have been a pretty shite ending to the movie: "No, sorry, you're late, they got married weeks ago, mate." :)

I just wonder if the fact that Martians lay eggs was mentioned on the wedding night (http://barsoom.wikia...ki/Red_Martians). :D


I get the impression that Stanton was going to avoid making the Red Martians oviparous like the Green Martians and if so then that's a change I'm happy with. Otherwise there would be no reason for Dejah Thoris to have boobs or a navel. Of without the sequels it won't be an issue.


Edit: Actually I guess she could she could still have boobs if she's like a platypus, but still ....

Edited by theagenes, 26 March 2012 - 10:00 PM.

Check out my blog: An Age Undreamed Of

#731 El Borak's Li'l Brother

El Borak's Li'l Brother

    WarLord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:50 PM

At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...
Crom!

#732 mario

mario

    Adventurer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 264 posts
  • Gender:Not Telling

Posted 26 March 2012 - 10:53 PM

um so how do you really feel about this? you sound like this was pent up for a while , do you need to talk to someone about this issue? ;)

#733 theagenes

theagenes

    WarLord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,332 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:32 PM

At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...


Completely disagree. Stanton and Chabon made some changes, but most of them make sense, especially if you're trying to set the stage for a coherent trilogy. There were a few weak spots here and there, but overall this was a refreshingly entertaining old-school adventure film. No way is this anywhere near Conan 2011. And both Stanton and Chabon are life-long ERB fans. Stanton fought hard to get this film made---something no one else has been able to pull off in nearly 80 years of trying. You may not like their product===that's perfectly fine===but to assert that they haven't read the books is absurb. Whether you like what they did or not, this film was a labor of love on their part, no doubt about it.
Check out my blog: An Age Undreamed Of

#734 amster

amster

    Maladjusted to the point of pychosis

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside the ordered universe, where the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity.

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:44 PM


At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...


Completely disagree. Stanton and Chabon made some changes, but most of them make sense, especially if you're trying to set the stage for a coherent trilogy. There were a few weak spots here and there, but overall this was a refreshingly entertaining old-school adventure film. No way is this anywhere near Conan 2011. And both Stanton and Chabon are life-long ERB fans. Stanton fought hard to get this film made---something no one else has been able to pull off in nearly 80 years of trying. You may not like their product===that's perfectly fine===but to assert that they haven't read the books is absurb. Whether you like what they did or not, this film was a labor of love on their part, no doubt about it.


Nothing to add really, except that the "IT HAS CGI!!!!" argument is really old and lame at this point, since 1) it's been an integral part of making SciFi/Fantasy films for 20 years now, 2) anyone who's read ERB knows that CGI was the only way to realistically render many of his races and creatures, and 3) they could have went the greenscreen route and probably saved tens of millions in production costs, but most of the film was shot either on handmade sets or real outdoor environments.
Posted Image
Money and muscle, that's what I want; to be able to do any damned thing I want and get away with it. Money won't do that altogether, because if a man is a weakling, all the money in the world won't enable him to soak an enemy himself; on the other hand, unless he has money he may not be able to get away with it.
--Robert E. Howard to Harold Preece, ca. June 1928--

#735 Cuchulain

Cuchulain

    Mauler of Shadizar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 26 March 2012 - 11:48 PM

I'd chalk it up to pure stupidity before I'd buy into a conspiracy theory. :)
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure
about the the universe." -Einstein


so would I, my friend. just pointing out how coincidentally it lines up with stupidity

#736 Cuchulain

Cuchulain

    Mauler of Shadizar

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 838 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:San Francisco

Posted 27 March 2012 - 12:23 AM



At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...


Completely disagree. Stanton and Chabon made some changes, but most of them make sense, especially if you're trying to set the stage for a coherent trilogy. There were a few weak spots here and there, but overall this was a refreshingly entertaining old-school adventure film. No way is this anywhere near Conan 2011. And both Stanton and Chabon are life-long ERB fans. Stanton fought hard to get this film made---something no one else has been able to pull off in nearly 80 years of trying. You may not like their product===that's perfectly fine===but to assert that they haven't read the books is absurb. Whether you like what they did or not, this film was a labor of love on their part, no doubt about it.


Nothing to add really, except that the "IT HAS CGI!!!!" argument is really old and lame at this point, since 1) it's been an integral part of making SciFi/Fantasy films for 20 years now, 2) anyone who's read ERB knows that CGI was the only way to realistically render many of his races and creatures, and 3) they could have went the greenscreen route and probably saved tens of millions in production costs, but most of the film was shot either on handmade sets or real outdoor environments.


