JOHN CARTER movie rights lost by Disney, reverts back to Burroughs
- Thread starter Dream
- Start date
I've only read the first book but Carter seemed to me to be a southern gentleman type. I guess they could be vague about his involvement in the war but I don't think making him a Union soldier would be a good move. Did it ever come into the stories other than him being a veteran?
Next, you'll be saying we can root for the Germans in 'Das Boot'.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HUInWKK8ROc
Also true.
For one thing, slavery and the Southern cause were one and the same, as the CSA's own constitution made explicit. For another, if you don't understand the meaning behind code words like "the servant of a state whose hopes had vanished with the South," you don't have any business discussing the matter.
A) West Virginians didn't, and
B) Many former SS officers pleaded that same plea. "Just following orders..."
Straw man. We're talking about a CSA officer, not some drafted enlistee. Different standards apply, obviously.
That's your entire argument, really.
False. Yes, I assume former CSA officers to be bad people unless they're obviously repentant. Someone well-established enough in that society to become an officer probably had the education and resources to abandon the South and move elsewhere rather than take up arms against those fighting to defeat slavery, which would have been the honorable course to take when the war broke out. I do not, however, make the same assumption concerning all former Confederates, the majority of whom were drafted enlisted soldiers, as I indicated earlier. Why you utterly fail to understand this clear and obvious distinction, I don't know.
After i saw the film i went and read the first John Carter of Mars book out of curiosity and found it to be a really enjoyable and interesting book.
I think one of the biggets problems with the film is that certain things were changed unecessarily. I recall an interview about the movie when it was coming out saying that with it being such an old story and having served as inspiration for many later sf books/movies that a modern day audience might find the story as it was cliche and generic so changes had been made to avoid that. But imho the film was way more cliche and bland than the novel.
Imho the character development and worldbuilding that makes the novel interesting is missing. Instead they brought in elements from the later books and blended them together to form the generic sf plot which is the focus of the film. There is a sad tragic backstory for John Carter that was never a part of the novel and adds little to nothing to the overall story. They completely changed one of the characters from being strong and compassionate with quiet dignity to a useless weakling who isnt any good at anything until after she learns who her father is (Rather ironic since in the book she knows who her father is whilst he is unaware of having a child). The strong friendship John Carter has with Kantos Khan is utterly ignored. The character of Kantos Khan is barely on screen which makes you wonder why they bothered having James Purefoy play the character.
The only thing i think the film did right was giving Dejah Thoris a part in the action. She always talked a good line in the book but never got involved so the film at least had her practice what she preached. Otherwise imo they took the things that made the novel good and jettisoned them into the sun when they made that movie.
I think one of the biggets problems with the film is that certain things were changed unecessarily. I recall an interview about the movie when it was coming out saying that with it being such an old story and having served as inspiration for many later sf books/movies that a modern day audience might find the story as it was cliche and generic so changes had been made to avoid that. But imho the film was way more cliche and bland than the novel.
Imho the character development and worldbuilding that makes the novel interesting is missing. Instead they brought in elements from the later books and blended them together to form the generic sf plot which is the focus of the film. There is a sad tragic backstory for John Carter that was never a part of the novel and adds little to nothing to the overall story. They completely changed one of the characters from being strong and compassionate with quiet dignity to a useless weakling who isnt any good at anything until after she learns who her father is (Rather ironic since in the book she knows who her father is whilst he is unaware of having a child). The strong friendship John Carter has with Kantos Khan is utterly ignored. The character of Kantos Khan is barely on screen which makes you wonder why they bothered having James Purefoy play the character.
The only thing i think the film did right was giving Dejah Thoris a part in the action. She always talked a good line in the book but never got involved so the film at least had her practice what she preached. Otherwise imo they took the things that made the novel good and jettisoned them into the sun when they made that movie.
Well John Carter isn't a real person. And we know next to nothing about his feelings about the South or how he got his commission as they aren't important to the story. The South and the Confederacy aren't either. All they serve is to place him in a situation where he can go to Mars.
Oh, you might want to avoid comics and a film based on a character called "Jonah Hex". Though no one will blame you for avoiding the film.
yes, that is the problem. you assume all Confederate officers are bad people. you assume they are well educated. you assume they would want to leave home.Gaith said:
nevermind the fact that John Carter was honorable and heroic through all the Barsoom stories he appeared in. not good enough for you eh?
Oh dear. This kind of black and white vision of 'the enemy' is the worst kind of minimal group paradigm. Of course, the irony is that it was this kind of thinking that would have led the confederates banding together against their liberal northern neighbours. But where do you draw the line? Must all McCarthyist supporters be portrayed on screen as wicked or does one refuse to root for any characters who would have been deemed as commie supporters?
I have more difficulty rooting for someone whose portrayal on screen shows that their personal moral compass is screwed up rather than their politics. Many German Soldiers and members of the Nazi party were not horrible people. One-dimensional heroes and villains are less interesting.
I watched episode one of How to Get Away with Murder and the high end psychopathic tendencies of 75% of the characters makes it hard to like anybody, especially as those who don't display such strong tendencies are expressly deemed inferior by all the characters in power and are encouraged to 'step up their game,' i.e. start acting more like a psychopath or you will never succeed.
Of course it's interesting watching conflicted characters find equilibrium within themselves so it's worth watching to see how the less morally repugnant characters will fare. I personally barely noticed any significance in Carter's confederate support, I guess since I'm not a historian. I simply viewed him as a soldier scarred by war who had to dig back into those experiences.
@ Merlanthe: The movie would have been far better if Purefoy had been the leading man. 
It honestly wouldn't take much to satisfy me on this point. Even some throwaway remark to indicate that he was disgusted with American slavery would have been better than nothing. It's not as though I'd demand some four-minute Sorkinesque rant. Just something to balance out the ugly cultural heritage of the romantic defeated Southerner.
Sometimes "honorable and heroic" people do things they don't want - such as leave home, or at the very freaking least not become a commissioned officer in the employ of a tyrannical, dishonorable and vicious cause. Like that asshat Dumbledore said, sometimes being honorable is choosing what is right over what is easy.
Oops, okay, got that fact wrong. Still, the whole point of having officers and enlisted service members is to treat them differently.
Unlikely to have happen in a book written in 1917 for the pulp market.
OK, the confederates were the "bad guys" of the civil war, but surely just as there were many German officers in WW2 who ultimately were OK people on the wrong side, surely there were plenty of good confederates?
War is a vicious abomination that sucks in people both good and bad, guilty and innocent, and spits them out wondering why the hell a better solution couldn't be found.
doubleohfive
Fleet Admiral
How do you feel about other Civil War heroes in film? Rhett Butler, for instance?
Welcome to Gaithtown. Population: 1
As the word "minute" and reference to a certain screenwriter there implied, I was referring to the 2012 movie with that remark.
So, Southerners can't be romantic heroes anymore?As the word "minute" and reference to a certain screenwriter there implied, I was referring to the 2012 movie with that remark.
Sorkin transcends all media and a full Sorkin would require overlapping dialog while in motion.As the word "minute" and reference to a certain screenwriter there implied, I was referring to the 2012 movie with that remark.
Honestly, I don't think anybody in the general movie going audience cared what Carter's stance on slavery was. They were more than likely thinking about how the movie was ripping off Attack Of the Clones, Dune, Superman and other movies without realizing that the John Carter stories predate all of those stories.