To the Moon Over “John Carter”

129 comments on “To the Moon Over “John Carter””

1. ~8?)`

   Good to hear. I trust your taste in such films far more than several prominent critics out there. I can’t see it until Monday, but good to know going in that they didn’t blow it.

2. Yeah – odd to have a movie where *ADDING* clothes to the costume makes it less true to the source material.

3. I want my Dejah Thoris, dammit. Even if she IS wearing too many clothes.
    
   One of my coworkers saw your John Carter: The World of Mars #1 on my desk a few months ago and wanted to know what I thought.
    
   “It’s really good,” I said. “My only quibble is that Dejah Thoris is wearing way too much clothing. It’s like she’s gone and joined a nunnery or something.”
    
   I’ve since decided that The World of Mars and John Carter both take place during Mars’ winter months. It would be chillier, so robes and flowing dresses wouldn’t be out of place. 🙂

   1. Makes sense, but leave it to Disney to take such an obvious selling point and throw it out the window.

      1. Disney’s gonna make it as family-friendly as possible, Wolf. Remember “The Rocketeer”? Jenny, not Bettie? Actress, not model? Still, we at least got a shot of Jennifer Connelly’s bodacious cleavage in one shot, and Bill Fields being “Charmed. Doubly charmed…”

4. When the DVD comes out, I hope they put Bob Clampett’s test animation for his aborted animated version in a bonus feature.

5. Have to work tonight and tomorrow.
   Seeing it Sunday.
   Can’t…
   Wait!

6. Not sure why they didn’t go the obvious route for marketing with teasers that would have gone “Before there was STAR WARS, before there was AVATAR, there was …” or something to that effect.

   1. I can’t recall a single time off hand when Disney advertised a film by name-checking other films that weren’t made by Disney. Besides, some people might react to that by saying, “So it’s really, really old, is what you’re saying.” Others might say, “Yeah, but I already saw AVATAR and STAR WARS, so I don’t need to see this.”

      PAD

      1. Yeah, I thought of that ‘old’ thing, but as it is you’ve got people who can’t be bothered because they figure it’s a rip-off of the more recent stuff. At least it would set that straight.

      2. Even if they don’t want to name-check non-Disney films, how about the two massively successful and well-liked Disney films Stanton directed prior to this??

         So glad some marketing heads rolled over this. They couldn’t have botched it more had they tried.

      3. Reportedly Stanton himself nixed the idea of referencing his previous Pixar hits because he didn’t want audiences to think that “John Carter” was aimed at children.

         PAD

   2. Actually, I saw an ad that did exactly that, in those very words.

      1. Well, considering how the film was tracking–and perhaps their marketing research indicated that people were declaring it to be a rip-off of “Avatar” and “Star Wars”–they decided they had nothing to lose.

         PAD

      2. Saw the same ad.

         Since STAR WARS and AVATAR both have a Disney connection. It’s not that far from name-checking their own films.

      3. Worked for Gremlins.

7. Thank you for this review. I first encountered John Carter when I was 12: “Warlord of Mars”, with the Michael Whelan cover. I wasn’t sure what was going on (which happens when you start on the 3rd book of a series) but I was hooked. I quickly bought the earlier two books and then each of the others as they came out. I remember wanting desperately to go to Barsoom. I remember wanting to win my own Martian Princess. My first, primitive fan fiction was a pastiche of Burroughs’ books.

   When I heard Disney was doing this, I was worried. I pictured a “Disney princess” and a bland John Carter. I know there was no point trusting most professional movie reviewers since they were likely to compare it to “Avatar” unfavorably. I feel a bit better, now, about going to see this movie (which I will do next week). I’ve waited over thirty years for this.

   And I want a toy Woola, too. The lack of toys for this is annoying.

8. Saw it last night at a midnight 3D showing.
   I don’t know what film the Entertainment Weekly (Grade D) and Chicago Tribune (2.5 stars) saw, but it wasn’t the experience I had.

   It’s a movie I’ve been looking forward to for years, and I was not disappointed. A few liberties were taken, and the Therns are more than the pretend gods of the second book… but it’s a lot of fun. The Tharks worked great, Woola was a riot, and the fliers, while quite different from my childhood mental and comic book pix were gorgeous.

   And Deja’s outfits? Still darn sexy, even with it covering 10 times more flesh than Burroughs’ descriptions did.

   Good job, Andrew Stanton.

   1. I think in some cases, such as this one, some reviewers go in with their reviews already written in their heads. Just as some reporters have an angle on a news story and shape the narrative to match up with it.

      PAD

      1. Couldn’t the same be said for some of the wildly positive responses?

      2. Possible, but I don’t think so. I think people who go into a film who have a history with the character or property can be the hardest on it because it doesn’t measure up. I can’t count the number of reviews of various films that begin with, “I really wanted to like this, BUT…”

         The only advantage that the film will get from the hardcore is that they won’t be inclined to say, “Well, John Carter is just like ‘Avatar’ because they’ll have the brains to know that, no, ‘Avatar’ is just like John Carter.

         PAD

9. Not to harsh anyone’s vibes, but…

   What’s people’s opinion of Disney & ERB Inc. using trademarks to sidestep the fact that the first 5 Barsoom novels are in the public domain?

   1. Burroughs, a very smart man, trademarked Tarzan way back when. I’m not sure when John Carter was trademarked. But, that’s the way intellectual property law works in the US: copyright has a limited term, but trademarks are forever. PROVIDED that is, that you keep your trademark in use (if you don’t use it for, as I recall, seven years, it can lapse) and you defend it so that it doesn’t become a generic term. Aspirin is still a trademark of the Bayer company outside the U.S. (but in their case, they lost the U.S. trademark because of World War One and anti-German sentiment.) If “tarzan” had become a widely used synonym for any old jungle lord, ERB could lose the trademark.
      As it is, ANYBODY can re-publish the public domain Tarzan and John Carter novels…they just can’t put any of the trademarked words or phrases on the cover. Dynamite was careful not to use any of ERB, Inc.’s exact trademarks, but the claim in ERB’s lawsuit is that the Dynamite titles are close enough to the trademarks to be confusing to the readership. Will they be able to convince a judge? Dunno. Where’s Robert Ingersoll when you need him?

      1. If I were Nick Barucci at Dynamite Entertainment, I (or rather, my lawyers) would look closely at this Betty Boop case because it’s on point.

         The gist of the case is this. The early Betty Boop cartoons are in the public domain. Fleischer owns the trademark on Betty Boop. A.V.E.L.A. created Betty Boop merchandise utitlizing the public domain cartoons. Fleischer claimed this violated their trademark which they were licensing out to manufacturers.

         The 9th Circuit dismissed the case in favor of the defendant for several reasons. The important part for Dynamite is that the 9th Circuit pointed out that the use of trademark to prevent the exploitation of the public domain would effective prevent anything from ever entering the public domain.

