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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
no it sucked
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:53 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
Venerable sci-fi/fantasy property vs. venerable board game.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:55 (1 year ago) Permalink
It was John Carter of Blahs for me.
Ifanku.
― Chewshabadoo, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:01 (1 year ago) Permalink
Bored game.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:05 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
john carter was also pretty boring visually, imo
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:33 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
give me gil kane and dave cockrum any day
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:54 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
well yeah, it's bad and it's difficult to market
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 16:18 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year 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 (1 year ago) Permalink
wait what
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 23:21 (1 year ago) Permalink
what a terrible 'movie'
― lag∞n, Saturday, 26 May 2012 04:49 (1 year ago) Permalink