# John Carter



## Desdichado (Mar 9, 2012)

Well, I'll be leaving work in about an hour to go catch this.  Anyone else seeing it today, or seen it already?  I'm a huge fan of the original book.  In fact, after Lord of the Rings, I generally tell folks it's my second favorite book.

Not that I'm expecting the movie to be a faithful adaptation necessarily.  My expectations are relatively guarded.  But still, I'm excited to see what they've done anyway.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 9, 2012)

I plan on seeing it tomorrow. Like you, I'm a huge fan of the book. I own and have read all of its sequels, too. And since it's in the public domain now, I have several versions spread out across my Nook, Kindle, and netbook.

What I've seen of the previews makes me cautiously optimistic. I'm fully prepared to be completely let down, but simultaneously hoping that I'll be thoroughly entertained and very happy. But like with the Lord of the Rings, there's no way I can avoid seeing it.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 10, 2012)

I'm making a special trip up to San Francisco to see it. Normally, I just watch IMAX and 3D movies in 2D on regular screens, but SF has an IMAX screen from the old days which are more square and really do occupy your field of vision. Since I expect scenery porn, I think the larger screen might be worth it.

After all, striking imagery may be the only thing the movie has going for it. I like the books. But I read them as an adult starting with _Princess_ last year.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 10, 2012)

Seeing it with friends this afternoon, after a lunch that will probably include bourbon (for medicinal, err, expectation-management purposes!).


----------



## Meatboy (Mar 10, 2012)

Saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Not the most involving film ever but I felt it was well paced and didn't beat you over the head with spelling things out over and over again. For me it was worth a trip to the theater. My only nagging question is. On Mars they use torches for their light source but they don't seem to have an over abundance of trees so what do they burn?


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 10, 2012)

Meatboy said:


> Saw it last night. Really enjoyed it. Not the most involving film ever but I felt it was well paced and didn't beat you over the head with spelling things out over and over again. For me it was worth a trip to the theater. My only nagging question is. On Mars they use torches for their light source but they don't seem to have an over abundance of trees so what do they burn?




Most likely lichen, moss,* kelp or whatever plants grow in that river from the previews.


* Did't all the Green Martian mount's eat lichen and moss in the book?

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Jack7 (Mar 10, 2012)

Saw it with my daughter this afternoon. We both enjoyed it quite a bit. The actress playing Dejah was a blue-eyed baby doll. Good in a fight, superb bearing, intelligent, moved like a cat, excellent looker. No doubt of that. Quite the Princess of Mars. 

If you haven't read the books it might be hard to follow in places. And it's not highly faithful plot-wise. A lot of things go unsaid though because of the complexity of the plot and the relationships (such as with the Tharks and Woola - my favorite creatures in the books), and because a film can rarely do justice to a well-developed book. That being said, I think that for those who know the books though, it came very close to being an almost completely realistic depiction of the fiction of Burroughs. To coin a phrase. I'm not much for 3-D but now kinda wish I'd seen it in 3-D. Just to see what certain scenes would have been like in 3-D.

I recommend it. I strongly suspect there will be future films in the series. There should be if other stories are handled as this one was.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 10, 2012)

Just wondering, it the movie a mixture of Princess of Mars and Gods of Mars?  I only read Princess of Mars so when I saw a "bald headed pale white skinned" Martian on the preview I got confused.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 11, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> Just wondering, it the movie a mixture of Princess of Mars and Gods of Mars?  I only read Princess of Mars so when I saw a "bald headed pale white skinned" Martian on the preview I got confused.



IIRC Stanton said that they were using material from the first three books. _Princess_ _Gods_ and _Warlord_ form a kind of trilogy where the first book is a stand alone story with a sequel hook, but the next two books are clearly a single, continuous, story. The first three were also written fairly close together.

So the white bald guy played by Mark Strong is the villain of the second and third books.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 11, 2012)

I saw it tonight in 3D. As others have said, it's very good and I recommend it, but if you're looking for slavish adherence to the book a la "300" or "Watchmen," look elsewhere. It was fun, exciting, and it worked within the context of the film, and was faithful enough to not make my inner fanboy foam at the mouth.


----------



## Felon (Mar 11, 2012)

Went to see it with a friend. Had more than person snoring behind us, and lotfs of foot traffic during the film as well. Some fun action scenes, but on the whole it was a total mess. Sequels will be unlikely, I predict.

Who or what are the "Thurms" supposed to be? They're on Earth, they're on Mars. They have tech that nobody else has, seem quite capable of wiping any resistance, but would rather disguise themselves and work through proxies.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 11, 2012)

"Thern" and they aren't portrayed in the books as they are in the film. They appear, in the film, to be evil immortals that feed, so to speak, on chaos and destruction. In the books, they're merely another race of Martian who create a fake religion (Issus) to provide sacrifices to the black martians, who would otherwise wipe them out.

The Barsoomian tribes are in a weird sort of color hierarchy with each tribe preying on another to provide tributes to a different one.


----------



## Felon (Mar 11, 2012)

So the Therns in the film are no more meaningful even to someone who's read the books? They're just inscrutable bad guys whose existence should be accepted prima facie on the metafictional basis that movies need prime-mover bad guys?

Oh, well, in that case, who needs coherence? What a thrill ride! 4.5 out of 5!


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 12, 2012)

These are good reviews, I read the books as a teenager (and have my own personal Tarzan collection) so to hear that this wont offend my inner fanboy is good news. I might even be willing to go see it


----------



## Banshee16 (Mar 12, 2012)

Disney seems to be having a bit of a renaissance with respect to live action films.  They used to have some great live action films.....Tron, Black Hole, and I think Flight of the Navigator (was that them)?  Then I can't seem to remember many good live action films from Disney for years.  And now, starting with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, it seems like we're starting to see some decent, fun films again.

Banshee


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 12, 2012)

I thought this movie was funny...


The book, due to being written as a bunch of serials, read like a sandbox campaign where the DM didn't really know what he wanted to do with the story and ended up having the PCs  following every obscure plot hook only to accidently end up at an moment of awesomeness as a result of several hairbrain decisions by the pcs.  Unfortunately, since the GM had no idea what to do at the end he decided to throw a "rocks fall you all die" type of scenario while he thought about the next adventure.

The movie felt like an rpg campaign where the players took control of the plot and the DM ended up rewriting his story in response to every one of the player's decisions and demands.  As a result, the "game" was very much a rail road even though it didn't feel like it to the players.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 12, 2012)

I enjoyed it but I just have to wonder why it failed at the boxoffice, was marketing that bad to keep people from seeing it?


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 12, 2012)

I think there were a lot of marketing problems, foremost among them "not enough marketing."  There've been more ads for that Eddie Murphy movie than John Carter, at least where I live.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 12, 2012)

Felon said:


> So the Therns in the film are no more meaningful even to someone who's read the books? They're just inscrutable bad guys whose existence should be accepted prima facie on the metafictional basis that movies need prime-mover bad guys?
> 
> Oh, well, in that case, who needs coherence? What a thrill ride! 4.5 out of 5!



Actually, their motivation was quite well spelled out in dialogue.  Perhaps you missed part of the movie while you were otherwise occupied in trying to think of snarky comments to make when you got a chance to get online later and talk about the movie.  Instead of paying attention.

I actually appreciated it that Stanton and Co. had some faith in the audience and didn't dumb down the script by grinding every point smooth with the subtlety of a road grader.

