2000 AD Online Forum

Bit too Prince of Perisa??

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gKVquj9LgM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6gKVquj9LgM)

Bit too many clothes, more like.

Still, I was really not expecting to like that, and I did.  It'd be hard to make the books any sillier, and the tone seems pleasantly focussed.

Still prefer the O'Neill & Moore rendering of Mars and why are leading men pubescent-ponces these days?

Never read any of it, so I don't know what to compare this to. Looks like fun. And if I may be superficial for a moment- that lady is bloody gorgeous.

You compare it to this, RAC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsawq3PBMms

I've been waiting 25 years for them to make a sequel to Masters of the Universe, and now my patience is apparantly rewarded.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 14 July, 2011, 09:19:47 PM
You compare it to this, RAC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsawq3PBMms

I've been waiting 25 years for them to make a sequel to Masters of the Universe, and now my patience is apparantly rewarded.

Traci Lords! Bloody hell..!

I was a big fan of ERB's Mars series (and other Planetary Romances, and the later Swords and Sandals books), so I was a bit wary of this. However, it looks pretty good, I might be giving this a spin, depending on the reviews.

Quote from: Richmond Clements on 14 July, 2011, 09:26:21 PM

Quote from: Professah Byah on 14 July, 2011, 09:19:47 PM
You compare it to this, RAC: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsawq3PBMms

I've been waiting 25 years for them to make a sequel to Masters of the Universe, and now my patience is apparantly rewarded.

Traci Lords! Bloody hell..!

And it is worse than you think it'd be, much much worse. I've never wanted to punch an entire company in the face, but The Asylum have managed to annoy me enough with that mockbuster to consider it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Princess_of_Mars

Princess Of Mars is not a good film, but you know what you're getting from the Asylum by now.  If you see it on dvd somewhere for a pound it's worth a punt, but I wouldn't pay more than three quid.  Asylum's version of War of the Worlds is also closer to the novel than the Spielberg movie - still not what I'd call "good", but one can only expect so much from a film that doesn't have Tom Cruise 'forced' to enter a giant anus.

Quote from: Professah Byah on 14 July, 2011, 11:21:41 PM
Princess Of Mars is not a good film, but you know what you're getting from the Asylum by now.  If you see it on dvd somewhere for a pound it's worth a punt, but I wouldn't pay more than three quid.

I watched it for free on the Scifi Channel and still felt like I'd paid too much ;)

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 July, 2011, 07:37:03 PM
why are leading men pubescent-ponces these days?

I blame Twilight and all that guff.


Read these books as a sprog when I had exhausted REH Conan books, I too prefer the O'Neill rendering of Mars

Is anyone reading Warlord of Mars from Dynamite, the same thing.  Personally I am quite enjoying it as a good kind of traditional sci-fi sort of read.  And its got boobies.

http://www.dynamite.net/htmlfiles/viewProduct.html?PRO=C725130176677 (http://www.dynamite.net/htmlfiles/viewProduct.html?PRO=C725130176677)

Quote from: Proudhuff on 15 July, 2011, 12:13:56 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 July, 2011, 07:37:03 PM
why are leading men pubescent-ponces these days?

I blame Twilight and all that guff.

Don't think you can really, it was a trend long before Twilight was birthed.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 15 July, 2011, 04:44:27 PM

Quote from: Proudhuff on 15 July, 2011, 12:13:56 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 14 July, 2011, 07:37:03 PM
why are leading men pubescent-ponces these days?

I blame Twilight and all that guff.

Don't think you can really, it was a trend long before Twilight was birthed.

But that seems to be the pinnacle of the PP and pretty youth obsession.

Rant mode: Look at Dr Who he seems to have got younger each regen, By the time he reaches Number ten he'll be a fetus.
They will probably use that to re-boot the series as he'll be reborn with ten aging regens to follow

David Tennant was 34 when he became Doctor Who, four or five years older than Peter Davison was. 34 is not very young. 

The lead actor in John Carter is 30. That is not very young either. If you think it is, it means you've gotten old.

Ponciness, however,  is another matter.

Quote from: M.I.K. on 15 July, 2011, 06:51:59 PM
David Tennant was 34 when he became Doctor Who, four or five years older than Peter Davison was. 34 is not very young. 

The lead actor in John Carter is 30. That is not very young either. If you think it is, it means you've gotten old.

Ponciness, however,  is another matter.

Age is not the problem, it's the pampered, never-left-school look a lot of these chaps/studios have cultured, we need more Viggo Mortensen types for these roles.

The golden age of the leading man was just after the 2nd world war. All those guys had seen things and done stuff that would make your hair curl. You could see it in Lee Marvin's eyes, in the way that Kirk Douglas and Burt Lancaster walked . They didn't have to prove a damned thing.

What he said, plus Mitch of course

Looking forward to this.

The Duke would have every single one of them (admittedly hard nuts) and manage to shoe a horse at the same time.

Looks can be decieving of course.
Apparently The bloke who played Private Godfrey in Dad's Army was an elite commando.

Some images

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/4439/original/618w_john_carter_stills_3.jpg?1322345820)

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/4437/original/618w_john_carter_stills_1.jpg?1322345509)

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/4438/original/618w_john_carter_stills_2.jpg?1322345695)

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/4440/original/618w_john_carter_stills_5.jpg?1322346346)

(http://s3.amazonaws.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/4441/original/618w_john_carter_stills_6.jpg?1322346492)

New poster! Looks good, but would be better without "Disney"

(http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/j/john-carter-gets-a-new-poster-73262-01-470-75.jpg)

This thing looks godawful.

I am honestly looking forward to this film. I'm trying not expect too much about it yet, but I hope it does well. Well enough to make another and possibly kickstart at resurgence of interest in ERB, especially Tarzan. I would love to see a Tarzan film that does the books justice.

Here is a preview review(no spoilers) from SFX:

http://www.sfx.co.uk/2011/11/28/pure-golder-john-carter-preview/

JvB

$250-$300 million budget and the general buzz towards it is complete apathy.

Agree with you on the Tarzan movie though. Not sure anyone's ever gotten it just right.

You might be right. A lot will depend on whether or not the writers/cast/director have read the books or if they just skimmed the notes a PA handed them and whether or not the PA did more than skim the back blurb of the books as most often is the case.

JvB

Despite my initial reservations I actually think this looks pretty good. Some of the design work is lovely and if one of the main Pixar bods is behind it I'm pretty confident it will be a story well told.
I hope this becomes a successful franchise.

QuoteI hope this becomes a successful franchise.

Think I read a quote with the director, who said that John Carter basically had to get into the top grossing films of all time in order two get a sequel.

Possible, but not very likely. I think Disney are banking on this being the new Avatar.

Andrew Stanton has got his work cut out, but he does know how to make a succesful film- his last ones were Finding Nemo and Wall-E after all.

It's a Pixar movie for sure but Pixar's name is nowhere to be found. Disney are prepared to take the fall for this and leave Pixar's name unsullied. No way this makes its money back.

Here the first look at other new trailer, sorry for all talkies....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swf9pVGVW30&feature=youtu.be (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Swf9pVGVW30&feature=youtu.be)

Who thought for a single xat that this was the best way to premiere your trailer - half visible, half audible on TV, and then perpetuated in low resolution on YouTube.  By Issus, these earthmen have the brains of a calot.

Quite fancy this, mind.

Here the FULL TRAILER!

http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/11/30/john-carter-trailer (http://www.ign.com/videos/2011/11/30/john-carter-trailer)

The opening does looks like Attack of the Clones arena scene??

And I like it, would watch it!

I've got to say, I was hoping for something a bit more visually exciting and stylised - especially in terms of the Martian landscape.

And yes, I know mars isn't really red, but this story is hardly realistic is it?

I wonder if they've deliberately played this down for the same reason they changed the films title?

