They're trying to grassroots for a JCoM sequel in light of its tepid box office returns.....don't know if it'll help, but I joined.
Actually, I'm fully cognizant of the fact that it probably won't help. Nonetheless, feel free to explain that to me anyway, and....what can I say; I'm a sucker for lost causes....
They needed a REAL star, someone who could out-macho Bronson and out-presence the Dos Equis guy. That's the way to make John Carter a major franchise and household name. Look at past hero-driven franchises, and the pattern is clear: Stallone (Rocky, Rambo); Schwarzenegger (Conan, Terminator); Harrison Ford (Han, Indy); Eastwood (Man with No Name, Dirty Harry); John Wayne (a succession of iconic Westerns).
As it is, they starred... nobody. I couldn't pick him out of a lineup if I had to. A sequel with the same lead actor would just be "Nobody in CGI Land II," as far as public name recognition and profitability go.
Here's the deal: If a movie makes more than they costs, there will be a sequel. If it made less, there won't be. It's just the way Hollywood works.
Quality of the movie is irrelevant.
It could be a sleeper hit, it could do better overseas, or it could really sell on DVD. Any of those would pretty much guarantee a sequel.
|
I wouldn't call Taylor Hitsch a nobody. But that's just me. And there are tons of films starring actors I had never heard of before that had sequels. SciFi's miniseries Frank Herbert's Dune starred someone I still don't remember the name of, but he played a forceful character. The first 20 minutes or so of John Carter proved that the character was a forceful one.
|
I wish they would have held close to the description of JC. He was tall at near 6'2" had short dark hair and clean cut.
Find a Younger Hugh Jackman, someone in their 30's, someone who was physically fit yet not muscle bound and someone who had a southern accent of Virginia or could do a good one
While Taylor is a Hottie, he did not fit JC and the perception all of us had of him.
Lynn Collins while beautiful was also no Dejah Thoris and she dictated how she felt this Dejah would be not how ERB said she was.
While I did enjoy the movies I was not 100% happy with it. I'd say I was 75% happy with it over all just because it was fun
And another vote for a sequel!
HUZZAH!!
|
|
I wish they would have held close to the description of JC. He was tall at near 6'2" had short dark hair and clean cut.
Find a Younger Hugh Jackman, someone in their 30's, someone who was physically fit yet not muscle bound and someone who had a southern accent of Virginia or could do a good one
Taylor was born in 81, so that makes him 31. :)
He's 6', so thats pretty close to 6'2". Maybe still noticeably different.As for the accent, I think he did well enough. A lot of movies these days steer away from accents because people won't understand them.
Physically fit but not muscle bound? There are more muscular actors out there than Taylor, but Taylor's been playing hockey regularly since he was 3. So I think that fits too. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it is that you wanted that Taylor didn't deliver on.
I was looking at Marvel's graphic novel version of JCM earlier today, and that John was so overly muscled, I found Taylor's portrayal much more appealing and approachable as John Carter.
In contrast to your review of him:
“It's not just that John Carter deviates from Burroughs, not just that its hero is a simpering little s$&& without a chivalrous bone in his effete body (who needs to be coaxed into courting the princess)... I hate that Carter is played by frickin' Taylor Kitsch (better Taylor "Shtick," though I guess "Kitsch" works fine), who can't play a Confederate gentleman any more than Glenn Close could play an English butler... I hate, in other words, the reconfiguration of this quintessential hero into Ashton Kutcher in a loin cloth.”
|
|
Hmmm, I am debating writing an essay-length rant in response to that. The comparison of Taylor Kitsch to Ashton Kutcher is a huge disservice to Taylor Kitsch. There is more acting talent and genuine compassion for the career in Taylor's pinky than there is in Ashton Kutcher's whole body. And I would recommend several of Taylor's autobiographical essays to anyone considering going into the profession of acting (or he posts several anecdotes and inspirations for the acting craft on his facebook fan page as well.)
In either case, I must say I disagree with that particular reviewer and believe that Taylor's insights into the character of John Carter are more revealing of John's actions and behaviors (particularly toward the princess) than those portrayed in the review you just quoted.
|
In contrast to your review of him:
“It's not just that John Carter deviates from Burroughs, not just that its hero is a simpering little s!%* without a chivalrous bone in his effete body (who needs to be coaxed into courting the princess)... I hate that Carter is played by frickin' Taylor Kitsch (better Taylor "Shtick," though I guess "Kitsch" works fine), who can't play a Confederate gentleman any more than Glenn Close could play an English butler... I hate, in other words, the reconfiguration of this quintessential hero into Ashton Kutcher in a loin cloth.”
