'John Carter,' aka the Edgar Rice Burroughs 'A Princess of Mars' adaptation

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (530 of them)

My father, joking to some Disney suits after overhearing them talking about the failures of "John Carter": "John Carter from Mars? Who wants to see that?? 'Jimmy Carter From Georgia' would've made more money." They laughed.

Cunga, Monday, 23 April 2012 06:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

1 month passes...

how, how did this get made?

Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 01:22 (2 years ago) Permalink

Dude from Pixar who's shat gold several times for Disney + his genuine (if obsessive) enthusiasm for John Carter + it is genuinely an Olde Venerable Property from the dude who who wrote Tarzan / Land That Time Forgot + a miscalculation as to the extent to which the geeks rule the world.

There's a good article on it here (admittedly back when it was expected to be ne of History's Greatest Mistakes) The Inside Story of How John Carter Was Doomed by Its First Trailer

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 25 May 2012 06:51 (2 years ago) Permalink

+ a miscalculation as to the extent to which geeks enjoy genuinely Olde Venerable Properties. This was fun silly, a horrific mistake. Geeks want emo Kinkade silly.

Jedmond, Friday, 25 May 2012 07:12 (2 years ago) Permalink

Well yeah, there's depth but not breadth of geek geeks and breadth but not depth of "I am a geek, I have seen Iron Man 10 times".

... Who is Kinkade? Not the painter, I assume?

Andrew Farrell, Friday, 25 May 2012 08:15 (2 years ago) Permalink

The design was very nice, the action scenes were quite good. I think it failed because a) there was never a real sense of threat, just a lot of vague 'I think something really bad is going to happen if I marry this guy' and b) both of the leads were really boring. The best characters were all animated, ergo Stanton is rubbish at directing actual people.

I wish to incorporate disco into my small business (chap), Friday, 25 May 2012 12:06 (2 years ago) Permalink

it did look really nice. Dialogue/romance was Star Wars prequels level to me though

Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:18 (2 years ago) Permalink

It's not that stories with lots of made up words and names flying about can't be compelling and popular - look at Game of Thrones. This movie just didn't give us any particular reason to care about deciphering all the fantasy nonsense.

I wish to incorporate disco into my small business (chap), Friday, 25 May 2012 12:25 (2 years ago) Permalink

I usually love deciphering fantasy nonsense given the chance, but in John Carter I really couldn't be bothered.

I wish to incorporate disco into my small business (chap), Friday, 25 May 2012 12:29 (2 years ago) Permalink

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, 25 May 2012 13:13 (2 years ago) Permalink

I found it pretty tiresome to keep up with what was what to be be honest. I did fall asleep for five minutes at one point though.

I wish to incorporate disco into my small business (chap), Friday, 25 May 2012 13:41 (2 years ago) Permalink

+ a miscalculation as to the extent to which geeks enjoy genuinely Olde Venerable Properties. This was fun silly, a horrific mistake. Geeks want emo Kinkade silly.

― Jedmond, Friday, May 25, 2012 3:12 AM (6 hours ago) Bookmark

cmon this is crap. people just want a good movie. this one sucked

Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:46 (2 years ago) Permalink

i don't think it sucked. it was probably better than a lot of these big would-be franchise movies, if not top rank.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 25 May 2012 13:52 (2 years ago) Permalink

in general people read too much into box office failures.

flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 25 May 2012 13:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

no it sucked

Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:53 (2 years ago) Permalink

Nah, there are worse movies. On its face it makes far more sense than, say, making a "Battleship" movie, which also cost a buttload of money.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:54 (2 years ago) Permalink

Venerable sci-fi/fantasy property vs. venerable board game.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:55 (2 years ago) Permalink

It was John Carter of Blahs for me.

Ifanku.

Chewshabadoo, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:01 (2 years ago) Permalink

Bored game.

Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:05 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

john carter was also pretty boring visually, imo

Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:33 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

give me gil kane and dave cockrum any day

Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:54 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

well yeah, it's bad and it's difficult to market

Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 16:18 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years 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 (2 years ago) Permalink

wait what

Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 23:21 (2 years ago) Permalink

what a terrible 'movie'

lag∞n, Saturday, 26 May 2012 04:49 (2 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.