| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really can't get into 3d.
Bad enough I need reading glasses now.
|
I hated it because of the lost potential, in casting a lead who couldn't carry the role (and to a lesser extent because it sets back women's lib >100 years, by removing the impressive personal ethics that Dejah Thoris displays in the books).
You are saying John Carter set back women's lib 100 years?
That is an outrageous statement. You are taking this way too seriously. The movie was made for entertainment purposes only. It varied from the book in many ways. But as pure sit back with a tub of popcorn entertainment, it was a great movie.
As the old saying goes, opinions are like a sphincter muscle surrounded by a void, everyone has one.
Later,
Mazra
You are saying John Carter set back women's lib 100 years?
In terms of the character, yes, absolutely (I picked 100 years because it's the time period from the book to the film; it's not a random number). In terms of women's lib for the whole world, no, the movie won't affect anything by so much as an iota. No one will pay enough attention to it for it to damage anything.
Hopefully that helps.
I hated it because of the lost potential, in casting a lead who couldn't carry the role (and to a lesser extent because it sets back women's lib >100 years, by removing the impressive personal ethics that Dejah Thoris displays in the books).You are saying John Carter set back women's lib 100 years?
I think Kirth was saying that that feminism has lost more ground than it's gained in the last hundred years, but don't quote me on that.
I think Kirth was saying that that feminism has lost more ground than it's gained in the last hundred years, but don't quote me on that.
I was saying that 100 years ago, in A Princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris was a proud, emancipated woman whose executive autonomy, strength of character, and ethics were impressive by almost any standards. She didn't need a sword or a PhD to be awesome. John Carter was smitten first by her beauty, but was subsequently awed by her character.
100 years later, in "John Carter," they took all that away except the beauty part. Then they quick added in a sword and some science-babble to hide the fact she'd been rendered childlike in her inability to act except reactively, and in her lack of personal ethics.
In 100 years, this character went from powerful and liberated to superficial and trendy, and only people who have both read the books and seen the movie, and thought about the contrast, seem to have any inkling that anything might be wrong with this picture.
|
There may be elements that they downplayed or took away from DT's character. There are also elements that they added. In the movie, she is a scientist and she engages in combat. It's been 25 years or more since I last read the books, but I don't recall either of these elements being within the range of her activities in the books. Both of them are strong elements for modern viewers, and at least the combat aspect contrasts with JC's expectations of her.
In the Marvel Comics adaptation from the early 80's, she did swordfight; although the comics were mostly long after A Princess of Mars, so JC taught her how to protect herself. THAT way, he could go rescue other women and not worry so much about her.
There may be elements that they downplayed or took away from DT's character. There are also elements that they added. In the movie, she is a scientist and she engages in combat. It's been 25 years or more since I last read the books, but I don't recall either of these elements being within the range of her activities in the books.
My point was that swapping out autonomy and strength of character for some cute sword-fightin' is a really lousy trade -- it says "Ooh -- she's a nasty little minx, she'll spank you if you're bad!" vs. "This woman doesn't NEED a sword to put you in your place."
If people think that's an even swap, then maybe the decline in women's lib has been more general, and less character-specific.
Yeah Kirth, I agree. I'd had a few beers the other night, and tried to make a complex point in a single sentence, which always works out well, right?
My point about feminism (which, being male, I don't have anything but a theoretical view on) is that A Princess of Mars was published three years before women gained the right to vote, and that was the Dejah Thoris of the times. if you look at the difference between Susan Calvin in Asimov's writing vs. the character in the I, Robot movie (travesty), you'll feel just as disappointed.
|
|
There may be elements that they downplayed or took away from DT's character. There are also elements that they added. In the movie, she is a scientist and she engages in combat. It's been 25 years or more since I last read the books, but I don't recall either of these elements being within the range of her activities in the books.My point was that swapping out autonomy and strength of character for some cute sword-fightin' is a really lousy trade -- it says "Ooh -- she's a nasty little minx, she'll spank you if you're bad!" vs. "This woman doesn't NEED a sword to put you in your place."
If people think that's an even swap, then maybe the decline in women's lib has been more general, and less character-specific.
I'm not making that evaluation, Kirth. Rather, I am pointing out that there are some elements that have been added to the character. The two that I'm pointing out are atypical for heroines of the period that the books were written, but are not so atypical today. I will need to read the books again before I'd be up to forming an evaluation. :)
The fall out continues.
I'm starting to wonder how many decent movies get totally keelhauled by Rotten Tomatoes, man.
|
I'm starting to wonder how many decent movies get totally keelhauled by Rotten Tomatoes, man.