10. If this film fails–and I’m hoping with all my might that it does not–I’m putting the blame squarely on Disney’s marketing. It’s been criminal, starting with the loss of “OF MARS” in the title (hey guys; MARS NEEDS MOMS did not fail because it had the word MARS in it. Maybe the word MOMS, because that’s not one that puts áššëš in seats…or just the fact that it was a pretty meh film overall.) I’ve seen fan made trailers that were many times better than the stuff they showed on the Superbowl. How does that happen?

    I so want it to succeed, not just for further adventures on Barsoom but also…PELLUCIDER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    1. Disney Studio’s marketing department has seemed hopeless for years. There have been several projects that under performed, or worse due to bad or even nonexistent marketing campaigns. I keep expecting to read of mass firings, but it never happens. Its a marvelous film and Chabon has started a script for a second film, so here’s hoping that it does well enough to go into production. As for the title, it may be marketed as “John Carter”, but the title card at the end of the film said “John Carter of Mars”.

       1. As I understand it, the reason for not adding “of Mars” was actually story driven. The director wanted the main character to start off as just plain ol’ John Carter and the point of the film was his evolution until he became “of Mars” at the end.

       2. Malcolm – That’s just the cover story. The yanked Mars from the title right after Mars Needs Moms tanked, and they did focus groups testing the title. Stanton talked about it in an interview just last week.

    2. Well, there was the 1970s film based on AT THE EARTH’S CORE…

       1. Yeah, it had Peter Cushing…and not much else going for it. I love practicle effects but some things cry out for good CGI or stop motion or anything batter than Man In Rubber Suit.

          JOHN CARTER isn’t really a bomb…except that it has to make something like 600 million dollars to break even. That would have been a hard hurdle even without the bad publicity and poor marketing.

       2. Liar!

          That dámņëd movie had Caroline Munro going for it as well and don’t you forget it!

       3. Bill – It pretty much is a bomb. Even if they had made it for 1/2rd of what they did – they’d still be insanely in the red.

11. Going to go see it in a few minutes.
    This is a movie I’ve been waiting 40 years for – next to a good Doc Savage movie, this has been a close, close second in films I’ve been yearning for. I’ve heard good things about it – and the bad things I’ve heard sound like pure grumpiness.
    The 11 year old who ran on the hillside in his backyard, waving a plastic sword and pretending his cocker spaniel was a calot and they were battling the great white apes of Barsoom – he’s awake and ready to go to the movies…

    1. And I loved it. A great big romantic ERB epic. Not perfect, but few movies are. The theater was not all that full for a Friday night opening. Ah well, if we only get one film, so be it. At least we have a good one to enjoy over the years.

12. I’m glad you enjoyed it, PAD. I know from personal experience what it can be like when a movie you’ve wanted to see happen since you were ten doesn’t exactly pan out the way you wanted. (Stupid Van Helsing).

    1. The one saving grace about “Van Helsing” was that it provided me fodder for an issue of “Spike Vs. Dracula.” I did a story set against the time that Angel and Co. were running Wolfram and Hart, and it turns out Dracula is one of their clients. He shows up and a smitten Harmony says, “I just wanted to tell you, I thought that movie ‘Van Helsing’ sucked.” And Dracula says formally, “I quite agree.” Which summoned up an image of Dracula sitting in a movie theater watching it going, “Yeah, this is two hours of my unlike I’m not getting back.”

       1. The other saving grace was that it gave Universal an excuse to release the “Universal Monsters Legacy Collections” DVDs. All the classics and the sequels on 2-discs per set.

          But anyway, the vampires overacted, the Wolf Man’s alter ego was a nonentity and the Frankenstein monster was a wuss. What kind of monster needs to be rescued two or three times? It would just have been nice to have a decent gothic monster movie that wasn’t slathered in gore. A losing battle in this day and age, I know.

13. Great review, PAD. I loved the film myself, even though I only read APOM in my late 20’s. Didn’t matter–it was a fantastic story, and you are right–even with the changes made, this film captured the heart and soul of APOM. And sure, Dejah Thoris had more clothes on in the film, but dámņ–Lÿņņ Collins was still incredibly gorgeous and really did the character justice. Screw the critics–this film needs to be seen, not ignored.

14. I want to see the movie. The thing holding me back is that it is only in 3D.

    I’m not a fan of paying extra money to see a movie that for me would work just fine in 2D.

    1. They have it in 2D you just got to find the theatre. Thankfully my movie theatre had it in 2D so I watched it that way.

    2. Perhaps it’s only in 3D in your area, but that would be odd. It’s in both 3- and 2D out here.

       PAD

       1. Yep, I looked around at the theaters in my general area before making my original post. It is only in 3D around here.

          Ticks me off because I was really looking forward to seeing the movie.

          I was a a football party for the Alabama national championship game and a commercial for the movie came on. Everyone in the room was “What’s this movie?” I immediately said, “John Carter of Mars”

          They had no idea what I was talking about but didn’t believe me anyway. So at the end when it finally showed and said the name of the movie “John Carter”, I looked at them and said, “Care to mess with my knowledge of sci-fi movies now?”

          Then went and had some more authentic Alabama ribs and sauce…

    3. I want to see the movie. The thing holding me back is that it is only in 3D.

       I’m not a fan of paying extra money to see a movie that for me would work just fine in 2D.

       In this case, the film should be seen in 2D and not 3D for aesthetics alone. It was not shot in 3D, and the “3D version” used a 2D-for-3D post-coversion process.

       I sought out the 2D version of John Carter in theaters yesterday specifically because I wanted to see it in its better format.

15. Loved it. Some people in the audience I was in clapped at the end!

16. Did they omit the “of Mars” from the title so as not to confuse the audience, given that the natives refer to the place as “Barsoom?”

    1. For Disney, “A Princess of Mars” was a problematic title, so they had to find something else.

       “Princess” has a specific connotation in the Disney world, though I think that Dejah Thoris would be an awesome addition to the Disney Princesses. She’s super smart (she invents the Ninth Ray) and she kicks ášš. What little girl wouldn’t want that for a role model? 🙂

       And “of Mars” was seriously problematic after the disaster that was Mars Needs Moms because Disney decided that MNM would put people off a Mars film, overlooking the fact that MNM sucked serious ášš. (If there’s a saving grace from the disaster of MNM, it’s that it killed Robert Zemekis’ mo-cap CGI remake of Yellow Submarine.)

       And John Carter of Mars doesn’t really work for the movie because it’s not really true of the story the film tells, not until the very end. There’s more psychological depth to Andrew Stanton’s John Carter than Edgar Rice Burroughs invests in him. Stanton’s Carter is a man lost, who doesn’t have a reason to live, who doesn’t have a place in the universe. His arc in the film has him finding his cause and his place, and he doesn’t fully embrace both until the end, at which point he could be said to be “John Carter of Mars.” Until then, he’s quite happy being “Captain John Carter of Virginia,” and he calls himself such as late as fifteen minutes from the end of the film.

       John Carter is what it had to be.

