John Carter (film)

[Neil]

Waterworld was a "flop" criticswise, I guess but it did break even with worldwide gross and with the vhs and rental market as far as I know. I just saw John Carter, and I thought it was good. It had most of the stuff that Avatar lacked. Imagination being one thing. The 3D was unnecessary, as usual, but the film itself? A fun adventure, a great ride, good and interesting visuals and likeable characters. I know a lot of people criticize Avatar, but you can't really do it for "lack of imagination"... I think Avatar suffered from being told so slickly, it actually felt too easy Now, I'm not suggesting it's a masterful great piece of film making. But I would suggest it's a good solid piece of film making (with some flaws) My hope s with 2 & 3 he puts more meat on the story line & character bones... Good to hear you enjoyed John Carter, and you're not the first person who's suggested 2D is the way to go with it

[EvilNed]

Avatar was one of the least imaginative films I've seen that's got that much money pumped into it. There was nothing really "fantastical" about it. The aliens were all reminiscent of earth counterpart. There were alien panthers and alien rhinos and an alien jungle. I must've missed out on all this "imagination" and "creativity" everybody seems to have picked up. It was a technical masterpiece. But plot and design were not it's strong points. That's why I enjoyed this one. It played with the idea of an alien planet in more ways than that film. The alien culture seemed more creative and fantastic. You could at times sit back and feel how it was actually somewhat old fashioned - but in a good way. It was a good, fun adventure.

[rongravy]

That comment seems like utter madness? The film is still in the cinemas so why generate negativity about it with such a statement? Are they trying to make it do worse? Reverse child psychology?

[Danny]

I know a lot of people criticize Avatar, but you can't really do it for "lack of imagination"... ...uh, YEAH, yeah you can. the story was formulaic and stolen from various movies, the locales didn't make sense and were taken from previous movies and videogames without shame. there was not a shred of thought, originality or imagination put into avatar. it was science fiction at its most lowbrow and loosest sense of the word.

[Neil]

Avatar was one of the least imaginative films I've seen that's got that much money pumped into it. There was nothing really "fantastical" about it. The aliens were all reminiscent of earth counterpart. There were alien panthers and alien rhinos and an alien jungle. I enjoyed the way the leaps of faith seemed grounded. ie: Everything in the world, although different, seemed grounded in something we could relate to somehow. ie: Nothing was so extreme it rang alarm bells. And as clear example of imagination:- - The idea that life on that planet could all be connected by a common neural network, even down to plant life? Such that a part of peoples consciousness could even reside elsewhere? - Impossiblatanium: OK, super floaty rock is of course a daft leap of faith, but it resulted in amazing geography like huge floating mountains. - Phosphorescence: That first night time scene was beautiful. And dare I say imaginative? - Plant/animal life: There were some wonderfully imaginative animals and plants, but none of which felt outlandish or too far fetched. ie: You could believe they might exist. There was even a careful consistency to the biology of the animals/plant. ie: It wasn't just anything goes. - Avatars: While not completely original, it was handled fairly nicely in the film. It was a technical masterpiece. But plot and design were not it's strong points. Yes, the plot lacked a bit of depth That's why I enjoyed this one. It played with the idea of an alien planet in more ways than that film. The alien culture seemed more creative and fantastic. You could at times sit back and feel how it was actually somewhat old fashioned - but in a good way. It was a good, fun adventure. I'll try and see it at the cinema. -- -------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:38 AM ---------- ...uh, YEAH, yeah you can. the story was formulaic and stolen from various movies, the locales didn't make sense and were taken from previous movies and videogames without shame. there was not a shred of thought, originality or imagination put into avatar. it was science fiction at its most lowbrow and loosest sense of the word. Sorry, that does sound like a rant rather than a considered statement. "there was not a shred of thought, originality or imagination put into avatar" - Let's be just a bit fair and rational, else there's no way to discuss it at all..

[Danny]

Sorry, that sounds like a rant rather than a considered statement. ie: I need to make extreme comments in order to validate my opinion? "there was not a shred of thought, originality or imagination put into avatar" - Come on, let's be just a bit fair and rational... Else there's no way to discuss it at all.. 1: a rant consists of more than two lines of criticism. 2: show me an example of me being wrong in any way, show me originality , a single shred of it in story, the 'animals......in spaaaaaace!' videogame design of the world, any of it. it is utterly devoid of originality. just saying 'but it looked good' is like saying house of the dead is a good zombie movie because some of the zombies looked good. 3: "be fair"? to what? to whom? am i hurting james camerons feelings? or the movies? it was a bad film and i will not call it anything but that to defend the virtues of some intagible idea that demands 'fairness'. I am allowed my opinion, and it is that avatar was a creative void. nothing in it was fresh, new or origional. every actor was a trope, the subtext was paper thing, the aliens were not aliens but fantasy creatures based on counterparts of things on earth straight out of world of warcraft. it is a bad movie. serious, without saying 'b-but look at the effects!' tell me why this is even an average movie let alone a mediocre one. come on Neil, be fair, whats good about avatar?