Damn.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There is more acting talent and genuine compassion for the career in Taylor's pinky than there is in Ashton Kutcher's whole body.
I'll readily concede that Kitsch is ten times the actor that Kutcher is. But 10 x 0 = 0.
|
|
I wish they would have held close to the description of JC. He was tall at near 6'2" had short dark hair and clean cut.
Find a Younger Hugh Jackman, someone in their 30's, someone who was physically fit yet not muscle bound and someone who had a southern accent of Virginia or could do a good one
Taylor was born in 81, so that makes him 31. :)
He's 6', so thats pretty close to 6'2". Maybe still noticeably different.
As for the accent, I think he did well enough. A lot of movies these days steer away from accents because people won't understand them.Physically fit but not muscle bound? There are more muscular actors out there than Taylor, but Taylor's been playing hockey regularly since he was 3. So I think that fits too. I'm still trying to wrap my head around what it is that you wanted that Taylor didn't deliver on.
I was looking at Marvel's graphic novel version of JCM earlier today, and that John was so overly muscled, I found Taylor's portrayal much more appealing and approachable as John Carter.
I am not saying Taylor is not physically fit, on the contrary he is. And nice to look at. What I was saying is
JC had Short Dark hair, Taylor had Long light brown hair
JC was clean cut even on earth. Taylor looked like a reb foot soldier, dirty, grubby, and a beard that makes a mountain man envious. Even during the movie he looked like someone off the set of Miami Vice
JC Was physically fit, not muscle bound - Taylor fit this
JC was near 6'2" in a movie he did not come across as tall but "normal" Granted Taylor is 6'. Make other actors short to him while on earth. They appeared to be as tall. In the 1870's earth a 6" tall man was not common. A 6' 2" man was very tall. Even today the average male IS only 5' 10" tall
JC was a southern Gentleman, Taylors JC came across as a self centered, greedy man who only cared about his gold, granted he did "rescue Dejah in the movies, in the books he held a MUCH higher honor to her as a protector. And in the movies she came across as a snob that only cared for Helium. In the books she cares about Mars
Do not get me wrong, I liked the movies, but lets face it, just like Hollywood does with everything, they butcher and make it what "THEY" think is best, not what "IS" best
As a huge fan of the JC books who is reading all of them again, I see the comparisons in the movie and that which they went WAY south on, and the desc of JC is off from the movie. Lets face it Taylor was put in as eye candy. Is he a bad actor? No, and he could be better, but to me he was NOT JC. Tarzan maybe, but not JC
OH and compared to Ashton, he is a 10 in all ways. Ashton cannot act, I see him in every role as "Dude, Where's my car" and I cannot take him series
|
|
Ah, thank you. At least that's a reasonable response, and not watering an argument seed. While I can see that JC's character is different from the book's, I still felt that Taylor's JC had its own motivations that were clearly explained by the film (and could be added to in sequel films). I think its a little unfair to say that all John wanted was his gold. He had been significantly hurt by the violent death of his wife and child. And that was a driving factor for a lot of his actions (and inactions). It may not have been the same JC as the book, but it was a trope that worked, and worked well in the limited time that a film has to develop the background of its character(s). (roughly 20 minutes)
All for a Sequel..but it ain't gonna happen, Interestingly enough.When the Film was given a private showing for the Nationally Syndicated Critics it had a 65% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes..once the mean minded, lets face it, hacks of the regionals had finished with a movie they could not relate to in any way other than."its a Star Wars Clone' thereby showing their general ignorance of American Literature it hit the dead zone. Since when did these guys get to think for everyone else anyway.
When the Revolution comes I suggest we shoot the Critics immediately after we hang the Lawyers..oh wait..the Advertising Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is due to be first against the wall isn't it?
oh wait..the Advertising Department of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation is due to be first against the wall isn't it?
Watch out for North Central Positronics. I get the feeling that those guys are up to no good.
All for a Sequel..but it ain't gonna happen, Interestingly enough.When the Film was given a private showing for the Nationally Syndicated Critics it had a 65% fresh on Rotten Tomatoes..once the mean minded, lets face it, hacks of the regionals had finished with a movie they could not relate to in any way other than."its a Star Wars Clone' thereby showing their general ignorance of American Literature it hit the dead zone. Since when did these guys get to think for everyone else anyway.
