Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

John Carter.... I want a sequel!!!


Movies

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

hellacious huni wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:
Dread wrote:
hellacious huni wrote:

I don't want to be a stone in anyone's shoe, but, I don't think it's a very good film and I think that's why it's not doing very well. I don't think there's any sort of conspiracy or that Taylor Kitsch isn't a big enough star. In regards to Taylor, I predict that Battleship will do very well, and he's the lead in that also.

I think the whole film was a mess and I LOVE Sword and Planet stuff, but the story telling was silly and the stakes were doomed from the beginning when you start with a bunch of strange Martian names and locations and expect any audience to care at all.

All that said, I did see it twice... ;"

haha thanks for the thoughts...however if they didnt have those strange martian names..then it wouldnt be John Carter (of Mars) ;P

lol

Yeah; I think that was Star Wars' problem.

Jedi? Banthas? Tatooine? Who the f##* cares even?

SLIGHT SPOILERS (NO ENDING STUFF, BUT STILL)

Haha, you make a good point, Spanky! But when you consider the fundamental nature of the characters in Star Wars, the Joseph Campbell "Hero With a Thousand Faces" tropes, it becomes very clear why Star Wars works. Carter conversely begins with a lot of exposition on who what is and what they're doing and what Mars is about (all of which doesn't really make much sense and isn't very fleshed out) then are put onto an airship where I'm not sure if these are the good guys or bad guys (I had to watch it twice to catch that it was the bad guys) and people are dying everywhere and this dude gets a basket arm weapon from dudes that might be good or bad (but seem bad).

Then we're on earth, in New York, briefly, then we're with a young man reading his uncle's diary, then we're in the south, then we're in a palace with a princess talking about 9th Ray technology (why?) then we're with native Martians that seem bad but could be good...all this in the first 15 minutes!

WAY too much stuff and way to many moving parts,...

I think you may be making a "hindsight is 20/20" mistake with Star Wars.

I remember seeing the first movie before "A New Hope" was attached to the name, and before Darth Vader was a household name.
When the "stormtroopers" stormed the rebel ship, I had no. clue. who. was. who. I thought the stormtroopers were the good guys at first.

Third grade heathy going, "who are they, mommy? who are those guys? who is that girl? what is she doing to that robot?
what are those guys?" for two hours. And, my mom didn't know. It was May 1977, man.
So the whole Joseph Campbell myth structure was lost on me at that point, anyways.

35 years later, though, when you know that Darth Vader was this annoying brat who turned into this annoying emo brat and got totally mindf~$+ed by this creepy old dude,.......it all kinda makes more sense.

Ironic, though: if the same third grade heathy saw the John Carter movie in 1977, he would've known just what a Thark was.


Oh, and I wanted to apologize for the snarky sound of my earlier post.

I'm really tired this week and the whole "John Carter is full of box office fail" debacle gets my hackles up.

Hunger Games? Blockbuster? Really?

Nothing against Hunger Games, but I never get nice things, man.
Never.

All I wanted was two more freakin John Carter movies, so I could see (book spoiler laden rant ahead)

Spoiler:
some freakin' banths, and Thuvia, maid of Mars, and some guys fighting on a chessboard. Why is that such a f@*&ing impossible dream to dream?

Oh, and them guys who look like spiders, who ride on the human body looking things without heads. Not to mention the cat from the moon with all the mouths.....

Why can't I have nice things?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why does Alvin and the Chipmunks rate a freakin squeakuel? And all I get is DERRRRRRP! GUESS WHAT: JOHN CARTER TRILOGY? DENIED!!! CONAN SEQUEL? DENIED!!! GO SEE F%#*ING HUNGER GAMES, OLD DUDE!!!

Owell,.....Prometheus is out in June.

Andoran

I took my mother to see John Carter today. She loved it, saw tons of social commentary in it that I missed the first time (of course I watched it in 3D and 3D glasses give me a headache, so that might have contributed to my not seeing what she saw). I told her that Disney did next to no merchandising for the film, and she was sad cause she wanted a stuffed martian dog thing. (Cabot, I think is the species? Woolak is the character?) She also wants to see the Therns get what's coming to them.


Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Why does Alvin and the Chipmunks rate a freakin squeakuel? And all I get is DERRRRRRP! GUESS WHAT: JOHN CARTER TRILOGY? DENIED!!! CONAN SEQUEL? DENIED!!! GO SEE F!@#ING HUNGER GAMES, OLD DUDE!!!

Owell,.....Prometheus is out in June.

I have a feeling there will be some form of a Conan sequel in the future even tho the movie bombed.


hellacious huni wrote:

Haha, you make a good point, Spanky! But when you consider the fundamental nature of the characters in Star Wars, the Joseph Campbell "Hero With a Thousand Faces" tropes, it becomes very clear why Star Wars works. Carter conversely begins with a lot of exposition on who what is and what they're doing and what Mars is about (all of which doesn't really make much sense and isn't very fleshed out) then are put onto an airship where I'm not sure if these are the good guys or bad guys (I had to watch it twice to catch that it was the bad guys) and people are dying everywhere and this dude gets a basket arm weapon from dudes that might be good or bad (but seem bad).

Then we're on earth, in New York, briefly, then we're with a young man reading his uncle's diary, then we're in the south, then we're in a palace with a princess talking about 9th Ray technology (why?) then we're with native Martians that seem bad but could be good...all this in the first 15 minutes!

Which is interesting, because almost none of that was in the book.

You get a brief summary of John Carter's history in a chapter in the Old West, then a short one in the cave, then he's on Mars. I think I would have preferred that approach. Let us see what's going on as Carter finds out.

I was also disappointed, but not surprised that they left out the bit from the very first lines of the book:

Quote:
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, not do I remember any childhood. So far as I can recollect I have always been a man, a man of about thirty.

Unexplained AFAIK, but I've always liked it.


That is a GREAT first line!


Kthulhu wrote:

Ok, he was Mr. Universe. Here's a question for you...who is Mr. Universe 2011? I'd be willing to bet you don't know, because nobody really knows or cares who the hell Mr. Universe is. In fact, I'd be massively surprised if anyone here can name ANY Mr. Universe other than Schwarzenegger without resorting to Google/Wikipedia.

Besides I've always found both the Mr. Universe and Ms. Universe pagents massively biased towards the Earth-based contestants. RIGGED! :P

Not really much of a Western fan outside of the Dollars trilogy, so if you say Wayne was famous before Stagecoach, then I'll defer that point. MY point, which seems to have been lost in semantics, is that sometimes the big iconic role is what makes the actor into the big star...it's not always the big star making the part into an iconic role.

Oh I agree..Eroll Flynn and Robin Hood...Chris Reeve and Superman..Harrison Ford and Han Solo..the role made the Actor in those cases.


DM Wellard wrote:
Oh I agree... Chris Reeve and Superman... the role made the Actor in those cases.

Ok, good. Follow-up question: who is Brandon Routh? Hint: I had to look it up. He's the nobody who played Superman in 2006. Off the top of your head, name a big movie he's starred in since then?

No iconic role is good enough on its own to make a star or to carry a successful movie franchise. It is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. To pull the whole thing off, you need an iconic role and an actor with the sheer screen presence to pull off that role in an iconic way. That's why Superman made Reeves, but not Routh; Reeves had the mojo to begin with -- he was just waiting for a role to pour it into.


Schwarzenegger was 7 time bodybuilding champion Mr Universe. People that are into bodybuilding and sports fitness know exactly who Mr Universe is.

It's not called the Dollars trilogy, it's called "The man with no Name" trilogy.

Shadow Lodge

SuperSlayer wrote:
Schwarzenegger was 7 time bodybuilding champion Mr Universe. People that are into bodybuilding and sports fitness know exactly who Mr Universe is.

I wagered on the odds that neither of those guys were on the forums. :P

And the Dollars trilogy doesn't really have a formal name at all, but seeing as how you understood what three films I meant, I would say that "Dollars Trilogy" is just as good an identifier as "Man With No Name" trilogy. Especially since he has a name (or at least a nickname) in each film. Joe in Fistful of Dollars, Manco in For a Few Dollars More, and Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.


The official name is "The man with no name" trilogy. It's right on the cover of the blu-ray box set I have.

Osirion

Pathfinder Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Cards, Companion, Maps, Modules, Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

All I wanted was two more freakin John Carter movies, so I could see some guys fighting on a chessboard. Why is that such a f%%+ing impossible dream to dream?

