Serving up this steaming pile of
Celebrity Gossip
Gay Politics
Gay News
and Pointless Bitchery
Since 1995

Disney bracing itself for "John Carter" meltdown

$350 million movie could be biggest turkey in history.

by Anonymousreply 32801/19/2013

Could be?

by Anonymousreply 102/16/2012

It looks incredibly stupid and fun.

by Anonymousreply 202/16/2012

The trailer looks like shit.

by Anonymousreply 302/16/2012

No A-listers above the line.

Taylor Kitsch is gorgeous and a great actor but he is not the draw.

Huge movie to pull off without a real, live movie star.

And the premise is not an easy sell - it's sort of Avatary and Cowboy vs Aliensy

I am going because it looks great but based in the trailers, I have no fucking clue what it's about.

Who knows....Avatar was supposed to fail too.

by Anonymousreply 402/16/2012

If Taylor Kitsch was naked I'd go see it but I guess Disney doesn't go for such things.

by Anonymousreply 502/16/2012

I love Taylor Kitsch.

by Anonymousreply 602/16/2012

Has anyone else even heard of the source material?

by Anonymousreply 702/16/2012

He's showing a lot of flesh.

by Anonymousreply 802/16/2012

Never heard of it.

by Anonymousreply 902/16/2012

When I first saw a poster I thought it was part of the Terminator saga, but of course that hero is John Connor. Apparently it's some kind of comic book/graphic novel. The trailer looks like later Star Wars which is not a good thing.

by Anonymousreply 1002/16/2012

It's based on the John Carter of Mars series that was written by Edgar Rice Burroughs in 1912..every thing from Star Wars to Avatar has copied aspects of it.

by Anonymousreply 1102/16/2012

It looks so kitschy.

by Anonymousreply 1202/16/2012

Is it based on a comic book or tween fiction a la Twilight or Hunger Games? I've never heard of "John Carter." Maybe it's from a video game?

by Anonymousreply 1302/16/2012

R7, Edgar Rice Burroughs, the creator of Tarzan, wrote a series of John Carter books. I read them all ages ago, but now they're one big blur. However, I'll definitely see this when it's on blu-ray.

by Anonymousreply 1402/16/2012

[quote]He's showing a lot of flesh.

Yeah, sure he is.

by Anonymousreply 1502/16/2012

I thought it was a new take on the Pilgrims settling in the New World but realized that was John Carver.

by Anonymousreply 1602/16/2012

The title is what will kill it. Awful.

by Anonymousreply 1702/16/2012

The previews looked quite stupid to me. It would take great reviews or Taylor kitsch being naked all movie to get me buy a ticket.

by Anonymousreply 1802/16/2012

The title makes me think of Noah Wyle on ER.

by Anonymousreply 1902/16/2012

What would have been a better title?

"A Princess of Mars" would give a better idea of what to expect, but it does suck. "Jhn Carter of Mars" does too.

by Anonymousreply 2002/16/2012

[quote]The title is what will kill it. Awful.

True. It sounds like a biography of the former President from Plains, Georgia.

by Anonymousreply 2102/16/2012

I'm reminded of the Jake Gyllenhall movie. That was Disney as well.

by Anonymousreply 2202/16/2012

Not very long ago average people never used to care about first week box office. The internets changed all that. Now a movie has to be extraordinary because it is widely discussed months in advance. But there is no way in the world this film should cost as much as they say!

by Anonymousreply 2302/16/2012

If it were Lynda Carter on Mars, then I'd be there opening day.

by Anonymousreply 2402/16/2012

I read the Burroughs Mars series as a kid, I'm going to see this show. But the trailers look bad. And tho I love Taylor...he is a small screen guy, not a giant personality that could cope with this big screen show.

by Anonymousreply 2502/16/2012

[quote]Taylor Kitsch is gorgeous and a great actor but he is not the draw.

Great actor? Oh Brother.

by Anonymousreply 2602/16/2012

Disney last mammoth disaster was "Mars Needs Moms". You'd think they would have learned.

by Anonymousreply 2702/16/2012

'The title is what will kill it. Awful.' I agree!

If it doesn't do well it will be because of the title. Otherwise I think it will be a hit with the all important male audience of 13-30yrs as well as a worldwide audience.

by Anonymousreply 2802/16/2012

Yeah, what's with all this Mars shit Disney is churning out? Mars is so 1950s.

by Anonymousreply 2902/16/2012

It's govt propaganda: they are preparing us for the destruction of Earth and the visitation of aliens.

by Anonymousreply 3002/16/2012

The poster sucks.

by Anonymousreply 3102/16/2012

The fact that they're dumping it during the traditional post-Christmas, pre-Easter Season of Death is not a good sign.

by Anonymousreply 3202/16/2012

Yes, the poster is as bad as the title. The poster screams 1973.

by Anonymousreply 3302/16/2012

The problem is because it cost $350 million to make it has to make a global box office of $700 million and it has no hope of doing that.

by Anonymousreply 3402/16/2012

Of course you folks do realize it's directed by Andrew Stanton, who also did Finding Nemo & Wall-E, right?

