lol i remember literally none of that
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Friday, 17 February 2012 13:59 (1 year ago) Permalink
They should have just called the movie "Carter."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 14:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
"Carter: 3-D"
Get Carter of Mars
― Brad C., Friday, 17 February 2012 14:08 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mars, Attacked
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:23 (1 year ago) Permalink
Both "Mars" and "Attacked" are better names than "John Carter."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
The Civil War (on Mars) (But At The Same Time, Pretty Much)
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:25 (1 year ago) Permalink
they really should have gotten Noah Wylie to star in this
― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
you say that about every movie!!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
yes, but they could have started another "Predator ship"-style fanboy debate with this between "A Princess of Mars" and "ER"
― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:36 (1 year ago) Permalink
"John Carter, MD, of Mars."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:42 (1 year ago) Permalink
John Carter the Unstoppable Mars Machine.
― ledge, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
haha
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
How the fuck do you rename something "John Carter" that has the already-awesome name "Princess of Mars".
― getting good with gulags (beachville), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
apparently the reasoning was that boys dont like princesses, so they made it john carter of mars. and girls dont like planets, so they made it just john carter
― RudolfHitlerFtw (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:58 (1 year ago) Permalink
they wanted to avoid the taint of mars
― Cruller, Cobbler, Poffert, Pie (latebloomer), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:03 (1 year ago) Permalink
Martian taint is true. The New Yorker article said it was because that Mars Needs Moms movie was such a bomb.
― EZ Snappin, Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
I saw the trailer yesterday and among all the problems I have the aliums all look like Phantom Menace/Jar-Jar animation and it's really, really skeeving me out.
Tim Riggins of Mars! Is what the movie should be called.
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:22 (1 year ago) Permalink
The title of the movie is terrible, but most titles that are just a person's name are terrible.
― WARS OF ARMAGEDDON (Karaoke Version) (Sparkle Motion), Thursday, February 16, 2012 8:10 PM (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
this is otm, why did they take out the MARS part?? what are they thinking??
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
see the Mars Needs Moms tidbit.
― Simon H., Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:49 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mars Needs Moms was shit because it was a piece of overmade garbage that took a perfectly good Berkeley Breathed story and made it into something stupid. The involvement of mars was the least of it's problems!! God studio execs are such MORONS (#955,000)
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:52 (1 year ago) Permalink
its
didn't realize people had such strong feelings about mars needs moms.
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:56 (1 year ago) Permalink
people = me
I just really liked that Berkeley Breathed book. :(
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 05:05 (1 year ago) Permalink
Mars Needs Vegemite
― Ned Raggett, Saturday, 18 February 2012 05:09 (1 year ago) Permalink
I should just stay on the IA thread...
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 05:10 (1 year ago) Permalink
( <3 Ned )
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 05:11 (1 year ago) Permalink
― EZ Snappin, Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:16 (1 hour ago) Permalink
that's nuts. people really think an unrelated kid movie's flopping would affect this one?
― Cruller, Cobbler, Poffert, Pie (latebloomer), Saturday, 18 February 2012 05:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
I only know the books tangentially (League of Extraordinary Gentlemen) but this looks GREAT.
― Sick Mouthy (Scik Mouthy), Saturday, 18 February 2012 08:27 (1 year ago) Permalink
Maybe I'm the only one, but I'm genuinely looking forward to this and thoroughly expect to enjoy it. I re-read Princess Of Mars the other day to prepare and damn, it's great.
― Aunt Acid and the Gaviscons (aldo), Saturday, 18 February 2012 10:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
Other than the alien animation, the rest of it does look pretty fantastic.
― getting good with gulags (beachville), Saturday, 18 February 2012 13:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
all i ever notice of the commercials for this are a sandy vista and a scruffy warrior guy, which makes me go "is this prince of persia? didn't that already come out?"
― ban opinions (reddening), Saturday, 18 February 2012 14:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
this should have been called JOHN CARTER PRINCESS OF MARS imho
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Saturday, 18 February 2012 15:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
JOHN CARTER OF MARS: A PRINCESS OF MARS: THE LEGEND OF JOHN CARTER (OF MARS)
― ban opinions (reddening), Saturday, 18 February 2012 15:51 (1 year ago) Permalink
PRINCESS JOHN CARTER OF MARS
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 17:31 (1 year ago) Permalink
JOHN CARTER: TURN OFF THE MARS
― A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Saturday, 18 February 2012 18:57 (1 year ago) Permalink
Y'ALL READY FOR MARS?
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:00 (1 year ago) Permalink
A MARS A DAY HELPS YOU WORK, REST AND SLAY
― Aunt Acid and the Gaviscons (aldo), Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:06 (1 year ago) Permalink
ahaha
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:12 (1 year ago) Permalink
ha
― the jazz zinger (s1ocki), Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:14 (1 year ago) Permalink
― Josh in Chicago, Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
buzzkill
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 18 February 2012 19:26 (1 year ago) Permalink
And the knives really start coming out:
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/john-carter-disney-s-quarter-billion-dollar-movie-fiasco.html
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:37 (1 year ago) Permalink
3 pages of industry insider gossip about kerfuffle among the money men? Will hold out for the reviews. Still, $400 million is a heckuvalot.
