Good point. To be honest, I'm not sure what they should title it. And, yeah, I don't know where people are getting a Twilight vibe, aside from the fact that there appears to be a romantic subplot between two attractive young leads--and doesn't that apply to pretty much every blockbuster? It looked like a sci-fi action movie to me, not a soap teen romance. And I was pleasantly surprised that it seemed to be a period piece. My one complaint is that it didn't look quite exotic enough for my tastes. Lots of rocky desert landscapes, but I wasn't really getting a strong unearthly vibe . . . .
maybe they should have called it, Under The Moons of Mars, which was the original title of the story.
They seem to want to avoid the word "Mars" as well. Maybe they should just call it BLADE RUNNER . . . . (Hey, it worked before. Sort of.)
Marvel Comics is doing an adaptation of the first novel, and they're calling it, I kid you not, John Carter: A Princess of Mars.
Nice picture but remember the books don't take place on Real Mars™ they take place on a late 19th/EARLY 20th century idea of Mars.
This does not look good at all. And I was expecting a completely Pixar style CGI film, not live action with CGI critters. Just...bad.
Yes but my point is even the real Mars is pretty weird, and the toning down of Mars as a freaky-weird place seemed to have something to do with giving the film a faux historical feel (a principle also invoked in Jackson's Lord of the Rings films). Now, can Burroughs' Mars look freaky weird? Ask Frank Frazetta, why not. One of the things I most dearly love about planetary romance art and, by extension film (where it actually exists) are surreal, bizarre, mindblowing planetscapes. Worlds that never were and maybe could never be. Peculiarly sloped mountains, perplexingly coloured skies, fauna that bedevils my overindulgence in adjacetive. Avatar sated me handily when it came to this itch. I had been vaguely hoping that John Carter would be my next serving of fantastic planets, but I guess not. Oh that is priceless.
They should have gone with John Carter of Mars. Then they could call the sequels The Gods of Mars and The Warlord of Mars.
I have no idea why they shortened it to "John Carter" either since it was known as "John Carter of Mars" for the longest time. Anyways these title changes and debates always seem so silly for me. I'm sure there is some kind of marketing reason behind it.
But tell the fidgety Disney execs that. I can't think of any other reason. It was called John Carter of Mars all along until that animated flick bombed. Coincidence? Maybe.
I suppose I can see why Disney would be possessive of "Princess," but it seems like there have been plenty of movies with "Mars" in the title recently. That's fantastic. I agree. They may be going with a more photorealistic approach for the same reason some are speculating they're avoiding the original title: The current audience finds artistry "cheesy." Although, as you say, Avatar bucked that trend. Warlord of Mars would have been a good choice. They've used that in the comics.
Avatar was photorealisitc. Perhaps the words you're looking for are "fantastic, " "colorful," or "trippy," which some sequences were, and which are not the same thing as avoiding photorealism.