If its the CG that one hates well I think Asylum did one named Princess of Mars that doesn't have any or if it does then it is very little CG work

#737 El Borak's Li'l Brother

El Borak's Li'l Brother

    WarLord

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,369 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Alabama

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:27 AM



At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...


Completely disagree. Stanton and Chabon made some changes, but most of them make sense, especially if you're trying to set the stage for a coherent trilogy. There were a few weak spots here and there, but overall this was a refreshingly entertaining old-school adventure film. No way is this anywhere near Conan 2011. And both Stanton and Chabon are life-long ERB fans. Stanton fought hard to get this film made---something no one else has been able to pull off in nearly 80 years of trying. You may not like their product===that's perfectly fine===but to assert that they haven't read the books is absurb. Whether you like what they did or not, this film was a labor of love on their part, no doubt about it.


Nothing to add really, except that the "IT HAS CGI!!!!" argument is really old and lame at this point, since 1) it's been an integral part of making SciFi/Fantasy films for 20 years now, 2) anyone who's read ERB knows that CGI was the only way to realistically render many of his races and creatures, and 3) they could have went the greenscreen route and probably saved tens of millions in production costs, but most of the film was shot either on handmade sets or real outdoor environments.


It's not that it has cgi. It's that it has the same, tired cgi copycat patterns. There were some definite cgi art in this flick, but! Case in point...

I sit through three previews. 1) some alien bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 2) another apparently alin bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 3) The Avengers with -- you guessed it -- buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding. All the same basic rubbish just a different title.

Then we get into the flick. No cars or planes obviously, but airships exploding, buildings exploding and giant, over-the-top battle sequences I've seen a zillion times over.

Just taking the visuals supplied by Burroughs himself would have been enough to thrill, or at least would've been ages ago before story was lost to flashing lights for the eyes.

If the flickmakers had a true love for Burroughs I doubt they would've butchered his work the way they did. That's like saying a dumb Tarzan saying "Me Tarzan, you Jane;" was the ultimate true-to-Burroughs adaptation...
Crom!

#738 amster

amster

    Maladjusted to the point of pychosis

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,219 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Outside the ordered universe, where the boundless daemon sultan Azathoth, whose name no lips dare speak aloud, blasphemes and bubbles at the center of all infinity.

Posted 27 March 2012 - 01:41 AM

It's not that it has cgi. It's that it has the same, tired cgi copycat patterns. There were some definite cgi art in this flick, but! Case in point...

I sit through three previews. 1) some alien bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 2) another apparently alin bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 3) The Avengers with -- you guessed it -- buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding. All the same basic rubbish just a different title.

Then we get into the flick. No cars or planes obviously, but airships exploding, buildings exploding and giant, over-the-top battle sequences I've seen a zillion times over.


Maybe you should have just showed up late to avoid the trailers. It sounds to me like you just have a problem with modern film in general.

Just taking the visuals supplied by Burroughs himself would have been enough to thrill, or at least would've been ages ago before story was lost to flashing lights for the eyes.


We must have watched different films, because I saw lots of visuals that came straight from the mind of ERB: Airship battles? I'm pretty sure that when radium cannons unload on other airships, they cause explosions. John Carter killing Green Men in such a frenzy that they're piled up as tall as he is around him? Yep, straight from Burroughs (read Warlord of Mars). I guess we have him to blame for making such scenes so over the top to begin with.


If the flickmakers had a true love for Burroughs I doubt they would've butchered his work the way they did. That's like saying a dumb Tarzan saying "Me Tarzan, you Jane;" was the ultimate true-to-Burroughs adaptation...


Your analogy doesn't even make sense.

For me, I loved the action sequences and the eye candy, but they weren't even my favorite parts of the film. I was more drawn to the romance between John and Dejah, Woola's affection and loyalty, Carter's backstory and characterization, the performances by all of the principal actors, which came through clearly even though the CGI rendered characters, all the lines of memorable dialogue, and Michael Giacchinno's amazing score that for me rivals John Williams and Basil Pouledouris' best work.

Edited by amster, 27 March 2012 - 01:56 AM.

Posted Image
Money and muscle, that's what I want; to be able to do any damned thing I want and get away with it. Money won't do that altogether, because if a man is a weakling, all the money in the world won't enable him to soak an enemy himself; on the other hand, unless he has money he may not be able to get away with it.
--Robert E. Howard to Harold Preece, ca. June 1928--

#739 Ironhand

Ironhand

    The Mad Playwright

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint Louis, MO, USA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:28 AM




At a cost of $250 million to make and a three week total of $62+ million dollars, Walt Disney took what could have been an epic blockbuster and turned A Princess of Mars into a cgi overdone/typical modern overkill flop entitled John Carter.