[Neil]

1: a rant consists of more than two lines of criticism. 2: show me an example of me being wrong in any way, show me originality , a single shred of it in story, the 'animals......in spaaaaaace!' videogame design of the world, any of it. it is utterly devoid of originality. just saying 'but it looked good' is like saying house of the dead is a good zombie movie because some of the zombies looked good. 3: "be fair"? to what? to whom? am i hurting james camerons feelings? or the movies? it was a bad film and i will not call it anything but that to defend the virtues of some intagible idea that demands 'fairness'. I am allowed my opinion, and it is that avatar was a creative void. nothing in it was fresh, new or origional. every actor was a trope, the subtext was paper thing, the aliens were not aliens but fantasy creatures based on counterparts of things on earth straight out of world of warcraft. it is a bad movie. serious, without saying 'b-but look at the effects!' tell me why this is even an average movie let alone a mediocre one. come on Neil, be fair, whats good about avatar? If you feel your comment, "there was not a shred of thought, originality or imagination put into avatar," is entirely justified and a valid comment then I suspect there's not really any common ground for us to work with. It comes across as too extreme. As for what I considered "imaginative," I gave some simple examples 2-3 posts up. As regards having to 'defend Avatar'... It seems it suffers from the same problem Titanic does. It's hugely successful, so some people feel they need to criticise all the harder. Is Avatar a masterpiece? Of course not. It's plot is unfortunately a little thin and far more could have been made of the story and characters. That said, the production itself is very solid. Using a whole new technology set the film is solidly shot and told. And I think it's so well done people actually overlook it and take it for granted.

[Danny]

That said, the production itself is very solid. Using a whole new technology set the film is solidly shot and told. true, but the problem is, remove the word 'film' and you could be talking about a ride at universal studios. the moment a film has to rely on its production to sell it over story and acting you are a good theme park ride, not a good motion picture.

[Neil]

true, but the problem is, remove the word 'film' and you could be talking about a ride at universal studios. the moment a film has to rely on its production to sell it over story and acting you are a good theme park ride, not a good motion picture. They are connected though aren't they. If you took out the beautiful effects (& music) out of Star Wars the experience would be lessened. The audience wouldn't connect as well. So indeed, one of my favourite scenes in Avatar, when the two of them run through the forest at night, would be far less of an experience had the effects not been as good. Is this a bad thing? Not really... The director used a tool available to him to better express that part of the film. Now onto your overall point. If we stripped Avatar of its effects what is left. You're suggesting nothing. I'd have to disagree here. There is a story - be it somewhat simple - and it is told very solidly. And I'll repeat, that Cameron gets the story and action so well across that it seems effortless, and indeed may come across as far less than it is... Again, I'm not suggesting Avatar is a masterpiece, but it is a solid film in many aspects and I cannot understand why so many people feel the need to level so many seemingly over-harsh comments towards it. Yes, it's story was simpler than I would have liked, but I can still watch it and enjoyed the story, imagination and beauty that is there I can't wait to see what Cameron brings to the table with 2 & 3 - I just hope they have a stronger/deeper plot.

[MinionZombie]

I'm with you, Neil, on the subject of Avatar. As for John Carter ... I have zero interest in ever seeing it. I thought it was a moronic idea to remove "of Mars" from the title, the budget is far too big, the aliens look daft, and who the crap is this Kitsch guy? And yet, as Mark Kermode wrote about in his latest book, disasters like these rarely fail to recoup their budgets eventually - oftentimes because of the sheer scale of the disaster, it brings in punters to see for themselves why it was so shit. An example he gives is Waterworld - a right old turkey - yet with the theme park attraction, and various releases and merchandise (and lucrative, loving foreign markets) it's gone on to be a bit of a hit much further down the line. I doubt John Carter can pull off the same feat, but eventually it'll probably manage to recoup most of the losses - but right now it's a flaming disaster, so it seems.

[AcesandEights]

It is a damn shame this thing will lose out so big at the box office, as I'm certain I will enjoy the film more than a lot of big dollar earners (e.g. Phantom Menace).

[Neil]

It is a damn shame this thing will lose out so big at the box office, as I'm certain I will enjoy the film more than a lot of big dollar earners (e.g. Phantom Menace). I suspect you're right there!

[EvilNed]

I enjoyed the way the leaps of faith seemed grounded. ie: Everything in the world, although different, seemed grounded in something we could relate to somehow. ie: Nothing was so extreme it rang alarm bells. And as clear example of imagination:- - The idea that life on that planet could all be connected by a common neural network, even down to plant life? Such that a part of peoples consciousness could even reside elsewhere? - Impossiblatanium: OK, super floaty rock is of course a daft leap of faith, but it resulted in amazing geography like huge floating mountains. - Phosphorescence: That first night time scene was beautiful. And dare I say imaginative? - Plant/animal life: There were some wonderfully imaginative animals and plants, but none of which felt outlandish or too far fetched. ie: You could believe they might exist. There was even a careful consistency to the biology of the animals/plant. ie: It wasn't just anything goes. - Avatars: While not completely original, it was handled fairly nicely in the film. I was mostly referring to the overall design, which was very underwhelming. I think you'll agree there. There was nothing visually interesting really, apart from the effects. Nothing special. Nothing "wow, that was clever!" or anything like that. Everything was more or less based on real world counterparts.

[Neil]

There was nothing visually interesting really, apart from the effects. Nothing special. Nothing "wow, that was clever!" or anything like that. Everything was more or less based on real world counterparts. Not sure what your point is? I've already said much of my enjoyment of the plants and animals is they seemed grounded in believability. ie: Nothing seemed too far away from our realms of believable biology. If we had rediculous creatures I suspect I wouldn't have enjoyed it as much as it would have been a leap of faith too far. As for, "visually interesting", or "wow" or "clever" ideas, I can only go by my reaction, and my partners, and include numerous things such as I included before... I could even mention little things like the plants that 'flomped' shut when touched, or the little creatures that corkscrewed off into the air. All nice little touches of imagination.

[rongravy]

Saw it tonight, for free no less. My kid's friend works at the theater now and said whenever we want in, just let him know. Sweeet. It does have an Avatar vibe, I agree. But yeah, I definitely think this one kicked it in the balls. It's funny how some things just hit big, and some don't. I liked it. I wouldn't say I'd poo myself over it, but time flew by pretty fast watching it. Didn't feel as long as it was. That's gotta be a good thing. Too bad there won't be a sequel.