I don't know that I necessarily _liked_ the changes to the therns, and I thought the implication of "EARTH IS NEXT!!1!" was a bit over the top, but what the Therns were all about was hardly incoherent or inscrutable.


Banshee16 said:


> Disney seems to be having a bit of a renaissance with respect to live action films.  They used to have some great live action films.....Tron, Black Hole, and I think Flight of the Navigator (was that them)?  Then I can't seem to remember many good live action films from Disney for years.  And now, starting with the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise, it seems like we're starting to see some decent, fun films again.



Well... except that the Pirates movies seem to be the only ones that are more than marginally successful financially.  I wished this had done better at the box office (and Prince of Persia too, for that matter) but Disney majorly dropped the ball in promoting it.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2012)

Hobo said:


> Actually, their motivation was quite well spelled out in dialogue.  Perhaps you missed part of the movie while you were otherwise occupied in trying to think of snarky comments to make when you got a chance to get online later and talk about the movie.  Instead of paying attention.
> 
> I actually appreciated it that Stanton and Co. had some faith in the audience and didn't dumb down the script by grinding every point smooth with the subtlety of a road grader.




I don't go shell out cash for a movie with plans not to enjoy myself. I doubt that many other people do so either. Rather, they have standards and the movie simply doesn't meet them. That is all fairly self-evident, which leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that you're trolling for criticism to which you can reply with comments that are far snarkier than anything I said. 

You wish to praise the movie's lack of coherence by saying "they didn't dumb things down", and imply that it must have just gone over my head. Well, that's pretty disingenuous. This is not what you call a subtle, thinking man's film by any stretch of the imagination. Lack of exposition is not a sign that the creative team had immense respect for their audience.  Rather, it's a movie about lively action set-pieces with a guy blatantly jumping around on wire while fighting CGI monsters, and that is the essence of dumbed-down entertainment. Villains don't need motivation or explanation, becuase evil is just evil and needs to be killed--what more do we need to know? Brother, this movie may succeed in those respects--because it has more than its share of spectacles--but it is about as dumbed-down as you can get without tossing in an adorable CGI dog...oh wait, they did that.  



> I don't know that I necessarily _liked_ the changes to the therns, and I thought the implication of "EARTH IS NEXT!!1!" was a bit over the top, but what the Therns were all about was hardly incoherent or inscrutable.



So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure. If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 12, 2012)

Felon said:


> Villains don't need motivation or explanation, becuase evil is just evil and needs to be killed--what more do we need to know to enjoy an adorable CGI space-dog?



We _see_ the chief Thern, Matai Shang, manipulating the chief Zodangan, Sab Than, throughout the entire film.

Shang was also considerate enough to explain himself to John Carter, at some length and while demonstrating his fancy shape-shifting abilities, in Zodanga. 



> So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure.



The evil, planet-hopping, chaos-eating thing isn't from the original. It's from the film. That's the gist of what Shang tells Carter in the scene I mentioned above. Popcorn break? 



> If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.



FYI... in the books the Therns are just a race of degenerate Martians who murder religious pilgrims and take their stuff, so they can lead lives of decadent evil comfort in a spacious mountain lair. 

Yes, their motivation is "kill things and take their stuff". In the context, it's fine -- though I personally prefer the new film's take.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2012)

Mercutio01 said:


> I think there were a lot of marketing problems, foremost among them "not enough marketing."  There've been more ads for that Eddie Murphy movie than John Carter, at least where I live.



I think this is one of those movies that has a big identity problem.

It's not really a light-hearted thrill ride in the vein of "Raiders" or "Pirates". You're not laughing constantly at lovable, quirky characters right before gasping as they go over a waterfall or narrowly avoid being swallowed by a giant monster. 

It's not a dramatic epic in the vein "Gladiator" or "Braveheart" either. 

Nor is it a blood-soaked, hyper-violent, killing-floor flick like "300". 

Those are pretty much your three types of big action movies: the family thrill ride, the epic, and the slaughterhouse. John Carter dips a toe here and there, but doesn't commit to any. You get an adorable CGI dog, which is typically included to play to younger audiences, but does that really happen here? Does the movie ever really driver home a major theme, be it "love" or "freedom" or "family"?


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 12, 2012)

Felon said:


> I don't go shell out cash for a movie with plans not to enjoy myself. I doubt that many other people do so either. Rather, they have standards and the movie simply doesn't meet them. That is all fairly self-evident, which leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that you're trolling for criticism to which you can reply with comments that are far snarkier than anything I said.



No, actually I just find your comments very curious in that Matai Shang's motivation is both shown on screen throughout the entire movie, and he even gave John Carter the "evil villain monologue" at one point.  Your claim that it was incoherent and inscrutible is probably best explained by you either falling asleep during at least the villain monologue scene and not paying much attention during the rest of the movie, or having gotten too big a drink and needing to take a bathroom break halfway through or something.

It's just bizarre.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> You wish to praise the movie's lack of coherence by saying "they didn't dumb things down", and imply that it must have just gone over my head. Well, that's pretty disingenuous.



No, I just disagree that it's incoherent, especially in the way that you claim, that the villains have inscrutible motivations and agendas.  Either _you're_ being disingenious and you haven't actually seen this movie, or you weren't paying attention.  Or you accidentally went to a showing in a language you don't speak or something.

I'm really not trying to troll you here, I just don't know how in the world you can say that the villains were "inscrutible" when the movie went to rather blatant pains to make them not so.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> This is not what you call a subtle, thinking man's film by any stretch of the imagination. Lack of exposition is not a sign that the creative team had immense respect for their audience.  Rather, it's a movie about lively action set-pieces with a guy blatantly jumping around on wire while fighting CGI monsters, and that is the essence of dumbed-down entertainment. Villains don't need motivation or explanation, becuase evil is just evil and needs to be killed--what more do we need to know? Brother, this movie may succeed in those respects--because it has more than its share of spectacles--but it is about as dumbed-down as you can get without tossing in an adorable CGI dog...oh wait, they did that.



See, now you're just getting snarky again.  Plus, you've ascribed to me a claim I didn't make.  All I'm claiming is that the villains weren't inscrutible and the plot wasn't incoherent.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure. If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.



The fact that you still can't--despite I thought fairly clear demarcation in this thread already--tell the difference between what was claimed to be in the books and what was claimed to be original to the movie is, if anything, further evidence that the "inscrutibleness" and "incoherence" of your experience with this movie had very little to do with the movie itself.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2012)

Mallus said:


> We _see_ the chief Thern, Matai Shang, manipulating the chief Zodangan, Sab Than, throughout the entire film.
> 
> Shang was also considerate enough to explain himself to John Carter, at some length and while demonstrating his fancy shape-shifting abilities, in Zodanga.



I didn't take much in the way of specifics from that other than that "The Ninth Ray is much better than rays one through eight, so we don't intend to let anyone else have it". What isn't explained is the need to work through a patsy (a rather uner-utilized character himself) rather than simply unleash the full force of thier superior technology. 

In general, adventure movies today really don't play up their villains enough. A lot of films just don't bother to give you a good scene that showcases how fully monstrouse they are. Darth Vader blows up a planet, and that pretty well sets the tone for him. But I go to a movie like Captain America or Green Lantern or John Carter, and there's not much of a sense of menace.

It's a separate issue from motivation, but villains also need a scene where they "make a statement"--particularly if they're not going to have a motivation beyond being evil.


