• 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!

"John Carter of Mars" Moving Ahead!

stj said:
But one thing just glared out on review, concerning the title, John Carter. I've just sort of passed my eyes over all the talk about marketing movies with Mars in the title, etc. But John Carter announcing himself to be John Carter of Mars was a major character beat. John Carter instead of John Carter of Mars was correct. Since Carter's choice between Mars and Earth basically was Carter's "character arc," or, rather, dramatic resolution, John Carter is arguably a better choice than A Princess of Mars.
Click to expand...
After watching the movie for myself, I actually agree with you. I still think just "John Carter" is a bland and boring title, but I get what they were going for and it works for me now.
 
Warped9 said:
I picked up the BluRay recently and this evening I watched it again.

This is pure unabashed planetary adventure...and I loved every minute of it. It's a lot of fun.

My only regret is that Disney in its infinite "wisdom" likely isn't going to give us any sequels. What a damned shame because I really like this movie and find myself grinning and laughing along the way. Good stuff. This film deserves a lot better than the all the unfair press it got.

I realize it isn't one hundred percent faithful to the original books (but what is really?), but I've only read the first book and I found the film faithful in spirit. As such I'm not hung up on what it might have changed. Also as blasphemous as this might sound I think the film improves on certain aspects of the book.

My only disappointments with the disc is a very pedestrian and uninspired cover art to the packaging. That and there isn't any additional footage (that I noticed) to the disc version. There are deleted scenes, but most are somewhat rough and unfinished. It's just as well because I don't think any of them would have really added anything of substance to the film as it stands.

But I'm okay with it because I still like the film as it stands.
Click to expand...

I just got the DVD today, and it was a lot of fun once more. My wife really enjoyed it as well. She didn't have the time to go to the theater with me when it came around here. She really liked the concept of the Therns stirring up trouble and being behind the wars on Mars and Earth. (Shirtless John Carter was a plus for her, too.)
 
I finally watched John Carter yesterday. It's not bad; it's not great, but it's not bad. They did change a lot, none of it for any good reason. The framing elements were actually pretty decent. The opening was overly long and made out Carter to be too much of an asshole (a big problem in remakes these days, but at least they didn't make him irredeemable, like they did to Lamont Cranston in The Shadow). Once on Mars, the plot is a bit incomprehensible, but that's okay-- it's mostly entertaining. The special effects are state of the art and the aliens and creatures are great, especially the Tharks. Unfortunately, the settings and sets are nowhere near as exotic as they should be to evoke ERB. There's also a lack of humor, though there are a few funny bits. I got a kick out of the whole "Virginia" thing. Other than that, most of the clever one liners come at the end (Sola: "Flying is good!"). And Tars gives Carter a cuff on the back of the head at one point that made me laugh out loud.

Aside from the lack of an exotic ambiance, I think the thing that drags the movie down the most is the casting. Neither of the actors playing John Carter or Dejah Thoris really own the parts. Both are kind of bland.

Warped9 said:
Watching Carter in action when he first saves Deja Thoris. Well if original readers of the books envisioned something like that then it's easy to see how someone could have been inspired to create a character like Superman. I thought those scenes of Carter leaping were great.
Click to expand...
Actually, I found those scenes very awkward. It's supposed to be because he's unused to a lesser gravity field, but his acceleration is undiminished-- in fact, it seems greater than on Earth. Same thing later on when he's jumping from ship to ship and from ship to the surface-- he falls mighty fast.
 
Personally I think the framing device should have been saved for the DVD Extended Edition, and it didn't really belong in the theatrical cut. It should have just opened in the Wild Wild West.
 
Same here. Not having read the original source material, I had no assumptions beyond wondering why it flopped at the box office. I was pleasantly entertained with a suitable sci-fi popcorn flick with tons of action and JUST enough story to tie it together. I liked the humour, and by the end I was hoping we'd get a sequel. It was enjoyable indeed.

