I can’t wait for the very first review that dismisses it as a rip-off of “Avatar.”
PAD
67 comments on “Disney begins principal photography on “John Carter of Mars””
Is it being done in 3D, cause I only want to see cool movies in 3D now.
I’m a little scared of what they will do with this. They’ve had Burroughs properties before, and I wasn’t greatly impressed. But yes, the first person who dares to talk about it being a rip-off of Avatar will get my hand lifting them by the thoat, and me doing my imitation of the Green Man of Marvel.
Um. It’s at 1 million dollars now? o.o
Holy turd. Wrong thread. š
. Filmiscuss Blowzhardz, Film Critic for the Tames: “It’s Dances with Wolves with Martians!”
“I canāt wait for the very first review that dismisses it as a rip-off of āAvatar.ā
Judging from your recent Sherlock Holmes and Avatar reviews…
If they took the upcoming film and called it Avatar 2, you’d complain it was hackneyed and cliche.
If they instead took the same film and called it “John Carter of Mars” you’ll review it as a “brilliant updating”.
And judging by your recent posting, you know nothing about my taste in films. Where to start with your mistaken assumptions?
.
1) I wouldn’t declare the upcoming film to be hackneyed, cliched, or anything because it’s upcoming. I don’t comment on the quality of films until I actually see them…unlike the “It’s gonna suuuck!” mentality that pervades many on-line commentators.
.
2) The difference between doing a film like “Avatar” and doing an adaptation of “John Carter of Mars” is that Cameron is purporting to make something original. And my second biggest complaint was that it wasn’t remotely original–that it was instead a retread of other properties. (My biggest complaint was that the concept was fatally flawed because the hero wasn’t in any actual physical jeopardy.) If Cameron were doing an adaptation of John Carter, on the other hand, then my attitude is simply, “Let’s see if he does a good job of adapting ERB.”
.
PAD
SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
For what it’s worth, I think Jake did take on physical/mental risk with his Avatar driving. The technicians did not dare hit the red button themselves early in the film, when Jake’s Avatar first got separated from Grace. The same Avatar technicians later freaked out when the Colonel hit the red button to force a mental break with the Avatars. For me, this implied that Jake could end up a vegetable if things went wrong.
.
Even if Jake was 100% safe from mental and physical harm, I’m not sure that’s a fatal flaw in the context of this story. If Jake’s Avatar body died at any point in the film, he could not accomplish his goals and the story would end with Jake agonizing over his loss.
.
As the story progresses, the loss of the Avatar body would have hurt Jake more and more. In the beginning, the loss of the Avatar body would have merely cost Jake new legs, a new job and the pleasure of eating fresh Pandoran fruit. Towards the end of the film, the loss of Jake’s Avatar body would have meant the end of his Na’Vi family and the Pandora he loved.
.
I do not think Jake could have stopped the RDA miners and mercenaries in time with his human body.
.
.
.
.
.
END SPOILERS
”
1) I wouldnāt declare the upcoming film to be hackneyed, cliched, or anything because itās upcoming. I donāt comment on the quality of films until I actually see themā¦unlike the āItās gonna suuuck!ā mentality that pervades many on-line commentators.”
I never meant to imply you did, I meant to imply that you apparently hold franchise movies to a lower standard than non franchise movies.
(I remember an old review from you of the deplorable Star Trek Nemesis that basically went : It had Riker and Wesley in it, 5 stars!!! I may be exaggerating…)
“The difference between doing a film like āAvatarā and doing an adaptation of āJohn Carter of Marsā is that Cameron is purporting to make something original. ”
So, basically, the mediocre franhise film garners a better review than the mediocre nonfranchise film?
So, clearly Scott is a big Avatar fan, with little knowledge of the films influences.
It’s nice to see that Disney has not abandoned its principles when it comes to photography.
.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“And that Gandalf character? SUCH a rip off of Obi-Wan Kenobi it isn’t even funny” ^_^
Years ago on SNL, back when Julia Louis-Dreyfuss was a cast member, she played a teenage movie reviewer on “Weekend Update.” And she did a review of a film she’d just seen for the first time on TV–“The Wizard Of Oz”–and trashed it as being an obvious “Star Wars” rip-off. Which was wonderfully hilarious when one considers the reviewers in 1977 who tried to dismiss “Star Wars” as being a “Wizard of Oz” rip-off, drawing tortured connections between 3PO and the Tin Man.
.
PAD
LOL!
Slaughterhouse 5 is such a rip off of Journey Man!
PAD’s point (and your posting now) rings so true.
Also kinda sad, really. Many people reviewing or blogging nowadays are sometimes either too young or too ignorant (or worse – choose to be ignorant) to realize or even except the long and rich history of science fiction, fantasy and adventure has always existed and almost certainly inspired many of today’s creators and creations.
It happens to us all. I remember watching Star Wars and bragging about it until my grandfather would say, “I had Flash Gordon.”
And when I saw Harold Lloyd silent movies festivals and going “That’s just like…” then realizing that Harold did it way BEFORE the comedian I was going to mention. Made me appreciate the man’s genius even more.
Me. I try to pass it along. Whenever possible I see a “padawan” and say, “You liked that TV show/movie? Then try this book/movie/TV show…”
Can’t remember where i saw it, but someone was talking about the “Greatest Films Ever” type lists, and said something like “…and if there are no films on your list made before 1960, I don’t even need to look at it.”
“I canāt wait for the very first review that dismisses it as a rip-off of ‘Avatar.'”
And, like good ol’ Charlie Brown, I will bang my head against the wall and yell, “Aaugh!”
That was Schroeder, not Charlie Brown.
Excuse me as I bang my head on the piano now.
Didn’t they do the same thing with The Incredibles and The Fantastic Four? š
indeed that happened
It’ll probably happen, PAD — unless, of course, Disney is unable to somehow work in the overriding Avatar message that America is basically evil. Still, even then the John Carter film may just be referred to as “Avatar Lite.”
I don’t think the message in Avatar was country specific. It was Earth that was evil.
