i find it so weird that this exists. are they keeping the whole civil war context?
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Thursday, 16 February 2012 22:55 (twelve years ago) link
Yep
― A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 February 2012 22:55 (twelve years ago) link
it's not surprising this is not going to do well, it's not a set of stories that are all that popular anymore.
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Thursday, 16 February 2012 22:58 (twelve years ago) link
from the director of wall-e and with a script by michael chabon! this is so weird
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:02 (twelve years ago) link
totally amazed this got made. I would be interested if it had any hope of being remotely good. which it does not (I hate Michael Chabon)
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:04 (twelve years ago) link
I dunno, I kind of think this could be great! Have no opinion on its forecasted box office performance, the whole inside baseball way that everyone talks about forthcoming movies now is so weird and gross to me.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:06 (twelve years ago) link
Some clips here if anyone wants a deeper look than the trailers. That second clip bugs the ever loving shit out of me because Phobos does not look like that from the surface of Mars. It orbits faster than the planet rotates, less than 4,000 miles from the surface, so it moves west-to-east across the sky twice a day.
― A Full Torgo Apparition (Phil D.), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:15 (twelve years ago) link
the ads look cool, but I have zero faith in this adaptation-by-committee/summer blockbuster bullshit. they're never any good.
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:16 (twelve years ago) link
After so many years on the cusp of being made, gonna be really something how fast this vanishes from theaters.
― Josh in Chicago, Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:20 (twelve years ago) link
The New Yorker article about this made it seem pretty promising to me. We'll see I guess.
― Axolotl with an Atlatl (Jon Lewis), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:21 (twelve years ago) link
shakey what is it you hate about chabon again?
― akm, Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:23 (twelve years ago) link
the one book I read of his lol
― max buzzword (Shakey Mo Collier), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:32 (twelve years ago) link
there's a thread about it iirc
I want it to be good. I reread the books a year or so ago and they're still a boat load of fun. By far the best E. R. Burroughs (though I have a soft spot for the Venus rehashes).
― EZ Snappin, Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:34 (twelve years ago) link
chabon has been working out a fascination with genre fiction for a long time now, so his name is one i'm okay seeing attached to a project like this
otoh there were copies of wonder boys for £1 when you bought something in the bookstore the other day and i still didn't buy a copy
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:48 (twelve years ago) link
The Adventures Of Kavalier and Clay is great IMO
― The Invisible Superstars (dog latin), Thursday, 16 February 2012 23:54 (twelve years ago) link
Loved these books as a kid so - yes - looking forward to it.
― Lawanda Pageboy (Capitaine Jay Vee), Friday, 17 February 2012 00:31 (twelve years ago) link
I liked the ERB Mars books as a kid, but to me it's all about the Frank Frazetta illustrations:
http://www.artistsuk.co.uk/acatalog/Princess_of_Mars_Frank_Frazetta.jpg
― Brad C., Friday, 17 February 2012 00:51 (twelve years ago) link
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), Friday, 17 February 2012 01:10 (twelve years ago) link
Have been half looking forward to it as a friend is working on the CGI, he was hoping for good things from Stanton's first live action picture. I don't see why the fact that the stories aren't well known should be a strike against it, but either way I'll reserve judgement till the reviews, trailers looked so-so but what can you really tell from a trailer eh.
― ledge, Friday, 17 February 2012 12:25 (twelve years ago) link
spending $250 million on a century-old property w/ no contemporary life.... man oh man.
Nice nipples though.
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 February 2012 12:35 (twelve years ago) link
haha really that much? huh
I don't see why the fact that the stories aren't well known should be a strike against it
it's partly that calling it 'john carter' is a strike against it in that case - like, unless you already mentally complete that "... of MARS!" that's totally meaningless to you
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Friday, 17 February 2012 12:47 (twelve years ago) link
obv these budget $$$ are always hearsay (and inflated by rivals) but it doesn't look cheap.
At least they didn't call it Jack Carter; everyone wd've thought it was a bio of the old Vegas comedian.
― Literal Facepalms (Dr Morbius), Friday, 17 February 2012 12:52 (twelve years ago) link
havent read the original stories, but isnt john carter meant to be bloodthirsty, oversexed and immortal? this version seems highly genericized
― RudolfHitlerFtw (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 17 February 2012 12:58 (twelve years ago) link
not as of the first book, no
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Friday, 17 February 2012 13:03 (twelve years ago) link
think Hungr4Ass is confusing John Carter with John Norman
― Ward Fowler, Friday, 17 February 2012 13:21 (twelve years ago) link
lol
― RudolfHitlerFtw (Hungry4Ass), Friday, 17 February 2012 13:23 (twelve years ago) link
iirc a big part of the charm of the first book is Carter being this bizarre theosophist-Highlander figure who has a long and mysterious history as an immortal warrior on Earth prior to transmigrating to Mars during a fight with Apaches ... he narrates the batshit-insane events of A Princess of Mars in a mannerly, military-memoir style ERB imagines appropriate to such a figure. This stoic first-person voice is key to the book's hallucinatory effect. I like Chabon, but I don't see how any of this translates into a screenplay.
The book is on Gutenberg btw.
― Brad C., Friday, 17 February 2012 13:29 (twelve years ago) link
lol i remember literally none of that
― desperado, rough rider (thomp), Friday, 17 February 2012 13:59 (twelve years ago) link
They should have just called the movie "Carter."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 14:03 (twelve years ago) link
"Carter: 3-D"
Get Carter of Mars
― Brad C., Friday, 17 February 2012 14:08 (twelve years ago) link
Mars, Attacked
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:23 (twelve years ago) link
Both "Mars" and "Attacked" are better names than "John Carter."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:25 (twelve years ago) link
The Civil War (on Mars) (But At The Same Time, Pretty Much)
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:25 (twelve years ago) link
they really should have gotten Noah Wylie to star in this
― (thinks and smiles) (DJP), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:26 (twelve years ago) link
you say that about every movie!!