He may not be Brad Bird, and the film/studio should get the Key Art Award for worst studio marketing, but I'd be surprised if Stanton turns in a creative fiasco.

by Anonymousreply 3502/16/2012

Would have been a big hit in 1979.

by Anonymousreply 3602/16/2012

Oh, well that changes everything, R35.

We never miss an Andrew Stanton movie.

by Anonymousreply 3702/16/2012

Looks entertaining. Like, it has fighting and blowing up stuff in it.

by Anonymousreply 3802/16/2012

I love Taylor Kitsch, he's known to love his gays. We will wait and see.

by Anonymousreply 3902/16/2012

Taylor WHO?

by Anonymousreply 4002/16/2012

Love Taylor.

Kinda sad he cut his hair, though.

by Anonymousreply 4102/16/2012

[quote]The problem is because it cost $350 million to make it has to make a global box office of $700 million

How in the fuck did Disney let the budget get that out of control? They should have known better.

by Anonymousreply 4202/16/2012

It looks like Conan in space.

by Anonymousreply 4302/16/2012

Taylor supports his gay fans, you need to go support the John Carter movie.

by Anonymousreply 4402/16/2012

R44, I am NOT . . . one of his FAAAAAANNNSS!!!!

by Anonymousreply 4502/16/2012

"How in the fuck did Disney let the budget get that out of control? They should have known better."

Perhaps because the director of "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E" was the one asking for more money.

Has he ever done a live-action feature?

by Anonymousreply 4602/16/2012

I just watched the trailer at r3. The music, adapted straight from Led Zep's Kashmir, was the only part I liked about it. The Martians look like JarJar Binks and it seems super derivative and heavy on cliches. Whose idea was this? Heads will roll, business as usual.

by Anonymousreply 4702/16/2012

poor stanton

by Anonymousreply 4802/16/2012

It's another borrowing for the masses using tried and true bullshit from Christian fantasy (not unlike the Matrix).

by Anonymousreply 4902/16/2012

R47?? Those martians are from a design taken from illustrations made for the book (and desctipions within the book), which was written LONG before any of the works from which you allege they're "derivative". Your ignorance is showing.

by Anonymousreply 5002/16/2012

Why would they take "of Mars" out of the title, and refrain from referencing it in the trailer? I would think the Martian aspect would only increase interest in an otherwise common-looking movie.

by Anonymousreply 5102/16/2012

Didn't Disney have a huge flop last year too...can't remember the film but it was extremely expensive and made about $43 million. What the fuck was it?

by Anonymousreply 5202/16/2012

Oh, I think maybe it was Mars Needs Moms.

by Anonymousreply 5302/16/2012

That trailer was shit.

by Anonymousreply 5402/16/2012

R51, they were afraid that girls wouldn't go see it.

by Anonymousreply 5502/16/2012

Filmmakers have been filching material from these books for years, as far back as George Lucas who tried to get the rights to film 'John Carter' and, when he couldn't, made 'Star Wars' instead.

There have been many other directors who came close to putting it on screen before now but the deals always fell apart.

I hope it's a success because I want to see the sequels get made. It could be an epic series (or, yes, an epic fail). I liked 'Wall-E' and 'Finding Nemo' and hope it does well for Stanton.

At the link, he's interviewed about the film by one of the scriptwriters of a previous failed attempt to film it (that version was going to be directed by Guillermo del Toro).

(No, I don't work for any entity involved with this film)

by Anonymousreply 5602/16/2012

How on Earth can a movie today cost $250 million dollars. Studios don't bankroll stuff that expensive. Must have had massive over-runs.

And as cute as Taylor is, he's not a household name. No one is going to turn out to see this. Except for maybe the 5 viewers of Friday Night Lights.

by Anonymousreply 5702/16/2012

[quote]I'm reminded of the Jake Gyllenhall movie. That was Disney as well.

They need to take Disney's name off of this. Just like no one wanted to see Disney's Prince of Persia, no one would want to see Disney's John Carter.

by Anonymousreply 5802/16/2012

$250 million of Disney's money is like spending $500 million for someone else: they're VERY tight with their budgets.