The flick story was a total Hollywood bag of cgi explosions and destruction of buildings, massive battles, etc., with the typical master race villains blah dee blah that touched on scenes from the book obviously told to the flickmakers because it was clearly obvious they had never read the book. Maybe they had the cliff notes?

A sad case and yet another example of how brain-dead and copycat flickmakers are these days. They were given a masterpiece by a master storyteller and in the end flushed out another load of crap. Just like Conan the Barbarian 2011...


P.S. The tattoo myth. Oh, we just had to tattoo everybody up because the red skin was distracting. What a load... Those stupid face and body tattoos were so distracting it was at points maddening. But it was a great justification for the folks with tattoos, as if they need such...


Completely disagree. Stanton and Chabon made some changes, but most of them make sense, especially if you're trying to set the stage for a coherent trilogy. There were a few weak spots here and there, but overall this was a refreshingly entertaining old-school adventure film. No way is this anywhere near Conan 2011. And both Stanton and Chabon are life-long ERB fans. Stanton fought hard to get this film made---something no one else has been able to pull off in nearly 80 years of trying. You may not like their product===that's perfectly fine===but to assert that they haven't read the books is absurb. Whether you like what they did or not, this film was a labor of love on their part, no doubt about it.


Nothing to add really, except that the "IT HAS CGI!!!!" argument is really old and lame at this point, since 1) it's been an integral part of making SciFi/Fantasy films for 20 years now, 2) anyone who's read ERB knows that CGI was the only way to realistically render many of his races and creatures, and 3) they could have went the greenscreen route and probably saved tens of millions in production costs, but most of the film was shot either on handmade sets or real outdoor environments.


It's not that it has cgi. It's that it has the same, tired cgi copycat patterns. There were some definite cgi art in this flick, but! Case in point...

I sit through three previews. 1) some alien bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 2) another apparently alin bore with buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding; 3) The Avengers with -- you guessed it -- buildings exploding, cars crashing, planes exploding. All the same basic rubbish just a different title.

Then we get into the flick. No cars or planes obviously, but airships exploding, buildings exploding and giant, over-the-top battle sequences I've seen a zillion times over.

Just taking the visuals supplied by Burroughs himself would have been enough to thrill, or at least would've been ages ago before story was lost to flashing lights for the eyes.

If the flickmakers had a true love for Burroughs I doubt they would've butchered his work the way they did. That's like saying a dumb Tarzan saying "Me Tarzan, you Jane;" was the ultimate true-to-Burroughs adaptation...

EBLB, what movie did you watch? Not the one I saw. I'm totally in agreement with Amster on this (And he and I have argued furiously on other topics).

The effort of the Disney moguls to flopbugger this movie reminds me of nothing so much as "The Producers" who banked their future on the predicted failure of "Springtime for Hitler and Germany". ("Oh no, it's a success, we're ruined!")
"Did you deem yourself strong, because you were able to twist the heads off civilized folk, poor weaklings with muscles like rotten string? Hell! Break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull before you call yourself strong. I did that, before I was a full-grown man...!" - Conan, in "Shadows in Zamboula", by Robert E. Howard
"... you speak of Venarium familiarly. Perhaps you were there?"
"I was," grunted [Conan]. "I was one of the horde that swarmed over the hills. I hadn't yet seen fifteen snows, but already my name was repeated about the council fires." - "Beyond the Black River", by Robert E. Howard

Read my Conan screenplays at The Scrolls of Ironhand (in particular my transcription of THE FROST GIANT'S DAUGHTER in Act II of "The Snow Devil") at
http://www.scrollsof...d.us/index.html or at
http://www.delicious...ic=ConanProject

#740 Ironhand

Ironhand

    The Mad Playwright

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Saint Louis, MO, USA

Posted 27 March 2012 - 02:37 AM

I wish someone would make a Conan movie as true to the letter and spirit of REH as John Carter was to ERB.
"Did you deem yourself strong, because you were able to twist the heads off civilized folk, poor weaklings with muscles like rotten string? Hell! Break the neck of a wild Cimmerian bull before you call yourself strong. I did that, before I was a full-grown man...!" - Conan, in "Shadows in Zamboula", by Robert E. Howard
"... you speak of Venarium familiarly. Perhaps you were there?"
"I was," grunted [Conan]. "I was one of the horde that swarmed over the hills. I hadn't yet seen fifteen snows, but already my name was repeated about the council fires." - "Beyond the Black River", by Robert E. Howard

Read my Conan screenplays at The Scrolls of Ironhand (in particular my transcription of THE FROST GIANT'S DAUGHTER in Act II of "The Snow Devil") at
http://www.scrollsof...d.us/index.html or at
http://www.delicious...ic=ConanProject