----------



## Desdichado (Mar 12, 2012)

Felon said:


> I didn't take much in the way of specifics from that other than that "The Ninth Ray is much better than rays one through eight, so we don't intend to let anyone else have it". What isn't explained is the need to work through a patsy (a rather uner-utilized character himself) rather than simply unleash the full force of thier superior technology.



He specifically said that they don't cause planets to die, they just "manage" the change.  Sure, he didn't explain _why_ they prefer to do that.  But that doesn't make the villains inscrutible.  After all, clearly they were set up with a hoped for sequel.  Matai Shang Strikes Back or something.  More exposition there would not have helpd this movie, and lack of it didn't make it incoherent.

Besides, I think it was pretty strongly hinted at when Carter points out that eternal doesn't equal immortal--after all, Carter shot and killed a thern guy at the beginning.  The therns prefer the puppet-master role because it's safer.


			
				Felon said:
			
		

> In general, adventure movies today really don't play up their villains enough. A lot of films just don't bother to give you a good scene how fully monstrouse they are. Darth Vader blows up a planet, and that pretty well sets the tone for him. But I go to a movie like Captain America or Green Lantern or John Carter, and there's not much of a sense of menace.



Well, that I can agree with.

Although--technically--Tarkin blew up a planet.  Vader just choked a guy.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 12, 2012)

First off - *Felon* and *Hobo*, please stop making this so personal.  It's a movie, an entertainment, and does not merit you guys getting ugly over it.

That said...

I saw the film yesterday, and quite enjoyed it.

For those who say it was incoherent, or that it would be hard for someone who hadn't read the books to follow - I've read "Princess of Mars", but my wife has not.  She had absolutely no problem following what was going on, and enjoyed the movie as much as I.  I don't know about you, but we weren't confused at all by what was going on, nor had any problem figuring out the various character motivations.



			
				Felon said:
			
		

> You get an adorable CGI dog, which is typically included to play to younger audiences




Woola is directly from the original text - down to it being so ugly it's cute.  So if anyone included it to play to younger audiences, it was Burroughs.



> Does the movie ever really driver home a major theme, be it "love" or "freedom" or "family"?




Does it have to?


----------



## Scotley (Mar 12, 2012)

I saw it yesterday and quite enjoyed it. I have read the books. I wasn't thrilled with the boost magical power the bad guys got, but I guess the vague astral projection kind of explanation for traveling to Barsoom in the books wouldn't play as well with a modern audience. An effort was made to tie the story and the menace to Earth. I thought the weakest point in the movie was Carter himself. The books have a first person narration and you get into Carter's head and he's a pretty interesting dude with an emotional and philosophical range that is totally lost in the movie. His sensibilities are clearly from another time.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2012)

Umbran said:


> For those who say it was incoherent, or that it would be hard for someone who hadn't read the books to follow - I've read "Princess of Mars", but my wife has not.  She had absolutely no problem following what was going on, and enjoyed the movie as much as I.  I don't know about you, but we weren't confused at all by what was going on, nor had any problem figuring out the various character motivations.



There's nothign confusing or hard to follow about a guy beating up giant white CGI apes. Note that there's a big difference deciding that the villain's motivations don't matter--because they're villains, after all, and villains like to conquer and kill--and stating that their nature and origins are clear, which they aren't. 

To get to the heart of the matter, while I see lots of posts by you and others insisting clarity, if you actually get into what we get from Shang, it's pretty nebulous who they are, why they do what they do, and why they go about it so obliquely. Even in Hobo's refutation, there's a tacit admission that broad strokes are all you get.



> Woola is directly from the original text - down to it being so ugly it's cute.  So if anyone included it to play to younger audiences, it was Burroughs.



You're talking around the point I was trying to make. I think it's safe to say Burroughs was not involved with creative decision-making processes as far the film goes. And it's equally safe to say that this film does not represent the painstaking devotion to recreating the source material that we seen in films like "Watchmen" or "Sin City". Now, the movie takes liberties with Burroughs' material, including, excluding, and adding whole cloth as they deem fit. There was a decision to include Woola. What deos that decision speak to? I figure it was a stab at pandering to kiddies, but you tell me.



> Does it have to?



You're isolating one line from an entire post questioning what audience the movie plays to, and what audience the movie should have been marketed towards.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 12, 2012)

Felon seriously YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

The "Great White Apes" the "cgi alien dog" and the "green skin giant aliens" "villainous plots that revolve around I stab you you stab them we all stab each other" WERE ALL CANNON.

The real problem with the movie is that they removed Thark politics from the plot and focused only on the big action scenes.  About 60% of the book spent was spent with the Tharks with on Sokoja and then Tal Hajus* as being the villians. The Zodanga only came into play towards the end of the book and were really "grey" villains since the only crimes they committed were being at war with Hellium, raiding Thark hatcheries, and having a prince who was about to marry the woman the main character was madly in love with.

Seriously the additions of the Thern and placing the marriage plot into the forefront of the story really helped it and gave it structure beyond "what is John Carter, Sola, and Dejah Thoris going to this month? Read and find out!"


* Sokoja hated John Carter and Sola and based her efforts on making their lives horrible.  Tal Hajus basically was the big bad of the Tharks who Tars Tarkas was afraid of facing (he killed Tarka's wife) and tried to rape Deja, but only appeared in several chapters.  The movie version of him was a agglomeration of all Sokoja's henchmen.


----------



## Radiating Gnome (Mar 12, 2012)

I saw it over the weekend WITHOUT benefit of having read the books (shameful, I know). 

I expected it to be terrible -- it had all the signs -- but I came out with rousing sense of "Hey, that wasn't awful".  So, not quite Pirates of the Caribbean (the first one) good, but not quite Phantom Menace bad, either.  

I think Kitsch could have been a lot better, but he wasn't terrible.  I imagine it's a huge challenge to act with such a heavily CGI cast, and he certainly did it better than MacGregor did in PM.  

-rg


----------



## FickleGM (Mar 12, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie. Not great, but good. 

Also, I'm not the fan of the material that some folk are, as I've only read A Princess of Mars (and even then, only once, years ago). I will say that the decision to leave out Woola would have been akin to leaving out the likes of Chewie, Merry & Pippin, or the like. It wasn't as vital as John Carter or Dejah Thoris, but it was certainly more important than having Steven Tyler's daughter rescue Frodo.

Now, how they protrayed the cuddly mutt would have been where the pandering may have taken place, in my mind, but I believe that portrayed it fairly accurately (once again, considering my fuzzy memory).

It's okay if you didn't like it, though, Felon.


----------



## Felon (Mar 12, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> Felon seriously YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SOURCE MATERIAL!
> 
> The "Great White Apes" the "cgi alien dog" and the "green skin giant aliens" "villainous plots that revolve around I stab you you stab them we all stab each other" WERE ALL CANNON.



I think my response to Umbran pretty well sums up my thoughts on the issue of canocity. If you're doing a painstaking recreation, then stuff is included for the sake of inclusion. If you're heavily pruning and rewriting, then obviously saying something was in the original source material isn't adequate explanation for why it's in the movie. Everything that's included is included because it ultimately serviced a need.  

