# John Carter of Mars



## Knightfall (Feb 13, 2009)

John Carter of Mars (2012)

Civil War vet John Carter is transplanted to Mars, where he discovers a lush, wildly diverse planet whose main inhabitants are 12-foot tall green barbarians. Finding himself a prisoner of these creatures, he escapes, only to encounter Dejah Thoris, Princess of Helium, who is in desperate need of a savior.

Status: Announced 
Comments: Now being reimagined at *Pixar* as a half animation/half live action project.


----------



## Jack7 (Feb 14, 2009)

When I was a teen I used to read those books all of the time.

I hope they do a good job of adapting them.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Feb 14, 2009)

I really, _really_ want this to happen.

Given how many times it's started and failed and different studios, and how far away the release date is, I'm not _hopeful_ about it happening. But I'd love to be proven wrong.


----------



## Wombat (Feb 23, 2009)

I am cautiously hopeful on this one...  if done right, this could be a heck of a ride!


----------



## Silverblade The Ench (Mar 12, 2009)

any more word on this? heard a rumour it had been cancelled, ick!
I too would love ot see this on screen if done right.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 12, 2009)

I hope this happens, and I hope it's done right.  I've read every book in the series (in fact, I've read just about everything ERB wrote).  This would be awesome to see filmed.


----------



## BadMojo (Mar 12, 2009)

Mouseferatu said:


> I really, _really_ want this to happen.
> 
> Given how many times it's started and failed and different studios, and how far away the release date is, I'm not _hopeful_ about it happening. But I'd love to be proven wrong.




I was excited about this when Jon Favreau and Robert Rodriguez were tied to it, but now that it's some guy from Pixar...not so much.

This really has been making the rounds for almost a decade.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 12, 2009)

It is one of the movies I always hope gets made but it is also one that can be done wrong on so many levels.


----------



## Darthjaye (Mar 13, 2009)

Problem is, when they said it was going animated instead of live action, they also said there would be some major changes in the storyline.   They were not going to go with the Civil War John Carter but something maybe early 20th century.   

Pixar doesn't worry me so much though.   They still know how to make entertaining movies, although this will be a much more serious movie than i can think of that they have developed so far.   Can't see one of the cutesy little animated bits on the front of this like so many other Pixar films though.  

I too am a huge fan of the books and if they don't get this one right i will be really disappointed.


----------



## CreativeMage (Sep 18, 2013)

Along this theme, we're currently developing a tabletop RPG based on ERBs Martian series, and we're keen to stay true to the sources and capture the feel of the sword-and-planet genre in a cinematic-style game. 

Many folks seemed disappointed by the film. Any thoughts on what could be done to avoid the same pitfalls as we produce this RPG?


----------



## Hand of Evil (Sep 18, 2013)

CreativeMage said:


> Along this theme, we're currently developing a tabletop RPG based on ERBs Martian series, and we're keen to stay true to the sources and capture the feel of the sword-and-planet genre in a cinematic-style game.
> 
> Many folks seemed disappointed by the film. Any thoughts on what could be done to avoid the same pitfalls as we produce this RPG?



Film to me was enjoyable, other than the villains.  I think the biggest problem was with the way they marketed the movie.


----------



## delericho (Sep 18, 2013)

Hand of Evil said:


> Film to me was enjoyable, other than the villains.  I think the biggest problem was with the way they marketed the movie.




That, and that it pretty much felt like Star Wars. The arena scene, in particular, seemed _very_ familiar.

That's not the film's fault (since SW was itself inspired by John Carter, amongst other sources), but was an issue nonetheless.


----------



## Robin Hoodlum (Sep 18, 2013)

The books were good.
I read them back in High School... a loonngg time ago.
Actually, I've read almost all of Burroughs stuff... excepting a few Tarzan books.


----------



## CreativeMage (Dec 5, 2013)

While not based on the film, we're developing a new RPG set on ERBs Mars. Have a look at our Indiegogo campaign . The aim is to capture the pulp feel of the original stories, as well as incorporating the 'non-canon' material since ERB that has been published by way of (mainly) comics.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2013)

CreativeMage said:


> Many folks seemed disappointed by the film. Any thoughts on what could be done to avoid the same pitfalls as we produce this RPG?




I liked the film.

The basic pitfall was in marketing.  The general public doesn't know the original, but the marketing failed to educate them.  So, they left "...of Mars" off the movie title.  They left the cool special effects and action sequences (which are central to the pulpiness) out of the trailers, and so on.

So, to avoid the movie's major pitfall, don't assume that the people who pick up your game have ever read the original.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 5, 2013)

The movie failed cause it failed to be a good movie, not because of bad marketing. 

Unoriginal script, campy dialogues and bad acting are the cause here.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 5, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Unoriginal script, campy dialogues and bad acting are the cause here.




Given the classic nature of the source material, calling it an "unoriginal script" is kind of odd.  It is kind of like saying a movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" isn't original.  Of course it isn't original! The source material is a century old, and is a major part of the basis for the modern action and aventure genre.  It isn't cliche, it is the thing upon which the cliches are based.  Same goes for the dialog - it follows the style in the original source.

