This John Carter should be doing Fruit of the Loom Commercials

[John M. Whalen]

I've been hopeful regarding the Disney production of John Carter of Mars---until now. The official trailer has just been released and while the CGI depiction of Mars looks good, and the Tharks look good, and Dejah Thoris looks good, Taylor Kitch as John Carter looks like any of the other modern day fantasy movie heroes---a male model from an underwear commerical. John Carter does not look this young, this pretty, or that hopeless. There's a look in his eyes when the big ape is coming at him that actually looks like he's about the crap in his pants. John Carter was a man who knew no fear and relished the challenge of combat no matter the odds. AAARRGGGHHH! Disney has done it again. First they turned Tarzan into a freaking cartoon and now this. What a disappointment.

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/11/30...carter-trailer

[Jaqhama]

The trailer looks great to me.
Seems like the John Carter character has been modelled on how he was depicted in the Marvel comic series.
The clothing and hairstyle is very similar.
Woola looks nothing like he was described in the novels, I think.
And whats with the guy with the blue eyes?
Tharks look great.
I have to say it looks a whole lot closer to ERB's Barsoom books than the latest Conan film was to REH's stories.

[wicked]

The video wouldn't play for me, I had to find it on youtube. I liked the trailer. It certainly looks more promising than the one for Conan. Maybe even enough to get my hopes up. This will be on our "go see" list for the theater.

[John M. Whalen]

The trailer looks great to me.
Seems like the John Carter character has been modelled on how he was depicted in the Marvel comic series.
The clothing and hairstyle is very similar.
Woola looks nothing like he was described in the novels, I think.
And whats with the guy with the blue eyes?
Tharks look great.
I have to say it looks a whole lot closer to ERB's Barsoom books than the latest Conan film was to REH's stories.

But I don't want a comic book John Carter. I want a guy who looks like the guy in the book. For one thing, he's older and I don't see him as a pretty boy with long flowing locks. But this is what the Disney organization obviously feels will appeal to the youth market that the film seems to be targeted for. I kind of wish somebody like Zach Snyder was given the job of bringing Carter to the screen. It certainly would have been less pretty looking.

The video wouldn't play for me, I had to find it on youtube. I liked the trailer. It certainly looks more promising than the one for Conan. Maybe even enough to get my hopes up. This will be on our "go see" list for the theater.

My copy of the Conan Blu-Ray should arrive today from Netflix. I'm ready for a good yock. A friend of mine told me the funniest scene in the movie is Ron Perlman as Conan's Daddy saying, "I love you, son."

[wicked]

I'm not very familiar with John Carter, but I did find myself wondering why he had long hair in the trailer. It seemed out of place to me. Perhaps I've just seen too many space Marine type movies, and expect everyone to be clean cut and in the military.

My husband pointed out the Conan DVD in the store the other day and asked if I wanted it. I told him to wait until it goes on sale. I expect it to be in the $5 bin within the year. Season of the Witch, on the other hand, we snapped up on sight.

[Dave]

[John M. Whalen]

That's the trailer that came out earlier this year, Dave. It seemed more promising than the newer one. The one glaring error is the protrayal of ERB as a twentysomething fresh faced kid. He was 35 when he wrote the book. But again Disney wants to appeal to the younger ticket buyers out there. The original trailer seemed more heroic. The new one seems to be going more for vulnerability. Vulnerable heroes plays well today. ; )

[wicked]

For sure the age change was meant to pander to the younger crowd. I didn't really catch the "vulnerable" vibe though.
The first trailer did nothing for me, but the second one showed more creatures and character interaction. That's the one that would get me to the theater.

As much as I enjoy some of the old school pulp heroes, they were definitely written with the male audience of the day in mind. In the stories they might be striking rich with the ladies, but their personalities don't lend very well to a female audience.

Hero of the time-"See my muscles, see my skills in battle. I have no fear. No emotion." The ladies of the time -"He's got wham, bam, thank you ma'am, tattooed on his forehead, but at least our babies might be strong enough to survive childhood." She makes note to buy extra chocolate, and go visit doctor for treatment of "hysteria".

That hero now- "See my muscles, see my skills in battle. I have no fear. No emotion." Ladies now - "Not in this lifetime, buddy. Next!"

I like heroes who are proud, strong, skilled, and stoic, but they need to have some personality too.

[John M. Whalen]

LOL Yes those were the days when men were men and women were after them. Now a man doesn't have to have a fast draw or be good with a sword or his fists. He just needs two good thumbs and a Blackberry.

[wicked]

Hey now, I went through both of those trailers and didn't see a Blackberry anywhere. I don't think it's going to keep the hero from being a hottie, or an Alpha male. :P

[Jaqhama]

Apart from being a bit younger John Carter has the same hiarstyle and harness/clothing as Marvel imagined him...but the Marvel depiction is almost the same as the pulp paperback book covers.