Having said that, I don't recall saying I didn't like the great white ape fight or the CGI dog. The action scenes and CGI were pretty good. I think you're skimming a bit if you're categorizing all of that as complaints. About the harshest thing I said was that the movie was a mess. Well, I also said there were people walking out and a guy dozing off behind me, but that's really more of an observation than an opinion.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 12, 2012)

*Character arc inversion*



Relique du Madde said:


> The real problem with the movie is that they removed Thark politics from the plot and focused only on the big action scenes.  About 60% of the book spent was spent with the Tharks with on Sokoja and then Tal Hajus* as being the villians. The Zodanga only came into play towards the end of the book and were really "grey" villains since the only crimes they committed were being at war with Hellium, raiding Thark hatcheries, and having a prince who was about to marry the woman the main character was madly in love with.



I gotta say I agree with you. It's weird that they removed the most complex part of the plot only to replace it with something else in the name of making it more complex. By having Tars Tarkas be Jedakk of the Tharks from the beginning, they inverted his character arc and, I think, lost something in the process.

FWIW, in the book...

[sblock]...Tars Tarkas starts out as a Jed (i.e., a lieutenant, sort of) of the Tharks and towards the end of the book John Carter manages to goad the Jedakk into fighting Tars Tarkas. This results in Tars Tarkas becoming Jedakk and having the power to pledge the Tharks to helping John Carter. This is a more satisfying conclusing to Tars Tarkas (and Sola's) story imo.[/sblock]


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> Note that there's a big difference deciding that the villain's motivations don't matter--because they're villains, after all, and villains like to conquer and kill--and stating that their nature and origins are clear, which they aren't.




I was responding to the movie being difficult to follow, or the motivations of characters being "inscrutable".  The nature and origins of the villains is tangent to having a basic grasp on their motivations, and was not part of what I was addressing.  So, I didn't speak to it.

I don't think their nature and origins *should* be clear, at this time.  I don't hold to the idea that, at the end of the movie, all questions should be answered.  Powers forfend they should leave me with a few things I need to (_*gasp!*_) think about!  Doubly so for a film that hopes for a sequel (well, I hope for it anyway), and a movie derived from a serialized, pulp source.  The genre strongly encourages leaving the audience with some questions for next time.



> And it's equally safe to say that this film does not represent the painstaking devotion to recreating the source material that we seen in films like "Watchmen" or "Sin City".




No argument there.



> Now, the movie takes liberties with Burroughs' material, including, excluding, and adding whole cloth as they deem fit. There was a decision to include Woola. What deos that decision speak to? I figure it was a stab at pandering to kiddies, but you tell me.




Ah.  You see, there's a middle ground between being slavishly loyal and all things that are included are so for specific modern reasons.  It's called "trying to be generally faithful".  In this mode, it is the *changes* that are what you have to justify, rather than the things you keep.  Did they have a good reason to remove Woola?  No?  Then they try to do a good job of portraying the spirit of the character.

I'm sure kids will like Woola, but in the film, the creature plays roughly the same role as in the book - telegraphing the fact that John Carter, while maybe not perfect, is a basically good human being.  It's a fairly standard trope - the love and loyalty of animals (and usually children) comes to those of good heart.  So, while Carter is spending effort claiming that he's mercenary, and only after his cave of gold, Woola's loyalty tells us otherwise.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> You're isolating one line from an entire post questioning what audience the movie plays to, and what audience the movie should have been marketed towards.




Yes, because I think that one line plays to a false premise - that a piece should play to only one audience, and the movie should be marketed to that one audience. 

Burroughs' books, rather than following modern formulae, are some of the seminal works of other, older formulae.  Does that mean that the modern marketing machines will have some problems with it? Likely so.  

Personally, I get tired of so many movies fitting into the Big 3 formulae mentioned upthread.  I find John Carter (and other films that play with other forms) to often be refreshing and attractive specifically because they don't fit neatly into the standard marketing scheme.  It'd be nice if maybe the marketers would learn about something outside their standards, and work a little harder to sell them.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 13, 2012)

Felon said:


> So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure. If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.




I would have to re-read to books but from Wiki...

White Martians
Orovars -- The White Martians, known as 'Orovars' were rulers of Mars for 500,000 years, with an empire of sophisticated cities with advanced technology. They were white skinned, with blond or Auburn hair. They were once a seafaring race but when the oceans began to dry up, they began to cooperate with the Yellow and Black Martians to breed the Red Martians,[40] foreseeing the need for hardy stock to cope with the emerging harsher environment. They became decadent and 'overcivilized'. At the beginning of the series they are believed to be extinct, but three remaining populations, some original Orovars, Therns and Lotharians, are still living in secret and are discovered as the books progress.[7]

Lotharians -- The Lotharians are a remnant population of the original White Martians, which appear only in Thuvia, Maid of Mars. There are only 1000 of them remaining, all of them male. They are skilled in telepathy, able to project images that can kill, or provide sustenance. They live a reclusive existence in a remote area of Barsoom, debating philosophy amongst themselves.[41]

Therns - Descendants of the original White Martians who live in a complex of caves and passages in the cliffs above the Valley Dor. This is the destination of the River Iss, on whose currents most Martians eventually travel, on a pilgrimage seeking final paradise, once tired of life or reaching 1000 years of age. The valley is actually populated by monsters, overlooked by the Therns, who control these creatures, and ransack, and eat the flesh of those who perish, enslaving those who survive. They consider themselves a unique creation, different from other Martians. They maintain the false Martian religion through a network of collaborators and spies across the planet. They are themselves raided by the Black Martians. They are white skinned and bald but wear blond wigs.[42]


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 13, 2012)

To be clear, in the movie, the Therns were a sort world-destroying, chaos-eating, alien race that seem like a weird cross between the Marvel Comics villain Galactus and the Goa'uld from Stargate. I don't think their motivation is hard to determine. As for why they use cats-paws...think of it in terms of immortals who can only die through violent means. Would they want their presence known, with the possible resistance that would engender, particularly if people knew that their goals in life were to upset any kind of balance in life so that they could feed off the ensuing chaos until such time that the world has self-destructed forcing them to move on? Or would they hide and cause entropy through manipulation?

In the books they were corrupted religious heirophants that sowed tales of everlasting life through the River Iss when in fact they captured and killed the pilgrims or provided them as sacrifices to the Black Martians, the so-called First Ones.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 14, 2012)

Just went to see the film with my brother. Loved it. I've not read the books yet, but the plot was interesting and well paced (although some aspects of it would have been better if they had been more thoughtful with the trailers). I loved the design of everything on Barsoom, and the characterisation of the tharks was great. 

Some of the long shots were particularly nicely done.

I saw it in 3D, but I have a suspicion that it was a 'post processing 3D'. I wouldn't have gone for the 3D version except it was the only convenient option available.

Cheers


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 14, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> I wouldn't have gone for the 3D version except it was the only convenient option available.



Same thing happened to me. Regal, by any chance? The extra $3 a ticket was a bit of a drag, but the 7:30 showing time beat out the 11. I'm too old for that.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 14, 2012)

Enjoyed most of it. Carter's backstory was good, but some of the other early parts were kinda meh. Movie definitely picks up as thing go along.


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2012)

Umbran said:


> Ah.  You see, there's a middle ground between being slavishly loyal and all things that are included are so for specific modern reasons.  It's called "trying to be generally faithful".  In this mode, it is the *changes* that are what you have to justify, rather than the things you keep.  Did they have a good reason to remove Woola?  No?  Then they try to do a good job of portraying the spirit of the character.
> 
> I'm sure kids will like Woola, but in the film, the creature plays roughly the same role as in the book - telegraphing the fact that John Carter, while maybe not perfect, is a basically good human being.  It's a fairly standard trope - the love and loyalty of animals (and usually children) comes to those of good heart.  So, while Carter is spending effort claiming that he's mercenary, and only after his cave of gold, Woola's loyalty tells us otherwise.