There must be a helluva lot onscreen for them to pony up those big bucks.

by Anonymousreply 5902/16/2012

The Keanu Reeves film, Ronin, cost a huge amount of money, over $200 million. It's from Universal, will it make it's money back?

by Anonymousreply 6002/17/2012

R60 at least Keanu had name recognition. Taylor Kitsch? Who?? Unless you watched FNL he's a no-name.

by Anonymousreply 6102/17/2012

I loved the Barsoom books. If I remember right, ERB described him as having close-cropped hair. Also, I believe Dejah Thoris should be naked...

by Anonymousreply 6202/17/2012

The title sounds incomplete. I keep expecting it to be: JOHN CARTER CASH.

by Anonymousreply 6302/17/2012

Just hearing the Martian princess/Vegas showgirl intone "It it YOU, John Carter?" turns it into a kitschfest, no pun intended.

by Anonymousreply 6402/17/2012

Taylor looks smokin hot in the new issue of Entertainment Weekly.

I'm so sorry to have to say, I think John Carter may be a bomb!

by Anonymousreply 6502/25/2012

Not surprised. The trailer indicates that all it is is sweaty half naked handsome dude no one ever heard of before, and a bunch of horrendously bad overdone CGI villain creatures. For two hours.

by Anonymousreply 6602/25/2012

The comments on OP's article are 10,000 times more fun than the actual article or movie. They go on a major bitchfest re downloading vs streaming vs attending a theater that would put DL to shame.

by Anonymousreply 6702/25/2012

The problem isn't that Taylor is unknown. The problem is that pretty as he is and despite his fine body, he just doesn't have the acting chops or the charisma to carry this off. Maybe he'll surprise me.

by Anonymousreply 6802/25/2012

I'm still going to go see it.

by Anonymousreply 6902/25/2012

If this movie isn't totally boring and generic from beginning to end then it really has suffered from one of the worst ad campaigns ever - I honestly can't imagine Andrew Stanton, given a reasonable production schedule and seemingly limitless budget, shitting out a film as uninteresting and unmemorable as every trailer and ad for this thing has been.

by Anonymousreply 7002/25/2012

I'll see it also, though maybe a home rental later. I reread the original Edgar Rice Burroughs novels a few years ago for a little time-travel trip through adolescent nostalgia. They really are little more than an endless string of action sequences.

There have been many attempts to take these books to the screen over the years, including an attempt by Bob Clampett to create a series of animated shorts. The video is of some of the test footage created for that.

by Anonymousreply 7102/25/2012

[quote]The Keanu Reeves film, Ronin, cost a huge amount of money, over $200 million. It's from Universal, will it make it's money back?

47 Ronin has a better chance than John Carter and not just because of Keanu's name recognition. Every JC commercial looks beyond silly. I hope for Kitch's sake that Battleship and that Oliver Stone movie aren't duds as well.

by Anonymousreply 7202/25/2012

Honestly, I really liked the first trailer when I saw it:

by Anonymousreply 7302/25/2012

It's crazy, but the title is really killing it. They should have kept the "of Mars." John Carter is such a plain nothing of a title.

by Anonymousreply 7402/25/2012

I have some more sad internet nerd complaints: Tagging a movie based on a completely batshit insane sci-fi premise with a generic, dull title that sounds like a sequel to Larry Crowne has to be one of the all-time great focus group fuckups. But honestly it sounds like there was more than a little Powerful Fanboy Madness involved in putting together a ridiculously expensive big-screen movie starring a character whose backstory has been cannibalized by a million more-famous properties over the years.

by Anonymousreply 7502/25/2012

R74 is correct.

Nobody knows who the fuck "John Carter" is. The books came out 95 years ago.

What value is there in his name as the title? It's not "Harry Potter" with recent string of record book sales.

They would have done better with the first book title: "A Princess of Mars" At the very least "John Carter of Mars". And the trailers just shows half-naked people running around and you have no idea why or where or when or "Why should I see this movie?"

A simple: "In the year xxxx, John Carter entered a strange cave and awoke... on Mars. Now he'll have to survive and find a way back." in the trailer would have helped.

It's an extremely entertaining and influential book in the history of Science Fiction.

Star Wars was full of unknowns, that's not a problem.

Is there any buzz about quality? If it's shit, there's no hope for it.

by Anonymousreply 7602/25/2012

They should have let Robert Rodriguez or the guy who did "Sky Captain" direct it.

by Anonymousreply 7702/25/2012

Creative accounting inflates film costs beyond what they really cost. Ask any Hollywood accountant. I doubt the thing cost anywhere near that amount.

by Anonymousreply 7802/25/2012

It's actually the opposite. Hollywood accounting downplays costs.

It would make no sense to inflate the cost of the film, thereby making it look like an even more giant money loser.