Princess of Mars: http://www.amazon.com/Princess-Mars-...ref=pd_sim_b_2

Warlord of Mars: http://www.amazon.com/Warlord-Mars-E.../dp/0345324536

My one major complaint is that the movie swords aren't longswords as described in the novels by any means...yet the book covers and Marvel got the swords exactly right.

Note how close the movie Tharks are to the books covers and comics.

Gods of Mars: http://www.amazon.com/Gods-Mars-Mart...ref=pd_sim_b_1

I reckon the movie people have done a good job, as evidenced by their constant referral to a Barsoomian Encylopedia written years ago by a fan that they used as a guide. Less impressive was that during an interview the director of the movie couldn't remember the name of the guy who wrote the encylopedia, despite the film company buying up every copy available on the internet.

Here's a more modern online pedia, don't know if it's anything to do with the original writer:

http://barsoom.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page

My LInda would like to see this film on the cinema screen. I hate going to the cinema but told her I'd force myself this one time.

Sad thing is a lot of the 'younger generation' all think this movie is copied from Stars Wars and Avatar, not realising that both those movies had ERB stories as their own base.

I have to side with TA and say I didn't get the vunerable aspect of John Carter in the trailer.

Above all the John Carter/Dejah Thoris story is a love story. The action was always in response to a threat on Dejah Thoris.

I have to say I find ERB's Barsoom stories and characters a lot more riveting than REH's tales. Maybe because ERB's stories have such scope and epic proportion, plus first person narration is my favorite tense.

[John M. Whalen]

Sorry, Jaq, but the person depicted in those book covers is an imposter. Here is the real John Carter.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/dems_bo...es/5240459754/

Ballantine issued the Mars series in the sixties with covers by an artist named Bob Abbett. These are the copies I still have and they and Burroughs' text formed my image of the man. I don't know if you've ever seen any pictures of Confederate soldiers in the Civil War but they were very few if any that had long flowing locks.

From Burroughs introduction:

"He was a splendid specimen of manhood, standing a good two inches over six feet, broad of shoulder and narrow of hip with the carriage of the trained fighting man. His features wer regular and clear cut, his hair black and CLOSELY CROPPED, while his eyes were of a steel gray, reflecting a strong and loyal character, filled wIth fire AND initiative."

That just doesn't sound like Taylor Kitsch. I agree that all the other aspects of the Disney flick look good. The Tharks, Thuvia, the White Ape (although about four times bigger than in the book) look like exactly the way they are described, etc. As TA says, women in the audience now have different ideas about what heroes should look like than they did in the sixties or during the pulp era and they buy tickets. If the film sticks close enough to the original story and character it may not be a total loss. But I'm doubtful.

[Jaqhama]

I like my covers better.

[John M. Whalen]

John Carter opened in the US Friday March 9 and has generally gotten pretty bad reviews. The Washington Post gave it one star out of four, and gave it about the roughest review I've ever seen in the paper. I'll see it on Sunday anyway, even thought I never had much hope for it. Some reviews say the special effects are "ugly," the story is confusing, and not engaging, and Taylor Kitsch seems lost in the part. The LA Times has predicted the movie will fall into a box office black hole. They don't think it'll even make $30 million opening weekend. I don't think any sequels will be forthcoming, unless it does better overseas. Oddly enough, it had the biggest opening day ever in Russia, $6.5 million.

[wicked]

I tend to take panning by the big critics as a sign I'll probably like the movie.

Some ERB fans on another site I frequent have been gushing over it. I can't wait to see it. Most likely next weekend.

[John M. Whalen]

I went to see it today. I am a big ERB fan. I wasn't too impressed. It's too long by half an hour. The first 30 minutes should be cut. We have battle scenes taking place on Barsoom and we haven't even been introduced to the characters. So who cares what happens. Then there are long scenes of dialog and exposition that frankly I nearly putme to sleep. I didn't like Dejah Thoris's British accent. Never imagined her talking that way or being such a modernized woman. The worst thing is the screenplay which suffers from the current trend now taught in all writing classes that your story must have a character arc. So in this one instead of Burroughs' fighting man John Carter, we get the pacifist John Carter who doesn't want to fight. Of course the reason is that he suffers from an emotional wound suffered in his past. I won't say what it is but Josey Wales comes to mind for some reason. So halfway through, of course, something happens to put him in a fighting mood and the story takes off, the way Burroughs wrote it. But even then I thought the direction left a lot to be desired.A lot of visual cliches, and dialog that just goes on way too long. I went with another ERB fan, who is more of a fanboy and doesn't care about the flaws. He's willing to cut it some slack because he's just so glad that somebody made the movie. I feel the other way. Why cut the writer and director slack when they could have more closely followed ERBs story and made a more enjoyable film. Special effects, costuming were very good. Music was not interesting at all. It's first time Andrew Stanton has done a live action film and he seems to have trouble getting the right kind of performance out of the actors. Anyway, that's my take on it. Two stars out of four. Now let the brickbats begin.