Which isn't to say you have to like it.  But, it stands more as a critique of creating versions of old material for modern audiences in general, not of this particular film.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 5, 2013)

Being a classic doesn't mean it is original or good for that matter.

But I ment unoriginal in the way the film was made, the characters portrayed, etc. A guy gets dumped somewhere weird, dhis destined to become great, fights, seduces princes, etc, etc, yawn. Seen it a dozen times. Very uninspired,like painting by numbers.


----------



## Man in the Funny Hat (Dec 5, 2013)

Umbran said:


> It is kind of like saying a movie version of "Romeo and Juliet" isn't original.  Of course it isn't original! The source material is a century old, and is a major part of the basis for the modern action and aventure genre.



Wait, what?  "Romeo and Juliet" is a major part of the basis for the modern action and adventure genre?  You're thinking of "Romeo and Ethel the Pirate's Daughter."


----------



## Grehnhewe (Dec 6, 2013)

I am an ERB fan, and I did not like the movie that much first time I saw it.  However, I sort of warmed up to it on the second viewing.  There are some really cool scenes, and it reflects the environment and feeling of barsoom quite well in some ways.

i wouldn't worry about comparing problems with the movie to an RPG.  They are two totally different things.   Have you seen this resource?

http://www.erblist.com/index.shtml


----------



## CreativeMage (Dec 6, 2013)

Umbran said:


> So, to avoid the movie's major pitfall, don't assume that the people who pick up your game have ever read the original.




Yes, good point...


----------



## CreativeMage (Dec 6, 2013)

Grehnhewe said:


> Have you seen this resource?
> 
> http://www.erblist.com/index.shtml




We have! Thank you!


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 6, 2013)

The big problem with the movie is that it tried to rely on flash and wow, but was poorly paced and had mediocre direction. And it deviated too much from the original to suit "modern" audience expectations. A good, straight adaptation would have been a better way to go. And yeah, include Mars in the title. Maybe call it something like "John Carter and the Princess of Mars"? might actually... work?

Keep your combat rules simple and fast moving. I would suggest something like the D6 system by West End Games.


----------



## CreativeMage (Dec 6, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Keep your combat rules simple and fast moving. I would suggest something like the D6 system by West End Games.




It so happens that that's exactly the system we're using! Well, D6 Legend, actually


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 6, 2013)

CreativeMage said:


> It so happens that that's exactly the system we're using! Well, D6 Legend, actually




Perfect, isn't it? Simple mechanics anyone can learn in a few minutes, master in a session, quick, down&dirty results, and allows for on-the-fly reworking if the players go off on a weird tangent. And if the GM needs to improvise, it is easy to throw in a new, unprepared fight to get the PCs back on track.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> But I ment unoriginal in the way the film was made, the characters portrayed, etc. A guy gets dumped somewhere weird, dhis destined to become great, fights, seduces princes, etc, etc, yawn. Seen it a dozen times. Very uninspired,like painting by numbers.




So...basically you're saying don't make the movie anything like the book?  Because that's the book.  Guy gets dumped somewhere weird; is destined to become great; fights better than anyone else; seduces princess; etc.

You and Zombie Babies must hate just about every book and movie ever.  

I think the movie was pretty decent and fun.  They should have left Mars in the name, though.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Dec 6, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> So...basically you're saying don't make the movie anything like the book?  Because that's the book.  Guy gets dumped somewhere weird; is destined to become great; fights better than anyone else; seduces princess; etc.
> 
> You and Zombie Babies must hate just about every book and movie ever.
> 
> I think the movie was pretty decent and fun.  They should have left Mars in the name, though.




Whoa there, buddy - slow down.  Having different taste is ok, right?  Well, that's all there is to it.  Some of us don't like formulaic crap that's been done to death and find silly re-skins, well, silly.  Something like this - which I actually have no opinion on (though I do trust goldo on film/books) - sounds to me like something that falls into the 'Marty Stu' category and would probably be lame.  Like I said, some people don't like watching someone else's wish fulfillment.  That's ok.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 6, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> So...basically you're saying don't make the movie anything like the book?



Or avoid the tropes we saw a hundred times already. The book is about a guys that goes to a sort of feudal-high tech Mars. No need to stick to a book that his not good by today's standards. Rossum's Universal Robots is a classic, should it be made into a movie without modifications?



> Because that's the book.  Guy gets dumped somewhere weird; is destined to become great; fights better than anyone else; seduces princess; etc.



So why not make Carter our comtemporary, someone who knows about science and saw films/TV shows about aliens and people who end up on other worlds. Make him ajust rapidly to the new place instead of having the stupid trope of the guy who doesn't know what is happening, just wants to go home and doesn't embrace is new status. We saw this many times. We know what will happen. Give me a protagonist that arrives and goes "cool, I was a nobody and now I am hero, die aliens /pew pew". I'm tired of the trope "the local aliens are cruel, but the hero will teach them a lesson about friendish and compassion". /vomits. Carter should kill the leader, eat his flesh and hear the lamentations of the women. I never saw that in a film.