Well, I don't know anything about the creative team behind John Carter. I know that the kind of respect that Peter Jackson had for LotR or Nolan has for Batman is nothing to be taken for granted. Usually, it's just an attempt to leverage an IP, and it gets distorted and retrofitted into something whose primary purpose is to target a demographic. Anything that doesn't serve that purpose gets cut.

But your reasoning behind Woola's inclusion seems valid. Movie protagonists tend to be cast into the roles of one of Dorothy's companions from "The Wizard of Oz". That gives the character some blatant personal flaw to overcome by the movie's climax. In this case, I guess we're supposed to have a Tin Man who needs to find that some things (and people) are worth fighting for.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 14, 2012)

[MENTION=8158]Felon[/MENTION]

My previous reply went off track somewhere between your and Hobo's and Umbran's replies (It's hard to tell who exactly it was originally aimed at).  I might have miss aimed it at you particularly due to your use of "adorable" to describe Woola (since for some reason it using adorable to describe a cgi character in sci-fi seems to toss it into the "Jar Jar/Ewok" category of 'should never exist and must be ripped out of popular culture asap).

Sadly, like many things in the movie, Woola's importance to the story was diminished as a result of the streamlining the John Carter's plot. Like mentioned before Woola served to show that John Carter was a caring individual (in terms of how he treated animals and sentient species alike), but it also served to humanize his character prior to his meeting Dejah and learning to speak in the Martian tongue and served as one of the first members of John Carter's support network.  Sadly because John Carter learned to speak Martian all of 10 minutes after appearing on Mars we never got to really appreciate Woola and John Carter attachment to each beyond a cursory moment of "Hey look it's Woola, the good guys are near" and the "Hurray for Woola's decision to bite that BBeG!!"


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Mar 14, 2012)

Do you notice that no one ever works hard in the movies anymore?  They basically pull a 'eat the pill' moment just like in Limitless.  John Carter doesn't have to work at the language like he had in the book, he just drinks the magic water and BAM!, he understands the language.

I liked the movie, but I think it was sloppily done.  I also noticed that he was not ageless, like he was in the books.  I never read past book four, but does anyone know if John Carter is a Orovar or White Martian?

I never found out in the books what froze him and transported him to Mars, as they left it a mystery in the four I had read.  If he was a lost Orovar wandering Earth, it would explain his agelessness and much else.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 14, 2012)

Deuce Traveler said:


> Do you notice that no one ever works hard in the movies anymore?  They basically pull a 'eat the pill' moment just like in Limitless.  John Carter doesn't have to work at the language like he had in the book, he just drinks the magic water and BAM!, he understands the language.
> 
> I liked the movie, but I think it was sloppily done.  I also noticed that he was not ageless, like he was in the books.  I never read past book four, but does anyone know if John Carter is a Orovar or White Martian?
> 
> I never found out in the books what froze him and transported him to Mars, as they left it a mystery in the four I had read.  If he was a lost Orovar wandering Earth, it would explain his agelessness and much else.




I don't think it was ever explained in the books, he was the right person in the right place and ended up being called to Mars.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 14, 2012)

Deuce Traveler said:


> I also noticed that he was not ageless, like he was in the books.  I never read past book four, but does anyone know if John Carter is a Orovar or White Martian?
> 
> I never found out in the books what froze him and transported him to Mars, as they left it a mystery in the four I had read.  If he was a lost Orovar wandering Earth, it would explain his agelessness and much else.






Hand of Evil said:


> I don't think it was ever explained in the books, he was the right person in the right place and ended up being called to Mars.




He looked pretty ageless at the end after killing the Thern on Earth. I didn't see a change in age, and there was a picture from his time in the Civil War in the background of one of the shots where he looks identical there as well. Also keep in mind that in 1881 he looked to be about 30, which would have made him far too young to have served in the Civil War, at least not as anything other than a drummer boy. But that wasn't the case, obviously.

Yes, I think it was more subtle than in the Burroughs books, and maybe it's only because I was looking for those kinds of things, but I thought it was at least hinted at that Carter didn't age.

In later books Carter finds that he isn't the only human to have been able to make the journey to Mars. I don't think it's ever hinted at that he may be one of the White Martians--just that he's a strange sort of immortal with vague recollections of a past and the feeling of never having aged. (In that, he's a bit like Wolverine...  )


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 14, 2012)

After the forward by ERB, the first two sentences of Chapter 1 are:



			
				Edgar Rice Burroughs said:
			
		

> I am a very old man; how old I do not know. Possibly I am a hundred, possibly more; but I cannot tell because I have never aged as other men, nor do I remember any childhood. So far as I can recollect I have always been a man, a man of about thirty.



This can be an easy thing to forget because ERB never, ever, touches on it again in the whole of the book. Or the next one. Or the one after. It's like plot insurance. It's there in case anyone complains about Carter hanging out with beings literally hundreds of years old who never die except by violence.

There's another bit of plot insurance in the books. The second book starts off with John Carter handing ERB a new manuscript and saying that he's figured out a way to move between Earth and Mars. This discovery doesn't happen during the course of the book, or the next one. Or, if it does, it happens off screen and not alluded to again.

This doesn't bother me, it just amuses me because it's the opposite of the kind of advice one might normally get about writing fiction.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 14, 2012)

fanboy2000 said:


> This doesn't bother me, it just amuses me because it's the opposite of the kind of advice one might normally get about writing fiction.




He was writing pulp, serial novels...in a way he was inventing or at least helping to invent the genre.  I think that is why it was so easier for the material to move to radio and then the movies.


----------



## Mallus (Mar 14, 2012)

Deuce Traveler said:


> Do you notice that no one ever works hard in the movies anymore?  They basically pull a 'eat the pill' moment just like in Limitless.  John Carter doesn't have to work at the language like he had in the book, he just drinks the magic water and BAM!, he understands the language.



In the book, Carter doesn't just learn the language, he learns _telepathy_, and it happens, like everything else in the novel, really, really quickly/effortlessly. He also ends up a far more powerful telepath than your average Martian (as is demonstrated by his espying the combination to the Atmosphere Plant's door from the guardian, without even trying to).  



> I never read past book four, but does anyone know if John Carter is a Orovar or White Martian?



That's my take on it -- but I also think that's the result of me being a genre-savvy reader today and Burroughs being a genre founder writing 100 years ago. I wouldn't be surprised if that connection never crossed his mind.


----------



## Felon (Mar 14, 2012)

Deuce Traveler said:


> Do you notice that no one ever works hard in the movies anymore?  They basically pull a 'eat the pill' moment just like in Limitless.  John Carter doesn't have to work at the language like he had in the book, he just drinks the magic water and BAM!, he understands the language.



Well, they want it to be a big-budget affair, which means you have to commit to targeting big audiences, which means you keep things fast and familiar. In short, you really have to engross viewers to get them to invest in a thinking-man's action film with variable pacing.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 14, 2012)

Mallus said:


> In the book, Carter doesn't just learn the language, he learns _telepathy_, and it happens, like everything else in the novel, really, really quickly/effortlessly. He also ends up a far more powerful telepath than your average Martian (as is demonstrated by his espying the combination to the Atmosphere Plant's door from the guardian, without even trying to).




Not just that he was more powerful because no one was able to detect his thoughts because he didn't have the same mental pattern or something as everyone else on mars had.

