"John Carter" Talkback (Spoilers)

Discussion in 'The Entertainment Board' started by Spider-Man, Mar 9, 2012.

?

What did you think of "John Carter?"

  1. *****

    20.0%
  2. ****1/2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. ****

    10.0%
  4. ***1/2

    10.0%
  5. ***

    50.0%
  6. **1/2

    10.0%
  7. **

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  8. *1/2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  9. *

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  10. 1/2

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Spider-Man

    Spider-Man Wallcrawler

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2002
    Messages:
    17,534
    Location:
    Web-Slinging
    Lost in our world. Found in another.
    [​IMG]

    Release Date: March 9, 2012 (3D/2D theaters and IMAX 3D)
    Studio: Walt Disney Pictures
    Director: Andrew Stanton
    Screenwriter: Andrew Stanton, Mark Andrews, Michael Chabon
    Starring: Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins, Samantha Morton, Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Daryl Sabara, Polly Walker, Bryan Cranston, Thomas Hayden Church, Willem Dafoe

    Plot Summary:
    From Academy Award®–winning filmmaker Andrew Stanton comes "John Carter"—a sweeping action-adventure set on the mysterious and exotic planet of Barsoom (Mars). "John Carter" is based on a classic novel by Edgar Rice Burroughs, whose highly imaginative adventures served as inspiration for many filmmakers, both past and present. The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of Barsoom and its people rests in his hands.

    Comments?
     
  2. Astrolupine

    Astrolupine Man on the wing.

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    Messages:
    2,571
    Location:
    St. John's, NL
    Wow, no comments yet? That's disappointing, and the box-office thread doesn't give me much positivity either.

    I should note that this is actually the first film I've seen in IMAX (my city only just got it in October), so naturally the use of a bigger screen helped. But man, those IMAX 3D glasses are tight! Wearing them for near 2 1/2 hours wears you out. I'm not quite sure if the sound system was up to speed, or perhaps it was just the film, because when the actors were giving the names of settings and plot devices, they were said fast and garbled.

    You see, the plot is what I had trouble with. I could understand how Carter gets to Mars and the Tharks' (best characters) story, but the plots about the weaponry and whatever Mark Strong (wasted) was up to, we're not given time for those to sink in. I acknowledge that Burroughs' material was written over a century ago and remains inspirational, but it hasn't aged exactly well. Also, there's a revelation of Carter's backstory during a massacre (a good scene) that is meant to give reason to his angst, but given that there's no real buildup to it, his tragedy falls flat.

    I can't recall any examples of poor acting, but there's no standout acting either when most of the time characters are discussing thingamajigs. But on to the positives: Willem Dafoe works well as the Thark leader, the Tharks themselves and the other creatures are cool, Giacchino's score is well done, the action's great, so's the 3D and the ending has a good surprise to set up sequels.

    In short, it's not great or fresh, but it made me satisfied enough for paying the $17 and wish for a sequel. I think of it as the next 'Rocketeer': a failed attempt by Disney to launch a new sci-fi franchise, resulting in a rather flawed film, but entertaining enough to earn a sequel that'll never happen. Poor ol' Andrew Stanton, it's not his fault, but just bad timing (and marketing) altogether.

    Also, I really hope this thread doesn't die after all I've typed.
     
  3. Dusty

    Dusty Superman.

    Joined:
    Nov 15, 2003
    Messages:
    3,790
    Location:
    Metropolis, Earth,
    I absolutely loved this movie, and I suggest to anyone who has not gone and seen it... to go and see it, it was worth every penny, it's ironic how original this story is, yet it is 100 years old, (lol.) Anyways, I can't wait until this is released on Blu-ray, seriously this movie was awesome. 5 stars.



    D.
     
  4. Road to Gotham

    Road to Gotham Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2003
    Messages:
    1,986
    I thought at best this was an AVERAGE movie, 'C'.
    None of the actors really stand out.
    I though Taylor Kitsh was too much of a pretty boy to play John Carter.
    Plot was boring.
     
