• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Variety says John Carter film is poory scripted and directed

I still don't understand why this movie cost 250 million to make in the first place...
Reshoots.

Stanton made John Carter in the same way that his Pixar movies were made. He's said that typically a scene was done four times for WALL-E. They would block it out, render and animate it, and see if it worked. If it didn't work, they'd figure out why. Maybe they needed to redo a "performance." Maybe they needed another shot. It's an intensive way of making a movie, but the results proved that the method worked. And Stanton used that same approach with John Carter, but reshoots with actors are different than reshoots with CGI. With CGI, you just redo everything in a computer and everything matches. With actors, you have schedules to deal with, sets to rebuild, that sort of thing. So reshoots aren't cheap in time or money.

The thing is, Disney accepted all of this. This was the plan. They greenlighted a movie, knowing that Andrew Stanton intended to make it this way. He ended up with better material, but it cost more.
 
I still don't undestand why this movie cost 250 million to make in the first place...
I don't know if quite that much would have been necessary, but I do think that you can see all of that money up on screen. The sets are massive, much of the movie was shot on location in the desert, and the digital effects and animations are among the best that I've ever seen.
 
I'm surprised that Taylor Kitsch is getting panned; he was a real standout in Friday Night Lights, and I didn't know he was involved in this film or I'd have been more interested.
 
I'm surprised that Taylor Kitsch is getting panned; he was a real standout in Friday Night Lights, and I didn't know he was involved in this film or I'd have been more interested.

Temis had it correct:

However, I'm far from convinced Taylor Kitch floats anyone's boat. He just looks like a kid wearing a loincloth.

IMO he's too soft and pretty boy looking to be credible as a war veteran.
 
I'm surprised that Taylor Kitsch is getting panned; he was a real standout in Friday Night Lights, and I didn't know he was involved in this film or I'd have been more interested.

Temis had it correct:

However, I'm far from convinced Taylor Kitch floats anyone's boat. He just looks like a kid wearing a loincloth.
IMO he's too soft and pretty boy looking to be credible as a war veteran.

Very much so. He's the wrong kind of good-looking. Or, to do my own cribbing form another review:

Entertainment Weekly said:
With occasional exceptions, like Michael Keaton's Batman, we want and expect our superheroes to be classically handsome. But the sprawling interplanetary sci-fi bash John Carter proves it's possible for a superhero to be incredibly good-looking…in the wrong way. Taylor Kitsch, who stars as the messianic pulp space warrior created a hundred years ago by Edgar Rice Burroughs, has soft bedroom eyes, a pinup's pout, and straight long hair that makes him look like an easy-listening star from 1974. On Friday Night Lights, Kitsch had a pleasingly direct, loose-limbed charisma, but within the stoic, arid, and often wordless fantasy universe of John Carter, he's clad in a breastplate and loincloth, and he comes off more like the Abercrombie & Fitch model he once was. It's as if he were out to save an entire planet by lapsing into Derek Zoolander's poses

Source.

This is the kind of role that would benefit, IMO, from a more rugged and weathered masculinity, something like mid-career Harrison Ford or Tommy Lee Jones circa the first Men In Black. Carter's a pulp character, thinly drawn, and that needs an actor who can imbue the role with a dimension that's not on the page. I've seen nothing to indicate Taylor is that guy.

Most of the reviews – even the positive ones – portray the movie as being exactly what you'd expect from the trailers. And since I thought the trailers were dire, well... And too bad, too. I wanted another big space epic that I'd actually like.
 
I was impressed with Kitsch. I'd only seen him in Wolverine so my expectations were very low, but I enjoyed him in this.
 
The problem with this movie is nobody wanted to see it in the first place. It was marginally popular back in the day when the planet Mars still held some mystical unknown value to humanity. After the numerous Viking and other misions to the Red Planet, everyone found out its a boring planet either way. And the only reason Warlord of Mars is still popular nowadays is because how risque Dejah Thoris is in the minds of many fans. That's about it.
 
I would say that I wish the film had done more developing the relationship between John and Dejah. It expends a lot of exposition on the politics of the Martian factions, as well as Carter's past and not enough in their here and now on Mars. It is a good story that could have been made better by explaining less about all the sides (even removing some such as the Tharns) and showing more of the main characters John and Dejah and their attraction for each other. Also, Carter should have had more Rhett Butler Southern dash to him.
 
I'm surprised that Taylor Kitsch is getting panned; he was a real standout in Friday Night Lights, and I didn't know he was involved in this film or I'd have been more interested.

Temis had it correct:

However, I'm far from convinced Taylor Kitch floats anyone's boat. He just looks like a kid wearing a loincloth.
IMO he's too soft and pretty boy looking to be credible as a war veteran.

