John Carter

[Ironwood]

Are there mechs ?  Bowie knives ?

Mechs with Bowie knives ?

[Khaldun]

Boy, I do not see this as much like Avatar at all, really.

[SurfD]

Boy, I do not see this as much like Avatar at all, really.

Yeah, other then "it takes place on another planet", I'm not really getting any similarity vibes at all.

[UnSub]

I wasnt aware that they had ever referred to the movie as "John Carter of Mars" in any of their adds.  The logo has the JCM thing, but even IN the movie, they introduce it as "John Carter", only adding the "of Mars" bit at the end of the movie, after all the exposition is done.

I was told that adding the word "Mars" to the title didn't test well with women when they previewed the movie at screenings or some such marketing bullshit practice.  Why the fuck they would worry if a sci fi movie "tested well with women" is beyond me since most women don't care for sci fi anyway and the ones that do wouldn't care if Mars was in the title.  As for the movie itself, its not bad and worth watching, though it does slow down a great deal in the middle.  The beginning and ending are pretty good IMO.

Because gfs need to say, "Yes" for bfs to see the movie together.

Nerd films make more money when there is a hook for women too.

[Bunk]

Wouldn't that be kind of like arguing that Dances with Wolves and Ferngully stole from Avatar as well?

[Bungee]

I don't say anything got "stolen", I guess it's just the story flow but come on- just because the details are different doesn't make the film itself that different (it's the Avatar vs. Procahontas argument all over again).
I don't want to go over every detail again, but the movie never surprised me, everything happened as expected (I never read the books) and the similarities in how the story unfolded/scenes were arranged just completely struck me as "I saw that somewhere already".

Maybe it's worth noting that the argument me and the girl had was based on that she said that this was finally something new and "daring" and I disagreed for just above reasons.

[HaemishM]

"I saw that somewhere already".

Because you are watching a story that was written 80 years ago and has been ripped off by tons of adventure/action books/movies/TV shows since?

[Hammond]

Hell the original story was written a hundred years ago and its finally made it into public domain.  (which I find hilarious and a whole different argument)  So people can rip it off to their hearts content and get away with it as long as they do not infringe on the trademark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter_(character)

[Bungee]

Again, the argument after watching the movie was "that was new and refreshing" vs "no it's the x-th version of something with avatar being the youngest predecessor".

To maybe try and conclude this "argument":
I know that JC was there before most of the other stuff that actually was made into a movie before it (Warhammer vs Warcraft?), but because of those prior made movies it's just "another" one in the line, I didn't get excited anywhere during the movie and the only real surprise was the ending. I liked it well enough, I didn't love it though and one surely can spend 2,5h on worse things.

[RhyssaFireheart]

Maybe to your gf it was "new and refreshing".  Even if the story itself is old as sin, the presentation can lead someone to think it's new and better than other imitations. 

[Rishathra]

I thought it was refreshing that the movie actually spent some time developing the Thark culture.  Not a huge amount, mind you, but far more than you usually get in stories like this.

[ajax34i]

Movie was ok, I liked it (saw it in 2D).  I haven't read the original books, and for whatever reason the wikis gave me the impression of a lot of nudity intended in the setting, but the movie was truly a Disney PG13.  Quite a few action sequences, ok plot, decent ending.

The facial model of the Tharks resembles Avatar modeling a little bit.  Maybe their gait too.  The airship models resemble the alien speeders from Cowboys vs. Aliens.  The science fiction doesn't make sense, but I can kinda see it as conceived in 1919 (although, the flight-capable races use swords, and the tribal, less developed races use guns? hmm).

[SurfD]

Tharks don't fly.  In a sci-fi (ish) setting where you wage close quarters combat in ship-on-ship fighting, guns would be a liability in that they would likely damage the ship if you go running around firing on people.  So it sort of made slightly believable sense that while the ships would have guns on them to attack enemy ships from range, the actual close quarters fighting would happen with swords.

[Khaldun]

Burroughs was very much into early 20th C. eugenics (it's very evident in Tarzan, too). So basically the Tharks are a stand-in for the eugenist idea of "vigorous primitives": strong warriors who are in touch with nature, physically strong, wary of technology. The Red Martians are a technological people in danger of losing their physical vigor (this was a huge issue for the eugenicists, it was part of the creation of the Boy Scouts), so John Carter saves them partly by bringing them back in touch with physicality and in alliance to the Green Martians. (Basically, this is a translation of a lot of 1919-ish defenses of colonialism: the technological people dominate the non-technological people, but both get something out of the deal) The White Martians or therns are basically what the eugenicists were warning against: over-intellectualized, emotionless, weakling scientists who would be powerful but doomed in the face of resistance from a smart, physically capable opponent (e.g., John Carter).

The film updates the underlying imperialist race-science nonsense behind this a bit, substantially by making the therns ('white martians') not into Martians at all any more, but some kind of planet-hopping evil guys who endanger both Mars and Earth (hence John Carter is no longer some kind of perfect ubermensch destined to rule Mars, but instead an *ally* to Mars against a foe that endangers both Mars *and* Earth).

[Sheepherder]

Tharks don't fly.  In a sci-fi (ish) setting where you wage close quarters combat in ship-on-ship fighting, guns would be a liability in that they would likely damage the ship if you go running around firing on people.  So it sort of made slightly believable sense that while the ships would have guns on them to attack enemy ships from range, the actual close quarters fighting would happen with swords.

No, no it does not.

[Khaldun]

I'd have to reread the Burroughs, but I always thought the lack of flying machines among the Tharks was strictly about their culture (e.g., it was a marker that they were the more 'savage' race on Barsoom.)