  5. Anyone00

    Anyone00 The Moltar-Snork

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Messages:
    11,628
    Location:
    Mississippi
    Fairly good; I could definitely tell it was from early 20th century pulp origin.

    The 'dog' was neat.
     
  6. the greenman

    the greenman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    10,831
    Location:
    the point of no return
    Not summer movie material at all. It's a little too meta. A good film that will probably be a hit on dvd.
     
  7. Shawn Hopkins

    Shawn Hopkins TZ Member of the Year 2013

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2002
    Messages:
    29,446
    Location:
    Winner's Circle
  8. Michael24

    Michael24 Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,777
    Location:
    California
    I enjoyed the movie. I was completely unfamiliar with the source material beyond on the name, but I really loved this fictional world. I thought Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins were great in their roles, and unlike some other recent sci-fi epics, the CGI was fantastic. I had someone tell me recently they didn't like the movie because they couldn't suspend their disbelief to see Mars as anything but the arid, desolate planet we know it to really be, but that's clearly just a severe lack of imagination on their part more than a problem with the film itself. I loved that they kept the early-20th century vision of Mars, as it added a level of romanticism to the film. I definitely came out of the theater hoping for a sequel, but it seems doomed to never happen. But this film was a lot of fun. Nothing pretentious and thankfully devoid of "dark and gritty." Just a colorful, playful old-fashioned pulp adventure that's a lot of fun.

    According to this article, the lackluster ad campaign was all thanks to director Andrew Stanton himself, who also sounds like quite an egotistical buffoon.
    http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
     
  9. Angilasman

    Angilasman New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2007
    Messages:
    1,682
    Location:
    Alabama
    (Some spoilers ahead)

    Really liked this movie. Liked the hero, loved the world and the various creatures. It's more my kind of movie then most blockbuster offerings. The only things I thought lacking were two subplots (more info on the villains and the ramifications of Dejah Thoris' invention). If this was to become a series no doubt those things would have become important in subsequent movies, but now that it's a flop and we'll get no resolution they stick out.

    :(
     
  10. Michael24

    Michael24 Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,777
    Location:
    California
    Actually, I've heard that Stanton's first cut was 170 minutes, so if there is a Director's Cut when it's released on DVD/Blu-Ray, it's possible those might be two elements expanded on in restored scenes.
     
  11. kid rabbit

    kid rabbit Active Member

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2007
    Messages:
    2,339
    Location:
    st,louis mo.
    this may sound like a hollywood exec
    but I think the movie could of done better if they called it john carter of mars
    or john carter and the princess of mars or something of mars
    you had to look really hard to know it's about a guy who goes to mars
     
  12. TheVileOne

    TheVileOne Peace Loving Shinobi

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2008
    Messages:
    14,633
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    It was kind of a boneheaded idea. All the evidence apparently was that people "think they hate sci-fi" and anything with Mars in the title is the kiss of death. But by changing it to JOHN CARTER (along with Stanton's stupid explanation of how he changes it at the end and *EARNS* the title) audiences were just confused. This is NOT Harry Potter and it not merely enough for Andrew Stanton to love these books as much as kids and younger people today love Harry Potter. The material definitely had potential but Stanton didn't make it accessible like say Avatar and Star Wars were accessible. Stanton also thought putting a lot of characters and ideas that didn't come to the forefront in later books (since apparently as I understand it Burroughs hadn't even really thought of them yet when he first wrote Princess of Mars blah blah blah) to try and make the plot bigger. Instead it only confused the audiences even more.

    This needed to be a much smaller and simpler story for about half the budget. It needed to slowly bring you into the world of John Carter and keep all the bigger ideas for later. It basically needed to be the first act of a larger story.

