John Carter (film)

[Neil]

Well, at long last we get to see what a Pixar live action flick looks like :)

6Rf55GTEZ_E

And I believe, they're planning a trilogy of these films!?

[AcesandEights]

I've been kind of waiting on this one to see what direction they took the original material in. So it looks like it'll be a pulpy romp or a complete dud, which is probably better than a truly middle ground, overly contemporized version.

[wayzim]

I've been kind of waiting on this one to see what direction they took the original material in. So it looks like it'll be a pulpy romp or a complete dud, which is probably better than a truly middle ground, overly contemporized version.

But given that the title is simply John Carter - some purists will likely bitch about a possible venue change. I don't know - not predicting - just wondering if it's not the Red Planet of our childhood.

At least it making an attempt to keep to the original swashbuckling theme, so there's hope.

Wayne Z

[Legion2213]

Okay, this actually looks pretty good and reasonably faithful to the books...and that is coming from a an ERB fanboy who owns pretty much everything he published.

Dejah Thoris looks smoking hot as well.

[Neil]

Another trailer - http://www.cinemablend.com/new/Full-John-Carter-Trailer-Soars-Online-28130.html

Hate to say this, but for some reason it reminds me of *shudders* The Phantom Menace :(

[krisvds]

It reeks of Prince of Persia.

[Neil]

It reeks of Prince of Persia.

Didn't see it...

[krisvds]

Stter well clear. PoP is pretty shitty. Rented it. Fast forwarded through it.

Its in the overall vibe of the trailer; long haired hero, shoddy CGI, deserts, videogame - like...
Hope I'm mistaken though. It should be more early 20th century pulp IMO. You know, like the old Flash gordon serials.

[AcesandEights]

I haven't even seen Prince of Persia, yet I have to agree this trailer gives a very similar vibe to the PoP trailers I recall.

That said, it's John Carter of Mars...if it's even a halfway decent effort, I feel I'd better give it a shot. However, I will probably only give it a look on the netflix instant queue or cable.

[Neil]

yBVi3nDZlZ4

[Neil]

Clip...

6xBaGv5bx0Q#!

[EvilNed]

Never heard of John Carter before this film, but I'll probably catch this one in the cinemas. Looks like a good flick for some popcorn fun.

[Mike70]

Never heard of John Carter before this film, but I'll probably catch this one in the cinemas. Looks like a good flick for some popcorn fun.

John Carter is the invention of Edgar Rice Burroughs, the early 20th century pulp scifi writer. Burroughs was a contemporary of lovecraft and howard. his stories are much more in the adventure scifi/fantasy vein like howard's.

the character of john carter comes from a series of novels/novellas called the "Barsoom" series. it is pulp fantasy but worth checking out if you are even moderately interested in early 20th century fantasy and the emergence of the genre.

as for the movie - when i first saw the trailer, i looked at my brother and said "too bad Disney did it because otherwise i'd be all over this."

[Legion2213]

Latest trailer features a "great white ape" and Carter's martian guard dog "Woola"...that is enough for me to be even more pumped for this.

I'm guesing the female Thark on the raft is Tar Tarkas's daughter from the books as well.

[Neil]

jPevcb2IiGY

[Neil]

And the reviews start appearing - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/john-carter-film-review-297041


Derivative but charming and fun enough, Disney's mammoth sci-fier is both spectacular and a bit cheesy.

[Legion2213]

And the reviews start appearing - http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/john-carter-film-review-297041

The original novels were pretty formulaic stuff to be fair...ERB's "planetary romance/adventure" novels were always the same story with different characters and settings.

Not an ERB story without an earthman turning up somewhere else, exploring, winning the heart of a hot babe, being repeatedly captured and escaping whilst tracking his abducted woman and eventually being recognised as the best fighting man on the planet.

[Neil]

A fairly +ve review - http://www.aintitcool.com/node/54133


As for seeing it in 3D or 2D, seems the opinion is 2D as it's another post conversion job, so was not even filmed with 3D in mind...

[krisvds]

Or perhaps don't see it at all ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/08/john-carter-review

Hilarious review

[Neil]

^ Sorry, that sort of read like the reviewer was just knee-jerking and crying for attention don't you think?

[krisvds]

True. But still well written and made me laugh out loud a couple of times.
I'll probably will see the film some day but have to admit that those trailers did nothing for me.
Sure, John Carter came before Star Wars and all and everyone has 'borrowed' from those pulpy stories but still, the design on that film is so derivative of what we have all seen countless times. I saw a scene set in an arena that was so Attack of the clones I couldn't believe my eyes. Almost shot for shot!
American action cinema bores me more and more the older I get. So many of those films look and feel the same ...

