John Carter (of Mars)

With all those sharp goddam swords swinging about, no way am I letting anything of mine swing around!

:frowning: It’s like they were setting it up to fail.

:mad:

The problem isn’t that the movie was bad, the problem is that, with so much cash put into it, the movie has to have some sort of buzz or hook to draw in big crowds - and it doesn’t.

Take Avatar. Not a better movie plot-wise, but it had both visual oomph in its unique ‘look’ and a ‘subtle’ (:smiley: ) message that created a popular hook.

In contrast, John Carter suffered from a feeling of action-movie genericism. It is no defence that the pulp novel original was in fact the originator of the tropes used by others, most people haven’t read it. Most people had no idea who “John Carter” was (other than pulp fans). It didn’t help that the very title sounds so generic. It’s like seeing a movie called “John Smith”. :wink: The visuals and such were well-done, but not awe-inspiringly so - a good movie to watch on TV on a lazy Sunday.

Robert E. Howard’s Solomon Kane movie wasn’t even shown the the USA.

I read the books years ago, and when I saw the movie coming out, I reread the books just to refresh my mind. I went to see this with my husband and 17-year old son, neither of which had read the books. We all loved them immensely, and I, for one, will be buying the DVD when it comes out and probably showing it in my lit classes to try to get kids to read Burroughs.
Oh, and I want a Woola. Someone scientific should be getting started on that. NOW. It’s a giant pug/English bulldog with no fur and too many legs that can outrun a jet and still slurp all over you at the end. Want so much!

I saw it with a friend who inexplicably had never heard of the stories before, and he thought it was great, so I don’t think not reading the books is a handicap. I liked it too, though I have read the books: They changed several significant points, but I think the changes were mostly for the better.

We saw the 3D version, and the 3D wasn’t quite as good as in Avatar, but I think it still added to it. I think that they filmed the actors in 2D and then upconverted them, but since most of the scenery was rendered and thus done in true 3D, it worked out. The one effect that I thought needed a little work was that the animators didn’t seem to know what to do with the extra arms on the Tharks-- Too often, the lower arms just tracked the upper arms exactly.

The CGI on the baby tharks was awful too, IMO. They looks like puppets that old Dinosaurs sitcom.

But the rest, visually, I thought was well done. Did take my 3D glasses off for much of the movie since many scenes were flat enough for that not to be a problem and eliminated the muddiness.

I finally saw it!

It was worth the admission just to see Woola brought to life.

I think Edgar Rice Burroughs told this story smarter. All the stuff about the Therns - too early. That could have been saved for a sequel. Seeing the movie entirely from John Carter’s POV would have worked better.

I saw it over the weekend. It was fun, and I expect to see a lot of new henna tattoos at cons over this summer.

And I want a Woola. Who’s the good lizard-toad-puppy? Are you the good lizard-toad-puppy? Good lizard-toad-puppy want a cookie?

I just got back from seeing John Carter.

I’d give it a 10/10 even tho I thought the music was “merely adequate”.

Excellent production quality, excellent cast, great costumes and sets, etc. I loved the Tharks. I want a Woola, whatever he is. I laughed about half a dozen times, thought the fight scenes were great, and thought whoever did the creature design in general did a fantastic job.

I normally hate sequels, but I’d love to see another John Carter/Barsoom movie, even tho Disney is apparently not keen on the idea right now.

I just put myself on the list at Amazon.com to be notified when the Blu-Ray is available for pre-order.

Fuck Avatar. John Carter was way more fun, way more entertaining, and way better to look at.

I’ll give you points 1 & 2, but not 3.

I really enjoyed the film, but I have to say it lost a lot of impact when I saw it again without the IMAX screen and sound.

I think the thing I liked best of the film was that some aspects of the cultures seemed truly alien, and the green people didn’t feel like CGI. And also, the art direction and cinematography.

I liked the final fight scene in the arena. Realistically that’s how most fights to the death should go.

All in all it was a decent 3-D movie for being partly live-action. Way better than Thor. The 3-D was even slightly better than Alice, although it was a slightly weaker movie overall.

I liked the low-tech approach to most of the technology: if all steam-era fantasy were like this I’d be into it more.

The movie cost at least one guy his job: Disney chairman Rich Ross resigns after 'John Carter' fiasco - Apr. 20, 2012

Wow I didn’t even know they made a Solomon Kane movie. I saved that to my Netflix queue so eventually I’ll see it. We saw John Carter at the theater. It was fairly good I thought and we’ll rent that one too when it comes out on DVD. A sleeper hit of a blockbuster movie. :stuck_out_tongue:

Just saw it tonight at the $1 theater and it was pretty spectacular. I thought of Taylor Kitsch in this role as Tim Riggins in space, a guy who just takes things at face value and doesn’t let the big picture get to him. “I DON’T UNDERSTAND ANY OF THIS - WTF IS GOING ON?!?” type questions are pretty much beyond this Carter of Mars.

I read somewhere that Kitsch, after it was apparent that the film was a bomb, was asked if he would do it again and replied that he would, that making the film was a great experience working with so many talented people, etc. If so, that does him good in my opinion.

The F/X were top notch and it was nice seeing Jimmy McNulty ham it up as the Little Bad. The ending seemed rushed (“Well, since you have all your guests here, why don’t we get married?”) but the Mars story was good enough to make me forget the endcaps, the part regarding Edgar Rice Burroughs.

All in all, I’ll give it an 85. Given how bad it could have been (and was reported to have been), I feel like giving it a 90… but that’s kind of pushing things.

All right, I just watched it and thought it was at least decent. As some have pointed out, this was dead on arrival at the theater due to so much anti-hype, and I think that was a shame…this was at least better than Clash of the Titans, but it won’t make nearly the money.

It’s got a good beat and I’d dance to it…68.

I probably wasn’t being fully attendant, but why exactly were the Therns following him around after he returned to Earth? If it was to kill him, they had every opportunity. And with their advanced technology, they couldn’t break into a stone crypt- they needed Ned to open the door?

This part is an invention of the screenwriters – it ain’t in Burroughs. So it doesn’t bother me overmuch that it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

When he returned to earth, JC started looking for the Therns and another amulet so that he could return.

Eventually, he ‘discovered’ an amulet - or atleast let it be ‘thought’ that he did, in order to lure a Thern to him to steal his.

I’m not sure at that point if the Thern’s knew that JC was in the crypt - they were then following Ed to find him. JC needed the Thern’s attention diverted in order to sneak up on them.

The Thern’s had no interest in JC UNTIL he had ‘found’ an amulet - there is no impression that they were actively pursuing him until that time.

(and of all the bits in the movie, this was the most contrived thing, but it kinda sorta works)