Well, mostly since Movie ticket prices (and movie concessions) have gotten so expensive.
Finally get to see it today.....HUZZAH!
"1969: NBC cancels Star Trek. That should have been the end of it. But people saw it in syndication, grooved on it, held fan conventions. 10 long years later, came the first movie. Years after that, Next Generation and subsequent shows. Now it's one of the biggest franchises going. This would not have happened without fan support. We can do this."
I was starting to feel despondent, then some dude said this on facebook......
|
They needed a REAL star, someone who could out-macho Bronson and out-presence the Dos Equis guy. That's the way to make John Carter a major franchise and household name. Look at past hero-driven franchises, and the pattern is clear: Stallone (Rocky, Rambo); Schwarzenegger (Conan, Terminator); Harrison Ford (Han, Indy); Eastwood (Man with No Name, Dirty Harry); John Wayne (a succession of iconic Westerns).
Stallone was a nobody before Rockey, Schwarzenegger was a nobody before Conan, Ford was a nobody before Star Wars, and Wayne was a nobody before Stagecoach (a western). Eastwood does break the pattern by having some star power from Rawhide.
|
|
They needed a REAL star, someone who could out-macho Bronson and out-presence the Dos Equis guy. That's the way to make John Carter a major franchise and household name. Look at past hero-driven franchises, and the pattern is clear: Stallone (Rocky, Rambo); Schwarzenegger (Conan, Terminator); Harrison Ford (Han, Indy); Eastwood (Man with No Name, Dirty Harry); John Wayne (a succession of iconic Westerns).Stallone was a nobody before Rockey, Schwarzenegger was a nobody before Conan, Ford was a nobody before Star Wars, and Wayne was a nobody before Stagecoach (a western). Eastwood does break the pattern by having some star power from Rawhide before Fistful of Dollars.
You most likely won't get a sequel because the film is doing terrible at the box office. The movie is estimated to lose about $200 million dollars.
On the bright side, if it does reasonably well, you might get a sequel to the Princess of Mars. ;P
I just saw it. Man, that movie was awesome.
Stallone was a nobody before Rockey, Schwarzenegger was a nobody before Conan, Ford was a nobody before Star Wars, and Wayne was a nobody before Stagecoach (a western). Eastwood does break the pattern by having some star power from Rawhide.
The thing is, they became stars from those roles, and because of the demand for them to reprise those roles. Kitsch is still a nobody, and it would be easy to swap out actors for a sequel. A year after Rocky, when you said the character's name, everyone replied "Sly!" Much the same with others listed. A year from now, when you say John Carter, everyone on Earth except a small handful of fans will reply, "Who?"
|
|
On the bright side, if it does reasonably well, you might get a sequel to the Princess of Mars. ;P
No. I watched that movie on Netflix. Could barely sit through it. Not good.
They needed a REAL star, someone who could out-macho Bronson and out-presence the Dos Equis guy. That's the way to make John Carter a major franchise and household name. Look at past hero-driven franchises, and the pattern is clear: Stallone (Rocky, Rambo); Schwarzenegger (Conan, Terminator); Harrison Ford (Han, Indy); Eastwood (Man with No Name, Dirty Harry); John Wayne (a succession of iconic Westerns).Stallone was a nobody before Rockey, Schwarzenegger was a nobody before Conan, Ford was a nobody before Star Wars, and Wayne was a nobody before Stagecoach (a western). Eastwood does break the pattern by having some star power from Rawhide.
Duh..Arnie was famous before he made Conan..and John Wayne had spent 9 years on screen before John Ford cast him in Stagecoach..indeed his first 'big budget' starring role was in 1930 with Howard Hawk's "the Big Trail".
Wayne was a major B Movie/Saturday Matinee Western Actor through the 30's and in the days before TV was widespread his name was at least as well known as Eastwood's was from Rawhide in the 60's
|
Schwarzenegger was Mr. Universe - that is a long way from famous. He played in a couple of roles that gone have more or less unnoticed, not even all of them were credited or under his real name - I'd say he was no more famous than Kitsch.
I agree with you regarding John Wayne (at least from looking up his Bio - I was never big into old Western movies, so I know little of the listed films).
|
|
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.
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.