> You and Zombie Babies must hate just about every book and movie ever.



Hollywood just repeats itself, it is boring. 

As for books, I do not read anything that has the fantasy or sci-fi label on it, I want a new take on old tropes. Not the same old tropes. This is why fantasy has so little to offer right now. 



> They should have left Mars in the name, though.



They wanted to avoid the curse of Mars. I suggest making good films to get box office revenues, not title changes. But I am crazy.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2013)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Whoa there, buddy - slow down.  Having different taste is ok, right?  Well, that's all there is to it.  Some of us don't like formulaic crap that's been done to death and find silly re-skins, well, silly.




Oh, I totally think it's OK to have different tastes and opinions.  I don't care that Goldomark doesn't like it - it's not my movie, I've got no dog in the fight. Ditto on The Hunger Games.  

However.

Neither of you actually criticize the works as they are (well, Goldomark does, to some degree, but that's not the criticism I care about).  Goldomark doesn't like the cliches in the plot.  You don't like setting elements of The Hunger Games. How well these were/are handled within the work is irrelevant to both of you; it's the mere inclusion of the elements that draws your ire.  You might as well hate them for being in English rather than High Latin.

If you want to start a thread to complain about tropes and cliches, that's fine. But criticizing a work because it has tropes and cliches while ignoring any qualitative element is...I don't know.  Disfunctional?  Distracting?  A straw man?



> Something like this - which I actually have no opinion on (though I do trust goldo on film/books) - sounds to me like something that falls into the 'Marty Stu' category and would probably be lame.  Like I said, some people don't like watching someone else's wish fulfillment. That's ok.



It's a prime example of "Mighty Whitey". The whole genre is. Also "Humans Are Special", "Going Native", and "Like A Fish Takes To Water".

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MightyWhitey
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HumansAreSpecial
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/GoingNative
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LikeAFishTakesToWater

I dunno. I guess I just prefer that a story be _good_.  I rarely find the first expression of a new idea to really be good; usually it's just passable enough to get someone's attention, who then does it a little better, and so forth. New is novelty, not quality.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 6, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Or avoid the tropes we saw a hundred times already....So why not make Carter our comtemporary, someone who knows about science and saw films/TV shows about aliens and people who end up on other worlds. Make him ajust rapidly to the new place instead of having the stupid trope of the guy who doesn't know what is happening, just wants to go home and doesn't embrace is new status.



So "Going Native" is better than "Trapped In Another World?"  They're both tropes. They've both been done.  See, for instance, _Avatar_. 



> Give me a protagonist that arrives and goes "cool, I was a nobody and now I am hero, die aliens /pew pew".



Oh, "Like A Fish Takes To Water" combined with the "Blood Knight".  Still tropes.

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrappedInAnotherWorld
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight



> I'm tired of the trope "the local aliens are cruel, but the hero will teach them a lesson about friendish and compassion". /vomits. Carter should kill the leader, eat his flesh and hear the lamentations of the women. I never saw that in a film.



Well, typically people typically like to watch movies where they can empathize with the protagonist. I'd suspect that most people aren't interested in a martian recreation of the exploits of Jeffrey Dahmer.



> As for books, I do not read anything that has the fantasy or sci-fi label on it, I want a new take on old tropes. Not the same old tropes. This is why fantasy has so little to offer right now.



It's certainly a dogmatic viewpoint, I'll give it that. And if you never read anything, you'll never be challenged and risk being proven wrong.  So, good plan, of a sorts.



> But I am crazy.



Crazy isn't one of the words I'd use.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

Actually, I just find it odd that one criticizes a movie made from a classic story for elements that are cliche...when it is one of the very stories that helped establish those elements in western pulp/Sci-Fi.

The plot may be "formulaic" but as one of the sources of the formula, I'm not going to criticize it on those grounds.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 6, 2013)

OTOH, now I want to play Jimmy Carter of Mars...or maybe Billy.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2013)

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Dannyalcatraz again."
Damnit.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> So "Going Native" is better than "Trapped In Another World?"  They're both tropes. They've both been done.  See, for instance, _Avatar_.



Avatar is terrible. 




> Oh, "Like A Fish Takes To Water" combined with the "Blood Knight".  Still tropes.
> 
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TrappedInAnotherWorld
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BloodKnight



It is more about making the 2013 film more its own thing that a carbon copy of something that is bad by today's standards/a sophistacated audience (me). Hard to grasp, I understand, but it was done before, like the first Iron Man film/Tony Stark character. They differ from the comics. Of course, the other films were crap, but they were not very inspired either.



> Well, typically people typically like to watch movies where they can empathize with the protagonist. I'd suspect that most people aren't interested in a martian recreation of the exploits of Jeffrey Dahmer.



And they weren't interested with John Carter either. 