What's funny is that he essentially was Reverse Superman.

 -Sent via Tapatalk


----------



## Umbran (Mar 15, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> What's funny is that he essentially was Reverse Superman.




"Princess of Mars"  was written 100 years ago.  Superman is a reverse John Carter.


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 15, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> Not just that he was more powerful because no one was able to detect his thoughts because he didn't have the same mental pattern or something as everyone else on mars had.
> 
> What's funny is that he essentially was Reverse Superman.
> 
> -Sent via Tapatalk






Hand of Evil said:


> I would have to re-read to books but from Wiki...
> 
> White Martians
> Orovars -- The White Martians, known as 'Orovars' were rulers of Mars for 500,000 years, with an empire of sophisticated cities with advanced technology. They were white skinned, with blond or Auburn hair. They were once a seafaring race but when the oceans began to dry up, they began to cooperate with the Yellow and Black Martians to breed the Red Martians,[40] foreseeing the need for hardy stock to cope with the emerging harsher environment. They became decadent and 'overcivilized'. At the beginning of the series they are believed to be extinct, but three remaining populations, some original Orovars, Therns and Lotharians, are still living in secret and are discovered as the books progress.[7]
> ...






Deuce Traveler said:


> Do you notice that no one ever works hard in the movies anymore?  They basically pull a 'eat the pill' moment just like in Limitless.  John Carter doesn't have to work at the language like he had in the book, he just drinks the magic water and BAM!, he understands the language.
> 
> I liked the movie, but I think it was sloppily done.  I also noticed that he was not ageless, like he was in the books.  I never read past book four, but does anyone know if John Carter is a Orovar or White Martian?
> 
> I never found out in the books what froze him and transported him to Mars, as they left it a mystery in the four I had read.  If he was a lost Orovar wandering Earth, it would explain his agelessness and much else.



OK i enjoyed the movie enough to read the book for the first time.  I just finished the 3rd book last night.

Seeing these posts leads me to believe that John Carter was an Orovars who traveled to earth and forgot his past.  The books mentions that John Carter is ageless about once a book so far.  

Plus John is genetically compatible with a Red Martian.  The books are clear that all martians are compatible with each other expect maybe the green.

As far as Carter being a reverse Superman.  Remember the original Superman could leap tall buildings.  John Carter was more likely the uncredited inspiration for original Superman.  It would not surprise me that an author in the 1920 used a book from the late 1800 as a source of inspiration, even if unconsciously on the author part.


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 15, 2012)

I know John Carter was created before the original Super Man.  But remember he was created years after Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch which may have inspired John Carter.

ANYWAYS, the point of my comparison was that since a good majority of today's population could easily tell you who Superman but would struggle with the questions of "Who is John Carter? Why should you watch his movie?" John Carter would is like a reverse Superman, even though historically it's the other way around.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 15, 2012)

Just saw it today.

One of the best movies I have ever seen. 10 out of 10.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 16, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> I know John Carter was created before the original Super Man.  But remember he was created years after Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch which may have inspired John Carter.
> 
> ANYWAYS, the point of my comparison was that since a good majority of today's population could easily tell you who Superman but would struggle with the questions of "Who is John Carter? Why should you watch his movie?" John Carter would is like a reverse Superman, even though historically it's the other way around.



Not sure of the context with ubermensch other than "overman" and "superman" as it was a philosophy.  

And while John Carter never made it as an world icon, ERB's Tarzan did. Before 1977 there were really just 5 characters that would be recognized around the world; Superman, Kirk, Tarzan, Micky Mouse and Elvis. 

I think if I was doing the marketing, I would have done a time line of iconic movie characters, end with John Carter as the start of it all, then the release date.


----------



## Tonguez (Mar 16, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> And while John Carter never made it as an world icon, ERB's Tarzan did. Before 1977 there were really just 5 characters that would be recognized around the world; Superman, Kirk, Tarzan, Micky Mouse and Elvis.




wow so Kirk was more recognizable than Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Dracula, Billy the Kid, Zorro, Muhammad Ali, Conan, Beatles etc


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 16, 2012)

Relique du Madde said:


> But remember he was created years after Nietzsche's concept of the ubermensch which may have inspired John Carter.



Errm, have you actually read anything from Nietzsche?

There's absolutely _no_ connection between the philosophical concept of the 'Übermensch' and a 'Superman'. It's about freeing yourself from social and moral 'shackles', not about gaining superpowers.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 16, 2012)

Tonguez said:


> wow so Kirk was more recognizable than Robin Hood, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Dracula, Billy the Kid, Zorro, Muhammad Ali, Conan, Beatles etc




yep...people in China at the time could see a pic of him and know who he was, now that is a icon!  The others are culture icons, never moved beyond the western world.  Beatle, music yes but not the members of the band.  

And we all know what happen in 1977, the year Hollywood was saved! After that, there were a whole lot of icons!


----------



## Relique du Madde (Mar 16, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> Not sure of the context with ubermensch other than "overman" and "superman" as it was a philosophy.  .





Jhaelen said:


> Errm, have you actually read anything from Nietzsche?
> 
> There's absolutely _no_ connection between the philosophical concept of the 'Übermensch' and a 'Superman'. It's about freeing yourself from social and moral 'shackles', not about gaining superpowers.



I've read some of his work, but not much.

I'm looking at influence and inspiration in broad terms since fictional characters/societies who act a reaction/counterpoint/critique of something are still inspired/influenced by it (even if only bits and pieces of the work are being responded to).  

Look at the Sula/Tars Tarkas/John Carter, they basically represented many social/moral values which are considered to be the societal norm during ERB's era (some of which Nietzsche was against) while the rest of the tharks were an embodiment of the antitheses of those traditional values the protagonists symbolized.  The tharks themselves could be said to be the result of shirking of those traditional societal/moral values for endless generations.  However by the end of the book Sula, Tars Tarkas, and John Carter's values seemingly were about to replace the values of the Tharks as a result of Tars Tarkas's ascension to Jeddak.


Of course, it's all speculation since, as far as I know, ERB never said, "I read Thus Spake Zarathustra, and here are my thoughts on that work..."


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 17, 2012)

Felon said:


> I think this is one of those movies that has a big identity problem.
> 
> It's not really a light-hearted thrill ride in the vein of "Raiders" or "Pirates". You're not laughing constantly at lovable, quirky characters right before gasping as they go over a waterfall or narrowly avoid being swallowed by a giant monster.
> 
> ...




I also find your "inscrutable" and "incoherent" criticisms, well, strange and snarky.  But I kinda-sorta agree with you here.  Although the "identity problem" is a bonus in my book and one of the reasons I enjoyed the movie.  I get tired of the standard genre "slots" that blockbusters usually fall into.  But, I do think that this "lack" is making the movie a harder sell with the general public, sadly.


----------



## Janx (Mar 17, 2012)

I took the day off and saw the movie with a friend.  I was cautious, given the reviews and mixed discussions here.

We liked it.

More importantly, the kids behind us who couldn't shut up liked it.  They were oohing and ahing and talking about what they were seeing the whole time.

My conclusion is, every opinion that doesn't agree with me, doesn't matter.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Mar 19, 2012)

I enjoyed the movie.



Felon said:


> In this case, I guess we're supposed to have a Tin Man who needs to find that some things (and people) are worth fighting for.