Why can't I have nice things?

Is this near enough?


I guess that'll have to do man.

That photograph will get a sequel.


Kthulhu wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Schwarzenegger was 7 time bodybuilding champion Mr Universe. People that are into bodybuilding and sports fitness know exactly who Mr Universe is.

I wagered on the odds that neither of those guys were on the forums. :P

And the Dollars trilogy doesn't really have a formal name at all, but seeing as how you understood what three films I meant, I would say that "Dollars Trilogy" is just as good an identifier as "Man With No Name" trilogy. Especially since he has a name (or at least a nickname) in each film. Joe in Fistful of Dollars, Manco in For a Few Dollars More, and Blondie in The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.

I thought Pale Rider was in the Man With No Name trilogy, and the Dollars movies were in a separate trilogy.


Pale Rider is a seperate Clint Eastwood movie along with "The outlaw Josey Wales". The man with no name trilogy consists of "A Fistful of Dollars", "For a few dollars more" and "The Good, the bad, and the ugly".

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

SuperSlayer wrote:
Pale Rider is a seperate Clint Eastwood movie along with "The outlaw Josey Wales". The man with no name trilogy consists of "A Fistful of Dollars", "For a few dollars more" and "The Good, the bad, and the ugly".

But, if the trilogy has no name, what do you call it?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lord Fyre wrote:
SuperSlayer wrote:
Pale Rider is a seperate Clint Eastwood movie along with "The outlaw Josey Wales". The man with no name trilogy consists of "A Fistful of Dollars", "For a few dollars more" and "The Good, the bad, and the ugly".
But, if the trilogy has no name, what do you call it?

You call it Clint Eastwood movies.

Andoran

Here you go.

Osirion

SuperSlayer wrote:
Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

Why does Alvin and the Chipmunks rate a freakin squeakuel? And all I get is DERRRRRRP! GUESS WHAT: JOHN CARTER TRILOGY? DENIED!!! CONAN SEQUEL? DENIED!!! GO SEE F!@#ING HUNGER GAMES, OLD DUDE!!!

Owell,.....Prometheus is out in June.

I have a feeling there will be some form of a Conan sequel in the future even tho the movie bombed.

And Prometheus looks amazing.


Yeah. Prometheus is gonna be kewl.

And Avengers opens next week.

Of course, I'm on call the next two weekends.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:


No iconic role is good enough on its own to make a star or to carry a successful movie franchise.

Really! Hans Solo made Harrison Ford a star. Without Harrison Ford you don't have as successful an Indiana Jones franchise. Rocky made Sylvester Stallone. Without Die Hard, Bruce Willis remains a mid-grade actor. I believe certain actors are a cut above and can make the role and the roles are so good it can make them.

Taylor Kitsch will be made by John Carter even with all the negative publicity. He has already earned himself a small but very loyal fan base that will only grow as more people see John Carter on video, then on Cable TV. It will be like Firefly. In time, he will have a rabid following that will feel cheated by Disney's lost opportunities. Just like Nathan Fillion fans feel cheated that Firefly was not handled well by Fox.

Later,

Mazra


Mazra wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
No iconic role is good enough on its own to make a star or to carry a successful movie franchise.
Really! Hans Solo made Harrison Ford a star.

And you're still ignoring the rest of my point -- that Ford's charisma allowed him to fill the role, and thus to be made by it. A lesser actor in that role wouldn't have gone on to be Indiana Jones; he'd have gone on to be nobody. Which is what I think Taylor Kitsch will be in a year, after the small but ever-so-vocal clique of Carter fanboys have turned to other things. If Kitsch had a tenth of the screen presence of Ford or Stallone, my opinion of both the movie and the actor would be a lot different.

Remember -- look at all these comic book superhero movies. Superman is WAY more iconic than Iron Man, but Brandon Routh isn't carrying two successful action movie franchises, whereas Robert Downey Jr. is doing so (Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes). That's not luck. That's the fact that Downey has a hundred times the screen presence and acting skill that Routh does.

Shadow Lodge

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Remember -- look at all these comic book superhero movies. Superman is WAY more iconic than Iron Man, but Brandon Routh isn't carrying two successful action movie franchises, whereas Robert Downey Jr. is doing so (Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes). That's not luck. That's the fact that Downey has a hundred times the screen presence and acting skill that Routh does.