> It's certainly a dogmatic viewpoint,



Nah, I just do not like reading the same things over and over again. But if it is your thing, go for it. There is nothing more satisfying than what is confortable.



> I'll give it that. And if you never read anything, you'll never be challenged and risk being proven wrong.



So you assume I never read anything. Amusing. 



> So, good plan, of a sorts.



Like reading the same thing over and over again?



> Crazy isn't one of the words I'd use.



Yeah, Morrus shelters you guys a lot.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Actually, I just find it odd that one criticizes a movie made from a classic story for elements that are cliche...when it is one of the very stories that helped establish those elements in western pulp/Sci-Fi.
> 
> The plot may be "formulaic" but as one of the sources of the formula, I'm not going to criticize it on those grounds.



Why would I want to see formulaic and clichés when I can just access the original source? Especially if elements of it have been reused in other stuff I already saw/read? What I want is different take.  

The Japanese understand that. Their remakes often differ from the original source.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why would I want to see formulaic and clichés when I can just access the original source? Especially if elements of it have been reused in other stuff I already saw/read? What I want is different take.
> 
> The Japanese understand that. Their remakes often differ from the original source.




First, not everyone has read John Carter of Mars, so it will be new to them.  Hell, some probably won't be aware the movie was based on a book.

Second, not every altered retelling is a thing of beauty.  Sometimes they are, but there are at least as many stories lessened by adaptation as improved- Scarlet Letter, First Knight, Earthsea, the Nicolas Cage version of The Wicker Man...the list goes on.

Third, simply put, some people DO want to see the original source material adapted for TV, stage or film, especially if done right.  (Whether this movie was done right is an open question.)


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Avatar is terrible.



I agree.


> And they weren't interested with John Carter either.



Point.  And given the popularity of slasher horror films, I might well be wrong about the Dahmer thing.  Not to my taste.  Still, it's just switching cliches, not actually making something new.



> Nah, I just do not like reading the same things over and over again. But if it is your thing, go for it. There is nothing more satisfying than what is confortable.



I don't wall myself off from reading anything just because of the genre. 



> So you assume I never read anything. Amusing.



I'm not assuming anything. You said "I do not read anything that has the fantasy or sci-fi label on it".



> Like reading the same thing over and over again?



If that's someone's game, sure. Doesn't really float my boat. But it's a positive rationale, rather than a negative one.



> Yeah, Morrus shelters you guys a lot.



You're in here with us. And just because I disagree with some of your thoughts doesn't mean I find you particularly crazy, insane, nuts, or out-there. Or even slightly.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 7, 2013)

As mentioned earlier, the reason these story elements are tropes is because most of them followed the interpretations of writers like Edgar Rice Burroughs. This is the SOURCE of the troupe. (Or near enough as makes little odds)
You hate all the followers, imitators, and wannabe successors all you like. But this is where they came from. Hate it because you don't like the story, fine. Hate it because "it's been done already", and you make a fool (and worse) of yourself.

And really? You don't read anything that is sci fi or fantasy?  (blink) what's this board about again?


----------



## trappedslider (Dec 7, 2013)

why so serious?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> This is the SOURCE of the troupe.



It doesn't mean it is good and deserves a movie.



> And really? You don't read anything that is sci fi or fantasy?



No, I said I mostly stay away from fantasy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> First, not everyone has read John Carter of Mars, so it will be new to them.



I didn't read it and, as I said, the film wasn't new to me.   



> Hell, some probably won't be aware the movie was based on a book.



People are dumb, nothing new there. 



> Second, not every altered retelling is a thing of beauty.



True, but when the original is bad, at least try to improve it. 



> Third, simply put, some people DO want to see the original source material adapted for TV, stage or film, especially if done right.  (Whether this movie was done right is an open question.)



Well they weren't enough to prevent the film from being a flop.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I don't wall myself off from reading anything just because of the genre.



It is not because of the genre, but because there is very little innovations in it. How many times can I read the story of a farmer who becomes a hero or a badass character saving the world with magic and gets the girl or the quest for the macguffin that is really important?



> I'm not assuming anything. You said "I do not read anything that has the fantasy or sci-fi label on it".



And later I just mention fantasy, writing sci-fi was an error. I stay away from fantasy cause, like I said, it just repeats the same old tropes. There are exceptions, of course.  



> If that's someone's game, sure. Doesn't really float my boat. But it's a positive rationale, rather than a negative one.



And?



> You're in here with us. And just because I disagree with some of your thoughts doesn't mean I find you particularly crazy, insane, nuts, or out-there. Or even slightly.



So use "the word you'd use".


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> I didn't read it and, as I said, the film wasn't new to me.
> 
> (Edit)
> True, but when the original is bad, at least try to improve it.




How can you say the original is bad if you haven't read it?



> Well they weren't enough to prevent the film from being a flop.



Quite a few reasons for that, including but not limited to:

1) the film was poorly marketed & promoted.  If nothing else, if you're producing an adaptation of a classic, make sure the prospective audience knows you're producing an adaptation of a classic.