Nah… Cameron’s feeble protestations aside, in the film it was clearly supposed to be an American corporation, and “former U.S. Marines” as mercenaries, who were evil. And who was the “Darth Vader” of the film? A former U.S. Marine colonel, of course.
Why do you think Cameron opened the movie abroad, and why do you think it is doing far better overseas than in the U.S.? To date, Avatar has made nearly 2 1/2 times overseas what it has in the United States. Compare that to, say, Iron Man, whose overseas box office was only about 2/3 that of the U.S. box office.
There’s no evidence I saw from the film that it was a multinational corporation and a military force made up of United Nations mercenaries.
Behind all of the beautiful special effects and gorgeous otherworldly settings, it’s basically and anti-American propaganda film. It feeds the overseas stereotype of America as imperialistic, militaristic, genocidal bullies.
So, while some of the film’s U.S. supporters may be into self-flagellation (either unwittingly or otherwise), I’m not.
Perhaps, with mercenaries involved, Avatar was talking about Haliburton.
.
Btw, this is the first I had heard of “Cameronās feeble protestations”. Not saying he didn’t say it, just that I hadn’t heard it. I feel it is more that, whenever possible, it’s always about “the ‘liberal’ writer/director/celebrity/politician/etc. is attacking America/American Family Values/the christian religion. The right is so paranoid that anything said by a ‘liberal’ translates into “We want to destroy America.”
Why do you think Cameron opened the movie abroad, and why do you think it is doing far better overseas than in the U.S.? To date, Avatar has made nearly 2 1/2 times overseas what it has in the United States. Compare that to, say, Iron Man, whose overseas box office was only about 2/3 that of the U.S. box office.
.
Right now Avatar is actually at 2.26 to 1 for overseas versus domestic. I just did the math for Tatanic and the results were… 2.24 to 1.
.
The appeal of the director, the actors, or the subject are the main factors. Iron-Man isn’t a great comparison because superheroes are largely an America phenomenon and generally don’t have as much overseas appeal as other blockbusters. Heck, Constantine made twice as much overseas as it did in the US.
Nahā¦ Cameronās feeble protestations aside, in the film it was clearly supposed to be an American corporation, and āformer U.S. Marinesā as mercenaries, who were evil. And who was the āDarth Vaderā of the film? A former U.S. Marine colonel, of course.
.
Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?
.
Does corporate ruthlessness play a major factor in the film? Yeah. Just as it does in “Aliens.” Is technology portrayed as being something ruthless and destructive? Yeah. Just as it does in “Terminator.” I don’t see people whining about either of those being un-American. Not only that, but in both cases, soldiers are presented as the heroes of the piece. So that means…what? That Cameron was a patriot for those films, but this time out, he’s trashing America?
.
With that kind of thinking, “Return of the Jedi,” to which the climax of “Avatar” obviously owes more than a serious nod, is also un-American.
.
PAD
. “Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?”
.
Actually, Cameron was on XM’s Cinamagic channel not long ago talking about the film and said that as he was doing final rewrites he did in fact let a few world event make their way into the film in a more noticeable way and they did quickly ref Iraq while talking about that subject.
Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?
.
Because people generally start out with an opinion, then go looking for examples of things that justify that opinion. Sometimes we go too far and make very weak connections. We all do it, I’ve seen you do it PAD and I’ve done it too, but some do it more than others.
That part I wrote about “Iāve seen you do it PAD” came off kinda accusatory. Sorry about that.
I’ve been a creator for more than 40 years; I’ve worked with hundreds — maybe even thousands — of professional media members since 1992; and my job for more than a decade has revolved around understanding branding, image, and “messages” in both the civilian and military sector. I’ve seen whole teams of people agonize for days — even weeks — over the usage of a single word in a release, ad campaign, report, etc.
Few things that have gone through the scrutiny of something like a screenplay for one of the most expensive films of all time — especially major plot elements — are not there on a whim. They survived because the creator wanted them to survive. And if the creator specifies the characteristics of certain plot elements (in the case of Avatar, the “former Marine” aspect of the plot), it’s done intentionally. Cameron could have left his ruthless army of mercenaries as just generic mercenaries, but he gave them an identity — former UNITED STATES Marines. The fact that it was a “rogue” Marine that was the hero is not a plus — it merely puts an exclamation point on the writer’s inference that the core organization was evil, and it took a maverick to make things right.
R. Maheras, that’s a huge leap. Yes, I’m sure Cameron put everything in the movie for a specific reason. But just because he put it in for a specific reason doesn’t mean he put it in for *that* specific reason. You’re projecting a lot onto that particular detail.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m guess I’m just paranoid, and it’s all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication — particularly in popular culture — don’t have any validity. I’m just some hapless mope who wouldn’t know an intentionally inserted message if it bit me in the behind. There. Feel more comfortable in your perceived worldview again?
Then, R. Maheras, would you care to explain why the Ice Age franchise has done soooo much better overseas than it has in the US? The first film did a respectable $176 million in the US and just under $207 million in foreign markets, with the US ultimately responsible for 46% of the film’s worldwide gross. The second film (The Meltdown), in comparison, took in over $195 million in the US and more than $460 million in foreign markets; the US take was responsible for less than 30% of the film’s worldwide gross. And the latest film (Dawn of the Dinosaurs) only took in a little more than 1 million in the US market, but has (to date) taken in just under $688 million in foreign markets, meaning the US market has been responsible for just over 22% of the film’s worldwide take.
.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. If you want to read in some sort of nefarious anti-Ameicanism, well, that’s all on you. As I saw it, the film showed that the military-industrial complex is just as nefarious as every other combination of military might and greed have developed throughout history (whether the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Spanish or the English). Incidentally, when you saw Alien, and then Aliens, how did you feel? Both films had a definite undercurrent that corporation employees are substantially less important than the corporate bottom line, and that the loss of a few lives is completely justifiable if enough money can be made.
Yeah, youāre right. Iām guess Iām just paranoid, and itās all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication ā particularly in popular culture ā donāt have any validity.
.