Already the director has had to make announcements that he didn't go over budget and everything is fine.

by Anonymousreply 7902/25/2012

What's Taylor's story?



by Anonymousreply 8002/25/2012

He was fired from the LOTR movies because he sucked so bad. Viggo got his part on short notice and they had to scrap a week's worth of filming.

by Anonymousreply 8102/25/2012

Who are you talking about R81? Taylor Kitsch was never going to be in LOTR. He would have been around 19 when filming began for that.

by Anonymousreply 8202/25/2012

I'll see this, just for Taylor. But I agree the title is too generic. I even saw a preview and had to google it to figure out what kind of movie it was. Keeping something about Mars in the title might have helped.

by Anonymousreply 8302/25/2012

The trailer looks like shit and I'm sure the film is a hot mess, the best Disney can hope for is a large fan girl turnout to see TK, most adults would pass on this film.

by Anonymousreply 8402/25/2012

R81, the actor who Viggo replaced as Aragorn was Stuart Townsend.

by Anonymousreply 8502/25/2012

This guy looks EXACTLY like Stewart Townsend then. I thought it was the same guy.

by Anonymousreply 8602/25/2012

Like I said, Mars Needs Moms collapsed at the boxoffice.

I guess they thought everyone would know who John Carter was.

by Anonymousreply 8702/25/2012

I only know one person who has expressed any desire to see the film, but he qualified it by saying, "But it's from Disney, so it'll probably suck."

by Anonymousreply 8802/25/2012

Disney needs to fire whoever made their stupid trailers and buy this one from the fanboys who made it.

It's infinitely better.

by Anonymousreply 8902/27/2012

[quote]But it's from Disney, so it'll probably suck

Actually it's directed by Andrew Stanton of Pixar who made Wall*E and Finding Nemo.

It "should" be good. Not that you'd know it from the marketing team.

by Anonymousreply 9002/27/2012

Watched the "fan boi" trailer. It is much better and makes it clear that they should have called the movie: JOHN CARTER OF EARTH.

That sets the fantasy, comic book tone and gives you a sense of what you'll see.

JOHN CARTER sounds like everything and nothing.

Good luck, Mickey!

by Anonymousreply 9102/27/2012

You don't piss off the nerd squad. They know how to use the internet and they badmouth the movie to no end that even the biggest media campaign fails.

The film itself doesn't look that bad compared to other mindless blockbuster entertainment, but having nerds hating the movie before it even opens is bad.

by Anonymousreply 9202/27/2012

Nerds don't hate the movie, they hate the TRAILER.

They WANT to like the movie.

by Anonymousreply 9302/27/2012

I can't wait for this movie, but I'm a hot geek.

by Anonymousreply 9402/27/2012


I don't recall any tv ads that make me realize this had I not already been aware from DL.

by Anonymousreply 9502/27/2012

I recently read the book and would love to see it as an epic movie. Apparently Sci-Fi did one recently with Traci Lords and it was awful! I think this looks pretty cool. I figured most people had heard of the novels but I guess not.

by Anonymousreply 9602/27/2012

Harry from "Ain't-it-cool-news" interviews Andrew Stanton about "John Carter"

by Anonymousreply 9702/27/2012

4.5 minutes of footage

by Anonymousreply 9802/27/2012

It's going to be a massive flame-out.

by Anonymousreply 9903/04/2012

It might do all right on word-of-mouth except for the Hunger Games coming to crush it 2 weeks later.

by Anonymousreply 10003/04/2012

"This guy looks EXACTLY like Stewart Townsend then. I thought it was the same guy."

We pray your day job isn't that of a traffic cop.

by Anonymousreply 10103/04/2012

It's even more tragic than you can imagine:

"Taylor Kitsch says he has groin scars from 'John Carter' stunts."

by Anonymousreply 10203/04/2012

what precisely is this movie and why should I care

by Anonymousreply 10303/04/2012

It looks pretty awesome to me.

So far, it's getting good reviews on Rotten Tomatoes.

The latest commercial I saw was actually pretty good for a change.

by Anonymousreply 10403/04/2012

Disney going down in flames for the second year in a row. Yikes!

by Anonymousreply 10503/04/2012

That stupid movie cost $350 million?????

Really, I only need about $10,000 bucks to help get my life back on track. Think I should write to Disney?


by Anonymousreply 10603/04/2012

How far does a John Carter cumshot go on Mars?

by Anonymousreply 10703/04/2012

I still do not get why the commercial says "From the studio that gave you Pirates of the Caribbean"...

Does anyone see movies based on the STUDIO that made it?

Does anyone who liked Pirates of the Caribbean think the reason they enjoyed it was because of the STUDIO that made it and not because of Johnny Depp?

And does "from the studio that gave you Pirates of the Caribbean" sound so much better to the audience than "Walt Disney Pictures presidents"?