I would guess not many. There are more awful movies that got low ratings on Rotten Tomatoes that make money hand over fist. I don't think RT is to blame for Carter bombing. It may have helped but I don't think RT is solely to blame.
Huh.......Rotten Tomatoes panned Book of Eli.
Probably like,......my favorite movie since Meet the Feebles.
I got no use for em.
|
|
Perhaps I miss interpreted what your where saying spank. I took your comment of RT giving John Carter a low rating as the reason it bombed.
I have to agree with RT on Book of Eli though. I hate to say it too since Oldman is one of the best actors ever. It had Tom Waits too still didn't make it a very good movie.
Each his own.
That movie rocked.
I do think that online "graar" kinda kills a lot of movies though. Not just Rotten Tomatoes, but the whole internet experience in general.
Maybe I'm wrong though;
"Our model fully specifies the dual
causal relationship and reveals the true effect of word-ofmouth
on movie sales. In contrast to earlier online word-ofmouth
studies, we found that higher ratings do not lead to
higher sales, but the number of posts is significantly
associated with movie sales. These results suggest that
consumers are not influenced by the persuasive effect of
online word-of-mouth, although they are affected by awareness
effect generated by the underlying process of word-ofmouth.
Businesses shall therefore focus more on the
mechanisms that facilitate dispersion of underlying wordof-
mouth exchange rather than try to influence online ratings..."
I guess it's like Gene Simmons says; "no publicity is bad publicity."
But,....I argued with people in the 80's that didn't believe that white Europeans had neanderthal ancestry, and due to dna evidence I turned out to be right, so.....I'll probably be right here too, when science is advanced enough to catch up to my common sense.
|
Yeap I think you found a winner there Spank. I haven't heard anyone trash John Carter. To be honest I haven't heard anyone say anything about it. The movie was simply off the radar.
This may prove to be a good test case. I would argue that the word of mouth for John Carter has increased since it "bombed" and if there is a calculable increase in digital sales then perhaps this theory is correct.
I don't think it will. I think that the types of things being measured (messageboard activity) reflect the general level of interest in the product (either before, during, or after release). You can't artificially create that - either people are interested, or they aren't.
Thus, the activity can be used to predict sales, but still inaccurately (see: Snakes on a Plane). But not to influence them. Having a bunch of talking heads start "discussions" won't impact the films performance, only create false impressions of possible success (however, if the talking heads actually manage to convince someone to see the movie, that is another story).
Finally got to see it on Blu-Ray.
Goodfun. Very much hoping home sales boost what little chance there is for a trilogy, for what it's worth.
The cover they went with is godawful.
Why are modern movie covers so bad when they already have solid eye-catching artwork already made and available?
why
Thanks for reminding me that it's out now. Just ordered it. It's currently sitting at #6(3D blu ray), #10 (Blu-Ray/DVD combo), and #21 (DVD) on Amazon's top 100 for movies and TV. Like I said, Disney still stands to make millions on this major flop. I wish my failures were as good. Personally, I'm amazed that there are enough people with 3D TVs to put that version on top.
And yeah, that's a terrible cover. He's looking back at us as we watch the fighting apes, and saying "Can you believe these guys? No wonder we can never get a table here!" But the main complaint about marketing the film at release was that they never conveyed anything in the title or the artwork about what the movie was about. At least here, there's a little hint of what kind of a movie this is.
For a quarter of a billion dollars, you'd of thought they could have got the lead actor a better wig....
The movie is too family friendly for me. Too disneyish so to say. I was not amused with the poor green aliens that looked like there was no creativity at all behind them. I enjoyed Journey 2 The mysterious island more than John Carter.
I was not amused with the poor green aliens that looked like there was no creativity at all behind them.
They felt a little too Jar-Jar Sandcrawler to me.
John Carter of Tatooine.
We even had a Speederbike chase/Pod race.
This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever bothered to torture myself with by watching it all the way through.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The movie is too family friendly for me. Too disneyish so to say. I was not amused with the poor green aliens that looked like there was no creativity at all behind them. I enjoyed Journey 2 The mysterious island more than John Carter.
Agreed. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I really found myself wishing (as crude as this is) for more boobs and blood.
That would have been a great addition Andrew.
That said, I thought the movie was ultimately 'ok' and would like to see them continue, but try keep it a bit fresher and up a notch on the adult-o-meter.
This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever bothered to torture myself with by watching it all the way through.
Try watching the Traci Lords/Antonio Sabato version - Princess of Mars -first. That may quite possibly the worst movie to ever try to emulate the John Carter story.
Bet Traci is a better actress.
Oh ok just found it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsawq3PBMms
How disappointing, I saw Traci Lords mentioned and thought the movie was going to be like that epic 'Pirates' or 'Pirates 2 - Stagnettis Revenge'. I feel ripped off now, what a waste.