Looks awesome!

I guess Disney are hoping for a Pirates replacement, I just don't think it's going to do that kind of business. I'm sensing a massive flop unfortunately.

I like the design of the various beasties. looks rather good.

Is that arena on Mars or Geonosis?

See, they show me this:
(http://www.mattnicholson.myby.co.uk/jcmoog01.jpg)

...and I can't help but see this:
(http://www.mattnicholson.myby.co.uk/jcmoog02.jpg)

This is encouraging news for Burroughs fans. John Carter 2 & 3 are already written:

http://www.scifinow.co.uk/news/john-carter-2-and-3-written/

JvB

Quote from: Noisybast on 02 December, 2011, 01:48:39 PM
See, they show me this:
(http://www.mattnicholson.myby.co.uk/jcmoog01.jpg)

...and I can't help but see this:
(http://www.mattnicholson.myby.co.uk/jcmoog02.jpg)

Now all I can think of is this:


(http://tool8.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/black-mirror-national-anthem-prime-minister-pig.png?w=497&h=279)

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 08 December, 2011, 05:37:46 PM


Now all I can think of is this:


(http://tool8.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/black-mirror-national-anthem-prime-minister-pig.png?w=497&h=279)

Coronation Street has taken a strange, dark turn. I bet this is a David Platt storyline.

JvB

What on earth are they... on second thoughts, I don't want to know  :lol:

And yes, that IS the Moog.

I thought it was the Prime Minister

Japanese version trailer, Now that is good trailer! Would like to see the film!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFE9zcpkKMs&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mFE9zcpkKMs&feature=related)

I think this film looks amazing and I can't wait for it's release, but I can see it only being succesful within the geek circles... but can't really explain why?

I'm a big John Carter of Mars fan, from the novel series to the Gold Key Comics and even the Marvel John Carter Warlord of Mars comics (not given the newer series a look, however). I plan to take my daughter to see this, and I really have high hopes that it will be lead to a series of films based on the original series. However...

With a budget reported to be between 250,000,000 and 300,000,000 (and then factor in advertising) - how successful can it be? I mean, that's simply a ridiculous amount of money to make a film!

Ooh... that's kinda already kicking it in the teeth.

i wasn't that impressed by an earlier trailer, it looked like a man being chased by a bad special effect around the hollywood hills..

and if the budget is that toe curling then i can't really see where the money has gone

I like it more! TV Spot;

http://dai.ly/AyFfXU (http://dai.ly/AyFfXU)

Hmmm. This just doesn't look very good, does it? It all looks rather bland.

I'm still curious to see it, it may well turn out to be great, and if it's anywhere near the level of the Pixar films it will be - but these trailers are really not doing a good job of selling it.

At this point I've stopped looking at trailers and such. I'm trying to go in with no expectations in hopes of it being great. If I set myself up to be disappointed I probably will be.

JvB

Wow... now that is the poster! (Mondo)

(http://cdn.mos.totalfilm.com/images/g/gorgeous-mondo-poster-for-john-carter-80614-01-470-75.jpg)

That's a pretty cool image, but maybe when the brief said 'Mars has two moons' it should have mentioned that they don't look exactly like Earth's moon?

Quote from: TordelBack on 22 February, 2012, 09:15:05 AM
That's a pretty cool image, but maybe when the brief said 'Mars has two moons' it should have mentioned that they don't look exactly like Earth's moon?

:) I was just thinking that Phobos and Deimos look NOTHING like that! Not that I've ever seen them from Mars of course, but still.

Hmm. Looks like the new Stargate to me.

On the other hand, I've only ever read the first book and thought it was pretty dreadful. Even making allowances for the nature of serialised pulp fiction.

The film makers agree that the book is not very good.

The trailer I saw last week was very, very good, and the 3D will be worth the extra  as well!

Here the extended scene - "White Apes" (Very Attack of the Clones arena are it?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6xBaGv5bx0Q (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=6xBaGv5bx0Q)

Looks like style over substance and did you notice how long that chain became all of a sudden  ::)

I really like some of those beasty designs.

Quote from: M.I.K. on 27 February, 2012, 05:43:41 PM
I really like some of those beasty designs.

I liked the creature designs too. It all looks rather fun to me.

One of the youtubers* says the following:

QuoteThe Sky is the wrong color. This really bothers me.

I suspect he was expecting an orangey reddish sky. That's the way people tend to imagine it.

In fact, from the actual pictures I've seen from the surface or Mars taken by one of the robot thingies sent there, the daytime sky is a deep blue. So he's right... but probably not for the reason he thinks. And the film's Earth like sky isn't really too far off to bother me.


*That's the people who comment on Youtube, I'm referring to. I'm not likening any of you to potatoes.

Quote from: Mardroid on 27 February, 2012, 06:27:47 PM
In fact, from the actual pictures I've seen from the surface or Mars taken by one of the robot thingies sent there, the daytime sky is a deep blue. So he's right... but probably not for the reason he thinks. And the film's Earth like sky isn't really too far off to bother me.

Also, warm breathable atmosphere = Earthlike sky.

I loved that clip, really loved it.  The day heroes battling monsters in alien arenas no longer appeals to me will be a sad one indeed.

On the basis of trailers so far the Boy and I have 4 confirmed cinema appointments already this year:  Pirates in an Adventure, John Carter, Brave and, The Avengers, coming on top of TPM.  Someone's doing something right.

Quote from: TordelBack on 27 February, 2012, 06:51:11 PM
On the basis of trailers so far the Boy and I have 4 confirmed cinema appointments already this year:  Pirates in an Adventure, John Carter, Brave and, The Avengers, coming on top of TPM.  Someone's doing something right.

Hopefully one more appointment for DREDD? I know you waitig for the trailer first.

I was just listing the Father-Son outings there!  I require a 'the kids want to see it' excuse for most cinema outings these days, otherwise I'm either abandoning the wife, or arranging for babysitters, neither of which appeals, to the extent that we have just 3-4 evenings out together per year - meaning I have to choose very carefully.

Dredd is a certainty, the missus would drag me along for the high Urban quotient even if I didn't want to go myself... 

What I am waiting for a bit more info before committing to is The Hobbit. 

We saw an extended sequence of this before ghost rider 2 last week, and i confess it did it for me. The design is a leetle 'stargate meets the mummy filtered through the clone wars', but it looks wonderful. I just hope it lives up to the promise of high adventure that the recent conan so dismally failed to deliver.

But yes, three tickets sold for the 3D version.

SBT

I wanna see JC but I have to say the depiction of JC & Mars in LOEGII has forever etched itself upon my wish it could be done like this list.

Mars gravity does make humans jumping soooo highest!

Here two Featurettes;

Behind the Scene (Good stand-in!) ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jPevcb2IiGY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jPevcb2IiGY)

John and Dejah; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-AgS9Lg6M&feature=relmfu (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ye-AgS9Lg6M&feature=relmfu)

Just saw this fan-made trailer on Youtube - it's far better than any of the official ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-BxeHQY1NuM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-BxeHQY1NuM)

I really don't understand what Disney are doing with the marketing with this film - it's almost as if they want it to fail.

I think they are just aiming it at people who liked AVATAR.

That fan trailer is not bad

Yes, that's by far the best trailer yet, which is a bit disgraceful. 

The marketing smacks of aimless desperation, and as Tips says Avatar-envy, which is a shame, because despite not being a big fan of the books, I think this is a movie I could love and I'm definitely going to see it.

Here the Final trailer;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUjPy20WW7U (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=zUjPy20WW7U)

I will see this film at cinema, but wait for subtitled version! ;)

Well, Disney let out first 10 mins footage of the film, to show what it is like before gone to Mars...