[01101010]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/business/disney-writedown-john-carter/index.html

Ouchie. 

[01101010]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/20/business/disney-writedown-john-carter/index.html

Walt Disney will incur a $200m writedown on John Carter, the action film based on the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel which has failed at the box office despite a $300m production budget and an extensive global marketing campaign.

Ouchie. 

edit: forgot the quote...

[IainC]

Watched it in German last night at my local cinema.

Understood maybe 60% of the dialogue, 90% of the plot and 100% of the cleavage shots. Enjoyed it, would watch again.

[Mattemeo]

Just got back from seeing it.

Have to say, I spent the entire movie waiting for it to show even a tenth of the awfulness most of the reviewers claim to be inherent. Never happened.

Old fashioned saturday afternoon matinee scifi/space opera with a serious sense of fun and a genuine charm. Amused the hell out of me that for whatever reason, half the cast is from HBO/BBC's Rome series, and making the film all the more watchable for it. It's flawed, it could flow a little better and Taylor Kitsch is some way from becoming that leading actor, but overall it didn't feel as long as it was and I certainly felt like my time was spent well watching it. I doubt ERB would feel short-changed either.

But yeah, the reviews are 100% more incomprehensible than the film. Go see.

[Evildrider]

I thought it was pretty decent.  It made me want to at least read the books now.  It was overpriced to make but it could have been a bigger blockbuster with some decent marketing.

[Ratman_tf]

I thought it was pretty decent.  It made me want to at least read the books now.  It was overpriced to make but it could have been a bigger blockbuster with some decent marketing.

All the trailers except the first one made me want to wait for DVD.

[DraconianOne]

The marketing was terrible - not just because of the lacklustre trailers but because of the title. Assuming you were not a geek and knew nothing of ERBs stories, could you honestly pick out the $300m sci-fi action film from this list of films?

Michael Collins
Camille Claudel
Jerry Maguire
John Carter
Billy Bathgate
Shirley Valentine
Simon Birch
Veronica Guerin
Barton Fink

[shiznitz]

The marketing was fine.  The name was terrible.  They had to spend to make up for the name but it was too big a hole to fill. 

[Khaldun]

The name's part of the marketing. And I don't think the marketing succeeded in distinguishing the film from Wrath of the Titans and other by-the-numbers CGI-fest 'like watching a videogame play itself' sorts of films.

When in fact it's much better than that. None of the really good scenes or the nice little character bits or the humor made it into the trailers. For that matter, they didn't really show off the excellent cast worth a damn. Casting the two lead actors from Season 1 "Rome" in the roles they're in here was a fun little gesture, for example.

It's a shame. I think this could have made 2X what it did in the domestic market at least, and I could easily see a good sequel coming out of it that would have more story progression than the original Burroughs' books did, which very quickly fall into repetition.

[shiznitz]

Yes, technically, the name is marketing but the name doesn't cost anything.  A sci-fi name would have meant less money spent on explaining and probably a better audience for likely positive economics.

But we are arguing what shade of green the ocean is.  I wonder how this is being spun in the Hollywood business press.  I hope the director isn't taking the hit.  This has Producer Fuck-Up all over it.

[HaemishM]

Apparently, Disney has already said they'll write off like $80-$200 million on this movie as a loss. The head of Disney has said he doesn't blame the director and plans to give him more work. The director apparently had issues coming from animation to live-action (he was the director of Finding Nemo and Wall-E). The movie was apparently greenlit under a different head of Disney, so the current guy isn't taking the heat for it. The marketing team that was in charge of marketing for the film got laid off in the middle of the pre-release stuff, so the marketing did suffer for it. It's a perfect example of how shitty corporate incompetence can fuck up an otherwise potentially successful venture.

[Riggswolfe]

The marketing was fine.  The name was terrible.  They had to spend to make up for the name but it was too big a hole to fill. 

No, actually it wasn't. The trailers made this look like a forgertable cgi fest and if it hadn't been for word of mouth I'd have probably waited to rent it on pay per view. The trailers were awful and way, way undersold the movie.

[shiznitz]

The trailers made me want to see it.  They made me look up the books, too. 

[Rishathra]

The FIRST trailer was fantastic and guaranteed my ticket purchase.  The one with the Peter Gabriel (I think?) track.  The rest of them were dreck.

[Ginaz]

Yeah, terrible marketing and a stupid as fuck title doomed this movie.  Its actually pretty good and I enjoyed it as much as I did the Hunger Games.  Everyone I know who's seen it liked it.  I mentioned earlier that adding the word "Mars" to the title didn't test well with women but Disney also had another huge flop with Mars Needs Moms last year and was reluctant to have another movie with "Mars" in the title.  It sounds like the film division at Disney needs to get its shit together and sort themselves or they could be in serious trouble.  How many more $100 million flops can they absorb?

[HaemishM]

Disney has the Avengers coming up this summer (since they own Marvel now), so I don't think they are that worried.

[SurfD]

Disney has the Avengers coming up this summer (since they own Marvel now), so I don't think they are that worried.

Not only that, but think of all the side cash they are going to rake in from people / theatres re-showing the lead-up films.   Hell, my theatre is doing a 14 hour Marvel Movie Marathon, showing all 5 Avengers related leadup movies topping off with Avengers itself at Midnight on the opening Thursday.  And our currently allotted tickets for the event are about to sell out, so we may end up blocking an additional theatre for it.

[Ironwood]

Captain America
Thor
Iron Man
Iron Man 2

....

Which Hulk are they showing ?  I'm drawing a blank.

[Chimpy]

Probably the Edward Norton one and not the Eric Bana one.