I remember one movie where they pulled that "From the Studio that brought you..." bullshit was that Kristen Bell/Josh Duhamel bomb "When in Rome"

Have marketers ever done this with a movie that didn't suck?

by Anonymousreply 10803/04/2012

errrr presents

not presidents

I need to go to bed. *sigh*

by Anonymousreply 10903/04/2012

[quote] It would make no sense to inflate the cost of the film.

Except if it doesn't turn a profit, those who get points lose out.

by Anonymousreply 11003/04/2012

[quote]what precisely is this movie and why should I care

The movie is based on the books written 100 years ago by Edgar Rice Burroughs (the guy who created Tarzan)

The first book was titled "A Princess of Mars" written in 1912. There were around 10 books. Planes had just been (barely) invented and Burroughs was writing about spaceships and aliens on Mars.

Every single popular scifi book or movie you've ever read or seen wouldn't have existed without these books.

Star Wars borrowed HEAVILY from this stuff.

Every studio in Hollywood has attempted this movie since Star Wars. Lot's of different scripts have been written.

This particular movie was directed by Andrew Stanton of Pixar.

His writing/directing credits are amazing... BUT... he's only worked on animated films before this.

Fanboys are DYING for this film to be great, unfortunately John Q. Public has no clue what it's about.

Keep in mind, when Star Wars came out, nobody had any idea what it was about either. (No stars, no book, no pre-existing fan base) 20th Century Fox didn't think the movie was going to do well.

by Anonymousreply 11103/04/2012

I bet the main reason the budget went out of control was 3D. I hope the fad dies quick.

by Anonymousreply 11203/04/2012

Michael Whelan's 1979 cover art for the 1912 "A Princess of Mars"

by Anonymousreply 11303/04/2012

I don't think 3D is going to die quickly, as it serves two important purposes for the movie industry. 1) It's something you can't get at home, so it draws vierews into the fading movie theaters. And 2) it can help bad movies at the box office, which is why it has such a bad reputation right now.

Personally, I'm waiting for "The Hobbit" to come out next year. Can you imagine a spectacular flaming, flying, dragon in 3-D? And that dragon engaging in a night battle over a reflecting lake, with thousands of arrows flying and catching fire in midair? That's going to be worth the price of a movie ticket, even if the movie sucks.

by Anonymousreply 11403/04/2012

Except that 3-D ISN'T drawing audiences into the theatre. It's keeping them away. No one want to pay the extra three to six bucks that it costs to see a movie in 3-D.

The Hollywood Studios are extremely worried, because they thought it would be what you described, r114 - something they couldn't get at home. But they didn't count on the wretched economy and people being extremely careful with their dollars. The non-3d screens are doing better than the 3-D screens with the same movie.

by Anonymousreply 11503/05/2012

Few movies embrace 3D.

Most use it as a gimmick (Titanic, now in 3D!!!)

The audience has been burned by too many shitty 3D movies and have wised up. They'll go see John Carter, Hunger Games or the Hobbit in 3D and everything else in 2D.

by Anonymousreply 11603/05/2012

[quote]And does "from the studio that gave you Pirates of the Caribbean" sound so much better to the audience than "Walt Disney Pictures presents"?

Yes, it does, much better. Walt Disney Presents implies a kiddie movie.

by Anonymousreply 11703/05/2012

The director has an Oscar, a Pulitzer Prize winner worked on the script, and the Edgar Rice Burroughs novel is beloved and influenced countless other popular sci-fi and fantasy stories, and yet they chose to highlight that it's from the same studio that made Pirates of the Caribbean? Sheesh.

by Anonymousreply 11803/05/2012

Such a ripoff of Star Wars, ugh. Even the aliens look like Jar Jar Binks.

by Anonymousreply 11903/05/2012

The movie didn't cost $350million. That number was thrown out there by or - one of those - as a GUESS last summer, and the figure has stuck. Andrew Stanton and the producers have categorically said that it was closer to $200-225m, and that it stayed well within the budget.

I haven't seen it yet (though I intend to because I like sci-fi and loved Taylor Kitsch on FNL) but I've been told that, despite whatever you may think of the acting/ narrative/ whatever, it looks very expensive, and in a good way.

by Anonymousreply 12003/05/2012


by Anonymousreply 12103/05/2012

The movie is FANTASTIC!!! And I hate 3D but it's worth seeing in 3D. It's getting great reviews but who knows how the public will react.

by Anonymousreply 12203/05/2012

r119, the John Carter novels predate every Star Wars movie by well over six decades. Look at the date something was published before calling it a rip-off, lest you find yourself in the same company as that ridiculous teenage girl who sent an angry letter to Paramount accusing their wolf man movie of stealing the concept of werewolves from Twilight.

by Anonymousreply 12303/05/2012

[quote]Andrew Stanton and the producers have categorically said that it was closer to $200-225m, and that it stayed well within the budget.