2) the movie was probably given too big a budget, given the casting and the source material.

3) no movie does well without expanding its appeal beyond its projected core audience

4) there is, as I said, an open question as to whether this movie was a good adaptation of the source material

5) the director was new to the live-action format, and there were multiple behind-the-scenes personnel changes in the marketing and production staff at the highest levels.  That's often a kiss of death for a movie.



> People are dumb, nothing new there.




There is a vast difference between stupidity and a lack of exposure to factual information.


----------



## CreativeMage (Dec 7, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Perfect, isn't it? Simple mechanics anyone can learn in a few minutes, master in a session, quick, down&dirty results, and allows for on-the-fly reworking if the players go off on a weird tangent. And if the GM needs to improvise, it is easy to throw in a new, unprepared fight to get the PCs back on track.




Exactly. And the adventure format we use, in order to support that kind of improvisational flexibility, is drawn on Technoir. I think it will be a good fit.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> How can you say the original is bad if you haven't read it?



People telling me the film is a lot like the book. 

Critiques and reviews of the books that I looked up cause I was curious to know if it was worth reading. The poor quality of the work seems to be the concensus. It has historical appeal if you want to know how it influence other works, but not much else. At least for an adult with who read a few books in his life. A kid might enjoy it. I know I enjoyed some D&D novels when I was a kid. Sorak, you could trash Drizzt any day of the week! 

Thank god that phase is over. 



> Quite a few reasons for that, including but not limited to:
> 
> 1) the film was poorly marketed & promoted.  If nothing else, if you're producing an adaptation of a classic, make sure the prospective audience knows you're producing an adaptation of a classic.



It had a huge promotion campaign. Lots of money invested in it. As for saying it is based off a classic, I'm not sure that motivates large shares of movie goers. The Lone Ranger is a classic character and the film bombed. It was also a bad film. A strange coincidence. 



> 2) the movie was probably given too big a budget, given the casting and the source material.



It did get a huge budget. Apparently, at Disney they did not want to say no to the director who also directed stuff like Wall-E and Finding Nemo, and was a writer on films like Toy Story and Monster Inc. Basically, they didn't want to piss him off so he got all that he wanted to make the film.

But does too much money=a bad film? It seems that a film on another planet with aliens and high-tech needs lots of cash to not look cheap.



> 3) no movie does well without expanding its appeal beyond its projected core audience



You don't say. 



> 4) there is, as I said, an open question as to whether this movie was a good adaptation of the source material



There is that, but you know, if you start with bad source material or material that aged badly...



> 5) the director was new to the live-action format, and there were multiple behind-the-scenes personnel changes in the marketing and production staff at the highest levels.  That's often a kiss of death for a movie.



It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film. 



> There is a vast difference between stupidity and a lack of exposure to factual information.



It was part of the promotion campaign. If people didn't get it or remember it, at some point I question their intelligence.


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It doesn't mean it is good and deserves a movie.



No, it means that you recognize it and understand the significance of the concept, and the value of it within the art. I think the book deserves a good movie adaptation. The important word being "Good". One that is honest and faithful to the source material. All of it. In this regard, the existing movie failed.

Disney has no problem with firing people for expressing ideas (like the founder of Pixar), why should they worry about firing one director, or telling him he's wrong. They have all the $$$. They can do what they want. Disney Corp is a giant monster within the industry: nearly a monolith. No one is going to stand up to them and say "no" or not be willing to work for them if they tease with a job offer and some $.



goldomark said:


> It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film.



At this point, I have to ask: Are you deliberately baiting?
The sentence clearly says that it was the CHANGES OF STAFF in both Marketing (pfft) and PRODUCTION that were to blame, not the marketing campaign. (Granted, the marketing (what little I saw of it) did not do a good job--$$$/=quality)

All fantasy novels are about farmers going on quests to rescue princesses with their magical mcguffin powers? And you say you've read some of the 80s/90s D&D books? Are you sure? Those two statements show that one view or the other is not correct. And the Fantasy genre has evolved since the 1930s. (Hollywood doesn't really understand the fantasy genre, but that's another matter.)

So again, are you deliberately baiting?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> So use "the word you'd use".



No. I like EN World because I've been on the internet for a long, long time, and it's nice to come here and be civilized and respectful. Even battered old warships enjoy a quiet harbor. 

Back on topic....
CreativeMage, to answer your question....I wouldn't worry about the film.  I don't think the film's lack of appeal is going to carry over to your game, unless you explicitly tie the two together.  

Hrm.  I just read the blurb on the Indiegogo site. Honestly, while I like a lot of what you say, I'd be a lot more interested if it read as a setting, not a rules system. There are lots and lots of RPG systems.  The setting is your real hook.  Don't be bound by your sources, particularly if you're drawing from the non-canon ones.  Go beyond that, make something new, add your own little bits in.  The worst thing it could be is a collection of weird places and strange beasties.  Everything should knit together into a cohesive whole.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Dec 7, 2013)

goldomark said:


> People telling me the film is a lot like the book.