You're ignoring the fact that Routh was a nobody going into Superman Returns, and Downey was alreay very well known going into Iron Man.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Mazra wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
No iconic role is good enough on its own to make a star or to carry a successful movie franchise.
Really! Hans Solo made Harrison Ford a star.

And you're still ignoring the rest of my point -- that Ford's charisma allowed him to fill the role, and thus to be made by it. A lesser actor in that role wouldn't have gone on to be Indiana Jones; he'd have gone on to be nobody. Which is what I think Taylor Kitsch will be in a year, after the small but ever-so-vocal clique of Carter fanboys have turned to other things. If Kitsch had a tenth of the screen presence of Ford or Stallone, my opinion of both the movie and the actor would be a lot different.

Remember -- look at all these comic book superhero movies. Superman is WAY more iconic than Iron Man, but Brandon Routh isn't carrying two successful action movie franchises, whereas Robert Downey Jr. is doing so (Iron Man and Sherlock Holmes). That's not luck. That's the fact that Downey has a hundred times the screen presence and acting skill that Routh does.

First off, I agree with you 100% that charisma makes the actor (and charisma + role can make a career). In the case of Superman Returns Routh didn't really elevate the film, but he was not in a good film to begin with.

Also, in regards to John Carter specifically it does seem to be a wasted opportunity - an actor with "it" would have sold that movie. But you have to admit, as unimpressive as his performance was it was miles ahead of his work in Wolverine (which isn't saying much).


Kthulhu wrote:
You're ignoring the fact that Routh was a nobody going into Superman Returns, and Downey was alreay very well known going into Iron Man.

That should be irrelevant if Mazra et al. are correct, and that actors are made by iconic roles alone. On the other hand, if my assertion that charisma and screen presence count for just as much, then you're helping make my point -- a more experienced actor has had more chance to develop those qualities.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Jal Dorak wrote:

Also, in regards to John Carter specifically it does seem to be a wasted opportunity - an actor with "it" would have sold that movie. But you have to admit, as unimpressive as his performance was it was miles ahead of his work in Wolverine (which isn't saying much).

YMDV...Taylor Kitsch did as fine an acting job if not much better than Harrison Ford did in all of his appearances in Star Wars. The difference is John Carter was more or less a flop and Star Wars was...well...Star Wars. Most of the people I know and many on-line that I have chatted with really liked Kitsch's performance. My wife, who seldom praises actors, really like Kitsch in John Carter. (It was interesting that my wife who never heard of John Carter, and who I practically had to drag to the theater to see it, came out of the Avengers movie, saying, "It was a good movie. But it was no John Carter."

A more "it" or known actor still might not have helped John Carter much. The typical reaction I get when I talk about John Carter, is "John who?" If teens today were exposed to "Princess of Mars" like they were to the "Hunger Games" it might have been different. But unfortunately "Princess of Mars" is a relic to many. The cultural significance and Mars based story is just lost on so many in this day of Mars Rovers running around on a lifeless barren world.

John Carter will have an albeit small, but vocal and loyal following going forward. It was too good of a movie to be otherwise.

Later,

Mazra

P.S. My main point is that Harrison Ford was not particularly exceptional as an actor in Star Wars. The role of Hans Solo was exceptional. Star Wars was exceptional. Harrison Ford pulled it off, but I believe many other actors could have done the same with that role. And it could have been those other actors that would have gone on to do Indiana Jones, Blade Runner or play Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford was IMHO more lucky than good. I would say that after Star Wars, Harrison Ford did become a much better actor with more versatile roles than Hans Solo.

Osirion

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mazra wrote:
P.S. My main point is that Harrison Ford was not particularly exceptional as an actor in Star Wars. The role of Hans Solo was exceptional. Star Wars was exceptional. Harrison Ford pulled it off, but I believe many other actors could have done the same with that role. And it could have been those other actors that would have gone on to do Indiana Jones, Blade Runner or play Jack Ryan. Harrison Ford was IMHO more lucky than good. I would say that after Star Wars, Harrison Ford did become a much better actor with more versatile roles than Hans Solo.