There is still hope though. Saw Refn's Drive (i know, late to the party) recently and was totally blown away. Now if he does the Logan's run film like some rumours claim that will beone sci fi flick I will be looking forward to.

[Mike70]

There is still hope though. Saw Refn's Drive (i know, late to the party) recently and was totally blown away. Now if he does the Logan's run film like some rumours claim that will beone sci fi flick I will be looking forward to.

Logan's run is one of my fav movies ever. i even have a complete copy of the tv show. i have heard so many rumours over the last 20 years that a remake is going to be done that i've become numb to them. any remake done will probably have to follow the original movie because i just don't see the novella working as a movie.

[ProfessorChaos]

$250m budget, will probably earn less than $30m at the domestic box office. ouch.

was getting really sick of disney's unavoidable ad campaign for this film. glad to see that it's a bit of a flop and financial disappointment for the suits.

[Mike70]

$250m budget, will probably earn less than $30m at the domestic box office. ouch.

that is certainly one hell of a shot to the 'nads, that's for sure.

[clanglee]

Well I actually enjoyed it quite a bit. The story was a bit light but it was a fun ride.

[Mr.G]

that is certainly one hell of a shot to the 'nads, that's for sure.

What kind of ultimate zombie movie would that kind of cash make?

LOL that was in response to the 250 million dollar budget, not the nads comment....

[Legion2213]

Logan's run is one of my fav movies ever. i even have a complete copy of the tv show. i have heard so many rumours over the last 20 years that a remake is going to be done that i've become numb to them. any remake done will probably have to follow the original movie because i just don't see the novella working as a movie.

I watched the whole series ages ago - Genuinely awesome show that should have been given more time, Logan was likable, REM was well cool (and gave us much needed info bursts on Logan's world), Francis was a good vilian because he had a bit of depth to him and Jessica (Heather Menzies) was just fucking sublime.

Out on DVD this year aswell. :cool:

Edit: As for the Guardians views on JCOM...who gives a toss, the paper is dying a death, no opinion worth listening to there.

[CoinReturn]

Disney expects $200 million loss on John Carter (http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/19/200-million-write-down-for-john-carter-disney-says/)


“In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter."

I think that puts it into contention as the biggest box office bomb of all time, no?

[Neil]

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?

Is it really so bad? I've read some reviews that have been pretty +ve, so surely not?

And if I recall Water World was also declared a huge flop, but it's still a highly watchable film, and most certainly has not lost money overall surely (now)?

[EvilNed]

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.

[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.

[AcesandEights]

Okay, John Carter was one of the films I saw for free on a recent plane trip and I have to say...I enjoyed the hell out of it. Sure, I was probably loopy from a lack of sleep, I was desperate for anything to blot out the crying kids the row behind me and I didn't (directly) have to plunk down cash to watch it, but I still thought the thing had some nice pulp appeal to it and even some solid action, nice characterization and an occasional chuckle. Yeah, it's got some pitfalls, but if you're going to bring John Carter's Mars to life you had better go big or go home and I think the film did a decent job.

I advise a viewing, especially if you've ever been a fan of old pulps, but you must be in the right chill and relaxed mood. Also, don't try and ring your girlfriend/wife into watching it.

Color me pleasantly surprised.

[jamesbuttler]

John carter is nice movies......I watch this movie with my Freiends last night... I like this movies becoz this movie full of adventure and Entertainment...


I will give 8/10 rating to this movies........

[Neil]

Finally got around to watching it. I sort of enjoyed it, but it ultimately felt a bit flat for me unfortunately...

I'd give it a 6.510'ish?

[AcesandEights]

Finally got around to watching it. I sort of enjoyed it, but it ultimately felt a bit flat for me unfortunately...

I'd give it a 6.510'ish?

I think that's a fair review. I was thrilled they did the character relative justice, but it did feel overly long and a bit halfbaked. Still really enjoyed it, but man did this movie tank in the theaters.

[Legion2213]

This movie was as good as it could be when considering it was a story from 1917 being filmed for an audience in 2012 (yet still trying to respect the source material), I enjoyed it a lot.

Lyn Collins looked insanely good as well.

http://gallery.oneindia.in/ph-big/2011/12/john-carter_13232370583.jpg

I could watch her all day!