Not good enough.  At best, you're aping the opinions of others who may or may no have actually read the book.  (Which, IMHO, was deservedly a classic of its genre.)



> It had a huge promotion campaign. Lots of money invested in it. As for saying it is based off a classic, I'm not sure that motivates large shares of movie goers. The Lone Ranger is a classic character and the film bombed. It was also a bad film. A strange coincidence.




Throwing a lot of money at a promotions campaign does not make it a good promotions campaign.

As for letting people know its a classic, at the very least, it informs people up-front that's they are not going to be watching something derivative.



> It did get a huge budget. Apparently, at Disney they did not want to say no to the director who also directed stuff like Wall-E and Finding Nemo, and was a writer on films like Toy Story and Monster Inc. Basically, they didn't want to piss him off so he got all that he wanted to make the film.



Which is not necessarily the best plan.

Power, of any kind, is pointless if it is not properly controlled.  And just because someone has success in one arena doesn't mean it will necessarily translate into success in another similar area.

Even the best writer, director or producer needs someone to tell him if somthing isn't working, even if it's just the editor or a beancounter.  Sometimes, an expenditure request must be met with a firm "No."

And original animated kiddie films are very different from live-action adaptations of classic pulp Sci-fantasy.  You don't handle he actors he same way, at the very least.



> But does too much money=a bad film? It seems that a film on another planet with aliens and high-tech needs lots of cash to not look cheap.




No.  There is no direct correlation between movie quality and the money spent making it.

And that goes for each and every detail of he process.  Just because you spend a bunch of money on the CGI doesn't mean you're getting CGI.  (And the CGI quality _was_ one of the knocks on this film.)




> There is that, but you know, if you start with bad source material or material that aged badly...



IMHO, the source material is pretty good.  Perhaps you should read it.



> It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film.




I'm not.  I'm saying that a bad marketing campaign can kill a film regardless of its quality.



> It was part of the promotion campaign. If people didn't get it or remember it, at some point I question their intelligence.



Not in these releases for TV & Theater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rf55GTEZ_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edwLjEB-rAY

Oh wait, here it is the online only trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6HUkzxjR0

Assuming that your audience will get important info that is only released in a part of your ad campaign is idiotic. That the part of your campaign in question was online _only_ just compounds the issue.

The Internet IS a powerful marketing tool, and audiences are increasingly web-savvy, but ASSUMING that level of sophistication is a marketing misstep.

(Personally, I rarely look online for anything beyond a movie's casting, and almost NEVER look at online trailers.)

Hell's bells- they didn't even use obvious options like "...of Mars", or "Edgar Rice Borroughs'..." as part of the title.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 7, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Hell's bells- they didn't even use obvious options like "...of Mars", or "Edgar Rice Borroughs'..." as part of the title.



Yah. This is what blows my mind.  What is it about "John Carter" that they thought would be interesting, engaging, and helpful in identifying the film?  The Lone Ranger, that works. Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock...these are identifiable, recognized names that essentially carry a brand with them. John Carter is none of that.  It's like the third choice for what gets written on a bodybag, after they've already used John Doe and John Smith.  The whole hook of the title was "...of Mars". That's what grabbed your attention. It's not a movie about some guy; it's a movie about some guy ON MARS.

I liked that Dejah Thoris wasn't a simpering maiden in the film.  That was a very welcome change from the original material.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> No. I like EN World because I've been on the internet for a long, long time, and it's nice to come here and be civilized and respectful. Even battered old warships enjoy a quiet harbor.



I'm an adult. I can take it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> Disney has no problem with firing people for expressing ideas (like the founder of Pixar), why should they worry about firing one director, or telling him he's wrong. They have all the $$$. They can do what they want. Disney Corp is a giant monster within the industry: nearly a monolith. No one is going to stand up to them and say "no" or not be willing to work for them if they tease with a job offer and some $.



Ask them, not me. 



> All fantasy novels are about farmers going on quests to rescue princesses with their magical mcguffin powers? And you say you've read some of the 80s/90s D&D books? Are you sure? Those two statements show that one view or the other is not correct. And the Fantasy genre has evolved since the 1930s. (Hollywood doesn't really understand the fantasy genre, but that's another matter.)



So you're saying fantasy novels are not repetitive? I'll ask you this:



> are you deliberately baiting?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2013)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Not good enough.  At best, you're aping the opinions of others who may or may no have actually read the book.  (Which, IMHO, was deservedly a classic of its genre.)



You are saying Nellsir didn't read the book? "So...basically you're saying don't make the movie anything like the book? Because that's the book." Post #26



> Throwing a lot of money at a promotions campaign does not make it a good promotions campaign.



It means there was a lot of visibility and promotion.



> As for letting people know its a classic, at the very least, it informs people up-front that's they are not going to be watching something derivative.



You never saw a Hollywood film, have you?



> Which is not necessarily the best plan.



Tell that to Disney.