It's good, and you maybe notice Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HaE5Zs8dAY (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4HaE5Zs8dAY)

That's lovely - if very, very spoilery.  Hate to say it, bit there's a welcome touch of Firefly , or maybe even My Name is Earl, in the way the '[spoiler]repeated escape' sequence [/spoiler]was edited. I thought that was a very fresh, efficient piece of cinema, and a good character introduction.

Annoyingly I just noticed the PG-13 on there too - and my nearly-6-year-old is well hyped up to see this.  Anyone have a rough idea of what actually that means these days, in terms of content?  I've no problem with faithful-to-the-source-material boobies (fingers crossed!  :)) or swearing, but graphic violence much beyond the Revenge of the Sith/Temple of Doom level might put the kibosh on the operation.  I know, I'm a wuss.

QuoteWell, Disney let out first 10 mins footage of the film

Looks like they're panicking to me. Apparently their head of marketing quit a few months ago which hasn't helped the situation.

This is picking up some pretty strong reviews though - will be going to see it.

Quote from: TordelBack on 05 March, 2012, 09:57:16 AM
That's lovely - if very, very spoilery.  Hate to say it, bit there's a welcome touch of Firefly , or maybe even My Name is Earl, in the way the '[spoiler]repeated escape' sequence [/spoiler]was edited. I thought that was a very fresh, efficient piece of cinema, and a good character introduction.

Annoyingly I just noticed the PG-13 on there too - and my nearly-6-year-old is well hyped up to see this.  Anyone have a rough idea of what actually that means these days, in terms of content?  I've no problem with faithful-to-the-source-material boobies (fingers crossed!  :)) or swearing, but graphic violence much beyond the Revenge of the Sith/Temple of Doom level might put the kibosh on the operation.  I know, I'm a wuss.

I found this on Film Rating site;
Rated PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action.

As you see in 10 mins footage, there is blood.

I agree with you about there nice touch of Firefly editing :)

Maybe Radiator, but remember there was opening bank robbery scene of The Dark Knight a week before the film out?

QuoteAnyone have a rough idea of what actually that means these days, in terms of content?  I've no problem with faithful-to-the-source-material boobies

Went to see this today. Nothing in there a kid can't see. It's all CGI action with a bit of blue alien blood being flicked across the screen. No boobies I'm afraid - although she is a rather attractive filly.
It's entertaining - if instantly forgettable - fare

Excellent!  Thanks for that Davy.  I will of course be forwarding any paediatric psychiatrist's bills to you.  ;)

Just got back from seeing this. (Just 8 folk at the screening!). Have only read the first ERB book, and the Marvel comics of the 70's, but have waited a long time for cinema's first outing to Barsoom. Mrs Zanti and me found it an engaging and enjoyable fantasy -  not half as bad as expected.  At times it is rather  confusing and disjointed though, but it looks gorgeous (particularly liked the dragon-fly airships), and for a Disney film quite dark in tone - grim flashback scenes of JC burying his wife juxtaposed with slaughtering the enemy were quite intense.   The music is noteworthy;  an old style haunting, romantic score, and we both loved the 'monster dog' Woola (why no merchandise?).  However, I found the 3D off-putting, and for a film that relies on a great deal of exposition, much of the soundtrack was plainly inaudible/indecipherable (especially the deep-voiced, gruff delivery of Mr Kitsch).

Now that I've seen John Carter I won't be waiting for a squeal.

JC is not a great film, but neither is it completely terrible (unlike Conan). This film is only very loosely based on A Princess of Mars. The number of changes in the story and characters detracted greatly for a fan like myself. Even my wife, who has never read any Burroughs, found some of the plot weak and the characters, especially Dejah, less than what they should have been.

After outlining the book for her she agreed that if the writers and director had simply followed the original story Burroughs had set down, this would have been a much better film.

On the positive side they did a great job on the Barsoom landscapes, the Tharks, Throats, and Woola. And I will agree the airships were gorgeous.

I won't say don't see this film, but I will say if you go to see this film, do it as a scifi film and not A Princess of Mars, you'll probably enjoy it more.

JvB

I'll admit to having very little familiarity or affinity with the source material, so my view is purely based on that of a movie goer.

It's certainly not the turkey many were expecting and although it has its moments it certainly offers very little new for the seasoned film/Sci-Fi fan.

My inner geek/8 year old enjoyed the pulpy and ripe dialogue (and my inner pubescent 15 year old, the lovely Lynn Collins and her diminishing Xena/Princess Leia wardrobe) but there was far too much exposition. The plot, for the most part, was uninteresting, confusing (especially for the target audience) and filled with too much info dumping.

There were some good performances from the supporting cast, particullarly the vocal talents of Willem Defoe and from Dominic West-who hit the right note of petulent campness the part required. But Taylor Kitch made for a bland lead for the most part in his Han Solo like roll and was given little more to do than semi-emote in a gruff and hard to understand manner.

And while the airbourne battles were for the most part exciting and dramatic, the land based ones, while well staged and rendered, were less so and it was all a little too reminiscent of the Star Wars prequels-not it's fault I appreciate.

So not a disaster buy any stretch, but hardly memorable and yes the sound mix rendered a lot of the dialogue inaudible, which didn't help.

Looks like I'm in the minority, but I loved it from start to finish!  :D  I had no probs hearing any of the dialogue, either. Most strange.

That's great. I would have probably enjoyed it more if I hadn't allowed the books to colour my expectations. I also had no trouble with hearing the dialogue.

JvB

Maybe it was our cinema's archaic audio system, but both the missus and myself really did struggle with the dialogue in JC (though we are knocking on a bit...) :(.  Still enjoyed it though, but will be better able to understand and evaluate the film on DVD with subtitles. 

Though a bit Pussycat Dolls for my liking, I agree Dejah was not unattractive, but she would have looked even better in the steel/gold bikini I remember her wearing in the old Marvel stories ;)

Whilst I felt the bits added to the film that weren't in the book (mainly the bald-headed "baddies") were unnecessary, I could have overlooked all that nonsense had there been more focus on the growth of the characters. John Carter I was okay with - he's an archetype anyway - but the Tharks, Tars Tarkas and Sola and even Sarkoja in particular, were seriously underdeveloped when compared to their counterparts in the books; Kantos Kan, very cool in the book, barely registered. (Dejah Thoris became today's typical tough heroine rather than yesterday's damsel in distress, so I suppose that's a wash there)

And really, even on Barsoom the devious baddies speak with fey English accents?  :lol:


I wanted more from this film. I found it bland and boring.

I'm now re-reading Gods of Mars to wash the bad taste out of my mouth.

I thought it was awesome. I read the book and found it to be as dull as ditch water so was quite happy with all the changes they made.
The character development was fine for the supporting cast - as always with film adaptations things have to be condensed.
Some one on the other film thread said that this was more like the new Stargate than the new Star Wars as there wasn't enough world building. I think this is unfair - John Carter is a far better film than the first Star Wars. Just about everything that made Star Wars great - including the world building and character development - happened in The Empire Strikes Back or came from novelisations.

This film featured a guy cutting his way through the belly of a giant six limbed white ape in an arena, emerging covered in blue blood and then cutting the baddies head off. And that wasn't even the best bit.
Lighten up people!

Quote from: JamesC on 12 March, 2012, 09:18:20 AM
Some one on the other film thread said that this was more like the new Stargate than the new Star Wars as there wasn't enough world building.

I think John Carter was more Flash Gordon (aaahaaaaaaah) than anything else.

I think it looks quite fun, but the problem is Disney wanted it to be Avatar, and it's going to be more like "Cowboys and Aliens"

It's tanked.

It's a real shame it seems to have flopped. The marketing in this country seems to have been very low key for such a big budget release. Strange timing too - I'd have thought they would have waited a month and relased it in the Easter holidays.

I expect it will be re-appraised to critical acclaim in a few years.

