Disney's JOHN CARTER in Current Horror, Sci-Fi and Fantasy Films Forum

0 Points

Forum Jump

Disney's JOHN CARTER

Author	Comment
ByronOrlok		#281	[-]
Jul 2 12 4:35 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wow, I HATED the tacked-on "mah family was kilt" back-story. For one thing, it's a lazy, over-used cliche. Plus, it set up one of my other big problems with the movie, that JC is such a Gloomy Gus for way too much of the running time. I don't know if the Tragic Back-story was Stanton and Chabon's original intention, or if it was something forced on them by a zealous Disney executive note-giver, but man, it's a buzz-kill. Being so grim and mopey makes him really hard to root for (in my opinion). The "Reluctant Hero" bit is hard to pull off. Worked like gangbusters in THE ROAD WARRIOR, was a fatal mistake in GREEN LANTERN, didn't work much better here. Honestly, I think ERB's Back-story Lite approach would have worked just fine. He wakes up on Mars, realizes he's kinda stuck there, decides to make the best of it. Makes friends with the Green folk, falls in love with the Incomparable Princess, gets on with it. I can root for that guy. Movie Carter doesn't want nothin' to do with nobody, just wants to go home. WHY he wants to go home, I have no idea -- it's not like things were going so great for him back there either. I know, i know, the gold mine. But he's so busy mourning his dead, is all that gold really gonna make him happy? It's weak.
	Remove this ad
luluthebeast		#282	[-]
Jul 2 12 7:21 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	ByronOrlok wrote: Wow, I HATED the tacked-on "mah family was kilt" back-story. For one thing, it's a lazy, over-used cliche. Plus, it set up one of my other big problems with the movie, that JC is such a Gloomy Gus for way too much of the running time. I don't know if the Tragic Back-story was Stanton and Chabon's original intention, or if it was something forced on them by a zealous Disney executive note-giver, but man, it's a buzz-kill. Being so grim and mopey makes him really hard to root for (in my opinion). I agree. Even though I loved the movie, this was the worst part; it was way too JOSIE WALES. Besides, in the book he had no memory of before he was 30, which they should have kept. The movie in general was hurt by committee, both in production and in marketing.
Omega Man		#283	[-]
Jul 2 12 8:08 AM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I'll just have to respectfully disagree with y'all. In the books, John Carter is the most boring thing in them. He's a complete cypher, and by the end of the third book (Warlord of Mars) he's become an insufferably arrogant, borderline-fascist jerk. It's ERB's alien world/setting -- with its non-terrestrial characters & creatures -- that makes the original stories soar... not John Carter himself. I appreciated that the filmmakers tried to make him at least a little bit human, someone the audience could actually identify with, rather than a braggart with no "human" story. Besides, the flashbacks -- in toto -- account for what? Two minutes of screen time tops? "Dammit, it's jammed!" www.eccentric-cinema.com
Badfinger		#284	[-]
Jul 2 12 12:21 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	cjh5801 wrote: Burroughs, Bonestell, and H.G. Wells were all trying to imagine how another world might appear. They weren't trying to invent something that they thought was impossible, they were trying to imagine what they thought could be possible. We know now that in some aspects they were wrong. I'm not saying that Mars needs to be represented exactly as we now know it to be. JOHN CARTER takes plenty of artistic license in depicting the planet (for example, the moons appear too big in the sky, Carter's ability to leap is greatly exaggerated, and the River Iss is unlike anything now on Mars), but what is shown is at least possible. AVATAR may be prettier to look at, but the islands floating in the sky (or whatever they're supposed to be) will never be found in this Universe. I agree that JOHN CARTER isn't set on the Mars that actually exists, but I think it appropriate that it's set on a Mars that might have been. The more realistic it looks, the easier it is for me to get lost in the fantasy. When I was watching the movie, there were times when I could actually believe that what was taking place could be occurring on the planet Mars. That would not have been true if the planet had been depicted as something like Mongo in FLASH GORDON. THIS!!!!!!
Badfinger		#285	[-]
Jul 2 12 12:23 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Robert Troch wrote: hermanthegerm wrote: The thing about it is that just as we may have oposing POVs the makers also argued over and made artistic decisions over the same points. My previous comment was that not everyone can be satisfied, especially if their POVs are polar opposites. The creative decisions taken are sound and work fine. The movie is quite well done. ERBs 'aliens' are not truly alien and can easily stand next to any of the terrestial Tarzan or Pellucidar exotics. The movie does a fine job with them. Too bad some came with preconceived notions that were not satisfied, but I'm sure the newbie audience (most everyone else) did not have them, thus their response was not affected by them. I did not expect a Frazzeta come to life, and the movie missteps as I saw them were not based on this issue. There is such a thing as going overboard, and the pulpiness of the story did not necessarily warrant purple images too. A modern Pellucidar movie could easily be made as visually exotic as any illustration, but you are by necessity limited if you try to show films shot in Earth exteriors. Again look at the digital excesses of Lucas later films. They don't necessarily work, even visually. It's not only that people had different expectations...the movie just wasn't that great. Robert T. I thought it was great. It is easily my favorite sci-fi film in years; perhaps decades. You and your wife's opinion don't carry any more weight than my own.