> Power, of any kind, is pointless if it is not properly controlled.  And just because someone has success in one arena doesn't mean it will necessarily translate into success in another similar area.



Tell that to Disney.



> Even the best writer, director or producer needs someone to tell him if somthing isn't working, even if it's just the editor or a beancounter.  Sometimes, an expenditure request must be met with a firm "No."



Tell that to Disney.



> And original animated kiddie films are very different from live-action adaptations of classic pulp Sci-fantasy.  You don't handle he actors he same way, at the very least.



Tell that to Disney.



> No.  There is no direct correlation between movie quality and the money spent making it.



You don't say.



> And that goes for each and every detail of he process.  Just because you spend a bunch of money on the CGI doesn't mean you're getting CGI.  (And the CGI quality _was_ one of the knocks on this film.)



Tell me more, professor.



> IMHO, the source material is pretty good.  Perhaps you should read it.



Nice troll. 



> I'm not.  I'm saying that a bad marketing campaign can kill a film regardless of its quality.



The quality of a film does the best of jobs. Ever heard of sleeper hits?



> (Personally, I rarely look online for anything beyond a movie's casting, and almost NEVER look at online trailers.)



Ah yes. Personal experience. The most powerful of arguments.



> Hell's bells- they didn't even use obvious options like "...of Mars", or "Edgar Rice Borroughs'..." as part of the title.



The Curse of Mars that I already linked and an unknown author aren't selling points. I can't remember, but was J.R.R. Tolkien's name used to promote the Lord of the Ring?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Ask them, not me.
> 
> So you're saying fantasy novels are not repetitive? I'll ask you this:



BAD fantasy novels can be repetitive, yes. But they don't all follow the same formula. In fact, there are about a dozen different formulas out there. And a GOOD writer can even take an old formula and breathe new life into it. That is kinda the point. An even better writer will make it so that you don't recognize the formula. A truly great writer will create something new, which may become the next formula. Sure, but cutting your self off from all fantasy novels, you miss the bad ones, but you also miss the good ones.

And you still haven't answered my question. Based on what you have said, and the way you have blatantly twisted and/or misrepresented people's arguments, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask, and I would like a simple, direct answer: Are you deliberately baiting?


----------



## sabrinathecat (Dec 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> It means there was a lot of visibility and promotion.



No, it means a lot of money was spent. It was not spent well, and the campaign was not designed well.



goldomark said:


> Tell that to Disney.
> Tell that to Disney.
> Tell that to Disney.
> Tell that to Disney.



Kinda the point: Disney doesn't get it. Neither did Lucas, which was why RotJ was disappointing, and the prequels flat out sucked--almost as bad as IJatCS.



goldomark said:


> Nice troll.



What is trolling about asking you to read a book?


goldomark said:


> The quality of a film does the best of jobs. Ever heard of sleeper hits?



Sleeper Hits: movies that didn't make any money in the box office, but were good anyway? Or that found their audience later in the niche market after going to DVD? Yeah, noting convinces executives like a movie that doesn't make money.



goldomark said:


> Ah yes. Personal experience. The most powerful of arguments.



He isn't offering it as an argument. He is offering an example. And he isn't alone, in this case.



goldomark said:


> The Curse of Mars that I already linked and an unknown author aren't selling points. I can't remember, but was J.R.R. Tolkien's name used to promote the Lord of the Ring?



Yeah, actually, it was listed on the posters--the ones I saw, anyway. Or is that also "personal experience" to be so readily dismissed?

You know what, never mind. I do not need an answer to my question. You are so obviously trolling and baiting. That is the only possible explanation for your attitude. Congratulations: you are the first person on this board that I feel compelled to put on my Ignore list.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> No, it means a lot of money was spent. It was not spent well, and the campaign was not designed well.



You are not contradicting me. 



> Kinda the point: Disney doesn't get it. Neither did Lucas, which was why RotJ was disappointing, and the prequels flat out sucked--almost as bad as IJatCS.



Sure, Disney is so out of it will go bankrupt in 3... 2... 1...



> What is trolling about asking you to read a book?



Cause he is asking to read a book that is out dated. 



> Sleeper Hits: movies that didn't make any money in the box office, but were good anyway?



Nope, try again.



> He isn't offering it as an argument. He is offering an example. And he isn't alone, in this case.



Lol.

[quote You are so obviously trolling and baiting. That is the only possible explanation for your attitude. [/quote]Right, cause JC of Mars can't just suck. How dare I.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> In fact, there are about a dozen different formulas out there



Thank you for making my point.



> And you still haven't answered my question. Based on what you have said, and the way you have blatantly twisted and/or misrepresented people's arguments, I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask, and I would like a simple, direct answer: Are you deliberately baiting?



Lol. Based on your posts, are you?