Apparently it's actually doing alright internationally. The key will be how it holds up next week.

Still, this should be held up as a case of how NOT to market a film.

More like John Cart-meh.


He has a nice chest, though.

Quote from: JamesC on 12 March, 2012, 09:18:20 AMSome one on the other film thread said that this was more like the new Stargate than the new Star Wars as there wasn't enough world building. I think this is unfair - John Carter is a far better film than the first Star Wars. Just about everything that made Star Wars great - including the world building and character development - happened in The Empire Strikes Back or came from novelisations.

That was me, and my complaint was that Star Wars bears up to repeat viewing a lot more than Stargate does - though I thought the start of John Carter feels like a Star Wars movie in terms of being devoid of POV characters. It was when John Carter the character's story kicked in that I feel it lost something, moving as it did away from being a context-free snapshot of an alien world and the adventures therein (Star Wars) and instead into being just another "stranger in a strange land" plot (Stargate).

Also, to say that Empire and the canon (ahem) expanded universe stuff is where Star Wars got interesting is kind of subjective.

I love that in John Carter, Hollywood kept up its theme of "White Man's Guilt".

In the book, the Indians were the aggressors. Yet here, they do their best to help John Carter before being gunned down the big Nasty Unprovoked White Men With Guns.

Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 14 March, 2012, 07:22:04 PM
More like John Cart-meh.


He has a nice chest, though.

Lynn Collins' is better.

JvB

Disney expects $200M -or 6 Dredds- loss for 'John Carter':




"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company."


http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disney-expects-200m-loss-for-john-carter/

Quote from: JamesC on 14 March, 2012, 05:17:26 PM
It's a real shame it seems to have flopped. The marketing in this country seems to have been very low key for such a big budget release.

You must be kidding! I got sick of the advertising. There is one of those huge video-bilboards that I see on my way to work that runs 3 or 4 adverts in sequence*. For about a month I got to watch that big flying jump vs the monster shot about a dozen times every morning. I grew to hate the film from that overexposure alone.

* Digression on video-billboards - they're vile things and just more visual pollution in our cities. The only up-side is that mags like Marie Clair and Vogue often seem to have ads and there's nothing like a 20ft woman in lingerie to perk up your morning commute. Apart from videogames (The Arkham City ads were a bit scary for children IMO - big close up of cackling Joker) and glossy mags, the only other adverts seem to be the "I'm-such-a-shit-for-brains-I-can't-paint-a-floor/soothe-my-baby-so-I'll-watch-ITVplayer-instead" ones. Talk about target audience....

I don't think the marketing was particularly at fault and seems to be the scapegoat for the fact that visually John Carter looks like a very derivative film despite it's seminal origins. Should of gotten Kev O'Neill to design it instead of sticking with the gaudy Frazetta inspired muscle-bound-man-in-loin-cloth look. The last Conan suffered the same.

Shoving images down people's throats is not akin to good marketing where good images sounds can arrest your attention, John Carter obviously didn't because it looks cliched. You can spend millions on flooding the town for months with marketing and in the end no one pays any attention. It's still quality not quantity that mostly counts.

Taylor Kitsch will unite America this April when he stars in Battleship, the movie America needs.

This is just the low point before his blazing redemption.

Somehow I think he needed to start his career by attending to the issue of his name.

You will be the first against the wall, o cynical Soap. In April, we shall see Irishmen, Vikings and women from Barbados fight side-by-side.

Liam Neeson will continue to say "Fuck You" to the tree that killed his wife.

Alexander Skarsgard will assert his primacy over Stellan and Peter as King of the Skarsgards.

Rihanna will be the light that helps us find love in a hopeless place.




And Taylor Kitsch will guide them to victory over the Squid-Robots and their giant Peg-Bombs.

I think the marketing was entirely at fault. The trailers were all terrible, and didn't give any context or explanation at all, just a mish-mash of boring, Star Wars prequel-looking fight scenes in a nondescript desert setting.

The butchering of the title - apparently a result of the perception that films with 'Mars' in the title flop at the box office - didn't help either. 'John Carter' just sounds generic and boring - the film could literally be about anything, and a cinema-goer could be forgiven for thinking it's about the ER character of the same name.

Posters, while not awful, weren't suitable for a film of this type. If they were going for an Avatar approach to selling this film, they got it dead wrong.

Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 19 March, 2012, 11:03:47 PM
You will be the first against the wall, o cynical Soap. In April, we shall see Irishmen, Vikings and women from Barbados fight side-by-side.

Liam Neeson will continue to say "Fuck You" to the tree that killed his wife.

Alexander Skarsgard will assert his primacy over Stellan and Peter as King of the Skarsgards.

Rihanna will be the light that helps us find love in a hopeless place.




And Taylor Kitsch will guide them to victory over the Squid-Robots and their giant Peg-Bombs.

KerPlunk will sink that ship of fools.

Quote from: radiator on 19 March, 2012, 11:06:50 PM
just a mish-mash of boring, Star Wars prequel-looking fight scenes in a nondescript desert setting.

^My point. The whole film looks like that and no trailer could save it.



You can drag a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

Avatar was a generic-looking film, and that seemed to do ok. The point is, they managed to get across the story/concept of that film in the trailer, and they made damn sure everyone knew who the director was.

Quote from: radiator on 19 March, 2012, 11:06:50 PM
I think the marketing was entirely at fault. The trailers were all terrible, and didn't give any context or explanation at all, just a mish-mash of boring, Star Wars prequel-looking fight scenes in a nondescript desert setting.

The butchering of the title - apparently a result of the perception that films with 'Mars' in the title flop at the box office - didn't help either. 'John Carter' just sounds generic and boring - the film could literally be about anything, and a cinema-goer could be forgiven for thinking it's about the ER character of the same name.

Not entirely, although it was catastrophic.

I see lots of people want to compare this to Avatar - fair enough, since that's what Disney were aiming for - but let's get fucking real.

James Cameron vs John Stanton? No contest.

And Avatar had all the ground-breaking whizzy technology to back it up. Nobody expected - or got - anything new storywise, but the visuals and cinematic experience, well, that was what got the bums on seats.

John Carter - saddled with a terrible name (although the source material is equally clunkily titled, and the "Mars" was dropped more because women don't tend to like films with sci-fi titles) - had nothing new. Nothing exciting. Nothing different.

I'll watch it on DVD, and I will probably enjoy it, but it had the feeling of an old Saturday afternoon film that you'd watch on the sofa, not a cinematic event.

Quote from: radiator on 20 March, 2012, 06:45:24 AM
Avatar was a generic-looking film, and that seemed to do ok. The point is, they managed to get across the story/concept of that film in the trailer, and they made damn sure everyone knew who the director was.

Boosted largely by the fact of it being the first film with that kind of budget to be shot stereoscopically, with mo-cap, and also being the next James Cameron epic which meant things hadn't quite been seen this way before. People were going to see Avatar, generic though it is, because it was 'new', in a market full of second-hand film tropes. Avatar really is an exception, there's no way John Carter could ever make nearly $3 billion and having 'Mars' in the title wouldn't have saved it at the box-office despite what they say. Everything about it seems like a retread of what's been going on in the past 50 years.

So Avatar did well because it was 'new'?

Well the Pirates of the Caribbean movies routinely make a shit-ton of money and there's nothing new or exciting about them. Same with Transformers. Proof that a massive audience will turn up for the same reheated slop.

I agree that John Carter has a very bland, tired aesthetic. I was really looking forward to the film, but the trailers killed my enthusiasm for it, I was hoping for something much more visually inventive and stylised. But I think it's telling that the only trailer that came close to getting me excited to see the film was a fan-made one.

Quote from: radiator on 20 March, 2012, 09:15:51 AM
So Avatar did well because it was 'new'?

Technically as a form of entertainment and spectacle, yes and that was enough to get people in seats. As a film, no, but it had a large pedigree of talent behind it.