       1. The ‘of mars’ bit worked with the books for a century. Why does Disney think they know better?

       2. What I want to know is, how do they know it wasn’t the “Moms” in the title that turned kids off?

17. I’ve been a big fan of the Marvel comic books (the Claremont ones), and how can you possibly NOT love the books? It’s like Sandokan, they have everything you need to love them. Next week I am going to see the movie, and I agree with you on one thing: “Please be good, please be good”. Although I’m partially reassured seeing that you liked it. Thanks.

    1. I didn’t much like the books; read two or three and realised that they were not for me.

       It wasn’t the stories, as such – it was ERB’s style. (And me a Doc Smith fan, too…)

       OTOH, at the time – i was a bit older than PAD, fourteen or fifteen, i guess – i thought that they’d make great movies.

       SO i gotta see this.

18. Much like you Peter, I grew up with both John Carter and Tarzan. I loved them both.

    I find it, in equal parts, both amusing and troubling that the cries of lack-of-originality wail out so clearly over this film.

    I was talking to a friend of mine and he actually mentioned how the arena battle from ATTACK OF THE CLONES had been lifted straight from that film and into John Carter.

    Seriously? Do people just not read books anymore? I really think that this is part of the problem with such gaps in people’s sphere of general knowledge.

    I’ll be the first to admit that I was a late bloomer when it came to reading books. I only actually read my first book proper (a paperback) at about 12 years of age. It was Harry Harrison’s The Stainless Steel Rat…and I only got that because a few months before, the British weekly comic 2000A.D. had commissioned and published an adaptation in its pages and drawn by the mighty Carlos Esquerra.

    Upto that point books and I and not been close friends. That’s when I realised what an untapped world of adventure every page, every book was…and by then I was hooked.

    And that’s basically how I got into Edgar Rice Burroughs’ books, more-or-less because I’d seen TARZAN on the TV.

    Whilst I love the TARZAN character, he really has been worked to death over the decades and has earned himself a good rest. So it’s nice to see another ERB star come into the spotlight.

    As for trademarks and the like…would it be legal, whilst publicising this picture to thrown in phrases like

    [assumes his Movie-Trailer-Man voice]

    “Before AVATAR, before STAR WARS, 100 years ago there was a hero like no other. From the creator of TARZAN, Walt Disney is proud to present…Edgar Rice Burroughs’ JOHN CARTER Of MARS!!”

    [/assumes his Movie-Trailer-Man voice]

    Would people be allowed to do that without any kind of infringement? Surely, if the audience you are trying to convince are the SW and AVATAR doubters, then something like that could a way to do so?

    Or is that horrifically, overly simple?

    1. I always love to show Carpenter and O’Bannon’s “Dark Star” to people who’ve never seen it before and listen to them pointing out that it ripped off this or that from “Star Wars”. (Like the hyperdrive bit.)

       Then i point out that (A) It came out BEFORE SW, and (B) that, in fact, an important sequence in “Star Wars”* is, essentially lifted from “Dark Star”.
       ======================
       *R2D2’s search through the Death Star’s computer is identically designed, and ends with the same “blinking red icon representing the important data” shtick, as Talby’s search through the “Dark Star”‘s computer.

       (Of course, Dan O’Bannon did the animation for both, so…)

       1. Not to mention the whole scene with the balloon-like creature which later gave birth to Alien (with a bit of help from Giger and the late and lamented Moebius).

          You know, that discussion reminds me of a Dork Tower strip in which two kids were saying that Lord of the Rings (the movie) was a complete rip-off of other movies, like Willow and Star Wars. It’s too bad that adaptations of seminal works come way after the movies they have inspired, so as to appear as rip-offs to people who had never even heard of the originals (in this case, like most people in France, where the only Burroughs hero who is well-known is Tarzan, and then, only because of the movies).

19. I plan to go see “John Carter” for the simple reason that I loved reading Edgar Rice Burroughs “Barsoom” stories as a kid and the movie that kid has been longing for all these years is finally on-screen at the theaters! It’ll probably be a matinee show on a weekday with few folks to cut down on any distractions … I just want to enjoy the movie!

    1. Same here. I loved the ERB Mars books when I was a kid (as with the Tarzans), and I’m really hankering to see the movie ina couple of days. Actually, I’ve sort of been wondering why the film wasn’t titled “John Carter: Warlord of Mars” (yes I know that was the title of the third novel in the series) in order to make it more appealing as an action film to those not familiar with the original story; unless perhaps that’s being saved for a potential sequel.

       As an aside, I was somewhat surprised to learn that the character of Tars Tarkas, Carter’s chief ally among the Tharks, wans’t just voice-acted by Willem Dafoe, but Dafoe did in fact physically act the role through motion capture:

       http://screenrant.com/willem-dafoe-interview-john-carter-tars-tarkas-rothc-158382/

       1. Someone deserves an Oscar either in acting or effects for managing to ‘motion capture’ the second pair of arms. 😎

20. I’ve been waiting for this movie for a long time and I’m glad to hear that people are liking it. And I hope the movie will open the next generation of readers to these great Barsoom stories because it’s a crime that their are kids out there missing out. Hopefully John Carter will rock the box office so we can see more in the near future.

21. You know, long ago when I was watching ‘Cosmos’ on PBS, I remember Carl Sagan saying he did the same thing as you as a child (going in the backyard and trying to wish himself to mars).

    I wonder how many kids you have made put a towel over their shoulders and jump around trying to fly? ^_^

    1. I wanted to fly off to Neverland.

22. An alien on another world whose environment grants him super strength and the ability to leap over tall buildings in a single bound- I think John Carter’s influences may have begun long before STAR WARS.

    1. I’m pretty sure I read it explicitly stated somewhere that Superman was a deliberate homage to and reversal of John Carter, so yeah, pretty much. And let’s face it, the guy was created in 1917, predating even Buck Rogers by a decade. Pretty much EVERY space western was influenced by him in SOME fashion.

       1. Exactly. It’s too bad that most of the film’s harshest critics didn’t even bother go and do the research and look into the literary origins of the movie and the huge influence it’s had on modern SF and fantasy.

23. Oh, and loved the look of the film. It was nice to see a sci-fi world on the screen that was reminiscent of the likes of Frank Frazetta, Wally Wood and Boris Valejo.

24. Just came back from seeing John Carter and it was awesome. I really enjoyed. The actors were great, Lynn Collins was fantastic as Dejah Thoris. It mostly followed the first book, but it was fully in the spirit of the source material. And they ended the movie in a much more satisfying way than the book. Woola and Tars Tharka (all of the martians) were beautifully rendered. I hope it does well in the box office. It lived up to my expectations.

    1. I liked it too, Chris, and I also hope that it does well enough in the theaters. It’s ironic that the same thing that happened to DUNE back in 1984 seems to be playing out with JOHN CARTER.

       1. …except that “Dune” sucked dead thoat through a bendy straw.

       2. Hey now! I LOVE that movie! No, it’s not the book, but Herbert could be even more long-winded than Tolkien, so that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I thought Dune was great! I watched it over and over, even had the action figures when I was a kid, and I was FOUR at the time . . . precocious little tyke, no?

