Variety says John Carter film is poory scripted and directed

[KL700]

Link to article

(KL700 - please do not post entire articles in the future. A link accompanied by a brief summary or snippet is sufficient. And some original commentary of your own is also wise to include.)

 

[FalTorPan]

Cool, but why not simply link to the article rather than paste its content?

 

[Captaindemotion]

Or why not put it in the existing John Carter thread?

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

The OP has demonstrated his cut and paste skills are adequate. Unfortunately, he didn't bother to add any content of his own. It does seem that while the film might or might not turn out to be an expensive flop for Disney, it probably won't kick off a new franchise.

 

[Samurai8472]

Please cut out half of the article.

Trekbbs has a policy about copying and pasting an entire article

It deals with copyright issues.

 

[Captaindemotion]

Chud has good things to say about the movie but is critical of its marketing.

http://www.chud.com/85727/tims-take-can-word-of-mouth-save-john-carter/

 

[AvBaur]

Why open a new thread for a single review, anyway? There are plenty of revews out for the movie at this point, most of them fairly positive.

I am surprised, though, that the film's RT rating has been dropping significantly over the last few days. I, as I wrote in the other thread, really liked John Carter when I saw it and would absolutely recommend it to any sci-fi fan.
I can't wait to see it a second time!

 

[Hyperspace05]

I say the title of this thread is poorly spelled

 

[doubleohfive]

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Chud has good things to say about the movie but is critical of its marketing.

http://www.chud.com/85727/tims-take-can-word-of-mouth-save-john-carter/

I saw a bus ad for the movie recently and was stunned at how bad it was. It was just a red-orange blob - I couldn't even tell what it was trying to depict. If I weren't an ERB fan, "John Carter" would sound like a new men's fashion designer to me. Maybe it's a new fashion line, along the lines of Perry Ellis, Marc Jacobs or Sean John? That blob could be anything.

 

[Captaindemotion]

^ I don't know why they thought it was a good idea not to mention the word 'Mars' somewhere in the title.

 

[Disruptor]

Though the 9 foot, green-skinned Tharks look much as Burroughs described them, they're curiously unappealing to human eyes, just one of the stylistic decisions that reinforces the superiority of James Cameron's Avatar.

Every movie with aliens in it now has to be compared to Cameron's overlong cat-people fetish?

 

[AvBaur]

Every movie with aliens in it now has to be compared to Cameron's overlong cat-people fetish?

Well, Avatar was heavily inspired by the John Carter novels, so it's not that far-fetched...

 

[Immolatus]

"John Carter Warlord of Mars" would have been fine

 

[Allyn Gibson]

"John Carter Warlord of Mars" would have been fine

As a title for the movie that it's attached to? No, it really wouldn't, because only two words of the five are true. Carter isn't a warlord and the film's plot is driven by Carter's desire to go home to Earth and his "cave of gold," so it's not true until he finds himself and his place in the world (which comes at the climax) that he can be said to be "of Mars." Believe me, I would have wanted nothing more than to see the words "of Mars" in the title, but after seeing the film last night I know that they don't apply.

I actually think that "Under the Moons of Mars" would have been a better title. Though I don't think that Phobos and Deimos actually look the way they're shown in the film.

 

[AvBaur]

[...]so it's not true until he finds himself and his place in the world [...] that he can be said to be "of Mars." Believe me, I would have wanted nothing more than to see the words "of Mars" in the title, but after seeing the film last night I know that they don't apply.

Does the fact that he doesn't really become "John Carter of Mars" until the end of the movie really mean that the movie can't be called that? The end is still part of the movie, after all. I think the "of Mars" title would have worked just fine.

 

[Gov Kodos]

It wouldn't bother me any, and I suspect not many of the general audience. I expect they'd be canny enough to understand it's something he becomes by the end of the film. The dullness of the marketing campaign is a greater problem than the title alone. I liked the article at Newsarama, which highlights a lot of positives about the film. http://www.newsarama.com/film/john-carter-mars-film-review.html However, that poster is so lackluster. If I didn't know who John Carter was, I wouldn't be all that impressed. The poster looks plain and rather slapdash, more like a bad 80's sword and sorcery movie. http://i.newsarama.com/images/John-Carter-poster-2.jpg

 

[Asbo Zaprudder]

[...]so it's not true until he finds himself and his place in the world [...] that he can be said to be "of Mars." Believe me, I would have wanted nothing more than to see the words "of Mars" in the title, but after seeing the film last night I know that they don't apply.

Does the fact that he doesn't really become "John Carter of Mars" until the end of the movie really mean that the movie can't be called that? The end is still part of the movie, after all. I think the "of Mars" title would have worked just fine.

Perhaps John Carter of Jasoom is more accurate until he receives the name "Dotar Sojat."

 

[Dream]

NY Post review

Interminably long, dull and incomprehensible, “John Carter’’ evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years without having any real personality of its own.

You could say much the same about the title character, as uncharismatically played by the unfortunately named Taylor Kitsch of TV’s “Friday Night Lights.’’ Even in 3-D, he’s barely one-dimensional.

Created a century ago by Edgar Rice Burroughs of “Tarzan” fame for a pulp serial, John Carter is a Civil War veteran who somehow wakes up on Mars. He’s drawn into a romance with a warrior princess and a series of battles between two groups of humanoids nearly impossible to tell apart.

Despite the reported expenditure of as much as $300 million of Disney’s money and the live-action debut of director Andrew Stanton (Pixar’s brilliant “Wall-E”), it’s hard to care about anything going on in this shapeless would-be franchise, which lurches from scene to scene without building any real excitement.

http://www.nypost.com/p/entertainme...zRSiBKzQhIL?utm_medium=rss&utm_content=Movies

 

[KL700]

I would've posted a link to the article, but it'd go black on you if I did, as Variety's site has a pay wall around it.