Quote from: radiator on 20 March, 2012, 09:15:51 AM
Well the Pirates of the Caribbean movies routinely make a shit-ton of money and there's nothing new or exciting about them. Same with Transformers. Proof that a massive audience will turn up for the same reheated slop.

The priates films were a new movie-brand based on a popular ride at Disney, a built-in familiarity and also a big-star, Johnny Depp.

Transformers has a built-in audience and let's face it, giant robots kicking the shit out of each had never been writ so large.


How much of the cinema-audience would be aware of the John Carter books? Comparing these movies only points up the failings of John Carter, it was derivative in the film-market with no selling-point and cost way too much to make, $350 million at last estimate? Playing at that level needs a very sellable item, Carter didn't have it. It should've been made for much less and made less bloated, maybe then it would make its money from the audience it should be playing to.

Yes I agree, the studio should never have let the budget get so out of control.

Not sure I agree with your other points - I would guess that most people who went to see the Pirates films are completely unaware that it was originally based on a theme park attraction, and as for pedigree, Stanton made Wall-E and Finding Nemo, two monstrously successful films.

Quote from: radiator on 20 March, 2012, 09:38:25 AM
Yes I agree, the studio should never have let the budget get so out of control.

Not sure I agree with your other points - I would guess that most people who went to see the Pirates films are completely unaware that it was originally based on a theme park attraction, and as for pedigree, Stanton made Wall-E and Finding Nemo, two monstrously successful films.

But not live-action films and they weren't bloated story-wise and both clocked in at around 90-100 mins each. Unfortunately John Carter was too much of an indulgence for him and was treated in a very regressive manner maybe because he'd harboured the idea for so long.

All good points, but it would have been easy to level similar criticisms at Cameron if Avatar had tanked.

I still think they could have promoted it a lot better - played up the romanctic, fish out of water and humourous elements, the sweeping epic story. Instead, as I say, they showed us a few out of context Prince of Persia/Attack of the Clones fight scenes. And they definitely could have come up with something better than a few silhouettes on a red bg with a massive JOHN CARTER in yellow for the poster. The branding was totally inappropriate.

Yeah, given the subject matter and budget, it seemed inevitable that JC would never reach the level of success it needed to, but I've never seen a worse example of how to market a film of this type.

Certainly putting Mars back in the title would've helped signpost the genre and it may have had a decent opening weekend but I think word-of-mouth would've seen sales decline in subsequent weeks. Anecodotes of people not realising it was set on Mars ever after viewing the film, true or not, is an indication of a certain sentiment that's following the film so I don't think it was only marketing's fault. It's a pity considering there was a good if certain misguided intent behind the film but the budget should've been cut in half and the film by about a half-hour at the very least. A blend of Disney conservatism and overindulgence scuppered it.


Certain quote from Stanton gave me the indication that he felt a bit like a duck out of water particularly the one about "a film needs to be made 5 times before it's anyway good" in relation to how the process works in animation were they can actually previs the whole film again and again until it works but he should have realised this actually happens in live-action too. A film is written, re-written, rehearsed, shot and edited and that in some ways is analogous to the same process of remaking he refers to in animation. I think he was just a bit less diciplined than he needed to be because he can certainly direct.

I have to assume that the marketing was rubbish due to the fact that I've told almost everyone I work with about how much I enjoyed John Carter and in almost every case they haven't had a clue what I'm talking about.
I work with a wide age group - ranging from early 20s through to mid-60s.

After I explain it a bit and say it's set on Mars and Willem Defoe's in it about 1 in 5 have had some vague recollection of seeing a bit about it on The One Show.


I think part of the problem is the rubbish title - it isn't memorable and doesn't sound exciting. To be honest I don't think 'A Princess of Mars' is a very good title either.
They should have called it 'Warlords of Mars' or something. Even 'Mars Wars' would have been an improvement!


As for the production design - I actually quite liked some of it. I thought the Tharks looked great and I loved the flying ships.
I think the 'red' martians should have been a lot redder though - just to make them look a little more alien. Thye could have upped the nudity if they'd have done this too - perhaps with a similar technique to the way Mystique was designed in the X-Men films.
I think I'd have gone with either a red sky or a bright red landscape (like the exterior shots in Total Recall) too.

20% more Red would've done it.

My girlfriend said that it annoyed her through the whole film because she wanted to know what people ate on Mars - particularly John Cater himself.

I said 'Mars Bars of course' - I'm funny like that.

I'm now going to pretend that a child made this joke and send it off to 'Take a Break' magazine in the hope of winning a fiver.

Yeah, I know that Mars isn't actually red on the surface, but since when is this film supposed to be realistic? Whn I heard the Pixar guys were doing a film set on Mars, I was imagining something really cool....

I have the same issue with the robot character designs in the Transformers films - they're very over-designed with thousands of little cogs and gears and moving parts, and you can tell that they've been conceived as how they would work 'in real life', and as a result are hard to distinguish from each other. I would've gone for bolder, more dynamic visualisations (like the original cartoon) - well-realised, strong character designs should always be recognisable from their silhouette alone.

Saw the film last week. Thought it was a pretty good, old fashioned swashbuckly thing.

...and like I said, I really like some of those beasty designs.

Just been mentioned on the BBC that this is one of Hollywoods biggest flops. It's lost Disney 200 million  :o

Ouch.

A friend of mine worked on the vfx for JC...

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 20 March, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
Just been mentioned on the BBC that this is one of Hollywoods biggest flops. It's lost Disney 200 million  :o

As I posted yesterday:

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 19 March, 2012, 10:15:31 PM
Disney expects $200M -or 6 Dredds- loss for 'John Carter':




"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company."


http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disney-expects-200m-loss-for-john-carter/

Moral of the story: don't spend so much on pedestrian material.


Our view: It's now clear, after yesterday's announcement – Disney viewed John Carter as a hospice case all along

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/03/our-view-its-now-clear-disney-has-been-treating-john-carter-like-a-hospice-patient-all-along/

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 20 March, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
Just been mentioned on the BBC that this is one of Hollywoods biggest flops. It's lost Disney 200 million  :o

What's more baffling is that apparently something like a hundred million was spent on marketing, but where was the marketing? Where did all that money go?

Still, I didn't think it would do this badly. It's the kind of big, dumb action-fest that could've cleaned up as a summer blockbuster. But unfortunately it came out in March, and Disney's marketing department were seemingly willing it to fail by spending a shitload on doing sod all.

Will they release jc on dvd or just call it a loss?

Quote from: Goosegash on 20 March, 2012, 09:36:30 PM

Still, I didn't think it would do this badly. It's the kind of big, dumb action-fest that could've cleaned up as a summer blockbuster. But unfortunately it came out in March, and Disney's marketing department were seemingly willing it to fail by spending a shitload on doing sod all.

So Disney shoulda put it up against Avengers, Spiderman and TDKR?

I'm taking Tiny Tips and half a dozen of his chums along for his birthday this weekend and they are all looking forward to it.

Me too.

I'm genuinely quite disheartened that this movie is tanking so badly.

I see a lot of comments online from folks who are REALLY enjoying it, to the point where I'm quite set on checking it out myself now - and it wasn't really of that much interest to me before.

Fascinating (partisan) analysis of WTF Disney are up, declaring their film a gigantic flop before it even opens in many countries:

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/03/our-view-its-now-clear-disney-has-been-treating-john-carter-like-a-hospice-patient-all-along/

Just been featured on Radio 4, wherein the impression was given that the film has 'flopped because its no good and audiences hate it'. Which as far as i can tell is far from the truth. The presenter sneered at the synopsis given by the reporter, claiming it 'doesnt sound very promising', until she was apparently cued to remember the edgar rice borroughs and pixar connection, when she was forced to take it seriously for the rest of the feature. There was then an equally sneery segway into a report on today's Budget, relating it to 'disney's loss on john carter'.