       3. I was more of a fan of SciFi’s mini-series than the aLynch movie. I sort of wished they would have continued with the other F. Herbert’s books.

25. Just saw it, screw the critics, this as the boys from South Park would say, “Kick Úš”!

    I read the books my Uncle had way back in the mid 70’s
    And seeing this on screen and comparing to my mind’s eye version from back then…… My hat is off to Andrew Stanton for keeping close to the source material and giving old time ERB fans the movie they’ve been waiting decades for.

26. Had a blast! Took my 25 yr old son, laughed and was thrilled in all the right places. So glad to see ERB finally get some recognition for creating something other than Tarzan. Anybody who really cut their teeth reading sci-fi knows the history and the contrbutions ERB brought to the genre. Lord knows writers have been inspired and ripping off from masters like ERB for years and making names for themselves (not that they didn’t deserve their fame). Point is:Had a great time!

    Woola stay! Virginiiiiaaa!

    1. “Anybody who really cut their teeth reading sci-fi knows the history and the contrbutions ERB brought to the genre.” Yep. Sadly, it seems that some critics of the film were rather ignorant of that fact, or threw the dreaded insult of “pulp nonsense” at Burroughs’ works.

27. While the early Mars and Tarzan books are public domain in the US, they aren’t in public domain in Europe. As Danton Burroughs (ERB’s grandson) once told me, someone could make a Tarzan film here, but they couldn’t release it in Europe or be sued by by ERB, Inc, and since they can’t release it in Europe they wouldn’t make any money. This is the mistake Dynamite made when they started selling their Tarzan and Barsoom comics in the UK, thereby opening the door to them being sued by ERB inc. Sadly Danton died in 2008 as he was really looking forward to this movie (which started preproduction 4 years ago).

    1. This is the mistake Dynamite made when they started selling their Tarzan and Barsoom comics in the UK, thereby opening the door to them being sued by ERB inc.

       I’ve read the complaint — it’s been posted on a number of websites — but the UK copyright infringement is the thing that puzzles me.

       Yes, Dynamite screwed up there. But is UK copyright infringement actionable in a New York courtroom? Wouldn’t ERB Inc. have to sue for damages on the copyright infringement in the UK?

28. Yeah, I was cruising Rotten Tomatoes, trying to get a read on why the movie only has a 50%, and it pretty much boiled down to three complaints:

    1) “The dialogue was generic, flat, and simplistic.” Well really, have you ever READ ERB stories? Or ANY pulp classics? Dialogue was there to get you from one action piece to the next, fairly utilitarian.
    2) “The characters were fairly bland and two-dimensional, without a lot of nuance or history or explanation.” No, really, have you idiots ever even TOUCHED an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel? It was all about the action, adventure and setting, wild fantasy; character development and dialogue were secondary, if that. And in that regard, the movie wholly EXCEEDED the novels.
    3) “The plot was derivative and overdone, we’ve seen this movie before.” I’m gonna reach through this monitor and strangle you people. Really? The “Seinfeld is Unfunny” argument? You’ll pay $2 billion for Avatar, but you’ll rip this to hëll? These movie critics need their journalism credentials revoked.

    I am wholeheartedly looking forward to seeing this movie, have been for six months or more. This, Avengers, and Batman, are my must-see flicks for the year (probably Spider-Man too, I guess). I can’t WAIT for payday!

    1. I’m starting to think a lot of critics are being negative because they want it to fail. Box Office Mojo reported that John Carter was the #1 movie in theaters for Friday. It even beat out The Lorax. The headline to report that it was the #1 movie in theaters Friday?

       “‘John Carter’ Lands with a Thud on Friday”

       1. There is a certain air of negativity around this film, at least as far as critics are concerned.

          It seems to be that it’s because they can’t exactly peg it.

          Here is a bit of the review from NYTimes:

          “The movie eagerly sells itself as semitrashy, almost-campy fun, but it is so lavish and fussy that you can’t help thinking that it wants to be taken seriously, and therefore you laugh at, rather than with, its mock sublimity.

          This may be a sign of the times, and a problem of scale. “John Carter” tries to evoke, to reanimate, a fondly recalled universe of B-movies, pulp novels and boys’ adventure magazines. But it pursues this modest goal according to blockbuster logic, which buries the easy, scrappy pleasures of the old stuff in expensive excess. A bad movie should not look this good.”

          It’s as if they are offended by the fact that this movie does not exactly fit any of the boxes the movie is supposed to fit.

       2. There is a certain air of negativity around this film, at least as far as critics are concerned.

          It’s more than that, Micha. The Hollywood press has been unabashedly rooting for John Carter to fail. I don’t know if it’s this movie in particular or if it’s a wider bias against Disney.

          Here’s a typical screed from >Nikki Finke:

          this flop is the result of a studio trying to indulge Pixar… Of an arrogant director who ignored everybody’s warnings that he was making a film too faithful to Edgar Rice Burroughs’s first novel in the Barsoom series “A Princess of Mars”… Of the failure of Ðìçk Cook, and Rich Ross, and Bob Iger to rein in Stanton’s excessive ego or pull the plug on the movie’s bloated budget … Of really rotten marketing that failed to explain the significant or scope of the film’s Civil War-to-Mars story and character arcs and instead made the 3D movie look way as generic as its eventual title… Disagree all you want, but Hollywood is telling me that competent marketing could have drawn in women with the love story, or attracted younger males who weren’t fanboys of the source material. Instead the campaign was as rigid and confusing as the movie itself, not to mention that ’Before Star Wars, Before Avatar‘ tag line should have come at the start and not at the finish. But even more I think John Carter is a product of mogul wuss-ism as much as it is misplaced talent worship.

          Is she wrong? Eh…

          Disney knew what they were getting. They knew how Stanton intended to approach the film. They wouldn’t have greenlighted it if they didn’t. It’s what they did with the film once it was done that’s positively criminal. The marketing failure amounts to self-inflicted industrial sabotage, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it were down to a turf fight between old-line Disney and the up-and-comers from Pixar.

       3. Considering it cost $250 million and only made $30, that’s pretty accurate. But keep in mind the critics had nothing to do with that headline. That’s just the guy at Box Office Mojo, whose job is just to track box office numbers.

       4. In point of fact, $30 mil is just US, Worldwide, in a single weekend, the movie is over $100m.

          I DOUBT it’s going to have a problem recouping its budget. International audiences (particularly Russia, oddly) seem to love it.

    2. Those are all valid criticisms, Jay. If the movie has flat dialogue and bland, two-dimensional characters, the fact that the books possess these same qualities does not excuse it. Slavish faithfulness to the source material is not an intrinsic virtue for a movie. The critics who made these complaints probably wouldn’t enjoy the books, either, any more than all those who bash the Twilight movies (which is most of them) would enjoy sitting down and reading one of those books.