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> You are saying Nellsir didn't read the book? "So...basically you're saying don't make the movie anything like the book? Because that's the book." Post #26





That comment was clearly in response to your comment about the tropes in the movie. Those tropes exist in the literature. That doesn't mean it's not a classic.  You are the only one in this thread making the "tropes = bad" determination.
FWIW, I have read the book. And several of the sequels.  There are a lot of sequels. I've also read a number of books by other authors in the same vein & genre (the swords & planet pulp adventure).
It's Nellisir, not Nellsir.  N.Ellis.Ir  N.athan Ellis Ir.ving   (Found out about fifteen years ago that it should have been Elis, not Ellis. My mother didn't know at the time.) Nell is acceptable.
Anecdote: Nellsir reminds me of my maternal grandfather, who when asked what he wanted to be called by his grandchildren, replied "Papa, sir!"  So I grew up with a Grandpa and a Papasir.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2013)

sabrinathecat said:


> And a GOOD writer can even take an old formula and breathe new life into it. That is kinda the point. An even better writer will make it so that you don't recognize the formula. A truly great writer will create something new, which may become the next formula.



It's also possible to take a formula, follow it, and still create something great.  _The Fionavar Tapestry_ was written by Guy Gavriel Kay, who worked with Christopher Tolkien for...a year, I think? on JRR Tolkien's papers. And intentionally and deliberately wrote a trilogy that drew on _The Lord of the Rings_.  It's a fantastic trilogy. His follow-up book, _Tigana_, is probably one of the two best fantasy novels I've ever read. I've read both several times, and I can count on two hands the number of books I've willingly read more than twice. (_Tigana;_ _Bridge of Birds;_ _Fionavar Tapestry;_ _Watership Down;_ _One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest_...that's all I can think of right now.  )




goldomark said:


> It is not because of the genre, but because there is very little innovations in it.




I'll say this again: you've confused novelty with quality. That's the crux of the matter.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 8, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Cause he is asking to read a book that is out dated.



That's not trolling, that's being informed.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> I'll say this again: you've confused novelty with quality. That's the crux of the matter.



No, it is that I do not like to read the same thing over and over again. Amusingly, you are not contesting how repetitive and uninnovative they are, you are just saying you enjoy it.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> That's not trolling, that's being informed.



Telling someone to read a terrible is not trolling? Go read Twilight!


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

Nellisir said:


> That comment was clearly in response to your comment about the tropes in the movie.



Clearly not. 







> Those tropes exist in the literature.



You don't say. 







> That doesn't mean it's not a classic.



Did I say it was not a classic? 







> You are the only one in this thread making the "tropes = bad" determination.



So popularity means that someone is right or wrong? Amusing. To be clear, what I am saying is those tropes have been over used. They are boring, predictable.







> FWIW, I have read the book.



I know, it was pretty clear. 







> There are a lot of sequels.



I know. 







> I've also read a number of books by other authors in the same vein & genre (the swords & planet pulp adventure).



Bravo. You are great are reading boring books.







> It's Nellisir, not Nellsir.  N.Ellis.Ir  N.athan Ellis Ir.ving   (Found out about fifteen years ago that it should have been Elis, not Ellis. My mother didn't know at the time.) Nell is acceptable.



You are now Nelly!







> Anecdote: Nellsir reminds me of my maternal grandfather, who when asked what he wanted to be called by his grandchildren, replied "Papa, sir!"  So I grew up with a Grandpa and a Papasir.




Touching.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2013)

goldomark said:


> Why would I want to see formulaic and clichés when I can just access the original source? Especially if elements of it have been reused in other stuff I already saw/read? What I want is different take.
> 
> The Japanese understand that. Their remakes often differ from the original source.




Was there another John Carter movie before this one?

Reading a book and watching a movie are two different forms of entertainment.


----------



## Dioltach (Dec 9, 2013)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Was there another John Carter movie before this one?




There was, with Traci Lords and Antonio Sabato Jr. (released under the title "Princess of Mars"). I'm as fond of cheesy movies as the next guy, but I only managed to get through the first 20 minutes of this version. The lighting made it impossible for me to watch.


----------



## Nellisir (Dec 9, 2013)

Dioltach said:


> There was, with Traci Lords and Antonio Sabato Jr. (released under the title "Princess of Mars"). I'm as fond of cheesy movies as the next guy, but I only managed to get through the first 20 minutes of this version. The lighting made it impossible for me to watch.




Ah, I see.  They've updated the story by making John Carter a soldier in the Middle East, and Dejah Thoras an ex-porn star who can't get away from her porn star past. And everyone rides emus and fights the spiders of Mirkwood. I cannot tell you how sad it makes me that this is unavailable to stream on Netflix.  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1531911/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxvfvmWHY7w


----------



## Relique du Madde (Dec 9, 2013)

Goldmark... John Carter's is cliche since every story from the befining of time follows that same arc.  Thing about John Carter, is that back in 1909 people forgot that story arc so when erb published it, it sparked a new era of writing after it was read..


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 9, 2013)

And the film was released in 2012. I am amused how people hammer how much it is a classic. I do not contest this, what I am saying is that being a classic doesn't mean it is good or worth a film.


----------