This was quite possibly the worst movie I have ever bothered to torture myself with by watching it all the way through.Try watching the Traci Lords/Antonio Sabato version - Princess of Mars -first. That may quite possibly the worst movie to ever try to emulate the John Carter story.
"Movies" like that are why I inserted the 'watching it all the way through' clause.
I do tend to be very picky and not at all hesitant to walk out of a theater, hit stop/eject, or otherwise avoid the majority of bad cinema.
Lucas has said the John Carter stories, that came out decades before Star Wars, was an influence.
Lucas took the speeder bike stuff from john Carter, not the other way around.
No doubt he did take some influence from Carter, just the same as he borrowed elements from a range of different sources, like Lensman.
Unfortuantely the speeder bike scenes, and pod racing scenes, were first filmed by Lucas.
At the end of the day, the John Carter director has pretty much just gone ahead and refilmed Lucas's work and it just seemed like a complete rip, even the aliens looked and felt like something lifted from Star Wars on Tatooine.
So whilst Lucas work was influenced by John Carter, the Director of John Carter has pretty much just cloned Lucas.
|
|
The creatures in John Carter are not unlike what was described by Edgar Rice Burroughs in his original books. The Tharks particularly were almost spot on. I found the film adaptation of John Carter to be respectful, though truly not identical, to its original source. YMMV, but for me John Carter was a blast of a movie. I really enjoyed it. And continue to enjoy it as I have seen it twice since it came out on video.
Personally, I have no complaints, other than Disney's poor marketing. How can a movie that brings in 300 million worldwide be considered a flop? Disney clearly spent too much money on making the film. If they had kept to a budget around $150,000,000, no one would be using the FLOP word. For me this may be the best FLOP of a movie ever made.
Later,
Mazra
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Peter Jackson cloned the dwarf fighter Gimli for His Lord of the Rings movies from the dwarf fighter that was in the DnD movie that came out before it. ;)
Also, Gandalf was clearly a clone of Dumbledore from the first Harry Potter movie because that came out before the first Lord of the Rings movie. ;)
|
|
Peter Jackson cloned the dwarf fighter Gimli for His Lord of the Rings movies from the dwarf fighter that was in the DnD movie that came out before it. ;)
Also, Gandalf was clearly a clone of Dumbledore from the first Harry Potter movie because that came out before the first Lord of the Rings movie. ;)
Doesn't matter. Everything is a rip-off of Gilgamesh.
I'm sorry you are upset over a movie you like being brought into question, however my point still stands. When it gets to the point of having to really ask 'which movie am I watching again?' then it's a problem.
I didn't mind the movie overall, I just think that there muct have been a meeting between the marketing team and the director and a decision was reached to make it feel like 'another popular franchise that the target group is familiar with and has a proven formula' in order to build a brige over to the 'new' IP.
The average punter would have had absolutely no clue about the Carter stories, so by being able to link it to something they are already familiar with they have a greater reach and appeal. Unfortunately a movie made 'just for the purists' would have been an excellent product, but would have lacked the broad 'blockbuster' Disney Studios generally asipre to.
A different production house might have been more adventurous, I reckon Icon Productions or Wingnut Films would have done a great job.
The sad part of all this is that there is a lot of great Carter content kicking about, but because of the way they have gone about this project I suspect we wont be seeing it.
Carter of Mars and Princess of Mars is pretty much going to be it.
What a waste.
My problem wasn't so much they had the chase, buit rather the look and feel of the chase was the same as the way the Star Wars franchise did it.
Chase scenes are common as dirt in action films (sometimes with cars or horses), so I'm sure both could have chases independently, however I just thought this one looked and felt too much like the earlier work.
IIt just seems to me that maybe Lucas went 'oh cool a chase scene, I'll film that', then the Carter director looked at the script and went 'oh cool, a chase scene' watched Lucas work, reskinned it and handed it back to us.
The Aliens also looked a bit too nice and 'Gumby'.
I'd have liked a bit more edge perhaps.
|
|
I too see you point Shifty. My point is that John Carter was a FUN movie. Sure some purest will not like it. But I have read from many hard core ERB fans on several website including Facebook and Google+ that really liked it any way. With Disney you are going to get Popcorn fare. With so many movies out there it is very difficult to be truly unique. But John Carter was a good entertaining movie. It really didn't need to be anything else.
Later,
Mazra
I watched it last night. All in all, it was a fun movie and I would watch it again.
Yeah it was a fun movie, but by having too much fun I don't think they got to capturing the minds of the audience and thus a sequel is unlikely.
Ironic in a world that boasts Police Academy 7, I know, but the FIRST Police Academy was really quite novel when it first came out.