Even if that figure is true (and I have no idea if it is), I would estimate they probably spent about $100 million on advertising and print costs. And then factor in the some what conservative rule that a movie has to double it's production costs to make a profit.

So John Carter is going to have make at least $500 million+ to be in the black. Even if it's not a out and out bomb, I have trouble believing it can make that kind of money. It's not a well know franchise with a built in audience and has no names attached and it's going to face stiff competition when The Hunger Games comes out.

by Anonymousreply 12403/05/2012

It looks like there's a lot of animal cruelty in the film; even if the animals are CGI it makes me uncomfortable.

by Anonymousreply 12503/05/2012

The lead's name is KITSCH? Good christ.

by Anonymousreply 12603/05/2012

[all posts by tedious troll]

by Anonymousreply 12703/05/2012

Even if it cost closer to 225 million to make, when you add on marketing it's a 350 million dollar film.

by Anonymousreply 12803/05/2012

[quote] "The lead's name is KITSCH? Good christ."

J'ADORE R126!!

by Anonymousreply 12903/05/2012

I actually think the movie's kiss of death was dressing Kitch up in that leather harness. I'm sure most of us like the look, but the kids will think it's super gay.

by Anonymousreply 13003/05/2012

[all posts by tedious troll]

by Anonymousreply 13103/05/2012

I saw the preview in a movie theatre today and it was just ridiculous (yes, that fanboy trailer posted earlier was infinitely better).

I never watched Friday Night Lights (LOVED the movie however)so I'd never heard of this kid. Imagine my surprise when I looked up the credits just now and learned that Mark Strong, Ciaran Hinds, Willen Dafoe, Dominic West, James Purefoy, Art Malik and Polly Walker and Samantha Morton are in it as well.

None of them were shown/mentioned in the preview. Maybe they are all just voices for the CGI creatures though. Does anyone know?

by Anonymousreply 13203/05/2012

[quote]I'm sure most of us like the look, but the kids will think it's super gay.

In the books, John Carter is buck naked except for a leather "weapons harness" to hang his weapons on.

Burroughs was a visionary.

by Anonymousreply 13303/05/2012

Frazetta art for Princess of Mars.

by Anonymousreply 13403/05/2012

Great link, r134. I got hooked on the "John Carter" books when I was a kid in the 1970's. There was an awesome dictionary of Barsoom released around that time which featured detailed descriptions of all of the humanoids and creatures that lived on Mars in that mythical time.

If this film is successful, I hope that someone in Hollywood makes a good adaptation of "Beyond The Farthest Star". It's not well known and is begging for a CGI heavy production.

by Anonymousreply 13503/05/2012

You can tell they think it will be a flop because they aren't running any commercials for it.

by Anonymousreply 13603/05/2012

Love Taylor and think this will make him a star. Lots of promo going on for the film. DL almost always wrong about box office.

by Anonymousreply 13703/05/2012

I've seen four ads for it just tonight.

It's definitely being advertised during the "Alcatraz" 2-hour event tonight a lot...

by Anonymousreply 13803/05/2012

Rotten Tomatoes rates it at 75%. Their audience rating is 92%--over 10k votes. Way to go DL-totafuckingly missed it

by Anonymousreply 13903/05/2012

It hasn't opened yet, R139.

The movie cost a fucking fortune, it's going to have to do massive business to make that money back.

That's the point, not whether the reviews say it's good.

by Anonymousreply 14003/05/2012

R140 My point is that all the usual suspects on DL posted their obligatory "I'm incredibly sophisticated, and, to prove it, I will post something catty about this film" response.

by Anonymousreply 14103/05/2012

Yeah, I know a lot of people who have seen it in screenings, and nobody hated it. Some people had a few critiques - the first act is a bit overlong, the aliens are hard to tell apart, the plot is a little too dense, there's not enough action, Taylor Kitsch is too modern/internal of an actor when pitted against all these classically trained performers, etc. - but I think they all boil down to personal preference. Everyone I know who's seen it had a reaction that ranged from "pretty good" to "fantastic.

And a few of the Rotten ratings on RT right now are from people who rated bombs like "Breaking Dawn" and "This Means War" as "fresh," so...

by Anonymousreply 14203/05/2012

I think I was watching the top rated shows and saw no ads for it but maybe I'm wrong? If they are simply going after fan boys they are making a mistake. They need a general audience...not just geeks...there aren't enough geeks to make a box office.

by Anonymousreply 14303/06/2012

The only publicity I've actually seen for it is won't make it's money back. Maybe Disney wants a write-off?

by Anonymousreply 14403/06/2012

I never read the Burroughs books. However I know Heinlein made great use of the Mars concept from Burroughs.