Odd reporting for Radio 4, i thought. Anyway, ive not seen it, and wont until dvd. Amoung those ive spoken to, that seems a not-uncommon decision. I have a feeling in six months we may see john carter used as an example of why initial cinema  release is no longer as important in judging a film's success rate. Which, to be honest, those of us not obsessed with blockbusters have known for a while. Like, thirty years.

SBT

I blame them for employing Goaty to do the marketing.

I might catch it today - seems amazing the way Disney has handled this.

Also a sobering reminder for Dredd and everyone who chips in with comments regarding professionals and those who market films - nothing is a given.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 20 March, 2012, 09:26:34 PM

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 20 March, 2012, 08:03:18 PM
Just been mentioned on the BBC that this is one of Hollywoods biggest flops. It's lost Disney 200 million  :o

As I posted yesterday:

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 19 March, 2012, 10:15:31 PM
Disney expects $200M -or 6 Dredds- loss for 'John Carter':




"In light of the theatrical performance of John Carter ($184 million global box office), we expect the film to generate an operating loss of approximately $200 million during our second fiscal quarter ending March 31. As a result, our current expectation is that the Studio segment will have an operating loss of between $80 and $120 million for the second quarter. As we look forward to the second half of the year, we are excited about the upcoming releases of The Avengers and Brave, which we believe have tremendous potential to drive value for the Studio and the rest of the company."


http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/disney-expects-200m-loss-for-john-carter/

Moral of the story: don't spend so much on pedestrian material.


Our view: It's now clear, after yesterday's announcement – Disney viewed John Carter as a hospice case all along

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/03/our-view-its-now-clear-disney-has-been-treating-john-carter-like-a-hospice-patient-all-along/

Hmmm. That 'hospice' bit has more than a whiff of fanboy desperation and internet conspiracy theories. Oh what a wonderful film! But they ruined it with poor marketing because NOBODY CARED!

I don't think the marketing was great, but nobody spends 100m dollars in promoting a film with advertising that is shit on *purpose*, in order to keep the film alive long enough to survive the opening BO weekend, including purchasing some of the most expensive tv airtime in the history of advertising

It was always doomed to failure, and I wonder if this, and last years other Mars flop from Disney, is partly because the likes of MT Carney do not understand films, and instead look at everything as a 'brand' which, given her background, is understandable. I work in media, and films and ents is the basket case category. No amount of applied learning about how to market products and brands works quite the same in films

It makes no sense whatsoever

Quote from: Steve Green on 21 March, 2012, 07:49:11 AMAlso a sobering reminder for Dredd and everyone who chips in with comments regarding professionals and those who market films - nothing is a given.

That is indeed true but Dredd didn't cost $350 million to be written down as a loss.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 20 March, 2012, 09:26:34 PM
Our view: It's now clear, after yesterday's announcement – Disney viewed John Carter as a hospice case all along

http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/03/our-view-its-now-clear-disney-has-been-treating-john-carter-like-a-hospice-patient-all-along/

Sorry Joe, just realised I posted that same link as 'new', not remembering I actually got it from you here in the first place...

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 21 March, 2012, 08:12:08 AM

Quote from: Steve Green on 21 March, 2012, 07:49:11 AMAlso a sobering reminder for Dredd and everyone who chips in with comments regarding professionals and those who market films - nothing is a given.

That is indeed true but Dredd didn't cost $350 million to be written down as a loss.

Yeah, it was a more a general observation on marketing and film production, I can't believe JC is as bad as some reviewers are making it out to be.

The whole announcing it as the biggest flop ever while it's still in theatres does seem pretty bizarre whatever the reasoning behind it.

Quote from: SmallBlueThing on 21 March, 2012, 07:27:44 AM

I have a feeling in six months we may see john carter used as an example of why initial cinema  release is no longer as important in judging a film's success rate. Which, to be honest, those of us not obsessed with blockbusters have known for a while. Like, thirty years.

SBT

I don't, because we won't, because it is.

The opening Box Office means that all subsequent iterations of the film's release are more successful. The higher the opening weekend in the States, the better it does in the UK, the more money it makes on DVD and retail and the more money it can be sold for to TV channels.

It also impacts on merch value, and licensing (games, comics, toys), noto mention the probability of several sequels and the craetion of a successfull dollar-milking franchise.

Of course, a film can claw back money via success in other markets, or word of mouth driving high DVD sales and hire, but with so many blood-sucking cunts viewing films on torrents, the theatrical dollars are becoming more, not less important.

So no matter what the "life-time" value of a film is, that value is higher if the original film is a box office success.

In short, you're very wrong. As usual.

Quote from: Steve Green on 21 March, 2012, 09:28:14 AM
I can't believe JC is as bad as some reviewers are making it out to be.

It isn't, it's just a bit too long-winded.

METRO was headlining it as "the biggest turkey of all time" which again is lazy reporting. Turkey being a far different thing from a flop.  Pah to Executives, marketing people and hacks (as opposed to proper journalists)!

Quote from: Goosegash on 20 March, 2012, 09:36:30 PM
What's more baffling is that apparently something like a hundred million was spent on marketing, but where was the marketing? Where did all that money go?

As i mentioned a few pages back it was all over the video billboards in Manchester for ages. i don't think the problem was LACK of marketing, they just pissed all their ad budget away on the wrong things. The ads scertainly didn't make me want to watch the film - I was undecided, and if anything they put me off as it looked like a mindless action film with nothing but big expensive visuals and no substance.

Quote from: klute on 20 March, 2012, 09:37:10 PM
Will they release jc on dvd or just call it a loss?

They HAVE to claw as muuch money back as possible, so I'd expect a heavilly promoted DVD release pre-Christmas.

Overall, I just think this was a misconceived project to spend so much money on in the first place. It was never going to have a huge appeal. The vast majority of people will never have heard of John Carter or Barsoom and be surprised that ERB wrote anything other than Tarzan. I'm a geek so I was peripherally aware of it, but even I have never been interested enough to actually read any of it.

Also, as people have pointed out, the name is just awful - why drop the 'of Mars' bit? Add an unknown star and a release date outside of the Xmas/Summer blockbuster seasons, and there just isn't anything there to attract the casual viewer.

Quotewhy drop the 'of Mars' bit?

Because historically, every film - bar one I think - with 'Mars' in the title has crashed and burned at the box office  - not least Robert Zemeckis' recent Disney flop Mars Needs Moms.

There seemed to be a concerted effort to play down the sci-fi element of JC, as if Disney were scared that it would put people off. Baffling.

I do wonder if all this publicity surrounding the 'biggest flop ever' etc is going to lead to a surge in box office over the next week or two - people flocking to see it out of curiosity?

Quote from: radiator on 21 March, 2012, 02:17:36 PMThere seemed to be a concerted effort to play down the sci-fi element of JC, as if Disney were scared that it would put people off. Baffling.

Sci-fi stuff doesn't test well with female audiences as a rule, hence it seemed to be trimmed out of the promo material (and title) of JC as much as possible and emphasis placed on sultry looks and a misplaced retooling of the main female character as an unlikeable sword-wielding boffin, which is really just a combination of traditionally male traits.  Not sure why they thought that would go down better with lasses.

Like many others, though, I am befuddled where all that cash went: JC is little more than a better-scripted SyFy movie and no way cgi is still that expensive considering what tv shows have been doing with peanuts.

Two lengthy, expensive reshoots I believe.

Apparently the directors inexperience ended up costing too - he's from an animation background and is used to being able to go back to the drawing board - much more expensive to do on a live action film.