In Carter's case, he thought there were things worth fighting for - so he fought in the civil war. But when he returned, his wife and kid were dead. So he decided that he'd never fight for anyone else anymore.
He had to realize that this fight was not one of the fights for someone else, and more so, this time he had to fight to not lose someone, where the Civil war as a fight that cost him someone.


----------



## Piratecat (Mar 19, 2012)

FickleGM said:


> I enjoyed the movie. Not great, but good.



That was me as well. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. Ponderous in parts, fantastic in others, and lots of fun. I'm glad I went -- and not just because I got to see Dejah Thoris kick ass.


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 19, 2012)

To correct my earlier post.  The original book was published in the Pulp magazine _The All-Story_ in February 1912 to July 1912, compiled and published in hard cover 1917.  See John Carter of Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is still in the correct time frame to be have inspired the superman character of Action comics #1 published 1938.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 20, 2012)

I saw it today and agree; 7 out of 10 ain't bad.  And this film had a serious marketing problem.  I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't, couldn't, and wasn't billed as "John Carter OF MARS", which would have made it a bit clearer, and the trailers could have been utilized to set the stage far more than they did.  Honestly, it was in the same ballgame as Thor, and possibly Captain America.

As far as Thern motivation, I might have been distracted, but I basically got "because we're older than this planet, and it amuses us", which really seems like all the reason you need when you measure lifespan by the number of planets you outlive.



Felon said:


> Those are pretty much your three types of big action movies: the family thrill ride, the epic, and the slaughterhouse.



I think this is either overly simplistic, or you're just flat-out missing some categories.  I don't see any of the major comic-book superhero movies falling into the categories you've labelled.  (Spiderman, Iron Man, X-Men, etc, etc).  There's a clear theme of self-sacrifice, overcoming personal loss, and redemption in all of them, and John Carter is squarely in the middle of that.


----------



## Zelda Themelin (Mar 20, 2012)

I really liked the movie. It was funny, had action and get my interest up. Only negatives: Forced 3D, this happens almost all the time, and no option to watch 2D it relaly sucks. I hate 3D for almost all movies I've seen using it. Other negative is that I think marketing doesn't sell such a great movie enough, many people who would have liked it miss it and we don't have sequel. Damn it, I'd really wanted to have a sequel.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2012)

TanisFrey said:


> It is still in the correct time frame to be have inspired the superman character of Action comics #1 published 1938.




While he didn't stick with us as well as Tarzan, he was big in his day.  It is probably reasonable to say that John Carter of Mars inspired or informed pretty much all of sci-fi that was to follow for the next few decades.  

And really, that should have been a big part of the marketing:

"Before Luke Skywalker...
 Before Captain Kirk...
 Before Superman...
 There was.... John Carter of Mars!"

Of course, getting license to use the names of other characters in your advertising is not going to happen.  But that's how it should have been sold anyway!


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 20, 2012)

Umbran said:


> While he didn't stick with us as well as Tarzan, he was big in his day.  It is probably reasonable to say that John Carter of Mars inspired or informed pretty much all of sci-fi that was to follow for the next few decades.
> 
> And really, that should have been a big part of the marketing:
> 
> ...



That might be allowed under fair use rules but I am no lawyer.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 20, 2012)

TanisFrey said:


> That might be allowed under fair use rules but I am no lawyer.




I would expect all those to be covered not just by copyright, but trademark as well.  I don't think "fair use" applies to trademarks.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 20, 2012)

Umbran said:


> I would expect all those to be covered not just by copyright, but trademark as well.  I don't think "fair use" applies to trademarks.



IANAL either, but when Pepsi commercials use Coca-Cola dress and trademarked items to put down Coke and sell Pepsi, I'm not entirely sure how that works.

Take the Pepsi Max commercials on the US tv around now (I saw one last night). The Coke Zero guy buys Pepsi Max, and there are definite uses of the Coca-Cola  and Coke Zero trade dress.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 20, 2012)

Umbran said:


> really, that should have been a big part of the marketing:
> 
> "Before Luke Skywalker...
> Before Captain Kirk...
> ...



Another way to go would have been to say John Carter of Mars directed by Oscar winning director Andrew Stanton and written by Pulitzer Prize winning author Michael Chabon. I think that would have done well too.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Mar 21, 2012)

It's being panned (unfairly, I think) by the BBC now.

Came across this quote which puzzles me from yahoo, as with a cost of $250 million...

_"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31," the company said in a statement"_

I can't quite work out how 250 million - 184 million = 200 million.

But then again, I hear that many apparently successful movies have actually performed SO poorly that the actors on a percentage haven't seen any money, so what do I know


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2012)

Operating costs include production cost plus marketing costs..


----------



## Dire Bare (Mar 21, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> It's being panned (unfairly, I think) by the BBC now.
> 
> Came across this quote which puzzles me from yahoo, as with a cost of $250 million...
> 
> ...




The movie will probably be profitable after all theatre showings and DVD/Blu-Ray sales, especially with the overseas market.  While not the blockbuster success Disney may have hoped for, nobody should be crying for them, especially with the crap marketing.

But then again, the term "Hollywood accounting" has become cliched for a reason.


----------



## Janx (Mar 21, 2012)

Zelda Themelin said:


> I really liked the movie. It was funny, had action and get my interest up. Only negatives: Forced 3D, this happens almost all the time, and no option to watch 2D it relaly sucks. I hate 3D for almost all movies I've seen using it. Other negative is that I think marketing doesn't sell such a great movie enough, many people who would have liked it miss it and we don't have sequel. Damn it, I'd really wanted to have a sequel.




I watched it in 2D.  It might depend on where you live, but check all the listings.  Larger theatres seem to have 2D showings as well as 3D.

I don't trust 3D to be good yet.  Avatar was excellent and set the bar, but James Cameron is the only guy to have gotten good press about 3D and how he made his film to be 3D from the start. As such, anybody else saying "it's in 3D" is more like an afterthought of cramming in some scenes where stuff appears to be coming at you.

Not worth the extra $5.


----------



## Deset Gled (Mar 21, 2012)

I saw it last weekend.  It was fun and entertaining, but not great.  At it's heart, it is a standard Victorian era sci-fi story.  It's loaded with all the standard tropes of the time.  Some people will love that, some people will hate it.  Overall, it was a decent action movie that will probably end up in my DVD collection, but it's far from a sci-fi classic.

The two biggest faults for me:

The music and sound.  Did anyone who saw the movie hum one of the themes as they left the theatre?  No, because the music was entirely forgettable.  Not bad, mind you.  It wasn't jarring and did a passable job.  But it was completely unremarkable in every way.  And the sound effects were like a checklist of standard stock sounds, thrown in with crappy editing.

The 3D.  One of the biggest problems with modern 3D is that it makes motion look a little blurry.  And so much of this movie was in high speed motion that the 3D took much more away than it added.  Especially the scenes with the Thern technology, which was very intricate, lost a lot.  Combine the bad sound with bad 3D and you have absolutely no reason to see this movie in IMAX.  I did, and I regret the decision.  And that's coming from someone who's a sucker for 3D.


----------



## Nellisir (Mar 21, 2012)

I saw it in 2D, since I almost never wear my contacts and 3D glasses don't play well with my glasses.  I didn't feel like I was missing anything.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2012)

Nellisir said:


> I saw it in 2D, since I almost never wear my contacts and 3D glasses don't play well with my glasses.  I didn't feel like I was missing anything.




It doesn't seem to me that 3d adds much to most movies these days.


