Topic: John Carter (Read 1303 times)

Ted Belmont · « **on:** June 09, 2008, 06:16:40 PM »

Mongrel · « **Reply #1 on:** July 15, 2011, 12:06:53 PM »

John Carter Trailer 2012 -- Official Movie Trailer | HD

This might... actually be good?

Büge · « **Reply #2 on:** July 15, 2011, 05:29:34 PM »

Mmmmmmaybe.

It's Disney though, so a bastardization is certain. I mean Dejah Thoris was wearing clothes, fer corn's sake.

Mongrel · « **Reply #3 on:** March 09, 2012, 08:11:06 PM »

Quote from: Büge on March 09, 2012, 07:07:24 PM

You know how Disney is trying to distance themselves from the whole "Princess" thing?

Turns out they're pretty much just shooting themselves in the foot.

John Carter is maybe going to be interesting. I keep seeing reviews that complain vaguely about "Story Problems" but actual people I know (as well as Michael Moorcock, who is apparently a big John Carter fan) have reported that they personally enjoyed it.

The main critical complaints I've seen are first that "This movie is made up of cliches", which is mostly because the original Edgar Rice Burroughs books were the source of such cliches. One review even acknowledged the irony of such a complaint while making it anyway. The second main complaint seems to be that the movie drags ponderously though a long middle.

That's actually criticism I can live with! Generally, what I don't want to hear are things like "Horrible, junior-schoolchild morality play", "LARP-level acting" or "like it was directed by George Lucas".

I think it's going to turn out to be another Watchmen, in that it's a product that's been slavishly/lovingly adapted by very faithful fans of the original material, which rubs people who were expecting the movie to stand on its own the wrong way.

If any of you guys go see it, let us know what it's like!

Mongrel · « **Reply #4 on:** March 12, 2012, 06:30:16 PM »

Saw John Carter.

Nothing stuck out as grating or terribly obnoxious (there's even a little winking joke with the audience about belaboured melodramatic speeches in Dejah Thoris' first appearance), which is actually more than I can say for most modern films like this!

As some people mentioned, Kitsch's delivery was a little flat, but when I say "a little" I mean that literally: it's a terribly minor complaint and doesn't really detract from the film. And sometimes it actually kind of just works.

I barely felt any of the mid-movie drag some people mentioned. The whole movie went by quite quickly for me. You can see where some elements from later books have been patched in (the stuff with the Tharns and the 9th Ray), but it's not too jarring.

That mostly sounds like a list of "Complaints I could have had, but didn't", so I will also add that in addition to an overall sense of fun the fantasy/sci-fi elements were played well without being overdone. I can echo that the effects and visuals were very good without being overdone. The characters are all likeable and serviceable in their own ways. Nobody stands out (except maybe Willem DaFoe as Tars Tarkus), but they all do a sound, serviceable job. And that's actually pretty respectable.

All in all the movie is actually quite decent and a lot of fun!

The original books were on my to-read list since before I heard of the movie, but I think I ought to move them up.

Büge · « **Reply #5 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:32:14 AM »

Quote from: Mongrel on March 12, 2012, 06:30:16 PM

All in all the movie is actually quite decent and a lot of fun!

The original books were on my to-read list since before I heard of the movie, but I think I ought to move them up.

I have an ancient, crumbling copy of the first book around here somewhere...

But I wouldn't hold my breath on a sequel. The movie's already being called a flop. It doesn't seem like a bad movie, just not a profitable one. These days it seems like studios are making their films live and die on opening weekend.

Mongrel · « **Reply #6 on:** March 13, 2012, 07:49:55 AM »

Yeah, what Brentai said earlier is correct. It was released at a terrible time with awful marketing. Tons of poeple are avoiding it based on reviews or bad commercials.

Sure, it doesn't have the magic touch of the greatest movies - it's not like we're talking Shawshank here. But I'm very comfortable saying it's at least capital-G Good and well worth the price of admission. If you want a "numbers" version, it's not a 9 or a 10, but it's easily a 7.5 and quite possibly a solid 8.

There's a little hope yet though. This seems to be slowly moving towards one of those rumbling word-of-mouth situations. Whether that makes much of a difference or not, well, we'll see.

Thad · « **Reply #7 on:** March 13, 2012, 08:38:21 AM »

Yeah, all the SF sites I read have basically been saying "It's good, all these critics just hate SF."

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #8 on:** March 13, 2012, 09:06:02 AM »

Roger Ebert thought i was pretty good, FWIW.

Mongrel · « **Reply #9 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:29:29 AM »

In fairness, there are lots of tiny niggling plot holes, but nothing you really notice until some sour-pants points them all out sequentially after the movie.

So in theory they do add up, but man, it's small enough that if you're the kind of person to bitch about that, then you're proabably the kind of person who's going to bitch that "IT TAKES PLACE ON MARS AND THERE'S NO LIFE ON MARS WTFFFF HEY YOU CAN'T SAIL ON LIGHT WHAT". And if you'e THAT kind of person why the hell are you even going to see this anyway.

Thad · « **Reply #10 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:38:04 AM »

What if you run out of oxygen?

Mongrel · « **Reply #11 on:** March 13, 2012, 11:50:23 AM »

Well then you're in real trouble...

...because you're in the wrong movie.

Brentai · « **Reply #12 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:19:45 PM »

So basically it's good, but not like... 300 million dollars good.

Really the only failure here is a failure to control the budget when the movie probably didn't even really need half of that.

Mongrel · « **Reply #13 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:23:38 PM »

They probably would've saved a lot by just skipping 3D/IMAX, but I guess those are now "mandatory" for big-expectations blockbusters?

Which kind of sucks, because in most cases they do nothing except add risk to high-budget movies. Like there is no fucking way 3D will ever make or break a movie.

Ted Belmont · « **Reply #14 on:** March 13, 2012, 12:27:34 PM »

Quote from: Brentai on March 13, 2012, 12:19:45 PM

So basically it's good, but not like... 300 million dollars good.

Really the only failure here is a failure to control the budget when the movie probably didn't even really need half of that.

That, and Disney's bizarre fear of releasing a movie with 'Princess' or 'Mars' in the title.

Niku · « **Reply #15 on:** March 13, 2012, 02:00:09 PM »

Hell, if they had called the damn thing "John Carter and the Princess of Mars" they might have been able to play up the pulp angle and trick people into thinking it was going to be like one of them Indiana Joneses.

That said, I haven't looked into any box office numbers for it, but a lot of times movies like this make crazy bank worldwide even if they're domestic failures.

Lottel · « **Reply #16 on:** March 13, 2012, 02:26:53 PM »

I would have definitely gone to see a movie called "John Carter and the Princess of Mars"

Büge · « **Reply #17 on:** March 13, 2012, 02:45:51 PM »

I think they were really hoping it would be a big moneymaking franchise. Like Pirates Of the Caribbean big.

Büge · « **Reply #18 on:** March 13, 2012, 04:29:21 PM »

Although, maybe the film was just a victim of a smear campaign?

Mongrel · « **Reply #19 on:** March 13, 2012, 06:01:47 PM »

FWIW, nice reviews keep on trickling out and opinion on the movie seems to be rising. Ebert also said he liked it, which is good for a hit or two. More importantly, while I see some negative reviews here and there, most people who've gone to see it seem to be genuinely positive about it and enjoyed it.

If they're lucky, the movie will be one of those rare creatures - the word-of-mouth winners.

News:

Author Topic: John Carter (Read 1303 times)