       No, they probably haven’t read the books, but that doesn’t invalidate their opinions in any way. A movie stands on its own, and knowledge of the source material is not a prerequisite (unless it’s a parody, like the Brady Bunch movies, which pretty much required you to have seen every episode of the TV series).

       1. And I would hold the critical community no grudge, were they to apply such strict, aggressive, no-holds-barred perspectives to all movies they reviewed (and to those that do, I exempt you from my contempt).

          But the fact of the matter is, John Carter has been targeted by a brutal barrage of hypocrisy by the media at large, lobbing criticism after criticism about issues that could have been equally – if not even MORE applicably – leveled at this films’ predecessors/successors, most prominently Avatar and all SIX Star Wars films. Avatar currently holds an 83% rating. The scenario was ludicrous, the science was appalling, the characters were cookie-cutter, the plot was predictable, the character development was nonexistent . . . and they LOVED it. As is their prerogative. But to then spin around and smear the very inspiration of that work for the very same flaws reeks of ignorant sanctimony.

          In short, I don’t object to critics disliking the movie for its legitimate flaws. I object to them disliking the movie because they decided they would long before it was released, and then using those flaws to justify their dislike, after rating ignoring or outright praising those flaws in other works. Note: Revenge of the Sith has an 80%!

          Furthermore, what you call “slavish accuracy” could just as easily be defined as “artistic vision.” Replicating the dialog, generic characterization, and cheesiness of early 20th century pulp would, IMHO, be INTEGRAL to any adaptation of such a work. They’re not just creating a world here, they’re recalling a time from whence that world was first imagined, and I think that’s important.

          I’ll admit, it’s a hard thing to get right. Lucas and Spielberg tried it with the last Indy movie. The first three were created as an homage to the serials of the ’30s, films that were all about daring adventurers, mummies’ tombs, jungles and natives, grave robbers and (towards the end of the decade) Nazis. But by the ’40s and early ’50s, the public consciousness had moved away from Allan Quartermain, and was fast approaching Alan Shepard. It was the Atomic Age, and the Indy movies, being a series based on tributes to old serials, had to switch genres, to replicate not just the setting, but also the IDEAS of the Atomic Era. Less mystics and monsters, more Commies and aliens. And it worked . . . sorta. Fans in general didn’t get it, but critics largely seem to have seen where Spielberg and Lucas were going with the idea. They gave IJ:KCS a respectable 77%, again, despite its weak dialog and 2D characters. So again, if they can recognize the artistic virtues in that film IN SPITE OF its flaws . . . what makes John Carter so reviled?

          It’s sorta the same idea as making “The Artist” a black and white silent film. Now, I’m not going to say the two movies are REMOTELY on the same level, not even the same playing field, but the concept is the same. Not just telling a story set in a time period, but duplicating the STYLE of storytelling from that period. And much like idiots who left the theater in a huff saying, “where’s the color and sound?” these critics are lambasting the producers for trying to replicate not just a scenario, but a mentality that spawned it, a sensibility rooted in “one adventure to the next, talking is unimportant, we’re in this for a good romp” attitude that is a fundamental basis of pulp literature.

          That’s my take on the whole thing, anyway.

       2. Okay, first of all, you’re talking about critics in the aggregate like they’re a single entity with uniform opinions. This is why I kind of hate the TomatoMeter, because it inspires this kind of groupthink thinking. The TomatoMeter isn’t really all that valuable, because it doesn’t tell us WHY the critics like a movie or don’t like it. All it tells us is that 83% of them liked Avatar, and 49% of them liked John Carter. Well, so what? That doesn’t tell us why more of them liked the former than the latter. They could have seen something worthwhile in Avatar that made then appreciate it despite its flaws, something they didn’t see in JC (hah, I just got the significance of those initials). It doesn’t even tell us how many critics actually prefer Avatar to JC, or by what degree. I’m sure there are many critics who dislike both, and I’m sure there are some who like JC but not Avatar.

          It’s not hypocritical to like Avatar and dislike John Carter. I didn’t like Avatar, because it had the flaws you listed and nothing else for me to connect with; and yet I like the Star Wars movies (yes, all of them), which have many of the same flaws as Avatar, but which I can overlook in this case because I can connect with other elements of the films. This kind of “You liked ____ but you didn’t like _____ ?” incredulity has never made much sense to me. One’s opinions of Avatar and John Carter, or of any other two films, are two separate things.

          “In short, I don’t object to critics disliking the movie for its legitimate flaws. I object to them disliking the movie because they decided they would long before it was released, and then using those flaws to justify their dislike, after rating ignoring or outright praising those flaws in other works.”

          What are you basing this on? Show me a review that says, “I decided long ago to dislike this movie before I even saw it.”

          And anyway, why do you care so much about what the critics think of a movie you haven’t even seen?

          “Furthermore, what you call “slavish accuracy” could just as easily be defined as “artistic vision.” Replicating the dialog, generic characterization, and cheesiness of early 20th century pulp would, IMHO, be INTEGRAL to any adaptation of such a work. They’re not just creating a world here, they’re recalling a time from whence that world was first imagined, and I think that’s important.”

          It sounds like A.O. Scott of the NY Times got it, judging by the excerpt that Micha quoted above. But he also gave his reasons why it doesn’t work, that the movie is trying to have it both ways (i.e. be a campy homage, a la Flash Gordon, but also be a “serious” film, a la Avatar).

       3. “Okay, first of all, you’re talking about critics in the aggregate like they’re a single entity with uniform opinions. This is why I kind of hate the TomatoMeter, because it inspires this kind of groupthink thinking. The TomatoMeter isn’t really all that valuable, because it doesn’t tell us WHY the critics like a movie or don’t like it.”

          Only actually, it DOES tell us, because RT provides links to every one of the reviews it collates, and an intelligent person (such as myself) trying to formulate a rational argument based on actual data will go through and READ those linked negative reviews (which I did, roughly 30, not ALL granted, but a statistically relevant cross section) and recognize certain patterns of criticism, which will then be compared to the same reviewers’ positive reviews of other films with similar plots, styles, production qualities, and flaws (which I did, in the case of Avatar, admittedly not so much with Indy or SW3) to see if they maintained a professional objectivity, or whether they dismissed one film without even NOTING the other film’s flaws (which was often the case).

          I did lots of reading. Tedious, but I enjoy the art of debate, and prefer to do so from an actual researched perspective rather than making up my facts on the fly. Point being, I’m not looking at it from a “groupthink” perspective. I’m complaining about an actual, visible trend from NUMEROUS reviews that I actually read.

