Trailer here.
Well, the timing for me (I'm on first read through and am almost done the third book) is impeccable, but, um, isn't Dejah Thoris supposed to be wearing a lot less clothes?
I visualized everyone differently for many years. Probably too much influence by cover art and the old marvel comic, but everything looks off to me :(
Greg
Disney? really? GAK.
it would have been a start to make everything look a bit more exotic than Utah. heck that doesn't even look as exotic as Utah :P
throw some RED on that screen and color me unimpressed.
Guess I'am going to have to dig those books out of storage and dust them off. I thought the humanoids that they were fighting had 6 arms? Plus, I think later on he befriends somekind of lion like creature? Even had Mr, Burroughs in the movie.
|
I'm not surprised by the "Mr. Burroughs" thing, since the books were presented as the real journals of John Carter as edited by Burroughs.
I'm also not surprised that Dejah is not wearing her outfit from the book (which was naked except for jewelry), because its hard to find actresses willing to be naked through a whole movie. Or to get anything but an R rating.
I was pretty put off by the music in the trailer, which was way too emo, but I assume (pray) that the movie itself will have a more classical score.
But that guy totally doesn't not look like John Carter to me. That guy is way too pretty to be John Carter.
And I paused it on the the brief appearance of a Thark, who I assume is supposed to be Tars Tarkas, and I do not approve. What the hell, Disney? Did you crossbreed a Thark with Jar Jar Binks? What is that thing? It's goofy looking. Tharks are not supposed to be goofy looking.
I declare this movie already ruined. And I had such high hopes.
@Gailbraithe- I was kinda hoping the Thark was the female that taught John the ways of the green men. But I am pretty certain that is a forlorn hope. Anyway, it can't be as bad a adaptation as Brin's The Postman....right?
Greg
|
|
@Gailbraithe- I was kinda hoping the Thark was the female that taught John the ways of the green men. But I am pretty certain that is a forlorn hope. Anyway, it can't be as bad a adaptation as Brin's The Postman....right?
It could be worse.
It could be as bad an adaptation as Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man.
Or the Transformers movies.
@Gailbraithe- I was kinda hoping the Thark was the female that taught John the ways of the green men. But I am pretty certain that is a forlorn hope. Anyway, it can't be as bad a adaptation as Brin's The Postman....right?It could be worse.
It could be as bad an adaptation as Stephen King's The Lawnmower Man.
Or the Transformers movies.
Darn it ta HECK!
Greg
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Or, and I'm just spit balling here, we could realize that the purpose of a movie is to tell a story using a visual medium, unlike a novel. And that certain things had to be changed when adapting a novel written in 1912 in order to appeal to a modern audience. So they could make their money back on the movie. Which looks awesome.
And that certain things had to be changed when adapting a novel written in 1912 in order to appeal to a modern audience. So they could make their money back on the movie. Which looks awesome.
I think a naked Dejah Thoris would appeal to a modern audience and insure a top return on capital investment.
Doutful. The Movie would get an R rating, many cinemas wouldn't even show it because of the rating, some shops wouldn't carry the dvd - no big money.
Editet because my spelling sucked.
Really? I've seen movies with R ratings make it to lots of theaters. R rated movies usually just don't get as much money because half of the audience that would be interested (boys 13-17) have a harder time getting into it. Thus why a lot of movies shoot for the PG-13 rating instead.
But Bad Teacher is rated R (#5 this week), Horrible Bosses is Rated R (#2), and heck the Hangover 2 is rated R (still in the top 15 after 7 weeks) and Bridesmaids is rated R (still in the top 15 after 8 weeks).
So I don't think the R rating is as bad as you seem to describe. I think you might be thinking NC-17, which is pretty much the death knell for any movie that isn't going into the porn market directly.
|
|
But Bad Teacher is rated R (#5 this week), Horrible Bosses is Rated R (#2), and heck the Hangover 2 is rated R (still in the top 15 after 7 weeks) and Bridesmaids is rated R (still in the top 15 after 8 weeks).