Badfinger		#286	[-]
Jul 2 12 12:31 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: The thing about it is that just as we may have oposing POVs the makers also argued over and made artistic decisions over the same points. My previous comment was that not everyone can be satisfied, especially if their POVs are polar opposites. The creative decisions taken are sound and work fine. The movie is quite well done. ERBs 'aliens' are not truly alien and can easily stand next to any of the terrestial Tarzan or Pellucidar exotics. The movie does a fine job with them. Too bad some came with preconceived notions that were not satisfied, but I'm sure the newbie audience (most everyone else) did not have them, thus their response was not affected by them. I did not expect a Frazzeta come to life, and the movie missteps as I saw them were not based on this issue. There is such a thing as going overboard, and the pulpiness of the story did not necessarily warrant purple images too. A modern Pellucidar movie could easily be made as visually exotic as any illustration, but you are by necessity limited if you try to show films shot in Earth exteriors. Again look at the digital excesses of Lucas later films. They don't necessarily work, even visually. AND THIS!!!!!!!!!
hermanthegerm		#287	[-]
Jul 2 12 1:19 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Badfinger wrote: I thought it was great. It is easily my favorite sci-fi film in years; perhaps decades. You and your wife's opinion don't carry any more weight than my own. I (an ERB fan) liked it, and my family (all ERB non-fans) liked it too. I really think it is among the best ERB adaptations, even if I include all the Tarzans I've seen. We all want a sequel. I'm surprised JC is getting flack form self proclaimed fans. The Earth back story works well, Tarzan is equally tragic in having lost his biological parents (which he never feels connection to) but in also losing Kala his adoptive mother (which he does/did.) Plenty of times in the series Tarzan thinks Jane is dead, and that creates an emotional/vengeance impulse for him. Thus it does not feel as if the loss of family does not fit into a ERB pulpy storyline such as this. The reluctant soldier aspect, which is not in the novel, gives Carter a dimension that would otherwise be missed. It's fine, does not feel alien to ERBs themes, and it fits in today's liberal attitude toward war/peace. Nothing wrong with that, (isn't The Mad King also a reluctant soldier of sorts?) Some of the complaints here (the Virgina joke) seem silly to me. In school we nicknamed people according to the city they were from, wasn't meant to be ha-ha funny. 20 years later I still think of them by their nicknames. The complaint of a lack of a visually lush landscape also seems pretty insignificant; the Barsoom presented is a compromise between what we know of Mars and what ERB described in the novels. It is a perfectly valid interpretation. Lawrence of Arabia (mentioned) is not a lesser movie because it takes place in a desert. Yes, it was shot by David Lean (and this wasn't,) would we only have gotten Nicholas Roeg to shoot John Carter. If the movie had presented a more alien Barsoom (not Mars), there'd be complaints about that. (I know I felt weird in Captain America when all that anachronistic technology was being presented, it took me out every few minutes.) Also, look at things like At the Earth’s Core, The Land that Time Forgot and The People that Time Forgot which attempted richer landscapes and saturated colors (with a smaller budget): while these are fun and imaginative it does not necessarily make them better films. At the Earth’s Core (1976) was filmed one year before Star Wars (1977) and I think John Carter is the better for having been made after that (even if it seems that the inspiration 'inspired' the original.) We are, hopefully beyond that threshold, even if we did get Flash Gordon (1980) after SW. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Jul 4 12 4:47 PM. Edited 4 times.
Tragg		#288	[-]
Jul 2 12 3:05 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'll take the hugely enjoyable (and small budget) Doug McClure films over dull CGI, seen-it-all-before, joyless money pits like John Carter.
hermanthegerm		#289	[-]
Jul 2 12 3:53 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I'll take both. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING
Robert Troch		#290	[-]
Jul 2 12 4:10 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	hermanthegerm wrote: I'll take both. Well, based on the financial bath this took you'll have to just take JC because it's going to be a while before it comes around again if ever. AND I say again that the galactic wise guy angle was BY FAR the worst decision in this film, and the poor marketing was only part of the problem. At least the Earth's Core films were made cheap and most likely made money. The American Godzilla disaster spent a TON on marketing and that plus the name recognition is probably one of the only things that saved it from failing badly. Even then the high financial expectations were not met because......the movie stunk and it is bad mouthed by many people to this day. So even highly aggressive marketing (plus good teaser trailers which Godzilla actually DID have) still can't quite bail out what was a crummy adaptation. Robert T.
	Remove this ad
cjh5801		#291	[-]
Jul 2 12 6:07 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	I wouldn't put JC anywhere near the same camp as GODZILLA. GODZILLA had a Rotten Tomatoes score of 26% with the critics and 38% with audience satisfaction. JC's rates are 52% critics and 64% audience, and as adaptations go I'd have to agree that it is probably the most faithful adaptation of any ERB work to date, with second probably being THE LAND THAT TIME FORGOT. - Clark hollowaypages.com