That’s just a long way of saying, “I don’t have any reason to believe what I believe, but there’s no way I can be wrong.” Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. I’ve “worked with creators” also. PAD *is* a creator of stories. We all have a basis of experience for our opinions and while I don’t think your is automatically invalid, I’m not going to just accept it when it doesn’t make sense because you believe you have good experience.
.
The problem is that you didn’t get from a to b. ‘a’ was your assertion that if something is in the movie, it isn’t by accident. Fair enough, that makes sense. ‘B’ was that Cameron is saying that the Marines are evil. Nope, sorry, there’s no cause with that effect. You didn’t do the work to connect those two things.
.
This isn’t the first time Cameron has had Marines in a movie. If he was out to send a message about them, then they wouldn’t have looked so good in Aliens. There are *lots* of possible explanations for why they were presented a certain way in this movie, but you’re only willing to accept one, despite facts to the contrary. You’re right, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but you’re the one seeing something that isn’t there.
Cameron could have left his ruthless army of mercenaries as just generic mercenaries, but he gave them an identity ā former UNITED STATES Marines.
.
All that shows to me is that if one is on the lookout for ways to take offense, then one will find them. I wasn’t, see, which is why that reference point went right past me. I was too busy feeling a slight sense of vertigo to catch that they were depicted as “U.S.” anything. But since you brought it up, then I would point out that they were specified as “former” US marines, we can infer (note correct usage of word) that they were discharged because they weren’t up to the standard of the corps.
.
PAD
Speaking of finding ways to take offense in a movie —
Besides the complaints about “Princess and the Frog” having an African American character not having a black man as her love interest, some Christian groups are also complaining about the movie, but for different reasons.
The presence of voodoo and other dark magic in the movie? That’s part of it.
But there’s at least one group complaining that African-Americans in the 1920s were very religious, and the movie doesn’t show them in church at any time.
African-Americans in the 1920s were also very excretory, and yet the movie didn’t once show them going to the bathroom!
It’s never a surprise when a movie does better worldwide than it does just in the US. The US has 5% of the world’s population.
I explained clearly why I think the evidence points to the fact that Cameron intentionally inserted the messages he did in āAvatar,ā and some of you disagree. Thatās fine. But it does not mean Iām wrong. Regarding the examples cited of overseas box office takes for U.S. films that are more than double the domestic take, they are really not the norm ā despite the fact that the U.S. only has only a small fraction of the worldās population. For example, after a quick glance through the top-400, all-time box office films list on Box Office Mojo, only 14 percent of those films doubled their U.S. box office take. So, clearly studio heads did not open āAvatarā abroad because they felt the typical film release odds were in their favor. Iāll wager they did so based on the belief that its anti-American tone would play better overseas ā giving the film a kick-start at the box office. Oh, yeahā¦ funny how the ācigar is just a cigarā defense always seems to pop up whenever people are defending something that parallels their beliefs/political stance.
I explained clearly why I think the evidence points to the fact that Cameron intentionally inserted the messages he did in āAvatar,ā
.
No you didn’t. Seriously, you didn’t. All you said was that there must be *some* reason for them being marines. That’s not enough to prove any particular reason.
. Regarding the examples cited of overseas box office takes for U.S. films that are more than double the domestic take, they are really not the norm
.
No, it isn’t the norm, but it does happen. More importantly, it did happen for the very last movie made by this director, so it isn’t out of the norm for him. Besides, you’re making the same mistake again. You’re pointing to something that happened and saying, “there’s only one possible explanation for that,” even though there are lots of possible explanations. Constantine made double overseas, did it paint American Marines as evil? The Lord of the Rings movies made double overseas, did they paint American Marines as evil? Clearly a movie can make double overseas without doing Marines even being in it, so it’s not at all obvious that that’s the cause. Maybe it just made double overseas because they did a better than average job of making and marketing a movie that appealed to people all over the world.
.
It’s not that we aren’t swayed by your evidence, it’s that you haven’t shown any. You’re confusing correlation with causation, showing connections that have no cause and effect relationship. It’s like you’re saying that the movie broke a billion dollars revenue because Sigourney Weaver has brown hair instead of blond. It might be true that her hair is brown, but you still have to do the work to link the two things.
.
If you don’t like the cigar analogy, how about this one. R. Maheras, you’re the guy looking at ink blots and yelling, “You’re sick! How *dare* you show me pornography!”
I did clearly explain my evidence. I pointed out that most communications are crafted with intentional messages ā including most popular culture. Anyone who believes that written or electronic communication just spontaneously forms itself with no planning, specifically inserted messages, or audience takeaways just doesnāt understand how the creative process really works. This is especially true in organizations where the stakes are highā¦ whether it involves a press release for a new product launch, a speech for some high-level dignitary, or a screenplay for a $350 million film. Thatās reality. So, with that in mind, to say that Cameron did not intentionally mean to cast aspersions on the Marines is absurd. And the argument that, āOh, well, it was just FORMER Marinesā depicted in the film so it wasnāt really a slam is nearly as absurd. There were hundreds, maybe thousands of these āformer Marinesā in a veritable army, and they all ā except two ā seemed to feel that genocide was an acceptable solution to clearing the land for mineral development. And the āDarth Vaderā of the film ā the most evil of the former Marines ā could not have been much more despicable a character. At a time when the U.S. military is in Haiti playing a major role in orchestrating the humanitarian relief for the starving masses there, Cameronās insensitivity towards his screenplay target is even more glaring.
Your ink blots accusation is just plain wrong. Itās not that Iām reading something into the screenplay that wasnāt there. Itās more of a case that I understand the intricacies and nuances of the communication process and you apparently donāt.
PAD sez: Years ago on SNL, back when Julia Louis-Dreyfuss was a cast member, she played a teenage movie reviewer on āWeekend Update.ā And she did a review of a film sheād just seen for the first time on TVāāThe Wizard Of Ozāāand trashed it as being an obvious āStar Warsā rip-off. Which was wonderfully hilarious when one considers the reviewers in 1977 who tried to dismiss āStar Warsā as being a āWizard of Ozā rip-off, drawing tortured connections between 3PO and the Tin Man
Whoa, I just got through reading that in “More Digressions”
Are you saying that PAD just ripped off HIMSELF?! o.O
Yeah, but James White did it first, in the “Sector General” novels (the standardized block of description of Sector General).