And I have to admit, I've never seen him in FNL, I was just commenting on his value as a draw as a name and image on a poster or in a trailer. But whether or not he can make it as an action star has less to do with acting ability than having a certain type of outsized screen presence. Someone who is great in a close-up, personal TV drama is not necessarily going to be effective in a big screen action movie.

I suspect he was cast in the role on the assumption that he would attract a female audience, but if that was the idea, they did exactly the wrong thing. What they needed was Russell Crowe, circa Gladiator. A beat-up underdog given a new chance - his last chance - on an alien world. Make us sympathize with the guy immediately, so we have a reason to root for him and therefore go see the movie and make sure it all turns out okay for him.

The fundamental problem here is, I don't know why I should bother to see this movie. Just throwing a bunch of six-armed monsters at me isn't nearly enough.

Also, Carter should have had more Rhett Butler Southern dash to him.
That would have given him more personality and more importantly, it's crucial to establishing his sympathetic underdog status. I have no idea why they downplayed his status as an ex-Confederate who had travelled West because the life he'd known was over, which makes Mars a second chance for him. That's fundamental to the psychology of the character and it's really the only thing that rescues him from being a generic pulp action hero.

After the numerous Viking and other misions to the Red Planet, everyone found out its a boring planet either way.
This movie is not at all about the real Mars. It's an exotic fantasy world derived from the popular image of Mars from about a century ago.

(PS, I personally find Mars far from "boring," but that Mars, the one being explored by NASA, has about as much to do with Barsoom as the real Earth has to do with Middle Earth.)

And the only reason Warlord of Mars is still popular nowadays

Is it popular nowadays? I was under the impression that other than Tarzan, all of ERB's works have vanished from popular culture. (Otherwise, "John Carter" wouldn't have been a bad title.)

I think this movie was a blank slate, waiting to be made either good or bad in story and character content, and in marketing. They definitely blew the marketing, sounds like they largely blew the movie, too.
 
Last edited:
Is it popular nowadays? I was under the impression that other than Tarzan, all of ERB's works have vanished from popular culture. (Otherwise, "John Carter" wouldn't have been a bad title.)

No, they haven't vanished. They've been around for years, mostly in comic book form. The book series that features John Carter are reprinted every few years or so it seems.
 
As a man, I can only make an educated guess about this, but when I saw the movie, I definitely felt like it would appeal to many of my female friends. Obviously, it's never going to appeal to ALL women, but I see no reason why it would have to look as unappealing to female audiences as it seems to do. I've actually recommended it to quite a few women and would be surprised if they don't like it.

Then again, I don't understand any of the lukewarm to negative reviews, either, as I really enjoyed the movie.
I just saw the movie with my 50 year old mother this morning (my feelings are posted in the other JC thread) and she really enjoyed it too. The only reason she came was because I kept talking about how good the reviews I'd read for it were, and she told me afterward she was glad she came along.
 
Blatr has a collection of both good and bad review quotes.
As someone who loved the movie, I'd go with these quotes to best sum up my feelings:
Ty Burr From the Boston Globe
"Against the odds, John Carter is itself pretty amazing—an epic pulp saga that slowly rises to the level of its best imitations and wins you over by degrees. I say that as a grown-up moviegoer; behind me at a recent screening was a row of 10-year-old boys who were ecstatically in from the get-go. That's probably all that matters."
Dan Jolin from Empre
"Whether it's the elegant, dragonfly-winged airships, the mobile, earth-churning capital of the bad-guy Zodangans, the six-limbed, tusky Tharks, or the hulking 'white apes' (albino Kongs with a few extra fists and rancor faces), there is barely a moment of John Carter that fails to visually impress. Technically, it's Avatar's equal." —Dan Jolin,
 
Emphasize that Dejah Thoris is the leader of her noble embattled people, blahblahblah. Here comes the Earthman to help her. Not rescue her, help her. Don't be shy about explaining his Confederate backstory. There's still some romance there (much as I may find that phenomenon yucky).

That's about as much as you can do to make this story female-friendly.

Temis, that's pretty much exactly how the movie plays out.
 
Is it popular nowadays? I was under the impression that other than Tarzan, all of ERB's works have vanished from popular culture. (Otherwise, "John Carter" wouldn't have been a bad title.)
No, they haven't vanished. They've been around for years, mostly in comic book form. The book series that features John Carter are reprinted every few years or so it seems.
The first five books are readily available because they're in the public domain, most often in omnibus editions. Barnes & Noble has a very nice hardcover edition of the first three that's illustrated by, I think, Thomas Yeates in a Hal Foster style.

Disney has reprinted all eleven Barsoom novels in three massive trade paperbacks, but they're incomplete versions that lack the Edgar Rice Burroughs framing sequences.
 
Disney has reprinted all eleven Barsoom novels in three massive trade paperbacks, but they're incomplete versions that lack the Edgar Rice Burroughs framing sequences.

Good to know... I was tempted to get them... even though I already have the Barnes and Noble Princess of Mars volume.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top