Stranger in a Strange Land is quite the book, blasphemous as all hell but I'd love to see it made into a movie.

And the most direct reference to Burroughs is in the Heinlein book Number of the Beast. Two of the main characters are Capt. John Carter, and Dejah Thoris Burroughs.

by Anonymousreply 14503/06/2012

Interminably long, dull and incomprehensible, “John Carter’’ evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years without having any real personality of its own.

You could say much the same about the title character, as uncharismatically played by the unfortunately named Taylor Kitsch of TV’s “Friday Night Lights.’’ Even in 3-D, he’s barely one-dimensional.

by Anonymousreply 14603/07/2012

Thanks, R146. But RottenTomatoes - where it's still rated fresh as of this writing - has nearly 3 dozen positive reviews to pick from, too.

What I'm taking away from the reviews is that it's a deeply polarizing film. People are either loving it and getting it, or loathing it and not getting it at all.

by Anonymousreply 14703/08/2012

Why is the star nowhere in sight? Has he been on the morning shows? I don't watch them.

by Anonymousreply 14803/08/2012

To me the movie looks good and in the geek universe the book on which the movie is based on is practically their holy bible.

by Anonymousreply 14903/08/2012

I love how industry analysts keep changing the box office predictions daily on this - now they are trying to predict a 28 million dollar opening from the 35 million previously projected.

by Anonymousreply 15003/08/2012

If it really does open to $28 million that's a major bomb.

by Anonymousreply 15103/08/2012

John Carter from Little House on the Prairie? He was hot as hell.

by Anonymousreply 15203/08/2012

I never understand why these movies cost hundreds of millions of dollars, when they are basically just glorified Corel Draw. It's not like they're travelling with a huge film crew to Tunisia. Couldn't any geek sit there and do the same on their laptop?

More proof to me that films now (esp. animation) are just money laundering scams.

by Anonymousreply 15303/08/2012

Taylor Kitsch is notoriously reclusive, and when he does press, it's blatantly obvious he hasn't been coached in the ways of being effective in interviews. His fans (myself included, I loved him on FNL) find him refreshing and unpretentious, but the press tends to find him discomfiting sometimes. He tends to do things like ramble on for five minutes about hockey anecdotes on Jimmy Kimmel, and he's very off-the-cuff.

He's been doing some press this week and last, but it hasn't been much in light of the magnitude of this film and none of it has been enough to vitalize the marketing or buzz for the movie. Putting all the press on his shoulders was Disney's marketing mistake #292423527342 for this film. It's one thing to cast a total unknown in a franchise tentpole; it's another to also expect him to pull off all the press like a seasoned pro. I think his talent and looks have leading man potential, but his personality doesn't seem to at all.

Motion capture CGI is a very, very expensive laborious technology as it stands right now. This movie was far too expensive, but it's likely to make its money back overseas. Probably not enough to justify a sequel, though.

by Anonymousreply 15403/08/2012


by Anonymousreply 15503/08/2012

I would think Taylor Kitsch would start to try and play the PR game especially now since he's in the upcoming "Battleship", another big budget "blockbuster" that frankly, doesn't look all that amazing...unless you're dying to see the game reinvented as some "Transformers" knock-off.

by Anonymousreply 15603/08/2012

It just doesn't look like he's interested or perhaps not capable. He seems really rough around the edges. That's part of his appeal, I guess, but it makes him a PR loose cannon.

Sadly, I think Battleship may do better than John Carter. It's getting better early buzz from early screenings, believe it or not, and it's coming out just as the summer is getting started and has Rihanna and Alexander Skarsgard. Her fans + True Blood devotees + people looking for a mindless blow-em-up alien invasion good time + the fact that its plot isn't US-centric like John Carter's is= will probably do really well here and overseas.

by Anonymousreply 15703/08/2012

[quote]Interminably long, dull and incomprehensible, “John Carter’’ evokes pretty much every sci-fi classic from the past 50 years without having any real personality of its own.

Most of the times I've ever heard someone describe a movie as "incomprehensible" or "hard to follow" or say they never knew what was going on... I've seen the movie and come to the judgement that the person saying that was just a stupid idiot who wasn't paying the slightest attention.

And "evoking pretty much every sci-fi classic"? Ummm... dumbass, EVERY SCI-FI CLASSIC BORROWED FROM THE BOOKS THIS IS BASED ON.


by Anonymousreply 15803/08/2012

Taking a look at RT it seems like the movie is taking a drubbing by the press. It's topping off at 46% now.

by Anonymousreply 15903/09/2012

Eddie Murphy's latest has a ZERO positive rating on Rotten Tomatoes right now.

by Anonymousreply 16003/09/2012

Fanboy meltdown.

by Anonymousreply 16103/09/2012

There is a twihard on the Bel Ami reviews giving the critics a hard time because they haven't done their "research" (ie read the book) and are "unfairly" criticising R-Spazz...