So I don't think the R rating is as bad as you seem to describe. I think you might be thinking NC-17, which is pretty much the death knell for any movie that isn't going into the porn market directly.
Every one of those movies you cite is a comedy. It's much easier to sell a R rated comedy than a niche movie. I think a more equitable comparison would be Watchmen. It grossed very highly for an R rated movie, but experienced a steady 60% drop every week after opening.
You're still correct that the R rating is no longer a killer at the box office, but for this kind of movie I think they'd be better with a PG-13 and then an Unrated Blu-Ray release.
As for audience appeal, titillation always sold and always will, but I'm thinking more along dialogue and plot. Watchmen or Sin City had a very stilted dialogue because they both attempted to maintain the dialogue of the original medium. Comics are not as bad as novels, but they are designed to convey much of the story in text. A movie doesn't need 10 pages of description to set the scene. It needs one scene. Dialogue has to be changed to adjust the flow and make it sound more natural.
As for the plot, I love the old stories, still read Starship Troopers every year, but it is starting to show it's age. To spend this much money on a movie it only makes sense to put it in perspective for a modern reader. To my mind the biggest problem with this movie is going to be its basis on one of the books that started it all. Without a plot/script update, the whole movie is going to feel cliched to somebody that hasn't read the original.
Gah, wall of text. Must stop typing.
I'm not a fan of the male lead playing John Carter, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. The director is also the director of Wall-e, so if he managed to avoid too much meddling by the Disney studio execs, I imagine it should be quite good.
But dang it, Dejah and the Red Martians should be RED, not just tanned.
But dang it, Dejah and the Red Martians should be RED, not just tanned.
+1.
I don't care if they have the metal cup strapless bikinis that stay on due to advanced Barsoomian superglue; if I want that I can just google image search Dejah Thoris with the SafeSearch on off and let Rule 34 do its deal.They oughtta be red though.
Another movie that can abide until it surfaces on cable.
Actually, been pause/viewing the thing again; Dejah Thoris has this red henna deal going on that looks pretty cool.
Well, it looks interesting. At least the actress looks more like ERB's Dejah Thoris than Traci Lords did in that (shudder) Asylum -um- abomination.
Personally though, I think that Gemma Arterton (who played Princess Tamina in Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time) would make a good Dejah Thoris.
I'll add this to my list of want to see when it hits the bargain theaters.
It honestly doesn't look to bad to me, I only just read the books last month and the timing for this is amazing for me.
As for the nudity thing- the story doesn't need an R rating, and a two hour movie where every single character is naked in every scene would be kind of distracting. Remember showgirls?
That and the actual plot could make for a fairly good family movie so a PG13 rating is kind of where it should be. I'm thinking they're attempting to do something alongside the Pirates of the Caribbean movie (remember the first one was actually really fun- it's the sequels that ruin it).
Oh? As for the red skin? look up the Tracy Lords princess of mars movie- red skin looks like sunburn- the reddish tan with the henna is fine.
So, I'm looking forward to it, Willem Defoe is playing Tars Tarkas, so it should be cool.
As for the nudity thing- the story doesn't need an R rating, and a two hour movie where every single character is naked in every scene would be kind of distracting.
Who said anything about every character?
As for the nudity thing- the story doesn't need an R rating, and a two hour movie where every single character is naked in every scene would be kind of distracting.Who said anything about every character?
The book.
Oh, wait... I see what you're getting at.
|
|
Honestly have you seen what they get away with in a PG-13 movie these days? Shrek 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 or whatever they're up to? I remember watching the original Police Academy and it was PG. The second was PG-13 and the third was R, but they all had the same content. Now I think the scale is going the other way.
The MPAA allows one use of the "f-word" in a PG-13 movie as long as it does not refer to a sexual act. Look at the latest Die Hard, and how easily they edited the swear words back in for the Unrated version.
It seems like common practice to shoot a movie the way you want, release it in a way that will make a ton of money (PG-13), and then release a cut that will make even more for the home sales (R or Unrated).
I guess I'm less worried about the content rating than the actual content.