          And to be fair, you’re quite right, “They could have seen something worthwhile in Avatar that made then appreciate it despite its flaws, something they didn’t see in JC,” and I’d be at least understanding of that opinion (if not necessarily in agreement) because it was explained. However, while some critics do explain what really *caught* their attention in a positive review, or what was a clear *turn-off* in negative ones, the majority of critics post a generic rundown of talking points and make no effort to explain their reasoning. One reviewer based his negative SOLELY ON THE BUDGET, I kid you not (Peter Rainer), another spent a full paragraph belaboring the NAME CHANGE (Eric Snider), though that’s better than the reviewer who barely wrote a paragraph for the entire REVIEW, (Jason Di Rosso), and I lost track of the number of reviewers who, themselves apparently finding little merit to their distaste for the film, decided to criticize the ACTOR’S NAME . . . yeah, they really mocked the film because the actor’s name is Kitsch. (Philip French based most of his review on this, and amusingly got told in his comments, “If Taylor’s name makes him Kitschy, does that make you a cheese-eating surrender monkey?”) And I think that’s just lazy internet trolling BS that is – especially in recent years – FAR to prevalent in the critical community, let alone journalism at large, and I find it HIGHLY objectionable.

          “What are you basing this on? Show me a review that says, ‘I decided long ago to dislike this movie before I even saw it.'”

          I did read at least one article which opened with a paragraph stating (paraphrasing here, as I unfortunately can’t seem to track it down again) basically, “We should have known, from the drawn-out development cycle and studio and director and actor and producer and title changes that this movie would suck, and lo, it did!” Sorry I can’t find it again to provide the reviewer’s name, so it’s really an invalid debate point without direct citation I suppose. Still, as evidenced by the article PAD linked at the bottom of this here comments page (Mark Hughes, Forbes), I’m not the only one who’s noted that very trend of the “pre-written narrative” of John Carter being a flop, as he puts it.

          “And anyway, why do you care so much about what the critics think of a movie you haven’t even seen?”

          Hah! Sorry, you misunderstand me. I’m bashing critics and enjoying debate. (NOTE: I see this conversation as a friendly debate, not an angry disagreement, hope my “tone” didn’t come across as hostile towards you, as Monty Python would say, “I just came in here for a good argument!”) Defending John Carter is purely a happily convenient side-effect of that. Though I will admit a small personal stake in the matter, being a big fan of ERB’s works, and thus wanting the film to succeed and wanting awareness of the character to spread and for the franchise to be beloved (I think the way he’s been all but abandoned by the public consciousness to be downright CRIMINAL, and largely the fault of Hollywood and mass media pretty much ignoring his existence), but that’s really secondary to my abject distaste for what passes for critical review these days. No, I haven’t seen the movie, but I recognize when something’s being judged unfairly, and when it comes time for me to judge it, I will do so objectively from multiple angles, not simply “The script was weak, ergo it sucked,” or “the budget is too big,” or “it’s too long,” nor will I walk in with nostalgia-tinted goggles saying “it’s the best thing ever!” But I will pick out the precise details that made it good or bad in my eyes, examine them, and be able to clearly explain (should I ever be asked) both why I feel that way, and why my feelings may or may not be applicable to my audience.

          And that’s really the reason behind my whole investment in this discussion: I feel critics don’t DO that anymore. They USED to. Movie reviews used to say, “I didn’t like it, but the kids might, or families, or the 20-something set, go see it if you’re this, don’t see it if you’re that” they heaped praise and pointed out flaws, yes, but they also helped the movie find its target audience. Some still do (Roger Ebert is a dying breed). But most just state a flat opinion with no real analysis, slather it in clever one-liners and verbosity, and call it a day. And I think that’s a trend in punditry that we should really try to end.

          Sorry, I ramble.

       4. Well, yeah, you just described the current state of film criticism pretty accurately, which is why I tend to not read reviews. There are a lot of bad critics on RT, period, so their bad reviews of John Carter are nothing new. I’m not trying to defend critics, I just didn’t understand your reasoning.

          “I see this conversation as a friendly debate, not an angry disagreement, hope my “tone” didn’t come across as hostile towards you, as Monty Python would say, “I just came in here for a good argument!”

          Oh, no worries there. I don’t do angry disagreements.

    3. Spot-on. My guess is that some of the critics suffer from NIA/HUA syndrome, and thus look at anything that smells of “pulp” with as much disdain as one would give to a pile of dog droppings.

29. Went to see it yesterday. Right at the scene when Deja is first recued by Carter, the cinema roof fell down and huge quantities of water made people run (I said ‘is this the Titanic 4D?’) turns out the mother of all storms was happening outside, and the mall was not contructed to hold that kind of weather; so we were evacuated. Today I’m going for my second try. My wife was not very convinced and for the comments of other families in the room, she was not the only one. I don’t know why people can accept ” modern” people being alien-abducted, but if you show a 1800 guy being sent to Mars you lose part of the audience, right there.

30. I think a lot of people at Disney should lose their jobs for this one. As a lifelong Burroughs fan and a journalist who’s been covering genre films for more than 25 years, I can’t remember a marketing campaign that handled so badly at just about every stage. It started when the studio threw away any potential brand identification by changing the title from John Carter of Mars to the absolutely meaningless John Carter. That move alone demonstrates the fundamental cluelessness of Disney in terms of throwing away an entire century’s worth of cache in favor of what turned out to be a meaningless name. They then followed that up with a generic teaser poster that told you absolutely nothing. What should they have done? In my opinion, they should have gone with an iconic Frazetta-esque image, with a heroic John Carter defending a semi-naked Dejah Thoris, with a couple of Thanrks in the frame. That’s the image you want to tease movie-goers with.
    .
    I know a lot of previous posters have invoked Star Wars here, but in fact, that was actually the marketing model that Disney could have gone with. This film had a huge run-up because of all the post-production work that had to be done, which meant the studio had many months to build a massive marketing campaigh, just as Star Wars did. Instead they did virtually nothing. And a week before the film’s release, they finally use the ‘Before Star Wars…’ tag line? That should have been done a year ago. Just thinking about all of this makes me furious.

    1. I’m wondering if Disney itself wasn’t apathetic-to-downright-hostile to the movie’s success. Intra-studio politics? I dunno.

       Saw it last night and loved it, though. Hopefully it’ll do well enough internationally and on home video to get a sequel.

31. Just saw it. I’m not even a John Carter fan (in terms of ERB, I stick more to Tarzan and anything with dinosaurs in it). However, I thought it was a blast. Just big ol’ pulp fiction-y space opera fun.

    As for the marketing . . . I think Disney’s been losing it in that regard for a while. Or, at least, they make some really odd choices in that regard with not just this movie but a lot of the ones they’ve made lately.

32. Ten-year old Peter David’s reaction to John Carter is the same as six-year old me’s reaction to Captain America.

    Nice when movies can do that. 🙂

33. I saw it in a 3/4-full theater last night. I thought it did a great job adapting the 95-year old source material.

    The audience applauded at the end, so that’s a good sign. The guy sitting next to me loved it, and he didn’t even know it was based off of a series of books.

    If word-of-mouth doesn’t carry this film at the box office, it’s not the end. JOHN CARTER will have a second chance on home video, video-on-demand, and streaming video services.

34. I wasn’t going to see this before I read PAD’s review, but now I think I know what I’m going to do on my day off.

    I’m all for giving movies a chance. It sounds like the critics are doing to JC what they did to Green Lantern, which is bury a decent film under a ton of negative press (not saying GL was a solid hit, but it wasn’t the runaway train wreck they were making it out to be).