----------



## Thotas (Mar 21, 2012)

That's because the movies aren't shot in 3D. They're converted after being shot in 2D.  Learned my lesson on "Thor" -- not paying an extra three-fifty to have the movie look like crap ever again.


----------



## Mercutio01 (Mar 21, 2012)

Theaters are kind of forcing the issue, at least where I live. I noted it earlier in the thread, but the 2D showings of John Carter were either 5:45 PM or 11 PM, with only 3D showings in the interim. It sucks because the extra money was a waste, but my options were limited.


----------



## ssampier (Mar 21, 2012)

I saw the movie in 3D. I didn't think the 3D added anything to it. I thought the white gorillas would appear huge; they were merely big. I also don't remember any of the other gimmicks like things flying at the screen.

Otherwise I enjoyed it. It's a fast and fun mostly. I thought the romance 



Spoiler



and marriage


 to Dejah Thoris was tacked on. But that's the problem of the source material, I think.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Mar 21, 2012)

Thotas said:


> That's because the movies aren't shot in 3D. They're converted after being shot in 2D.  Learned my lesson on "Thor" -- not paying an extra three-fifty to have the movie look like crap ever again.



It wasn't shot in IMAX either. I got burned two ways. Oh well.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 21, 2012)

3D is Dead.

It's now 4D or Nothing!

*(those aren't sunglasse, they're 4D glasses...)


----------



## Umbran (Mar 21, 2012)

Thotas said:


> That's because the movies aren't shot in 3D. They're converted after being shot in 2D.




Even things that are shot natively in 3D, I don't think 3D makes them into a better movie.  Simply put, 2D is sufficient for good storytelling, and the extra visual dimension doesn't add depth to characters 



Mercutio01 said:


> Theaters are kind of forcing the issue, at least where I live. I noted it earlier in the thread, but the 2D showings of John Carter were either 5:45 PM or 11 PM, with only 3D showings in the interim. It sucks because the extra money was a waste, but my options were limited.




My understanding of the phenomenon is this:

At the moment, 3D is the fashion.  But, there are signs that it isn't a particularly lasting fashion - the effect has improved with technology, but not enough to make this THE WAY to make movies.  So, the theaters and production companies must make what they can off the fashion while it persists.


----------



## El Mahdi (Mar 21, 2012)

Yeah.  I feel the same way about it.  2D movies converted to 3D are just horrible to me.  And movies actually filmed in 3D just seem like a novelty only to me.  I saw Avatar in 3D when it came out...and it was fun...but I've seen it multiple times since in plain old 2D and never once thought "this was so much better in 3D".  It was a fun novelty the first time, but that's about as far as it goes for me.


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Mar 23, 2012)

Loved it. The movie was one among the funnest pleasurable movies recently. The marketing could have been better done, but that's hindsight.

I'm totally buying this on Bluray with a digital copy. And I hope to heck there is enough to get a sequel.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 23, 2012)

Plane Sailing said:


> It's being panned (unfairly, I think) by the BBC now.
> 
> Came across this quote which puzzles me from yahoo, as with a cost of $250 million...
> 
> ...



There are a few factors:

- You have to add marketing to the production costs. A modest estimate is in the ballpark of $350 million total.
- The studio rakes in about half the box office. So, it'd need to make something between $500 and $700 million to turn in a profit.
- When a studio smells a bomb, they funnel all losses from other movies into that one, and write it off as a single failure for their investors.

Also note that Disney announced the "flop" after only 11 days. John Carter has been the #1 movie worldwide for two weeks, and it hasn't even opened in Japan yet. It is the largest opening ever in Russia. It just opened in China, raking in great numbers.

Also telling is how Disney decided, about six months ago, not to license anything related to John Carter. No Lego, no toys, no action figures, backpacks, clothing, videogames, nada. That was one of the movie's hopes of turning in a profit. But everyone at Disney who greenlighted the movie is no longer there, so the movie had no one to champion it.


----------



## Hand of Evil (Mar 27, 2012)

Klaus said:


> There are a few factors:
> 
> - You have to add marketing to the production costs. A modest estimate is in the ballpark of $350 million total.
> - The studio rakes in about half the box office. So, it'd need to make something between $500 and $700 million to turn in a profit.
> ...




It's Total Lifetime Grosses
  Domestic:  $62,407,212    26.6% 
+ Foreign:  $172,100,000    73.4% 
----------------------------------
= Worldwide:  $234,507,212


----------



## Klaus (Mar 27, 2012)

Hand of Evil said:


> It's Total Lifetime Grosses
> Domestic:  $62,407,212    26.6%
> + Foreign:  $172,100,000    73.4%
> ----------------------------------
> = Worldwide:  $234,507,212



JC's opening weekend worldwide was better than the Hunger Games! Imagine how much it could've done if Disney chose to market it right.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 27, 2012)

Klaus said:


> JC's opening weekend worldwide was better than the Hunger Games!




No.  HoE there gives *lifetime* numbers for John Carter, not opening weekend.

On its opening weekend, John Carter did $30 million domestic, and about $70 million foreign, for a total of about $100 million for the weekend.

Hunger Games did $155 million opening weekend, just in the domestic market.


----------



## Klaus (Mar 27, 2012)

Umbran said:


> No.  HoE there gives *lifetime* numbers for John Carter, not opening weekend.
> 
> On its opening weekend, John Carter did $30 million domestic, and about $70 million foreign, for a total of about $100 million for the weekend.
> 
> Hunger Games did $155 million opening weekend, just in the domestic market.



Internationally, JC did $70 million. HG did $59 million.


----------



## Umbran (Mar 27, 2012)

Klaus said:


> Internationally, JC did $70 million. HG did $59 million.




Ah, okay.  When you say "worldwide", that says to me "domestic + foreign" - because that's the whole world.


----------



## Rhyssa (Mar 28, 2012)

This is how the marketing should have looked - Fan trailer - "Heritage".  

So much more information there and the way it's presented raises anticipation to see the movie.  Plus it doesn't really make it seem like just another period action movie.  I did hear elsewhere that the "of Mars" was dropped because it didn't register well with the female demographic.  While it doesn't bother me and wouldn't have affected my deciding to see the movie, I'm also not a typical female movie goer; many women not into scifi or gaming or anything "different" might see the "Mars" tag as a bad thing.


----------



## qstor (Apr 3, 2012)

I saw it over the weekend. I really enjoyed it too. I hope they do Chessmen of Mars.

Mike


----------



## Farganger (Apr 5, 2012)

Last weekend, I managed to see both "The Hunger Games" and "John Carter" at a top-drawer cinema in LA with my wife, my nephew (a newbie RPGer) and some writerly Hollywood type hangers-on. Neither film was terrible, and in fact John Carter seems to me to have been rather unfairly treated by the Disney brass. 

I'd suggest it's well worth watching at the theater, or on DVD, at some point. I'd probably go 8 out of 10 in terms of a personal rating, and would certainly see any sequel on the big screen . . . if the production plans weren't scrapped and various kill-clauses activated in the wake Disney's write-down/quarterly loss announcement.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 6, 2012)

Please to see that, despite Disney's best efforts, John Carter has made its budget back now

John Carter's Trip to Mars Finally Earns Its Budget - Forbes

Cheers


----------



## AdmundfortGeographer (Apr 6, 2012)

That fills me with glee Plane Sailing, wish that it would matter to Disney's execs though. I've been trying a word of mouth campaign of my own telling those who I know enjoy sci fi adventures that it is worth their money.


----------