.
So really, when he’s ripping himself off, PAD’s just ripping off White…
.
š
I’m just thrilled to know that somebody is actually making a John Carter movie.
Are they basing this one on ‘Princess Of Mars’ with all the sequels to follow in order, or are they mashing pieces of all the books together, or worse, doing some original story that bears only minor resemblance to what Burroughs wrote?
I don’t suppose there’s any chance the Red Martians will be appropriately naked, is there?
Asylum released a mockbuster of Princess of Mars last December.
To the best of my knowledge, this movie is adapting A PRINCESS OF MARS. Whether it will be a reasonably faithful adaptation or more akin to SciFi’s (now Syfy’s) EARTHSEA adaptation, I cannot say. I’ve had similar reservations about the SOLOMON KANE move that has yet to debut in the U.S.
Starring Gambit and his love interest Silverfox from Wolverine: Origins. With featured appearances by Spider-man’s Green Goblin and Sandman as well Punisher: War Zone’s Jigsaw.
Looks like that Disney/marvel merger is already having an effect.
Oh and Lord Blackwood from Sherlock Holmes is in it too.
Just my two cents here:
a) The reason that Avatar made more money overseas than in the United States is due to the fact that there are more people outside the United States than inside. No need to attribute that success to hidden political messages. People here went to see it because of the cool special effects, that’s all.
b) As for being released elsewhere before the United States, I think that’s because other countries have different opening days for movies than the US has. Case in point: X-Men 2 was released in France two days before the United States. Why? Because in France, the opening day for new movies is wednesday. Just saying, that’s all.
The mercenaries were former soldeiers because in lazy storytelling there are a small number of “easy” villains to use. Military, Nazis and Corporations. If they are your villains then you do not need to spend any time establishing WHY they are bad. We just know it to be so.
Man, did YOU ever hit the nail on the head! The reality is, villains come from all backgrounds, cultures, races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, shoe sizes, et al. They may be pious or atheist, brilliant or stupid, liberal or conservative, rich or poor. You’d never know that based on today’s popular culture, however.
Villains are never just purely evil or greedy, either, at least in their own eyes. But explaining why Joe Villain believes that his Evil Villainy is actually serving the good of the universe takes precious screen time away from pretty landscapes, pretty girls, and blowing stuff up, so most screenwriters will go with the easy bad guys cited above.
If one is so inclined, one can even put a pro-military slant on the movie, saying that soldiers are quite capable of thinking for themselves and disobeying a direct order when it would be morally wrong to obey the order.
But I think there’s stronger cases to be made for the movie representing what happened to the First Nations people, many years before there even was an American (or Canadian or Mexican) military, and, more relevant to today’s world, the pro-environment message.
But I suspect that most people who’ve seen it, regardless of the country are going to focus on the visual effects when talking about it. I’m a Canadian who hates what Bush did overseas. But the reason I consider Avatar to be one of the best films of the 2000s (and note it as such on my blog) is because of the fully realized world.
My biggest gripe about the film? People in the future were acting like it was the year 1875 — when imperialism was the accepted norm around the world amongst the great powers. Cameron’s depiction was archaic and incongruous for a contemporary audience, and if, in his “Avatar” future Earth had, indeed, slipped back into imperialism as an acceptable way to do business, he certainly never explains why. But it sure was a purty film, wadn’t it?
Just for the record, remember that you’re posting on the blog of a guy who didn’t let the “purtyness” stop him from noticing the huge deficiencies/cliches/shortcuts in the storytelling.
.
PAD
How do you figure? Did former Chinese Marines fly in and try to carpet-bomb the local inhabitants to extinction?
If you try…. you might be able to think even more simplistically about stuff. If you try real hard.
This movie is looking more and more like an ink blot test for paranoid people.
Paranoid? Is that what they’re saying about me?
.
.
(Come on, you knew somebody was going to say it!)
No, no, Jonathan T.O.O., you’re not para-
.
LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!
My enemies told you to say that, didn’t they.
.
PAD
Avatar was less about “America is evil” and more about “capitalism and imperialism are evil.”
You know what I hated the most about the movie? I’m sick and tired of stories of clash of cultures where one culture is 100% evil and the other one is 100% good.
I’m less interested about whether America is represented by the good or the evil side in stories. What bothers me is the black and white morality in stories that have the potential to be so rich and dramatic if only they had introduced a few grey areas.
Why not make a movie where the “noble savages” have a few unsavory customs to counterbalance the ruthlessness of the “greedy civilized” side?
“Yeah, youāre right. Iām guess Iām just paranoid, and itās all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication ā particularly in popular culture ā donāt have any validity.”
Uh…. isn’t that how you are treating all those who don’t share your view?
I mean, sorry to poke a hole in your persecution bubble and all….
For the most part, I don’t know any of your backgrounds. All I know is I shared MY background and, in a classic case of shooting the messenger, my “Avatar” observations were pretty much dismissed out of hand.
Dismissed by those who disagree. Just like you are doing every view that doesn’t fit yours.
Except, those on the other side have presented arguments more compelling than “what else could it mean?”
All Avatar BS aside I’m looking forward to it with, I hope, a possibility that the “Gentleman from Virginia” will be true to his pulp roots. I was introduced to him by my Uncle who let me borrow his collection of paperbacks when I was 8 years old, now at 44 I’m hoping I’m not deluding myself thinking we’ll see ERB’s John Carter… not (insert Director’s name here)’s John Carter brought to you by Walt Disney !
ā¢ 
Is it being done in 3D, cause I only want to see cool movies in 3D now.
I’m a little scared of what they will do with this. They’ve had Burroughs properties before, and I wasn’t greatly impressed. But yes, the first person who dares to talk about it being a rip-off of Avatar will get my hand lifting them by the thoat, and me doing my imitation of the Green Man of Marvel.