Not lost, but I think your point is incomplete. Iconic roles can make stars, if the actor has the screen presence to pull it off. If not, then it's a no-go.
d'Artaganan of the Three Musketeers is a majorly iconic role. People remember Douglas Fairbanks in that role. But by the same token, when you say, "d'Artaganan," no one immediately says, "Chris O'Donnell!" because O'Donnell is a third-rate actor who brought nothing to the role. What's he done since? A totally forgettable Robin in some Batman throw-away sequels, and finally consigned to the "Grey's Anatomy" soap on TV.
What happened to Matt Damon as Patricia Highsmith's "Talented Mr. Ripley"? That's right, they replaced him with John Malkovich. It took Damon three more years to develop as an actor to the point where he could adequately handle an iconic role, as Jason Bourne in The Bourne Identity.
Taylor Kitsch is a lot more like O'Donnell or Damon than he is like Stallone or Harrison Ford. He got handed an iconic role, and was utterly forgettable in it. Maybe in a few years he'll develop the chops to handle another attempt, like Matt Damon; maybe he won't, like O'Donnell. But in no case is the "John Carter" role going to catapult him to stardom; nor did he bring enough to the role to ensure a sequel (let's face it, Conan the Barbarian wasn't exactly a landmark of film-making; it was Ahnuld's screen presence that ensured that the execrebale sequel would be made, and that ensured that Ahnuld would get other major opportunities down the road, like being the Terminator).
John Carter was made with a $250,000,000 dollar budget and the film has only made $63,000,000 so far which means it's a critical failure at the box office. Fantasy fans will enjoy the film I'm sure, but it's being ignored by the majority audience.
Actually the movie has made about $240,000,000 internationally, so we will see.
I'm talking about Domestic earnings. Disney has already stated they are projected to lose about $200,000,000.
I've seen it said that it's gotta take in 500 or 600 million to be in the black;
I'm hip that it isn't gonna happen, but.....
somebody drew "Thark Knight Returns," and it's a cool little hangout.
Less buzzkill on the radar, which is ironic maybe.
|
Time can be an amazing factor. If word of mouth keeps JC in theaters, then the continuing revenue could start to really add up. We just need to get the word out to every person you know, to not listen to the critics, this was a great movie. Get your butts to the theater.
Also, if you have seen the movie once, then go see it again and take someone with you that hasn't seen it, maybe two people. And if they liked it, which I would guess about 80% or so will like it, if not love it; then have then see it again with other people they know who hasn't seen it.
If everyone who has seen it can get two people to go see it, and then each one of them gets two people, and so on; then we could turn John Carter from box office flop to success. Let's blow Disney's projections out of the water.
Later,
Mazra
I would guess about 80% or so will like it, if not love it
I would guess closer to 20%, but YMMV.
Edit: Rotten Tomatoes is currently showing 51%.
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... ;"
|
|
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
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?
Hey Spanky, I care!
May the force be with you.
heh heh...
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, especially for the first film in what was mostly likely going to be a franchise. There should have been more fundamentals, less hurry, less exposition, less factions, and more CHARACTER.
Granted, I think they did a good job with the John Carter character (Tim Riggins - I mean, Taylor Kitsch is very likeable and watcheable) and the Martian midwife, but everything else felt stale and homogenized. Which segues me into the very BLOCKBUSTER HOMOGENY that rears its ugly head in the design of this film.
I wish Andrew Stanton would have taken some chances with color palettes (heavy reds, dusty yellows) rather than just make this look like Gladiator/neo Star Wars/Transformers/ EVERY BLOCKBUSTER.
For more homogeny see the teaser for the upcoming remake of Totall Recall. ;& I mean seriously :&
Thanks for putting up with a long post!
With love,
Jeremy
|
|
My wife knew absolutely nothing about John Carter. She didn't want to see the movie. But when she did, she followed the movie just fine and loved it, and I mean really loved it. My son knew nothing of ERB's work, followed it and really liked the movie. A lady here in our office, knew nothing about John Carter, saw the movie and loved it. Her 12 year old daughter followed the movie and loved it. There was a lot going on for sure in the movie, and yes if they had another 30 minutes could have fleshed out some of it more, but it actually worked in the final editing. By the end of the movie I believe most people got it from the many reviews from non-critics I have read, but clearly not all could follow it. The movie did require you to pay attention more than many movies do these days. Maybe that is part of the problem, we expect to be spoon fed every detail in the theaters. I liked the go for broke let's just do it approach. I will say that after the second viewing some of the plot points were clearer for me. But, all this did was make me enjoy the movie even more the second time than I did the first time. And let me say I was blown away the first time. I really enjoyed it. I would like to see it a third time.
Later,
Mazra