― watercooler challenge (ledge), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:43 (1 year ago) Permalink
Martian taint is true.
one for the out of context thread
― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:46 (1 year ago) Permalink
Hey, they said "Titanic" would flop! They said "Avatar" would flop! Don't ever count out Cameron!
― Josh in Chicago, Tuesday, 21 February 2012 15:50 (1 year ago) Permalink
Oh, wait, this isn't Cameron?!
In that case, consider it a tax write-off, Disney.
since it's an old book they should cut it into four parts and run it on masterpiece theater
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 17:04 (1 year ago) Permalink
HE DIDNT GET OUT OF THE COCKADOODIE CAR
― Janet Snakehole (VegemiteGrrl), Tuesday, 21 February 2012 17:16 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bored game.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:05 (11 months ago) Permalink
honestly, judged on its own merits, battleship is a better movie (by a sliver). they're both not good though
But what exactly needed deciphering? Admittedly I had a few "what was that guy's name?"/"who are they talking about?" moments, but what was going on was never really obscure.
― the fey monster (ledge), Friday, May 25, 2012 9:13 AM (57 minutes ago) Bookmark
its not about being confused, its about crappy storytelling that just numbs you by denying you access to anything human
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:24 (11 months ago) Permalink
FCH did a really good piece on why the movie was a failure creatively:
http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/08/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-john-carter-script/
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:25 (11 months ago) Permalink
xp What do you mean by that? Did Wall-E deny access to anything human? JC has human characters with human emotions, as well as scenes with recognisable human import regardless of the species of the protagonists.
Admittedly I haven't seen Battleship but in terms of original - and successful - visual design JC has to be a hundred times better.
― the fey monster (ledge), Friday, 25 May 2012 14:28 (11 months ago) Permalink
sorry but that hulk crit is more tiresome and hard to follow than John Carter.
― the fey monster (ledge), Friday, 25 May 2012 14:30 (11 months ago) Permalink
thats not what i meant by 'human' im talking about reacting to the humanity or lack of it in a work - the emotional content. FCH compares it to stanton's finding nemo, which is about fucking talking fish and is a million times more human than JC
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:32 (11 months ago) Permalink
john carter was also pretty boring visually, imo
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:33 (11 months ago) Permalink
yeah, thought the visual look of john carter was all p second-hand frazetta-isms, w/out any of frazetta's sensuality or grit
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:39 (11 months ago) Permalink
Really? I thought it looked amazing - a bit of a cliche but you could really see all the money up there on the screen, showing you stuff from ERB's imagination.
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:46 (11 months ago) Permalink
give me gil kane and dave cockrum any day
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:54 (11 months ago) Permalink
i sorta dug how cartoony the tharks were, and that down-the-barrel shot of one of them aiming his funky homemade rifle reminded me of necron 99 from ralph bakshi's wizards - one of the film's few interesting images. the white apes were just like a million other CGI monsters, right down to the identikit movement set (the way these things move always only reminds you of other cgi monsters). i thought the whole thing was short on any genuine, memorable weirdness (or menace), everything felt stately and sanded down.
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 15:26 (11 months ago) Permalink
I quite enjoyed the film, but I don't think you can put its failure down to its quality. It was a "flop" and a joke because of it well before it was released. Besides how often does quality really stop people from seeing a movie in droves? at least on the opening weekend.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 16:16 (11 months ago) Permalink
well yeah, it's bad and it's difficult to market
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 16:18 (11 months ago) Permalink
The quality of the film doesn't matter to the marketing. The problem is probably the look (silly CGI cartoony monsters, guy flying around with sword wearing a loincloth).
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 16:24 (11 months ago) Permalink
"The quality of the film doesn't matter to the marketing"
disagree! i think its probably harder to market something that sucks ass than it is something thats good
that said the marketing was really incredibly bad on this one - as detailed in the article andrew links above, which also indicates that stanton may shoulder a lot of the blame for it
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 18:20 (11 months ago) Permalink
As long as there are requisite elements (stuff blowing up, portentous looks, maybe a funny quip but that's not necessary), then you can throw together a trailer/ad spot. Marketing was particularly bad for this one, sure, but I don't think that has to do with the quality as much as it does the content.
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 18:23 (11 months ago) Permalink
I disagree about the quality of the film, but also I think that by the only yardstick that marketing cares about - will people go see it - it was a great film, the word of mouth despite the shitty campaign is what pulled it back into profit (not that any hollywood film is ever in profit etc etc)
― Andrew Farrell, Friday, 25 May 2012 23:07 (11 months ago) Permalink
wait what
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 23:21 (11 months ago) Permalink
what a terrible 'movie'
― lag∞n, Saturday, 26 May 2012 04:49 (11 months ago) Permalink