Um. It’s at 1 million dollars now? o.o
Holy turd. Wrong thread. š
.
Filmiscuss Blowzhardz, Film Critic for the Tames: “It’s Dances with Wolves with Martians!”
“I canāt wait for the very first review that dismisses it as a rip-off of āAvatar.ā
Judging from your recent Sherlock Holmes and Avatar reviews…
If they took the upcoming film and called it Avatar 2, you’d complain it was hackneyed and cliche.
If they instead took the same film and called it “John Carter of Mars” you’ll review it as a “brilliant updating”.
And judging by your recent posting, you know nothing about my taste in films. Where to start with your mistaken assumptions?
.
1) I wouldn’t declare the upcoming film to be hackneyed, cliched, or anything because it’s upcoming. I don’t comment on the quality of films until I actually see them…unlike the “It’s gonna suuuck!” mentality that pervades many on-line commentators.
.
2) The difference between doing a film like “Avatar” and doing an adaptation of “John Carter of Mars” is that Cameron is purporting to make something original. And my second biggest complaint was that it wasn’t remotely original–that it was instead a retread of other properties. (My biggest complaint was that the concept was fatally flawed because the hero wasn’t in any actual physical jeopardy.) If Cameron were doing an adaptation of John Carter, on the other hand, then my attitude is simply, “Let’s see if he does a good job of adapting ERB.”
.
PAD
SPOILER ALERT
.
.
.
.
.
For what it’s worth, I think Jake did take on physical/mental risk with his Avatar driving. The technicians did not dare hit the red button themselves early in the film, when Jake’s Avatar first got separated from Grace. The same Avatar technicians later freaked out when the Colonel hit the red button to force a mental break with the Avatars. For me, this implied that Jake could end up a vegetable if things went wrong.
.
Even if Jake was 100% safe from mental and physical harm, I’m not sure that’s a fatal flaw in the context of this story. If Jake’s Avatar body died at any point in the film, he could not accomplish his goals and the story would end with Jake agonizing over his loss.
.
As the story progresses, the loss of the Avatar body would have hurt Jake more and more. In the beginning, the loss of the Avatar body would have merely cost Jake new legs, a new job and the pleasure of eating fresh Pandoran fruit. Towards the end of the film, the loss of Jake’s Avatar body would have meant the end of his Na’Vi family and the Pandora he loved.
.
I do not think Jake could have stopped the RDA miners and mercenaries in time with his human body.
.
.
.
.
.
END SPOILERS
”
1) I wouldnāt declare the upcoming film to be hackneyed, cliched, or anything because itās upcoming. I donāt comment on the quality of films until I actually see themā¦unlike the āItās gonna suuuck!ā mentality that pervades many on-line commentators.”
I never meant to imply you did, I meant to imply that you apparently hold franchise movies to a lower standard than non franchise movies.
(I remember an old review from you of the deplorable Star Trek Nemesis that basically went : It had Riker and Wesley in it, 5 stars!!! I may be exaggerating…)
“The difference between doing a film like āAvatarā and doing an adaptation of āJohn Carter of Marsā is that Cameron is purporting to make something original. ”
So, basically, the mediocre franhise film garners a better review than the mediocre nonfranchise film?
So, clearly Scott is a big Avatar fan, with little knowledge of the films influences.
It’s nice to see that Disney has not abandoned its principles when it comes to photography.
.
Sorry, couldn’t resist.
“And that Gandalf character? SUCH a rip off of Obi-Wan Kenobi it isn’t even funny” ^_^
Years ago on SNL, back when Julia Louis-Dreyfuss was a cast member, she played a teenage movie reviewer on “Weekend Update.” And she did a review of a film she’d just seen for the first time on TV–“The Wizard Of Oz”–and trashed it as being an obvious “Star Wars” rip-off. Which was wonderfully hilarious when one considers the reviewers in 1977 who tried to dismiss “Star Wars” as being a “Wizard of Oz” rip-off, drawing tortured connections between 3PO and the Tin Man.
.
PAD
LOL!
Slaughterhouse 5 is such a rip off of Journey Man!
PAD’s point (and your posting now) rings so true.
Also kinda sad, really. Many people reviewing or blogging nowadays are sometimes either too young or too ignorant (or worse – choose to be ignorant) to realize or even except the long and rich history of science fiction, fantasy and adventure has always existed and almost certainly inspired many of today’s creators and creations.
It happens to us all. I remember watching Star Wars and bragging about it until my grandfather would say, “I had Flash Gordon.”
And when I saw Harold Lloyd silent movies festivals and going “That’s just like…” then realizing that Harold did it way BEFORE the comedian I was going to mention. Made me appreciate the man’s genius even more.
Me. I try to pass it along. Whenever possible I see a “padawan” and say, “You liked that TV show/movie? Then try this book/movie/TV show…”
Can’t remember where i saw it, but someone was talking about the “Greatest Films Ever” type lists, and said something like “…and if there are no films on your list made before 1960, I don’t even need to look at it.”
“I canāt wait for the very first review that dismisses it as a rip-off of ‘Avatar.'”
And, like good ol’ Charlie Brown, I will bang my head against the wall and yell, “Aaugh!”
That was Schroeder, not Charlie Brown.
Excuse me as I bang my head on the piano now.
Didn’t they do the same thing with The Incredibles and The Fantastic Four? š
indeed that happened
It’ll probably happen, PAD — unless, of course, Disney is unable to somehow work in the overriding Avatar message that America is basically evil. Still, even then the John Carter film may just be referred to as “Avatar Lite.”
I don’t think the message in Avatar was country specific. It was Earth that was evil.
Nah… Cameron’s feeble protestations aside, in the film it was clearly supposed to be an American corporation, and “former U.S. Marines” as mercenaries, who were evil. And who was the “Darth Vader” of the film? A former U.S. Marine colonel, of course.
Why do you think Cameron opened the movie abroad, and why do you think it is doing far better overseas than in the U.S.? To date, Avatar has made nearly 2 1/2 times overseas what it has in the United States. Compare that to, say, Iron Man, whose overseas box office was only about 2/3 that of the U.S. box office.