    Maybe there’ll be a groundswell of positive word-of-mouth that will raise the total box office. Hey, at least there’ll be a few extra bucks that wouldn’t have been there otherwise.

35. Saw it last night, had a great time. One of the things that impressed me about the movie was that probably 95% of scenes had some sort of computer generated effects in them, from hundreds of creatures to smaller effects, and they were all necessary and not just thrown on the screen to make it more science-fictiony. *cough* George take note *cough*

36. Saw it today (in 2D, thank you very much, local theatre chain!). Loved it, loved it, loved it! Great mix of humor and action, the CGI on the Tharks was wonderful and Mr. Kitsch was convincing as Capt. Carter. Dejah Thoris was properly smart, kick-ášš, and, as brought to life by Lynn Collins, appropriately (that is to say, VERY) sexy. Guess we fans have to start beating the drums for this movie to make up for the Disney publicity machine.

37. You know how I was just talking about how reporters have pre-written narratives, and “John Carter” is a victim of this? Here’s a commentator who agrees:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/markhughes/2012/03/11/john-carter-opens-with-100-million-worldwide/

    PAD

    1. Many fans were saying the same thing about TINTIN. Aint-it-cool had lots of comments about “Oh, no one knows TINTIN in North America, it’ll bomb for sure.” Well, it may not have been a record-setter here ($77M to date), but the overseas gross was almost four times this for a total $379M which isn’t exactly in the ‘it bombed’ territory. And that’s not including DVD sales.

38. Saw the film today myself and enjoyed it immensely. I’ve heard the opening weekend box-office for it is pretty low, at least in the US, while those movie-goers who HAVE seen it have rated it pretty high. I blame the trailers, personally; they were abysmally unimaginative and made the film look generic and uninspired, which it wasn’t at all. Hopefully word of mouth can bump it up some (hey, it’s happened before…)

    1. That’s the thing that kills me. The NYT wrote about how the film “fails to connect with the audience.” Not the audiences who have actually SEEN it. Them, it connects with just fine. Largely it seems to have failed to connect with the critics. Why? The pre-determined narrative that the film’s going to be terrible.

       PAD

       1. It connected with the audience at the screening I saw last night just fine. Heck, the part near the end, when he’s coming in from the balcony, you know the one if you’ve seen it? A girl sitting behind me said “Oh, no!”

39. I can see both sides here.
    .
    I am not one of those “proud to be ignorant” jerks. I know who John Carter is and what his stories are about. I know how seminal the stories are and how influential. I respect that.
    .
    On the other hand, I have never read a John Carter book (my kind of science fiction literature was more the post-Heinlein, post-Asimov kind). I have no instant emotional connection to any of it. Should I care for this movie more than I care for any other big, “epic”, special effects-heavy, action-heavy flick?
    .
    This is not the “Seinfeld Is Unfunny” argument, actually. Since critics are not bashing the John Carter books themselves, just the movie adaptation. Yes, I recognize there is some unfairness to it, since many other movies borrowed pretty heavily from Edgar Rice Burroughs. But that is not really relevant, since people should be allowed to ask what John Carter can offer them, that they haven’t already seen before, AS A MOVIE.
    .
    STAR WARS was the first science-fantasy blockbuster. AVATAR had revolutionary visual effects. GLADIATOR was the first sword-and-sandal movie made in ages. They all have a place in film history that make people overlook their lack of originality in other areas. So yeah, I can see how someone who is not automatically a fan of big, actiony, sci-fi epics can be put off by John Carter’s lack of originality. Remember JUDGE DREDD? Seminal comic book, but as movie, nothing special.

    1. I’m not sure there’s really anything original left under the sun.

       Also, am I the only one who was not impressed by Avatar in any way?

       1. If you mean there isn’t anything COMPLETELY original under the sun, possibly true. But there are always new ways to combine, re-analyze, change, re-interpret things. There are also many things that are not original, but are yet unknown to me, to you, to the general public.
          .
          As for AVATAR, I am afraid you are in the minority. I was throughly impressed with the visuals. I think the movie is in a completely different level, visually, from everything that was ever produced in cinema.
          .
          The story annoyed the hëll out of me, though.

40. “Should I care for this movie more than I care for any other big, “epic”, special effects-heavy, action-heavy flick?”

    “But that is not really relevant, since people should be allowed to ask what John Carter can offer them, that they haven’t already seen before, AS A MOVIE.”

    When people watch mysteries or thrillers or anything that is part of a genre, they accept that what they are watching is going to be “like” other movies they’ve seen. They don’t expect it to be “new” or “original” as much as “good.”

    I haven’t read the books and my familiarity with the sub-genre is pretty vague. I found the movie to be pretty good, quite enjoyable, engaging and well acted (in the parameters of the genre). But there are a few problems that maybe made it less good than it could have been, IMO.

    The funny thing about one problem in the movie is that it’s exactly the opposite of the problems plaguing many sci-fi, fantasy and comic movies today. In some senses it’s an advantage.

    Very often today, these kind of epic movies are so focused on the big battles, big special effects, big powers that they neglect the small but important stuff — characters, character interaction, story, presenting the world, little details that add flavor to the movie.

    This movie has all these things. Watching it, it’s clear that it’s the work of someone who cares. But I kind of got the impression that Stanton was much more enthusiastic about the characters and relationships and the world than he did about big battles and cool superpowers. As a result the action in the movie, especially toward the end in the 3rd act where you usually have big epic (often boring) battle, was kind of low-key (relatively speaking, and Carter’s superpowers played a more minor role than they usually do in superhero or epic movies.

    The 2nd problem was that it was a little bit like a superhero origin story. I would compare it to Batman Begins. A good, sensible, fun movie that introduces a hero, a world, an adventure, and does it all well. But Batman Begins was only good. Only afterwards you got to the Dark Knight where the world was already established, and where there was room for something extra. That extra thing is usually the part critics like, by the way. They don’t like origin stories.

    Beyond that, I think there was originality in it. It’s been a while since there was an epic fantasy like that — something that’s between Star Wars and Conan — so that was interesting on it’s own right. The Thraks were much more interesting than either the Navi or the Gungans. The war had a different set of circumstances than you usually see in epics, which I also found interesting. But when the movie ended, I felt the next movie will probably be more interesting.

    1. Micha –
       .
       Different folks, different strokes, right? I value originality quite a bit, and I’m not particularly a fan of the big action epic. I think many movie critics share my opinion on that. To them, a big action epic is bad until proven otherwise.
       .
       But I like what you said about the movie’s first “problem”. That is a plus to me. You said these kinds of movies often are focused on the big battles and special effects. Very well, I only see them if those special effects are particularly noteworthy, as is the case with AVATAR. Otherwise, why bother?
       .
       But if the movie is more about character interaction, then you made more interested in it than before.

41. I’ll be seeing JC today: I haven’t read the books, but based on the comments here (and from a friend) I’m curious to see it.