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:27 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
"John Carter, MD, of Mars."
― Josh in Chicago, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:42 (twelve years ago) link
John Carter the Unstoppable Mars Machine.
― ledge, Friday, 17 February 2012 15:43 (twelve years ago) link
haha
― Critique of Pure Moods (goole), Friday, 17 February 2012 15:43 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
they wanted to avoid the taint of mars
― Cruller, Cobbler, Poffert, Pie (latebloomer), Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:03 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
― 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 (twelve years ago) link
see the Mars Needs Moms tidbit.
― Simon H., Saturday, 18 February 2012 04:49 (twelve years ago) link
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 (twelve years ago) link
its
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
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 (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
killfile
― difficult-difficult lemon-difficult (VegemiteGrrl), Saturday, 13 December 2014 00:16 (nine years ago) link
why is this still on my bookmarks??
― Frobisher, Saturday, 13 December 2014 00:26 (nine years ago) link
It's from the books I suppose but the ending of this is pretty good, plot-wise.
In the DVD commentary they talk about it becoming a thing on the level of Superman or Bond. The pathos, I almost feel bad for the probably really quite rich people who were indulged in this folly.
― *there's (Noel Emits), Wednesday, 13 February 2019 11:24 (five years ago) link
Memmmmmories etc
https://www.thewrap.com/john-carter-movie-history-why-it-failed/
Ten years, crazy. Still half convinced that this not being a success is why Disney bought Lucasfilm later that year.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 March 2022 00:20 (two years ago) link
That's quite an in-depth article for... this movie. I think Collins not being sure which version of the princess to play is indicative of the major problem I found with the movie: characters were not well-defined at all
― Vinnie, Thursday, 10 March 2022 01:30 (two years ago) link
this movie killed the FNL dude's career, didn't it?
― akm, Thursday, 10 March 2022 01:40 (two years ago) link
A combination of this and True Detective season 2. Both of which are better than people say.
― but also fuck you (unperson), Thursday, 10 March 2022 02:17 (two years ago) link
It was based on a beloved and highly influential property
lol....beloved and influential to who exactly?
― call all destroyer, Thursday, 10 March 2022 02:40 (two years ago) link
people who read & enjoyed it?
― terminators of endearment (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 10 March 2022 02:44 (two years ago) link
i'm questioning the characterization of the property as some kind of sure thing to bank a movie on. i had literally never heard of it until this came out despite existing in plenty of circles where sci-fi and fantasy fiction were regularly discussed for all of my teens and 20s.
― call all destroyer, Thursday, 10 March 2022 02:48 (two years ago) link
i don't know how wide an audience they have in 2022 but burroughs's mars books are some of the most influential in SF, even if the influence tended to trickle down through other stuff -- bradbury, heinlein, flash gordon, star wars.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Thursday, 10 March 2022 03:18 (two years ago) link
Cameron cited it as an inspiration for Avatar, and I don't doubt it inspired others. But yeah, it was certainly no bankable property ten years ago or now - too old, largely forgotten
― Vinnie, Thursday, 10 March 2022 03:23 (two years ago) link
yeah "this thing inspired this other thing that you like" is not really how IP attracts audiences
― call all destroyer, Thursday, 10 March 2022 03:27 (two years ago) link
The Del Rey paperbacks were how I first heard about them, and they came out...late 70s I think?
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 March 2022 04:44 (two years ago) link
i feel like princess of mars is sort of out of fashion, partially because Edgar Rice Burroughs is also out of fashion right now (lotta racist shit in the original Tarzan), but both properties were hugely popular in their time. I remember being kinda surprised when the movie came out, though, even having been aware of the books and having read a couple a long time ago. they were in print for a long time. probably still are.
― ian, Thursday, 10 March 2022 04:46 (two years ago) link
in terms of influence... they are not the very first examples of what is now called "portal fantasy", but they are early, predating the chronicles of Narnia by decades. there's definitely plenty of writing in this genre, and the idea has been used over and over again from alice in wonderland (pre-princess of mars) to stargate: atlantis to whatever.
― ian, Thursday, 10 March 2022 05:04 (two years ago) link
my reaction to this coming out was kind of like... this is a movie for old men who listen to old time radio dramas and collect Amazing Stories and Weird Tales from before the 2nd world war.
still never seen it.
― ian, Thursday, 10 March 2022 05:06 (two years ago) link
i still think it was a much better movie than conventional wisdom acts like it was
― terminators of endearment (VegemiteGrrl), Thursday, 10 March 2022 05:20 (two years ago) link
I'd agree, pretty much stand by everything upthread. It ain't perfect but it's often really entertaining.
― Ned Raggett, Thursday, 10 March 2022 05:22 (two years ago) link
Reread the first three Mars books after seeing the movie (great in IMAX), and thought the movie did a great job of capturing the spirit while tightening the plot. Besides the Star Wars prequels, was the first movie I've seen people actively dogpile on to hate, without having seen it. At least, it was the first movie I was invested in seeing, so disheartening watching it shredded. Would have appreciated a second movie.
As a kid, also loved the Green Star books by Lin Carter, which is a straight rip of the concept.
― the body of a spider... (scampering alpaca), Thursday, 10 March 2022 14:09 (two years ago) link
(lotta racist shit in the original Tarzan),
― ian, Thursday, March 10, 2022 4:46 AM (ten hours ago) bookmarkflaglink
Surely the whole concept of the white aristocratic lord of the jungle is inherently racist from the get-go. Quite apart from the depiction of the natives outside of that.
― Stevolende, Thursday, 10 March 2022 14:53 (two years ago) link