There’s no evidence I saw from the film that it was a multinational corporation and a military force made up of United Nations mercenaries.
Behind all of the beautiful special effects and gorgeous otherworldly settings, it’s basically and anti-American propaganda film. It feeds the overseas stereotype of America as imperialistic, militaristic, genocidal bullies.
So, while some of the film’s U.S. supporters may be into self-flagellation (either unwittingly or otherwise), I’m not.
Perhaps, with mercenaries involved, Avatar was talking about Haliburton.
.
Btw, this is the first I had heard of “Cameronās feeble protestations”. Not saying he didn’t say it, just that I hadn’t heard it. I feel it is more that, whenever possible, it’s always about “the ‘liberal’ writer/director/celebrity/politician/etc. is attacking America/American Family Values/the christian religion. The right is so paranoid that anything said by a ‘liberal’ translates into “We want to destroy America.”
Why do you think Cameron opened the movie abroad, and why do you think it is doing far better overseas than in the U.S.? To date, Avatar has made nearly 2 1/2 times overseas what it has in the United States. Compare that to, say, Iron Man, whose overseas box office was only about 2/3 that of the U.S. box office.
.
Right now Avatar is actually at 2.26 to 1 for overseas versus domestic. I just did the math for Tatanic and the results were… 2.24 to 1.
.
The appeal of the director, the actors, or the subject are the main factors. Iron-Man isn’t a great comparison because superheroes are largely an America phenomenon and generally don’t have as much overseas appeal as other blockbusters. Heck, Constantine made twice as much overseas as it did in the US.
Nahā¦ Cameronās feeble protestations aside, in the film it was clearly supposed to be an American corporation, and āformer U.S. Marinesā as mercenaries, who were evil. And who was the āDarth Vaderā of the film? A former U.S. Marine colonel, of course.
.
Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?
.
Does corporate ruthlessness play a major factor in the film? Yeah. Just as it does in “Aliens.” Is technology portrayed as being something ruthless and destructive? Yeah. Just as it does in “Terminator.” I don’t see people whining about either of those being un-American. Not only that, but in both cases, soldiers are presented as the heroes of the piece. So that means…what? That Cameron was a patriot for those films, but this time out, he’s trashing America?
.
With that kind of thinking, “Return of the Jedi,” to which the climax of “Avatar” obviously owes more than a serious nod, is also un-American.
.
PAD
.
“Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?”
.
Actually, Cameron was on XM’s Cinamagic channel not long ago talking about the film and said that as he was doing final rewrites he did in fact let a few world event make their way into the film in a more noticeable way and they did quickly ref Iraq while talking about that subject.
Why do people always have the need to ascribe additional meaning?
.
Because people generally start out with an opinion, then go looking for examples of things that justify that opinion. Sometimes we go too far and make very weak connections. We all do it, I’ve seen you do it PAD and I’ve done it too, but some do it more than others.
That part I wrote about “Iāve seen you do it PAD” came off kinda accusatory. Sorry about that.
I’ve been a creator for more than 40 years; I’ve worked with hundreds — maybe even thousands — of professional media members since 1992; and my job for more than a decade has revolved around understanding branding, image, and “messages” in both the civilian and military sector. I’ve seen whole teams of people agonize for days — even weeks — over the usage of a single word in a release, ad campaign, report, etc.
Few things that have gone through the scrutiny of something like a screenplay for one of the most expensive films of all time — especially major plot elements — are not there on a whim. They survived because the creator wanted them to survive. And if the creator specifies the characteristics of certain plot elements (in the case of Avatar, the “former Marine” aspect of the plot), it’s done intentionally. Cameron could have left his ruthless army of mercenaries as just generic mercenaries, but he gave them an identity — former UNITED STATES Marines. The fact that it was a “rogue” Marine that was the hero is not a plus — it merely puts an exclamation point on the writer’s inference that the core organization was evil, and it took a maverick to make things right.
R. Maheras, that’s a huge leap. Yes, I’m sure Cameron put everything in the movie for a specific reason. But just because he put it in for a specific reason doesn’t mean he put it in for *that* specific reason. You’re projecting a lot onto that particular detail.
Yeah, you’re right. I’m guess I’m just paranoid, and it’s all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication — particularly in popular culture — don’t have any validity. I’m just some hapless mope who wouldn’t know an intentionally inserted message if it bit me in the behind. There. Feel more comfortable in your perceived worldview again?
Then, R. Maheras, would you care to explain why the Ice Age franchise has done soooo much better overseas than it has in the US? The first film did a respectable $176 million in the US and just under $207 million in foreign markets, with the US ultimately responsible for 46% of the film’s worldwide gross. The second film (The Meltdown), in comparison, took in over $195 million in the US and more than $460 million in foreign markets; the US take was responsible for less than 30% of the film’s worldwide gross. And the latest film (Dawn of the Dinosaurs) only took in a little more than 1 million in the US market, but has (to date) taken in just under $688 million in foreign markets, meaning the US market has been responsible for just over 22% of the film’s worldwide take.
.
Sometimes, a cigar is just a cigar. If you want to read in some sort of nefarious anti-Ameicanism, well, that’s all on you. As I saw it, the film showed that the military-industrial complex is just as nefarious as every other combination of military might and greed have developed throughout history (whether the Phoenicians, the Romans, the Spanish or the English). Incidentally, when you saw Alien, and then Aliens, how did you feel? Both films had a definite undercurrent that corporation employees are substantially less important than the corporate bottom line, and that the loss of a few lives is completely justifiable if enough money can be made.
Yeah, youāre right. Iām guess Iām just paranoid, and itās all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication ā particularly in popular culture ā donāt have any validity.
.
That’s just a long way of saying, “I don’t have any reason to believe what I believe, but there’s no way I can be wrong.” Sorry, but that doesn’t fly. I’ve “worked with creators” also. PAD *is* a creator of stories. We all have a basis of experience for our opinions and while I don’t think your is automatically invalid, I’m not going to just accept it when it doesn’t make sense because you believe you have good experience.