    And for a good look at the marketing fiasco that preceded the release, check out this article: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html?mid=rss

42. This “pre-determination” of the John Carter movie as a failure by movie critics is disturbing to say the least.

    From all reports, audiences that have actually seen the movie itself ended up enjoying it in spite of critical reviews to the contrary. What seems to be going on here appears to be a grand case of “laziness” on the part of many film reviewers for whom the movie simply held no interest to begin with. Admittedly, I’m guessing here … but, it looks as if they opted to resort to a sort of “Cliff Notes/Flash Cards” format full of contemporary science fiction film references to shortcut the thinking process. A little research would have revealed the history of the John Carter stories which have served to be a rich source of material for numerous science-fiction stories since which have become ingrained in the public perception. They didn’t bother. As a result, reviews are out that deem the movie not worthy of their time and attention.

    The really sad part of all this is that the larger audiences out there who are not familiar with John Carter are going to miss out on a great movie because they relied on the equivalent of a “30-second sound-bite” review that did not make them want to take a chance and be entertained.

    Me? I plan to see it due to a life-long interest in John Carter and the Barsoom stories of Edgar Rice Burroughs. That and I also plan to pick up a copy when it comes out on dvd to enjoy at home!

43. I’m still at a complete loss as to why media outlets, and even the film’s OWN MARKETING TEAM keep insisting the movie is a flop and a financial disaster, when it has already recouped almost HALF ITS PRODUCTION BUDGET IN A SINGLE WEEKEND. Yeah, US gross was only $30m. And international gross was MORE THAN DOUBLE THAT.

    Seriously, when did we start ONLY counting the US? Last I checked, the highest grossing film in history, and the first to surpass $2bil (points of INCESSANT bragging on the part of the movie’s fans), had achieved a grand total of 2.75 billion worldwide. The $2bil? That came from INTERNATIONAL sales. The US? We’re the .75 at the end. You know, the fraction after the dot, that’s overshadowed by the awesomeness that is Two Billion Dollars. That’s right kiddies, the highest grossing film EVER could have NEVER OPENED, not played one single show, not sold one single ticket in the US, and it STILL would have been the biggest money-maker to ever shake in Hollywood.

    The American consumer does NOT rule the market anymore. Didn’t these guys get the memo?

    1. Maybe they just chose to ignore the memo…and yet they shouldn’t, for the reasons you gave.

44. People should stop blaming the critics. There were many movies that had horrible reviews, and were still box office success. Really, critics aren’t that powerful or relevant. If people really want to see a movie, no critic can stop them.
    .
    And how influential the source material has been over the years is immaterial to what this movie, right now, has to offer. Remember, it’s not the books that are being judged here, but a movie adaptation.
    .
    I think no one is to blame, really. It’s just unlucky that some franchises are not known enough by the general public to be considered cultural icons, but have been influential enough so that what was new and awesome about them has long been co-opted by other franchises.
    .
    It’s the worst of both worlds. The contempt of over-familiarity, but without the warmth of nostalgia.
    .
    The way I see it, the only ways the movie could be redeemed would be to make it very original and deviant of the original novels OR to make it so awesome that what seems derivative would shine like a better version than the immitators. But if the movie is just “good”, then I’m sorry to say, I don’t quite see the point of it, except to people who are already fans and have an attachment to the material.

    1. You put into words everything I was thinking, but better than I could have said it.

       I’m actually kind of amazed this movie was made, and that Disney has put so much stock into it as a potential franchise. I mean, it’s based on a century-old sci-fi book that most people have never heard of. So, you’re right, it has limited nostalgia value, and no novelty value. You’d think they’d be better off just creating a whole new sci-fi story for the modern era.

45. I don’t care what critics have said. I *really* hate the choices that the trailer-makers made.

    I *loved* this movie. It’s the movie I’ve been waiting for since I was 15. I want sequels. At least two more – by the same team as made this one.

46. I was first introduced to ERB’s works through Tarzan. And it was a backup Mars story in one of DC’s Tarzan books that introduced me to John Carter.

    I was 13-14 when I read the Mars series. After that I devoured whatever else ERB had written.

    I have been looking forward to this movie since I heard it was in production. And I wasn’t disappointed at all. It had everything I wanted. Great battles, beautiful women, and a hero to look up to.

    My grandson is 8. He has become my movie buddy, and we try to make it to a movie at least twice a month. He wasn’t really excited about this one at first. He was looking forward to watching The Lorax, and was kind of dragging his feet at going to see John Carter.

    By the end of the movie he had changed his tune completely. He loved the movie as much as I did.

    What I wish they would do now is create an ERB cartoon block. Maybe an hour anthology show with a dedicated Tarzan cartoon, followed by John Carter, then rotate the third slot between Pellucidar, Venus, and Caspak.

47. One of the heads of the Gainax animation studio, the folks who did Neon Genesis Evangelion and FLCL, once said something to the effect that he was more interested in doing something good than something completely original. I think there’s something to that. While, of course, the two aren’t mutually exclusive (a statement I only include ‘cuz if I don’t, someone is almost guaranteed to say I’m saying they are), I’d much rather see something good than something new.

    1. Yes. But there is a difference between “not completely original” and “overdone to the point of breaking the cliche barrier and coming to the other side.”

48. Wait, are you telling me this movie is not an ER spin-off movie with Noah Wile’s character?! 🙂
    .
    I do not go to the movies anymore but I am buying the Bluray3D/Bluray/DVD/digital-copy combo pack the day it comes out.

49. Rene, you seem to have a lot of opinions regarding what went wrong with a movie that if I’m reading your comments correctly you still haven’t seen yet.

    Why? Stop speculating and arguing a side until you’ve seen the movie.

    As far as JOHN CARTER being too similar to previous films… well, on the surface maybe. The surface details are all anyone took from Burroughs. The core of Burroughs, his boundless imagination and appetite for romantic adventure has never been scratched by Lucas or Cameron or anyone else.

    JOHN CARTER is a great movie, and will be regarded as such in time. It’s characters are far richer than any we’ve seen in the STAR WARS movies or AVATAR.

    An interesting thing to note is that while most critics seem to hate JOHN CARTER, those that make their livings as writers and artists in science fiction, comics, etc. seem to universally love it. Peter love it obviously, but so do: Michael Moorcock, John Shirley, Howard Chaykin, Ed Brubaker, Gabriel Ba, Joe R. Lansdale, John Maddox Roberts, John Rogers, Gail Simone, Jess Nevins, Andy Diggle, Ron Marz, Jhonen Vasquez, Ivan Brandon, Damon Lindelof, Kurt Busiek, Chris Gore, Heidi MacDonald, and many more I’m sure. Those are just the reviews I was able to find.

50. For what it’s worth, my 23 year old son and I went and saw the movie Sunday afternoon. He wanted to go because he wanted to see “Tim Riggins” on the big screen (we are both big Friday Night Lights fans). I wanted to go because I loved reading the ERB books as a teenager. We both were very happy with the movie. it was great fun and we were glad we went to see it.

Comments are closed.