and i make fun of old people but morbz should come anyway...
― scott seward, Thursday, 22 March 2012 03:20 (twelve years ago) link
:D
― Peppermint Patty Hearst (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 22 March 2012 03:20 (twelve years ago) link
http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/global-box-office-climb-continues-in-2011
― aka vanilla bean (remy bean), Friday, 23 March 2012 01:29 (twelve years ago) link
I liked some of the design work and visual effects, but really this was a complete and utter mess. I have nitpicks by the ton, but overall it just failed to engage me. I was, at times, completely lost as to what was going on, which I put down to horrible writing. It was all muddled plot, no story.The source material was written 100 years ago, and it felt like it. All the good ideas in this have been used in greatly better movies throughout the years, and now the well is dry.
― DavidM, Friday, 23 March 2012 17:16 (twelve years ago) link
I loved it. Given the amount of utter shite that does well at the box office it is shocking that a film as entertaining as this did so badly.
― The New Dirty Vicar, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 13:25 (twelve years ago) link
for people who don't follow ILM stuff, my Denby slam is here:
http://skotrok.blogspot.com/2012/03/2012-emp-pop-conference-paper.html
its in the last section. maria said she actually sensed some dismay from the crowd, but i didn't hear any from where i was. i didn't think anyone would care, but it is new york. maybe his mom was there.
― scott seward, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:22 (twelve years ago) link
It was pretty beautiful, that moment.
― Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:28 (twelve years ago) link
Wow Scott! Can't wait to read this. You go on about some of my favorite records as a clubbing kid in the late 80s. Chep Nuñez was God.
― Lawanda Pageboy (Capitaine Jay Vee), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:31 (twelve years ago) link
haha, yeah, that line is great and I had a very similar reaction to his review
― stan this sick bunt (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:31 (twelve years ago) link
Wow! Heady rush reading that Scott. Kudos and ashamed I missed seeing it in person.
― EZ Snappin, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 14:37 (twelve years ago) link
was that a speech for a conference or something?
― these pretzels are makeing me horney (Hungry4Ass), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 15:27 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
how, how did this get made?
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 01:22 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
+ 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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
it did look really nice. Dialogue/romance was Star Wars prequels level to me though
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 12:18 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
― 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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
in general people read too much into box office failures.
― flesh, the devil, and a wolf (wolf) (amateurist), Friday, 25 May 2012 13:53 (eleven years ago) link
no it sucked
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:53 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
Venerable sci-fi/fantasy property vs. venerable board game.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 13:55 (eleven years ago) link
It was John Carter of Blahs for me.
Ifanku.
― Chewshabadoo, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:01 (eleven years ago) link
Bored game.
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:05 (eleven years ago) link
honestly, judged on its own merits, battleship is a better movie (by a sliver). they're both not good though
― 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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
john carter was also pretty boring visually, imo
― Hungry4Ass, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:33 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
give me gil kane and dave cockrum any day
http://www.openlettersmonthly.com/issue/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/john-carter-marvel-1.jpg
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 25 May 2012 14:54 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
well yeah, it's bad and it's difficult to market
― Number None, Friday, 25 May 2012 16:18 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
"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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
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 (eleven years ago) link
wait what
― Fas Ro Duh (Gukbe), Friday, 25 May 2012 23:21 (eleven years ago) link
what a terrible 'movie'
― lag∞n, Saturday, 26 May 2012 04:49 (eleven years ago) link
this was fucking shit
― local eire man (darraghmac), Friday, 12 December 2014 22:56 (nine years ago) link
VG will have your scalp or something.
― Ned Raggett, Friday, 12 December 2014 23:09 (nine years ago) link