[Jaqhama]

Did you see it in 3D John?

The cinemas near us are only showing John Carter in 3D...and we're just not interested in 3D visual effects at all.

We'll be waiting until it come out on DVD I guess.

[John M. Whalen]

In the US it is being shown in 3 and 2D. I opted for 2D. The 3D films I've seen have all been too dark and murky looking. 2D is brighter. Maybe if I still had the eyes of an 18-year old I'd want to see it in 3D! John Carter was shot as 2D and 3D was added post production. One point in its favor the movie was shot on film instead of digital. So the look was more like a real movie. However, film always has a more reddish tint than the digital process and I think they used red filters most of the time, I guess to give it a Martian look. But there were times I thought it was too much red.
The good news is that current box office figures indicate John Carter made $30.9 million in its opening weekend. Higher than some thought. Given the mediocre to lousy reviews that figure will probably drop next week, though.

[Jaqhama]

Ya know...having watched a dozen You Tube trailers for John Carter I've got to say that I can see Jason Statham in the lead role.

John Carter and Dejah Thoris always had english accents for me, because I was born and raised in Britain.

Having said that some of the dialogue I've heard from the movie is shocking. Way to modern expressions.

I mean..Dejah..."Go ahead, shock me?" Like a Barsoomian Princess is going to say that. What was the director thinking of?

Then someone else says..."Let's see what he's capable of." Ye Gods, that made us cringe.

The opening scene with JC being 'shanghied by the Union calvary. What was all that about...and would a Virginian gentleman go headbutting a fellow officer, or piss in his gaol cell, or spit blood on the floor. Or walk around unshaven and dirty...and what's with the freaking wedding ring...John Carter was never married.

It's not looking good.

[The Griot]

Going to see it this week with the family. I stopped listening to critics about science fiction and fantasy ever since they panned The Chronicles of Riddick, which I enjoyed. My only relationship with John Carter is through the Marvel comic so my expectations are not too high. :-) John, if you expect Hollywood to be true to any novel you will always, always be disappointed. It all about the money, and Disney (Hollywood) shoots for the 18-35 year old demographic.

[John M. Whalen]

Ya know...having watched a dozen You Tube trailers for John Carter I've got to say that I can see Jason Statham in the lead role.

John Carter and Dejah Thoris always had english accents for me, because I was born and raised in Britain.

Having said that some of the dialogue I've heard from the movie is shocking. Way to modern expressions.

I mean..Dejah..."Go ahead, shock me?" Like a Barsoomian Princess is going to say that. What was the director thinking of?

Then someone else says..."Let's see what he's capable of." Ye Gods, that made us cringe.

The opening scene with JC being 'shanghied by the Union calvary. What was all that about...and would a Virginian gentleman go headbutting a fellow officer, or piss in his gaol cell, or spit blood on the floor. Or walk around unshaven and dirty...and what's with the freaking wedding ring...John Carter was never married.

It's not looking good.

Those are definitely some of the problems in the film. If you are a fan of the book, you're bound to find bits of dialog and action that just don't ring true. But the bigger problem is in the script in the way the writers decided to info dump at the beginning with a prologue explaining the "political" situation on Mars. There is so much of it, with so many characters, the viewer is left bewildered. This combined with battle scenes involving characters we know nothing about, tends to make you wonder, "Who cares about any of this." In the novel, ERB very carefully doles out the information a piece at a time. First he lands on Mars, JC meets Tars Tarkis and for about 40 pages we learn all about the Tharks and their socieity. Next comes the intro of Dejah Thoris and the Heliumites, and then we learn about the conflict between Helium and Zodanga. By then we know the characters and when the clashes start happening we care about the outcome. The second mistake, in my opinion, was giving John Carter a Josie Wales back story. For the first half of the movie he's a sort of conscientious objector. That might not have been a problem, except when he decides to stand up and fight, it's done in an unrealistic way---he becomes one man about fight an entire army! Huh? What sense does that make? The transition is unbelievable.

Another thought, the real difference between the book and the movie is that ERB wrote in a very personal style. Everything is told through JC's point of view in the first person. It seems real and grounded, because a lot of emotion is involved. The film starts with third person narration and it keeps a very distant, objective point of view. Andrew Stanton seems too intent on creating an epic rather tell one man's amazing story. Nevertheless, I'm not sorry I saw it and despite my objections, I hope everyone will go see it, just to support ERB's works being brought to the screen.

[wicked]

We finally got to see John Carter last night. Unfortunately we were late, and missed the first few minutes. Hopefully there wasn't an important scene prior to Ned talking to the lawyer and getting the journal.
Out of the six of us, we all gave it a thumbs up. It was fun, I was engaged all the way through, and it was the kind of movie I expected it to be.
Though my nine year old daughter now wants to take a trip to Mars to get that dog salamander thing. She raved about it all the way home. I may have to buy her a bearded dragon as a compromise.