First, I don't think Kitsch was bad in JC (I'm a pretty ardent supporter of the movie), I just think he could have been better.

Second, I really think you're understating Ford's performance in Star Wars. It's pure charisma. It's not that Han Solo is cool, it's that Ford makes him cool. A lesser actor would have turned Solo into a laughably poor attempt at machismo.

Another good example of how the actor makes the character would be Mifune in Yojimbo. Incredibly iconic, but not easily replicated. Eastwood did it in 'Dollars'. Willis (arguably a bigger name than Mifune or Eastwood at the respective time of the films) did not.

A great actor can make a bad role memorable (Forrest Gump, anyone?)
A great actor can make a good role iconic (Solo, Sanjuro)
A bad actor cannot do either. Although Cary Elwes in Princess Bride makes a good argument that they can, at least in a kitschy sense (no pun intended).

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Deluxe Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Harrison Ford did a good enough job with Hans Solo to make it work. Good for him. It really launched his career. As likable as the character of Hans Solo is, it is very one dimensional. So really it does not take the greatest actor on earth to do it. Just one with Charisma. And let's be honest, how many popular actors make it without at least a 16 Charisma score. Personally, I believe Indiana Jones really made Harrison Ford the mega-star. It was a much more demanding role. There were other actors in the late 70's that had the charisma to pull off the role of Hans Solo with similar effect, Dirk Benedict (Battlestar Galactica), Jeff Bridges (Tron), Michael Douglas (Romancing the Stone), Don Johnson (A Boy and His Dog) just to name a few from the same era. Lucas had already worked with Ford, so for Lucas the decision was easy. It was likely also easy on the budget at the time. But I am not understating Ford's performance in Star Wars. I think it is so revered as a movie, that many over state the performances. To quote Harrison Ford, "As a character, he was not so interesting to me. I thought he should have died in the last one."

Taylor Kitsch's John Carter was far more complex a character than Hans Solo. IMHO Kitsch admirably pulled off one the iconic characters in Science Fiction. Seldom have I seen the transition in a movie from "this is not my problem" to " this is my problem" pulled off so expertly with such heroic affect. Bravo! YMMV

Later,

Mazra

Osirion RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4; Contributor; Publisher, Legendary Games

Han Solo. Not Hans.

That is all. :)

Osirion

Mazra wrote:
Harrison Ford did a good enough job with Hans Solo to make it work. Good for him. It really launched his career. As likable as the character of Hans Solo is, it is very one dimensional. So really it does not take the greatest actor on earth to do it. Just one with Charisma.

That seems to agree with my position. I'm not arguing the relationship between a roles complexity, the actor's talent, and the historical acceptance of the part. We'd be talking about method acting for the next three years! The point was that Kitsch fails to "sell" the role, acting merits aside.

Mazra wrote:
And let's be honest, how many popular actors make it without at least a 16 Charisma score.

This seems like a really good opportunity for a petty jab at Kitsch...

Mazra wrote:
Personally, I believe Indiana Jones really made Harrison Ford the mega-star. It was a much more demanding role. There were other actors in the late 70's that had the charisma to pull off the role of Hans Solo with similar effect, Dirk Benedict (Battlestar Galactica), Jeff Bridges (Tron), Michael Douglas (Romancing the Stone), Don Johnson (A Boy and His Dog) just to name a few from the same era. Lucas had already worked with Ford, so for Lucas the decision was easy. It was likely also easy on the budget at the time.

But the point is that, complexity aside, Ford took the role and ran with it. Sometimes less is more.

Your final comments about the transition of Carter/Kitsch is just a glimpse of the hero's journey. I liked the film, but I would say you have a very personal opinion if you think that Kitsch's John Carter was one of the few good examples of the classic character arc.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber

This movie doesn't need a sequel, it needs a full reboot 10 years from now under a totally different crew.


Since Lazar rezzed the thread...

Here is a series of books that sells to this day. Why could they have not just followed the storyline of the books? It is a good yarn. Really. It is.

I hope the next John Carter of Mars movie adhears a bit more to story.

Kirth? Any chance we are going to see a Demon Princes movie? Just do not let Syfy do a version... please god no!

Greg

51 to 83 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Gamer Life / Movies / John Carter.... I want a sequel!!! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Movies

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.