I think they should've called it John Carter of Mars, and at least give green audiences SOME idea of what they're looking for. "John Carter of Earth" would have been a decent substitute. I don't see why not "JCoM" in the first place. Even if it's an origin story, imagine if other films were simply called "Clark Kent" or "Tony Stark". Would that have made a difference there?

Mark
 
FilmCritHULK is a great writer and I like the article, but I still have to disagree with him on John Carter. It worked pretty well for me.
 
The problem I have with John Carter is the same I have with Sherlock Holmes or Captain America or even Star Trek. They are no longer relevant to modern viewers and can only enjoyed as anachronisms. I still can't get over the idea of some slave owning confederate officer dressed up as a roman gladiator jumping around on MARS fighting for the hand of a princess who lays eggs. It's just too weird and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. I rather Disney spend the money on Marvel films even though the idea of superheroes in tights and capes feels just as anachronistic as Carter.
 
Yminale said:
The problem I have with John Carter is the same I have with Sherlock Holmes or Captain America or even Star Trek. They are no longer relevant to modern viewers and can only enjoyed as anachronisms. I still can't get over the idea of some slave owning confederate officer dressed up as a roman gladiator jumping around on MARS fighting for the hand of a princess who lays eggs. It's just too weird and I don't think I'm the only one that feels that way. I rather Disney spend the money on Marvel films even though the idea of superheroes in tights and capes feels just as anachronistic as Carter.
Click to expand...

not sure if serious.

anyway, the character John Carter was not a slave owner. just because someone fought for the Confederacy does not mean they owned slaves.
 
Of course all these concepts are relevant-- they just have to be done well. Actually, considering the success of nuTrek, they don't even need that, unfortunately. And the idea of something being "too weird" is a sad and scary thought; is imagination really in such short supply?
 
RJDiogenes said:
. And the idea of something being "too weird" is a sad and scary thought; is imagination really in such short supply?
Click to expand...

Well, we're talking here about a year in which the most successful film to date features a power-armored billionaire industrialist, a super-strong mutant green scientist, a cryogenicly-preserved WWII-era supersoldier, and a freaking Norse God from another dimension all teaming up on Earth to fight space aliens using a magic flying aircraft carrier. Nothing is too weird; success is a matter of approaching the material in a way that connects with an audience. The Avengers managed to do that, while John Carter didn't.
 
Gep Malakai said:
Nothing is too weird; success is a matter of approaching the material in a way that connects with an audience.
Click to expand...

The Avengers had an advantage that people are use to the idea of superheroes. It's just part of culture for the last 60 years. Most people aren't familiar with John Carter. Heck I was familiar with Burroughs and Tarzan and I never heard of John Carter.
 
Dream said:
THE HULK reviews John Carter and explains why it failed :rommie:

http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/08/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-john-carter-script/
Click to expand...

The three openings are indeed a drag. But the problem with the flashbacks is not that they are flashbacks when they should have been the reveal, the problem is that this story is not a good setup, and that's why the flashbacks are more or less a waste. John Carter, as a Confederate veteran, is by definition a loser in need of redemption. That's all the motivation he needs.

Since the story is structured as Carter choosing between Earth and Mars, triumphing by his own native intelligence and courage to return to Mars (instead of his goofy reverse-Superman powers,) all we need is a good reason for Carter to choose to stay. Dejah Thoris. All the plotting about Therns is aimed at setting this up and it works. This guy just doesn't see it.

Part of what's going on in the movie as is, is the attempt to address visceral rejection of the setting, Mars, which we all know isn't like this at all. And part of it is, whether consciously or not, trying to address the mighty whitey problem, where Carter wins because he's better at everything the natives due, subtext implying, because he's white. Apparently this guy doesn't even notice these issues.

I can appreciate that he's trying to do a serious analysis but he just didn't understand very much of what he saw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

McCovey Cove
Star Trek: First Duty #3 - "At Her Majesty's Discretion" (WIP)
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
9K
McCovey Cove
McCovey Cove
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top