.
The problem is that you didn’t get from a to b. ‘a’ was your assertion that if something is in the movie, it isn’t by accident. Fair enough, that makes sense. ‘B’ was that Cameron is saying that the Marines are evil. Nope, sorry, there’s no cause with that effect. You didn’t do the work to connect those two things.
.
This isn’t the first time Cameron has had Marines in a movie. If he was out to send a message about them, then they wouldn’t have looked so good in Aliens. There are *lots* of possible explanations for why they were presented a certain way in this movie, but you’re only willing to accept one, despite facts to the contrary. You’re right, sometimes a cigar is just a cigar, but you’re the one seeing something that isn’t there.
Cameron could have left his ruthless army of mercenaries as just generic mercenaries, but he gave them an identity ā former UNITED STATES Marines.
.
All that shows to me is that if one is on the lookout for ways to take offense, then one will find them. I wasn’t, see, which is why that reference point went right past me. I was too busy feeling a slight sense of vertigo to catch that they were depicted as “U.S.” anything. But since you brought it up, then I would point out that they were specified as “former” US marines, we can infer (note correct usage of word) that they were discharged because they weren’t up to the standard of the corps.
.
PAD
Speaking of finding ways to take offense in a movie —
Besides the complaints about “Princess and the Frog” having an African American character not having a black man as her love interest, some Christian groups are also complaining about the movie, but for different reasons.
The presence of voodoo and other dark magic in the movie? That’s part of it.
But there’s at least one group complaining that African-Americans in the 1920s were very religious, and the movie doesn’t show them in church at any time.
African-Americans in the 1920s were also very excretory, and yet the movie didn’t once show them going to the bathroom!
It’s never a surprise when a movie does better worldwide than it does just in the US. The US has 5% of the world’s population.
I explained clearly why I think the evidence points to the fact that Cameron intentionally inserted the messages he did in āAvatar,ā and some of you disagree. Thatās fine. But it does not mean Iām wrong. Regarding the examples cited of overseas box office takes for U.S. films that are more than double the domestic take, they are really not the norm ā despite the fact that the U.S. only has only a small fraction of the worldās population. For example, after a quick glance through the top-400, all-time box office films list on Box Office Mojo, only 14 percent of those films doubled their U.S. box office take. So, clearly studio heads did not open āAvatarā abroad because they felt the typical film release odds were in their favor. Iāll wager they did so based on the belief that its anti-American tone would play better overseas ā giving the film a kick-start at the box office. Oh, yeahā¦ funny how the ācigar is just a cigarā defense always seems to pop up whenever people are defending something that parallels their beliefs/political stance.
I explained clearly why I think the evidence points to the fact that Cameron intentionally inserted the messages he did in āAvatar,ā
.
No you didn’t. Seriously, you didn’t. All you said was that there must be *some* reason for them being marines. That’s not enough to prove any particular reason.
.
Regarding the examples cited of overseas box office takes for U.S. films that are more than double the domestic take, they are really not the norm
.
No, it isn’t the norm, but it does happen. More importantly, it did happen for the very last movie made by this director, so it isn’t out of the norm for him. Besides, you’re making the same mistake again. You’re pointing to something that happened and saying, “there’s only one possible explanation for that,” even though there are lots of possible explanations. Constantine made double overseas, did it paint American Marines as evil? The Lord of the Rings movies made double overseas, did they paint American Marines as evil? Clearly a movie can make double overseas without doing Marines even being in it, so it’s not at all obvious that that’s the cause. Maybe it just made double overseas because they did a better than average job of making and marketing a movie that appealed to people all over the world.
.
It’s not that we aren’t swayed by your evidence, it’s that you haven’t shown any. You’re confusing correlation with causation, showing connections that have no cause and effect relationship. It’s like you’re saying that the movie broke a billion dollars revenue because Sigourney Weaver has brown hair instead of blond. It might be true that her hair is brown, but you still have to do the work to link the two things.
.
If you don’t like the cigar analogy, how about this one. R. Maheras, you’re the guy looking at ink blots and yelling, “You’re sick! How *dare* you show me pornography!”
I did clearly explain my evidence. I pointed out that most communications are crafted with intentional messages ā including most popular culture. Anyone who believes that written or electronic communication just spontaneously forms itself with no planning, specifically inserted messages, or audience takeaways just doesnāt understand how the creative process really works. This is especially true in organizations where the stakes are highā¦ whether it involves a press release for a new product launch, a speech for some high-level dignitary, or a screenplay for a $350 million film. Thatās reality. So, with that in mind, to say that Cameron did not intentionally mean to cast aspersions on the Marines is absurd. And the argument that, āOh, well, it was just FORMER Marinesā depicted in the film so it wasnāt really a slam is nearly as absurd. There were hundreds, maybe thousands of these āformer Marinesā in a veritable army, and they all ā except two ā seemed to feel that genocide was an acceptable solution to clearing the land for mineral development. And the āDarth Vaderā of the film ā the most evil of the former Marines ā could not have been much more despicable a character. At a time when the U.S. military is in Haiti playing a major role in orchestrating the humanitarian relief for the starving masses there, Cameronās insensitivity towards his screenplay target is even more glaring.
Your ink blots accusation is just plain wrong. Itās not that Iām reading something into the screenplay that wasnāt there. Itās more of a case that I understand the intricacies and nuances of the communication process and you apparently donāt.
PAD sez: Years ago on SNL, back when Julia Louis-Dreyfuss was a cast member, she played a teenage movie reviewer on āWeekend Update.ā And she did a review of a film sheād just seen for the first time on TVāāThe Wizard Of Ozāāand trashed it as being an obvious āStar Warsā rip-off. Which was wonderfully hilarious when one considers the reviewers in 1977 who tried to dismiss āStar Warsā as being a āWizard of Ozā rip-off, drawing tortured connections between 3PO and the Tin Man
Whoa, I just got through reading that in “More Digressions”
Are you saying that PAD just ripped off HIMSELF?! o.O
Yeah, but James White did it first, in the “Sector General” novels (the standardized block of description of Sector General).