"The nice thing about animation is, you can't put anything on the screen unless you plan it, so you become incredibly great planners. That's the weakest link in live action. It seems to attract more of a thinking of, 'Let's just fix it as we go.' It was fascinating. I kept trying to apply my Pixar over-plan it mentality so that you don't get any surprises and they would take a little of it, but you could see it just didn't fit well with people," he explained. " -Andrew Stanton

The irony being now that all this talk of negativity and losses of millions might make people go and watch it to see what the fuss is about , and it goes on to make a profit  :lol:

I doubt it.

It's kind of different to hear so many people (no here, gut generally) complaining about a film being too wierd or unfamiliar, and didn't receive enough marketing when the opposite it usually the opposite it usually true; that franchises are built on top of a familiar brand (toy/game/superhero) and are hyped to the point of saturation. I'm usually impressed with the boldness of Pixar projects such as Wall-E, Up and Ratatouie, all quite dring in their subject matter when they could just as easily churn out proven kiddie fodder. The creatives are encouraged to go whith their whims and not worry about the commerciality. Similarly, though it seems odd now, the last film about pirates before the Carabean franchise was Cutthroat Island; there was little indication that piracy would be so popular. The fact this film has flopped so bad is arguably a sign of them doing something right and using their commercial successes to allow them to try offbeat material. They seem keen to find the next franchise soon though; Prince of Persia seemed to go largely unnoticed and The Sourceror's Apprentice barely appeared at all. Understandable, as soon as they see it failing they seem to withdraw the promotion to protect the brand.

However, I haven't seen John Carter yet on account of it being in 3D, so it it might just look like a big balance sheet once it gets rolling.

Quote from: Adrian Bamforth on 21 March, 2012, 11:56:45 PM
It's kind of different to hear so many people (no here, gut generally) complaining about a film being too wierd or unfamiliar

I haven't read anyone complaining that it's too weird, if anything it's not weird or different enough, it's rather pedestrian yet fun sometimes otherwise it's boring.

Quote from: Adrian Bamforth on 21 March, 2012, 11:56:45 PM
I'm usually impressed with the boldness of Pixar projects such as Wall-E, Up and Ratatouie, all quite dring in their subject matter when they could just as easily churn out proven kiddie fodder. The creatives are encouraged to go whith their whims and not worry about the commerciality.

However, I haven't seen John Carter yet on account of it being in 3D, so it it might just look like a big balance sheet once it gets rolling.

John Carter ain't a Pixar film, it's Disney -borrowing a Pixar director- who play a different ballgame.

I didn't see it because I haven't got the time to get into fights at the pictures any more.
Saying that, one scene in the trailer screamed Star Wars at me and would have put me off anyway!

Quote from: COMMANDO FORCES on 22 March, 2012, 12:24:27 AM
I didn't see it because I haven't got the time to get into fights at the pictures any more.

:lol: :lol: :lol: so how many cinemas are you barred from in total?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 22 March, 2012, 12:07:56 AM
I haven't read anyone complaining that it's too weird, if anything it's not weird or different enough, it's rather pedestrian yet fun sometimes otherwise it's boring.

I'm supposing that many people might have found the idea of an historical film with space travel quite quite confusing territory, hence them banning any mention of 'Mars' on the basis that we have to make a greater mental leap to imagine any life on Mars while knowing there is none; you have to put yourself in the frame of mind of the audience at the time it was written. Compared to this, regular sci-fi is hard not to feel an investment in, since it's about future possibilities.

QuoteJohn Carter ain't a Pixar film, it's Disney -borrowing a Pixar director- who play a different ballgame.

I could have been misinformed, but I heard that John Carter was basically Pixar's first live-action film in all but name - it is being marketed as a Disney film so as not to dilute the Pixar brand, which they only want to be associated with animation.

Annoyingly our local Odeon is now no loner showing it at the time we had planned for Tiny Tips' birthday bash so it's a longer hike to Braehead. Ho hum.

Just seen this, and thought it was bloody brilliant. Loved the menacing ominous power of the baddies, the character inherent in all the Thargs, and the use of the blue blood at that critical moment. And Caesar and Mark-Antoine were brilliant supporting cast. 

This film got hugely bigged up by the great Neal Adams on his Facebook blog.  He claims all the negative reviews were putting people off seeing an incredible family film.

The family quality of it struck me as well, by which I mean that it has all the sort of things I wanted from the recent Conan film, but done in a very well executed way that doesn't prohibit its suitability for children. The deaths of the antagonistic Thargs are both good examples of this.

If I was a kid, I would have been playing at jumping all over the place this morning. As it is, I've just started a holiday so I have the house to myself and, well, you can see where this is going...

Just got back from seeing this with a mate and I'm really glad I did.  I really enjoyed it - found the main character engaging and most of the supporting cast good and liked the story.  I can see the criticisms - people do tend to say a lot of stagey pompous things, one of the supporting characters really has no obvious reason to be bothering helping our hero, but overall, it was good stuff, certainly way better than Independence Day or Avatar (to name two blockbuster films that didn't lose money despite being bloody awful).  Not that being less rubbish than those two makes a film good.
  I hardly know the source material at all - read one of the books and enjoyed it some time back in the 80s, so that didn't affect my enjoyment.  I'll definitely take the son and heir to see it if he hasn't been put off by the bad publicity.  Oh and I liked the Barsoomian wedding costume.

I took seven twelve year olds up the Odeon on Saturday (oh, have your fun!) and they all loved it.

I quite liked it too (despite it being twenty minutes too long) and can't understand the apathy towards it.

It's certainly not without it's faults; the length, the cliche of stealing a vehicle you can't drive but still managing to outrun experienced people chasing you, to much to and from in the middle section and it could have done with more time in the visually striking cities and airships rather than on the deserts of mars (which didn't even look as good as Arizona!).

I particular liked JCs proper introduction in Arizona; from bar to Fort and his various escape attempts.  And the sequence with bodies piling up around him in good pulp fiction fashion - especially the way this wasn't just shown as a slow mo "isn't violence cool?" manner by intercutting with the consequences of such violence.

Special effects and design work was pretty much flawless for my money. And none of the fights/set pieces out stay their welcome (which is rare these days).

Like I say, all the boys liked it and were rooting for JC, Tharks and the dog!

And was the Princess the bird from Wolverine?

Quote from: Tiplodocus on 26 March, 2012, 01:23:26 PM
I took seven twelve year olds up the Odeon on Saturday (oh, have your fun!) and they all loved it.

It's no fun when you have permission. :(

Interesting article on John Carter in the NY TIMES:



If Disney gave Mr. Stanton rope, he certainly ran with it. Accustomed to reworking scenes over and over at Pixar, he did not take well to the usual constraints of live-action — nailing it the first time — and went back for at least two lengthy reshoots. "The thing I had to explain to Disney was, 'You're asking a guy who's only known how to do it this way to suddenly do it with one reshoot,' " he told The Los Angeles Times. "I said, 'I'm not gonna get it right the first time. I'll tell you that right now.' "

Mr. Stanton leaned heavily on his colleagues at Disney-owned Pixar for guidance, paying less attention to input from people with experience in live-action filmmaking, according to people who worked on the movie.


Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.

He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current. Mr. Stanton also was behind the selection of billboard imagery that fell flat, and he controlled an important presentation of footage at a Disney fan convention that got a chilly reception.



Truth or blame?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 03 April, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Interesting article on John Carter in the NY TIMES:



If Disney gave Mr. Stanton rope, he certainly ran with it. Accustomed to reworking scenes over and over at Pixar, he did not take well to the usual constraints of live-action — nailing it the first time — and went back for at least two lengthy reshoots. "The thing I had to explain to Disney was, 'You're asking a guy who's only known how to do it this way to suddenly do it with one reshoot,' " he told The Los Angeles Times. "I said, 'I'm not gonna get it right the first time. I'll tell you that right now.' "

Mr. Stanton leaned heavily on his colleagues at Disney-owned Pixar for guidance, paying less attention to input from people with experience in live-action filmmaking, according to people who worked on the movie.


Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.

He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current. Mr. Stanton also was behind the selection of billboard imagery that fell flat, and he controlled an important presentation of footage at a Disney fan convention that got a chilly reception.



Truth or blame?

Just to highlight the point made about the use of the Led Zeppelin song "Kashmir" albeit in an orchestral form in the trailer. I don't personally think that I'd single this out as a factor to the films failure- after all David Fincher used a version of the same band's song "Immigrant Song" to his strikingly effective Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trailer.
But I agree with negative comments about the uninspiring poster campain, a trailer that failed to destinguish it from a Star Wars prequel and the seeming reluctance to admit that it was set on Mars all contributed indifference from an audience. 
If the studio was too embarrased to hold their hands up and admit what the film was about, then why should an audience have any faith that the film will be worth seeing?

A good lesson to the makers of Dredd though!

Play it straight.

Quote from: dweezil2 on 03 April, 2012, 09:45:19 AM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 03 April, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Interesting article on John Carter in the NY TIMES:



If Disney gave Mr. Stanton rope, he certainly ran with it. Accustomed to reworking scenes over and over at Pixar, he did not take well to the usual constraints of live-action — nailing it the first time — and went back for at least two lengthy reshoots. "The thing I had to explain to Disney was, 'You're asking a guy who's only known how to do it this way to suddenly do it with one reshoot,' " he told The Los Angeles Times. "I said, 'I'm not gonna get it right the first time. I'll tell you that right now.' "

Mr. Stanton leaned heavily on his colleagues at Disney-owned Pixar for guidance, paying less attention to input from people with experience in live-action filmmaking, according to people who worked on the movie.


Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.

He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current. Mr. Stanton also was behind the selection of billboard imagery that fell flat, and he controlled an important presentation of footage at a Disney fan convention that got a chilly reception.



Truth or blame?

Just to highlight the point made about the use of the Led Zeppelin song "Kashmir" albeit in an orchestral form in the trailer. I don't personally think that I'd single this out as a factor to the films failure- after all David Fincher used a version of the same band's song "Immigrant Song" to his strikingly effective Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trailer.
But I agree with negative comments about the uninspiring poster campaign, a trailer that failed to destinguish it from a Star Wars prequel and the seeming reluctance to admit that it was set on Mars all contributed indifference from an audience. 
If the studio was too embarrased to hold their hands up and admit what the film was about, then why should an audience have any faith that the film will be worth seeing?

A good lesson to the makers of Dredd though!

Play it straight.

Wasn't it Stanton's decision to drop Mars from the title?

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 03 April, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.

He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current.

Can't help wondering what music they'd have used instead to make it feel 'current'.

Quote from: M.I.K. on 03 April, 2012, 12:16:05 PM

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 03 April, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.

He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current.

Can't help wondering what music they'd have used instead to make it feel 'current'.

Yes, that's a profoundly stupid claim that makes me believe that whole piece is just blame-shifting: would things have been improved by a medley of Adele and BWAAAAAAAAANG?  There was nothing wrong with the music in the trailers, they were just vague and bland. 

Wait, wait , where the fuck are you getting a "GUH" sound in BBWWWWAAAARRRRRR from?

It's either BBBWWWWAAARRRRR or BBBBWWWWAAAARRRRM. Stop Britta'ing BBBWWWWWAAARRRRRRRR.

The Iron Man trailer had ACDC and that did alright.

Quote from: Roger Godpleton on 03 April, 2012, 12:45:23 PM
It's either BBBWWWWAAARRRRR or BBBBWWWWAAAARRRRM.

I felt that BBBWWWWAAARRRRR and BBBBWWWWAAAARRRRM were too old fashioned to really convey the up-to-the-minuteness of a movie based on a 1917 novel set in the 19th C.  BWAAAAAAAAANG is bleeding edge trailer sound design, and would have guaranteed an extra $200M domestic.

Quote from: JamesC on 03 April, 2012, 12:46:08 PM
The Iron Man trailer had ACDC and that did alright.

And don't forget that the first Iron Man used Black Sabbath's song Iron Man in its trailer-a great bit of movie/music symbiosis that!

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 03 April, 2012, 09:12:01 AM
Interesting article on John Carter in the NY TIMES:
If Disney gave Mr. Stanton rope, he certainly ran with it. Accustomed to reworking scenes over and over at Pixar, he did not take well to the usual constraints of live-action — nailing it the first time — and went back for at least two lengthy reshoots. "The thing I had to explain to Disney was, 'You're asking a guy who's only known how to do it this way to suddenly do it with one reshoot,' " he told The Los Angeles Times. "I said, 'I'm not gonna get it right the first time. I'll tell you that right now.' "
Mr. Stanton leaned heavily on his colleagues at Disney-owned Pixar for guidance, paying less attention to input from people with experience in live-action filmmaking, according to people who worked on the movie.
Regardless, when push came to shove on "John Carter," Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film.
He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current. Mr. Stanton also was behind the selection of billboard imagery that fell flat, and he controlled an important presentation of footage at a Disney fan convention that got a chilly reception.
Truth or blame?

If this is true, it sounds like what happened on the ill-judged The Matrix sequel project, Warners basically gave the Wachowskis a blank cheque and unlimited creative control to do whatever they wanted however they wanted to, and look at how that turned out... although I haven't seen John Carter (of Mars) as yet, I've heard good things about it, so I'm not comparing that film to the Matrix sequels, don't get me wrong!

None of the Matrix sequels were flops though and each had their moments.

Quote from: JOE SOAP on 04 April, 2012, 02:07:08 AM
None of the Matrix sequels were flops though and each had their moments.

True, although ...Revolutions  made less at the box-office than the original movie (and over $300m less than it's predecessor), so that counts as a flop to me, and in regards to having moments, they certainly SHOULD have had their moments considering what the entire enterprise cost to make, and whilst the burly brawl and the freeway chase in ...Reloaded  and the sentinel attack against Zion in the aforementioned ...Revolutions   were undeniably visual and action tour-de-forces, The Matrix sequels were highly inferior to the still-awesome original and simply didn't add anything substantial or necessary to the overall mythology in the same way as, say, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi did to the Star Wars mythology...

Me, I've just seen John Carter for the second time and still liked it.   As before, I see the various criticisms, but they don't add up to a crummy film, just an enjoyable romp which is not perfect.   It's a shame it's a flop. 
  The Avatar style - newbie becomes instant master at local technology- bit was more noticeable - not only does JC learn how to fly the local flying machines despite coming from a time with no flying machines whatsover, he leaps into a big flight-thing and then uses the gun without looking for it.  What a stroke of luck.

Now I'm thinking of checking out the books - has anyone read them?

Quote from: judgefloyd on 04 April, 2012, 06:51:38 AM
Now I'm thinking of checking out the books - has anyone read them?

I'm a pretty big E.R. Burroughs fan and have read the first five "Barsoom" books. I highly recommend them - provided you don't expect to take them too seriously. They're very pulpy, filled with unlikely coincidences, and frequently over-the-top. Even I get a bit exasperated sometimes, usually when Carter starts to describe yet again how much he enjoys fighting off armies singled-handed. . .

If you don't mind some heavy doses of pulp daftness, there's a lot of fun to be had - crazy alien landscapes, weird beasties, fiendish villains, the works.

Quote

Just to highlight the point made about the use of the Led Zeppelin song "Kashmir" albeit in an orchestral form in the trailer. I don't personally think that I'd single this out as a factor to the films failure- after all David Fincher used a version of the same band's song "Immigrant Song" to his strikingly effective Girl With The Dragon Tattoo trailer.

Which also tanked.

Not that I put any credence in the "old music = shit box office" logic.