• 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

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?

Until someone else does it at least half as well - yes.

Don't hold your breath. :p
 
[...]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.

The final shot explains it all.
 
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.

The final shot explains it all.
I've seen the movie, including the final shot (and title card). I still think it would have been better to market the movie as "John Carter of Mars".
 
There's no other choice, it should have been Warlord of Mars. Ditch "John Carter" entirely, it's a boring, vanilla name and nobody knows the guy. The only resonance it has is that it sounds like the character on a soap or maybe a dimly-remembered doctor show....John Carter, MD, was that it...?

But a movie about a "warlord" on "Mars" is evocative and intriguing, and it summarizes the appeal of the movie - fighting, power and exotic locale. It can't be mistaken for anything else. The other important element is Dejah Thoris of course, but she can be prominently displayed in the ads, so there you got the whole package: "fighting for power and busty babe on exotic world."

Then in the next movie, once everyone know who the fuck John Carter is, they can have his name in the title. That's assuming they ever get a next movie.
 
^ John Carter was Noah Wyle's character on ER.

Warlord of Mars would have been much more striking and commanding as a title.
 
Disney wasn't going anywhere near Mars after Mars Needs Moms, sorry.

The title was never going to sell or kill this one. I mean, Cameron made more money than anyone in history with a film whose title basically meant "funny little picture you use on the Internet" to most people. :lol:
 
Sure the title could be jazzier, and the film marketed better, but I was quite happy and entertained for two hours. Lynn Collins and Taylor Kitsch were fine as Dejah Thoris and John Carter.
 
Disney wasn't going anywhere near Mars after Mars Needs Moms, sorry.

The title was never going to sell or kill this one. I mean, Cameron made more money than anyone in history with a film whose title basically meant "funny little picture you use on the Internet" to most people. :lol:

But as against that, it was the first movie from JAMES CAMERON in a decade, his first movie since Titanic, the most successful movie of all time and it was well-known that it was going to raise the SFX bar the way that had last been done by JAMES CAMERON with Terminator 2. Hell, it could have been called Sam Does Pandora and it would still have been a hit!
 
But as against that, it was the first movie from JAMES CAMERON in a decade, his first movie since Titanic...

Hmm...and Titanic was the historical costume drama that Cameron made which became the most successful movie in history (until Avatar), when historicals and costume dramas usually struggle to turn profits on the kinds of budgets that Merchant Ivory and the Weinsteins can provide. :lol:
 
^ Oh yeah, I'm not slagging him off, I think the man's a huge talent. Practically everyone expected Titanic to flop; I certainly don't think anyone expected it to be the most successful movie ever. He seems to be able to confound expectations - which is why Avatar could have been called anything it wants and still been a hit. Andrew Stanton just doesn't have that sort of name recognition.
 
^ John Carter was Noah Wyle's character on ER.

Hah, I knew there was some guy with that name on a doctor show! (I never watched ER). I even looked up Anthony Edwards on imdb to see if it was him.

James Cameron can get away with whatever title he liked. (I wouldn't lay odds that most people even knew any of the definitions of "avatar" - it was probably just some weird sci-fi-y word to a lot of people.)

Doesn't everyone remember the immense pre-release hooplah about that movie? It was Titanic all over again...it's costing too much money, oh no, he's really gone and blown it this time...or has he? Are the effects really as groundbreaking as they say? Just the curiosity factor would get butts in seats.

No way John Carter has that kind of high profile. It's just another silly, disposable sci fi movie, and it's about to bomb.
 
Roger Ebert gave it two and a half stars, which is not too shabby...considering.

Does "John Carter" get the job done for the weekend action audience? Yes, I suppose it does. The massive city on legs that stomps across the landscape is well-done. The Tharks are ingenious, although I'm not sure why they need tusks. Lynn Collins makes a terrific heroine. And I enjoyed the story outside the story, about how Burroughs wrote a journal about what he saw and appears briefly as character.
 
The review in the Canadian Sun Media papers was written by a fan of the books who compares the film to David Lynch's Dune (and not in a good way) and says its problem is it gets bogged down in the politics and everything. Plus he wants to know what marketing genius decided to drop the "of Mars" from the title:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2012/03/08/john-carter-skips-out-on-plot

One interesting comparison is he points out how Lucas gave us a simple accessible story when the Star Wars movies began, and he saved all the political stuff and scientific explanation for the Force until later. Apparently John Carter goes overboard with the detail right away and apparently tosses in a Jar-Jar Binks for good measure, the reviewer says.

The big difference for me between John Carter and Avatar is that we knew Avatar was coming ever since Titanic was still in the theatres and Cameron's people never let us forget it. I didn't even know there was an adaptation of the Burroughs novel until about two months ago when reprints of the original books and comics began showing up for no apparent reason.

Alex
 
The big difference for me between John Carter and Avatar is that we knew Avatar was coming ever since Titanic was still in the theatres and Cameron's people never let us forget it.

No, that's not the big difference.

The big difference was that Cameron's movie was enormously appealing to most people who saw it, all over the world, who then recommended to lots of other people that they see it. That includes most reviewers, of course. Christ, the thing was popular enough in China to annoy the government.

A lot of skiffy fans are underwhelmed by Avatar or resentful of it in one fashion or another but that does not, as someone around here likes to say, entitle them to their own facts. Neither "Cameron's people" nor anyone else is able to market or otherwise game anything beyond the box office receipts for the first day or two, and quite often not even that.

For example Disney's people, who know a couple of things about marketing and have managed to produce more than a couple of films that lots of people have enjoyed, seem not to be able to accomplish much on John Carter's behalf.

What, you think with a 250 million dollar investment on the line they just, I dunno, lost a post-it note they wrote to themselves reminding them to promote the thing? Here's a thought: maybe based on all their research, experience, showing parts of the movie to people etc. they could not find any approach to presenting the actual product that clicked with potential filmgoers who weren't already in love with the material.

The responses of reviewers and the movie fans online at places like, oh, Rotten Tomatoes certainly point in one direction: that the reactions of people watching the movie range from excited to tepid to confused to bored without a sufficient preponderance at the "excited" end of the scale to avoid apparent disaster for the studio here. It's down to 47 percent at RT - falling bit by bit as people see the movie and report back on it - and this Chicago Tribune review suggests just what might be one of the real reasons people aren't thrilled:

The major problem here is one of rooting interest. I hate to sound like a mogul, or a focus group ho, but at the center of this picture is a flat, inexpressive protagonist played by a flat, inexpressive actor.

If people who paid to watch Avatar had felt the same way after seeing it that people watching John Carter appear to, that movie would have tanked hard too. "Marketing," my ass.

I'll see John Carter this weekend and expect from what I've seen that I'll like it a lot, but hell I liked Green Lantern so I don't need to kid myself that what entertains me is a guide to what other people will like. The couple of people I know who are going to see JC because significant others insist on it are already uninterested and resentful in advance. Fans seem to like useless anecdotal "facts" of that kind, so I'll play too.
 
Last edited:
The two mainstream reviews I've seen today, in the Independent and the Guardian, both slated it big time. They do tend to slate sci-fi and blockbuster movies by and large, but IIRC they were broadly positive about the likes of X-Men First Class or Captain America last year.

It's just not looking good for Mr Carter.
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top