Colossus Rex		#292	[-]
Jul 2 12 6:27 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Well, I just saw this on Blu-ray and enjoyed it just fine. Maybe it goes on a bit too long, and maybe the Green people seem too much like Gungans from Phantom Menace, and sometimes you wonder why you you should prefer one city of Red people to the other city of Red people. (You are told that one group is a "scavenger" city but beyond that... ) Yes, maybe a more charismatic actor in the lead would have helped (Josh Holloway --- great idea.) . Maybe if the Moon Princess had been as overtly sexy as Frazetta's, that would have helped too. But most of all I liked it. It had a decent romance, and nice "Time Machine" like ending, as Taraco pointed out. And being an Arizona resident, I appreciated the whole Fort Grant/Apaches sequence near the beginning. I'll certainly take JOHN CARTER over AVATAR any day. And it has made me want to read "Princess of Mars." (what a delicious title they didn't use!)
hermanthegerm	Rotten Tomatoes Score	#293	[-]
Jul 2 12 6:30 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	At the Earth’s Core 33% - 33% The Land that Time Forgot 45% - 48% The People that Time Forgot N/A - 31% I don't know that you are supposed to prefer one group over the other. The tribe we got to know was fairly brutal and nasty, with only two sympathetic members. I was surprised that no none responded to the first death, but it's explained better in the novel. "There is a lot of money tied up in this film and people expect to hear a boom when something blows up, so I'll give them a boom." George Lucas as quoted by Harlan Ellison's WATCHING Last Edited By: hermanthegerm Jul 2 12 6:34 PM. Edited 2 times.
Robert Troch		#294	[-]
Jul 2 12 8:33 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Colossus Rex wrote: Well, I just saw this on Blu-ray and enjoyed it just fine. Maybe it goes on a bit too long, and maybe the Green people seem too much like Gungans from Phantom Menace, and sometimes you wonder why you you should prefer one city of Red people to the other city of Red people. (You are told that one group is a "scavenger" city but beyond that... ) Yes, maybe a more charismatic actor in the lead would have helped (Josh Holloway --- great idea.) . Maybe if the Moon Princess had been as overtly sexy as Frazetta's, that would have helped too. But most of all I liked it. It had a decent romance, and nice "Time Machine" like ending, as Taraco pointed out. And being an Arizona resident, I appreciated the whole Fort Grant/Apaches sequence near the beginning. I'll certainly take JOHN CARTER over AVATAR any day. And it has made me want to read "Princess of Mars." (what a delicious title they didn't use!) It's not that I hated the movie at all, and yes it IS better than Avatar. It just feels flat and is difficult to become involved in. Tarzan has yet to get a great adaptation, so the only other films are the Earth's core movies as far as ERB films go. Right? Or am I forgetting something else? Robert T.
Wich2		#295	[-]
Jul 2 12 9:04 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	>Tarzan has yet to get a great adaptation< You're fogetting Gordon Scott's two terrific turns, TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT and TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE. Based on specific Burroughs stories, no; but capturing the feel and the character? Ya better believe it! -Craig
Robert Troch		#296	[-]
Jul 2 12 9:14 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: >Tarzan has yet to get a great adaptation< You're fogetting Gordon Scott's two terrific turns, TARZAN THE MAGNIFICENT and TARZAN'S GREATEST ADVENTURE. Based on specific Burroughs stories, no; but capturing the feel and the character? Ya better believe it! -Craig I haven't seen those in eons! Looks like I have to re visit them. BTW I don;t know about anyone else and (apologies to Hal Foster) but for me the Hogarth and Kubert Tarzan's kick all ass as far as comic adaptations go. They are both awesome although Kubert better captured the savagery I thought, no one did grace like Hogarth. Robert T.
Wich2		#297	[-]
Jul 2 12 9:40 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Kubert's the man for me; I don't think The Lord Of The Apes has been better represented in any media.
Robert Troch		#298	[-]
Jul 2 12 9:50 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Wich2 wrote: Kubert's the man for me; I don't think The Lord Of The Apes has been better represented in any media. No way I would ever argue with that. I read those DC Kubert Tarzan's over and over. Those oversized digest ones were fantastic! Truth be told Hogarth's Tarzan WAS a little too pretty while Kubert's had just the right mix of ape man and Greystoke. Robert T.
CapnDunsel		#299	[-]
Jul 2 12 10:11 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Mars is dead; nothing there but a few scraps of lichen. -Col. Breen
gorgozilla		#300	[-]
Jul 2 12 10:35 PM Reply Quote More My Recent Posts	Colossus Rex wrote: Well, I just saw this on Blu-ray and enjoyed it just fine. Maybe it goes on a bit too long, and maybe the Green people seem too much like Gungans from Phantom Menace, and sometimes you wonder why you you should prefer one city of Red people to the other city of Red people. (You are told that one group is a "scavenger" city but beyond that... ) That's the only problem I had with the movie. The designs for the green Martians were insufficiently monstrous. I read that they were redesigned from the iconic Frazetta depiction (based on detailed descriptions in the books) because of the difficulty of animating lip movements for speech from mouths that had big tusks growing out of them. I understand that. But they still could have stuck with the wide-set, beady birdlike eyes of Burrough's aliens, rather than making them more human-like.
	Remove this ad

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

Disney's JOHN CARTER