    Just take the prologue for example. Stanton probably knows all these characters and conflicts back to front, but a general audience or kid has never read this stuff and has no idea what is going on. Parents are probably scratching their heads at the start and have no idea what is going on. I had no idea what is going on. Dominic West's character sort of looked heroic and like the good guy at the start but apparently he's a bad guy. Then these weird immortal dudes that can control everything give him a weird thing I can't explain. It doesn't make any sense. And the Therns in the movie also make no sense. The Therns should've been completely cut from the entire film. Maybe they are way in the background or referenced or briefly seen at certain points but to make them such active parts of the plot literally killed a lot of the movie. No one understood the Therns, their powers, or the Ninth Ray nonsense. It was way too much to throw at people and expect them to understand.
     
  13. the greenman

    the greenman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    10,831
    Location:
    the point of no return

    Is this true. Do you have any more info references? I'd love to see them release more footage on DVD/BD, but doubt it. I think Disney did the same to Adamson on Prince Caspian which had more footage apparently.
     
  14. the greenman

    the greenman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    10,831
    Location:
    the point of no return
    Don't get too excited, but John Carter has made its budget back.

    http://www.comicbookmovie.com/fansites/GraphicCity/news/?a=57373

    This news with the additional support of the Japan B.O. and the dvd/blu-ray release, we should see hope of a sequel. The hope being because at least this film has had very good word of mouth and critical acclaim, unlike something like Green Lantern, Avatar: Last Airbender, or Prince of Persia. So let's keep up hope.
     
  15. the greenman

    the greenman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2006
    Messages:
    10,831
    Location:
    the point of no return
  16. Gold Guy

    Gold Guy This ain't Pokemon!

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2008
    Messages:
    17,423
    Location:
    New York City
    I though the film was only okay. The setting was nice to look at, I liked the flying ships, and (most) of the action scenes were well done.

    However...mostly, it was confusing. Maybe I was just tired, but I kept losing track of who was who, and I would mix up characters and groups. Carter was a jerk the whole time, and the princess annoyed me. Admittedly, I liked the ending. And that dog was awesome.
     
  17. VladDraculi

    VladDraculi New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2012
    Messages:
    606
    I thought the movie was down right dreadful and tied with Dark Shadows as the worst movies to come out in 2012.
     
  18. Tohya

    Tohya deficit omne quod nasciture

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,606
    Location:
    Northrend
    A Thousand Words, The Apparition, One for the Money, Devil Inside, I could go on and on. Heck I could list at least 30 more movies that were worse than John Carter in 2012.
     
  19. Spaceman

    Spaceman I Am Here

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2009
    Messages:
    1,724
    Location:
    Puerto Rico
    Um, nope.

    More like the most underrated film of 2012. It is far from perfect or as brilliant as Stanton's Pixar films, but it is a very well-crafted popcorn flick with a lot of heart.

    Quite frankly, I liked it more than most of the 2012 blockbusters (The Hunger Games, TDKR, Skyfall and especially The Hobbit).
     
  20. Hanshotfirst1138

    Hanshotfirst1138 Singing drunken lullabies

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2006
    Messages:
    15,089
    Location:
    Livonia, MI
    You're serious? I've read the book, and I still think the movie was borderline unintelligible. It has a terrific pedigree: Burroughs and Stanton all of the elements are in place for a rousing adventure, but the film is loud, joyous, and unbelievably dull, IMO. I like the cast, Kitsch is a great central hero, but the movie is gibberish, wall-to-wall loud action and mayhem interspersed with incomprehensible exposition. I really, really wanted to like it and hoped the critics were wrong, but they were sadly right. Maybe somewhere there's a director's cut that actually makes some blasted sense. Better than TDKR, Skyfall, The Hunger Games, and The Hobbit?! Brad Bird seemed to know his way around live action, Staton was hopelessly lost. District 9 cost an eighth of the budget and the CG was better integrated into the environment. Jackson came from no-budget independent films and seems to know his way around a huge budget and an epic-scale battle scene much better. The cast were great, some of the designs were interesting, but the movie should've been swashbuckling and light on its feet, not cumbersome and messy. It's been a century in the making, it's a shame it's turned out this way. I wanted to like it am much, especially after finishing the novel.
     

Share This Page