.
So really, when he’s ripping himself off, PAD’s just ripping off White…
.
š
I’m just thrilled to know that somebody is actually making a John Carter movie.
Are they basing this one on ‘Princess Of Mars’ with all the sequels to follow in order, or are they mashing pieces of all the books together, or worse, doing some original story that bears only minor resemblance to what Burroughs wrote?
I don’t suppose there’s any chance the Red Martians will be appropriately naked, is there?
Asylum released a mockbuster of Princess of Mars last December.
To the best of my knowledge, this movie is adapting A PRINCESS OF MARS. Whether it will be a reasonably faithful adaptation or more akin to SciFi’s (now Syfy’s) EARTHSEA adaptation, I cannot say. I’ve had similar reservations about the SOLOMON KANE move that has yet to debut in the U.S.
Starring Gambit and his love interest Silverfox from Wolverine: Origins. With featured appearances by Spider-man’s Green Goblin and Sandman as well Punisher: War Zone’s Jigsaw.
Looks like that Disney/marvel merger is already having an effect.
Oh and Lord Blackwood from Sherlock Holmes is in it too.
Just my two cents here:
a) The reason that Avatar made more money overseas than in the United States is due to the fact that there are more people outside the United States than inside. No need to attribute that success to hidden political messages. People here went to see it because of the cool special effects, that’s all.
b) As for being released elsewhere before the United States, I think that’s because other countries have different opening days for movies than the US has. Case in point: X-Men 2 was released in France two days before the United States. Why? Because in France, the opening day for new movies is wednesday. Just saying, that’s all.
The mercenaries were former soldeiers because in lazy storytelling there are a small number of “easy” villains to use. Military, Nazis and Corporations. If they are your villains then you do not need to spend any time establishing WHY they are bad. We just know it to be so.
Man, did YOU ever hit the nail on the head! The reality is, villains come from all backgrounds, cultures, races, creeds, genders, sexual orientations, shoe sizes, et al. They may be pious or atheist, brilliant or stupid, liberal or conservative, rich or poor. You’d never know that based on today’s popular culture, however.
Villains are never just purely evil or greedy, either, at least in their own eyes. But explaining why Joe Villain believes that his Evil Villainy is actually serving the good of the universe takes precious screen time away from pretty landscapes, pretty girls, and blowing stuff up, so most screenwriters will go with the easy bad guys cited above.
If one is so inclined, one can even put a pro-military slant on the movie, saying that soldiers are quite capable of thinking for themselves and disobeying a direct order when it would be morally wrong to obey the order.
But I think there’s stronger cases to be made for the movie representing what happened to the First Nations people, many years before there even was an American (or Canadian or Mexican) military, and, more relevant to today’s world, the pro-environment message.
But I suspect that most people who’ve seen it, regardless of the country are going to focus on the visual effects when talking about it. I’m a Canadian who hates what Bush did overseas. But the reason I consider Avatar to be one of the best films of the 2000s (and note it as such on my blog) is because of the fully realized world.
My biggest gripe about the film? People in the future were acting like it was the year 1875 — when imperialism was the accepted norm around the world amongst the great powers. Cameron’s depiction was archaic and incongruous for a contemporary audience, and if, in his “Avatar” future Earth had, indeed, slipped back into imperialism as an acceptable way to do business, he certainly never explains why. But it sure was a purty film, wadn’t it?
Just for the record, remember that you’re posting on the blog of a guy who didn’t let the “purtyness” stop him from noticing the huge deficiencies/cliches/shortcuts in the storytelling.
.
PAD
Very, very true.
“Apparently, Avatar’s treatment of the Na’vi too closely parallels displacement of Chinese by predatory property developers.”
.
http://www.deadline.com/hollywood/avatar-yanked-from-2d-theaters-january-23/
.
This just about completely undermines your argument, R. Maheras.
How do you figure? Did former Chinese Marines fly in and try to carpet-bomb the local inhabitants to extinction?
If you try…. you might be able to think even more simplistically about stuff. If you try real hard.
This movie is looking more and more like an ink blot test for paranoid people.
Paranoid? Is that what they’re saying about me?
.
.
(Come on, you knew somebody was going to say it!)
No, no, Jonathan T.O.O., you’re not para-
.
LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!
My enemies told you to say that, didn’t they.
.
PAD
Avatar was less about “America is evil” and more about “capitalism and imperialism are evil.”
You know what I hated the most about the movie? I’m sick and tired of stories of clash of cultures where one culture is 100% evil and the other one is 100% good.
I’m less interested about whether America is represented by the good or the evil side in stories. What bothers me is the black and white morality in stories that have the potential to be so rich and dramatic if only they had introduced a few grey areas.
Why not make a movie where the “noble savages” have a few unsavory customs to counterbalance the ruthlessness of the “greedy civilized” side?
“Yeah, youāre right. Iām guess Iām just paranoid, and itās all a coincidence. My observations, experience, training, and formal education over the years regarding human communication ā particularly in popular culture ā donāt have any validity.”
Uh…. isn’t that how you are treating all those who don’t share your view?
I mean, sorry to poke a hole in your persecution bubble and all….
For the most part, I don’t know any of your backgrounds. All I know is I shared MY background and, in a classic case of shooting the messenger, my “Avatar” observations were pretty much dismissed out of hand.
Dismissed by those who disagree. Just like you are doing every view that doesn’t fit yours.
Except, those on the other side have presented arguments more compelling than “what else could it mean?”
All Avatar BS aside I’m looking forward to it with, I hope, a possibility that the “Gentleman from Virginia” will be true to his pulp roots. I was introduced to him by my Uncle who let me borrow his collection of paperbacks when I was 8 years old, now at 44 I’m hoping I’m not deluding myself thinking we’ll see ERB’s John Carter… not (insert Director’s name here)’s John Carter brought to you by Walt Disney !
P.S. as a longtime fan of Triad Toys, check out their upcoming 1/6 Deja Thoris based on the books.
http://www.triadtoys.com/product_info.php?cPath=414&products_id=2166