THAT is a fan-gurl meltdown...

by Anonymousreply 16203/09/2012

HA!!!! That Gabrielle is ever so slightly unhinged!!!

As for "John Carter", I may end up seeing it since now I know my expectations for it have to be lowered considerably. But oh, to be levelled by "The Lorax" has gotta hurt for Disney.

by Anonymousreply 16303/09/2012

Those Bel Ami reviews are the funniest things I've read all day. Wow.

by Anonymousreply 16403/09/2012

Ehhh, I still want to see it with my girlfriend this weekend.

A lot of the bad RT reviews are from people who all gave movies like This Means War and Breaking Dawn positive reviews, and say things like "I couldn't follow the Martian politics thing" (it's not that hard to follow in the books,) and a lot of male critics are gleefully snarking on Taylor Kitsch's looks/nudity. Then there's film critic Eugene Levy seems to have changed his negative review, originally written by an intern who went on and on about how the story totally ripped off Avatar, acknowledged the goof, wrote a new positive review in its place, and RT has left it as rotten.

I'm not expecting it to be epic, but I have hopes it'll be at least watchable.

by Anonymousreply 16503/09/2012

It appears that many people, critics included, desperately want this movie to fail and that desire has colored their opinions of the actual movie. The Entertainment Weekly critic gave it a D, which I thought pretty extreme given all the B's and A's that EW regularly hands out to the worst kind of dreck.

by Anonymousreply 16603/09/2012

Deadline is predicting a dismal opening.

The knives are certainly out for this movie.

by Anonymousreply 16703/09/2012

Yeah, Michael Chabon wrote a love letter to sci-fi in a magazine recently, and talked about how even though "geek" is "sort of cool" now, nobody mainstream really wants cerebral, epic sci-fi to succeed.

by Anonymousreply 16803/09/2012

With the lack of publicity, I would say Disney wants it ti fail.

by Anonymousreply 16903/09/2012

[quote]John Carter earned an est. $500,000 at midnight showings, which is on par with Prince of Persia...


by Anonymousreply 17003/09/2012

BoxOfficeMojo is saying it's projecting it'll do slightly better than Prince of Persia. That movie grossed $90m domestically and nearly a quarter billion internationally. I'm estimating it'll take in about $400m worldwide and domestically. If JC can pull those numbers, that's not bad at all. Not a runaway smash hit, but not a bomb.

by Anonymousreply 17103/09/2012

Whatever happened to that guy who was in Prince of Persia?

by Anonymousreply 17203/09/2012

Oddly enough, the first thought that came to my mind when I started seeing footage from it was "It looks almost like Prince of Persia"!

by Anonymousreply 17303/09/2012

Right now it seems to be trailing "The Lorax."


by Anonymousreply 17403/09/2012

I saw a matinee today. I'd give it probably a C+, and I'm pretty stingy. EW's grade of D is bullshit.

I'd never seen Taylor Kitsch in anything before but I liked him. He's got a certain brooding presence. And a really great body.

by Anonymousreply 17503/09/2012

I read that Disney doesn't expect John Carter to make a profit upon its initial release, that the experience gained by mastering the various technical aspects of the production will be an invaluable experience for the company filmmakers who will pioneer this new way of making motion pictures.

by Anonymousreply 17603/09/2012

Kitsch looks a hundred times better than that charisma free Sam Worthington.

by Anonymousreply 17703/09/2012

I loved Prince of Persia. Didn't go to the cinema and only watched it on my computer a few months ago, though.

No masterpiece obviously but it was FUN.

by Anonymousreply 17803/09/2012

I agree with r179. I liked Prince of Persia. The only weak link in that movie was the female lead, Gemma Arterton.

by Anonymousreply 17903/09/2012

The EW reviewers are total and complete assholes. Their reviews are never important.

by Anonymousreply 18003/09/2012

R181, he said it was basically okay, but not great, and you sorta have to turn your brain off, because it stays true to its retro-future roots.

Lots of good eye-candy and action though.

by Anonymousreply 18203/09/2012

I just saw it, and I completely agree with Ebert. Really good, but not flawless, but if you just sort of sit back and enjoy the ride, it's really enjoyable. It was such a faithful retro space-fantasy pulp adventure. So much fun. Kitsch is definitely a lot more charismatic than Worthington, but that's not saying much considering how deadly dull that guy is. The real scene stealer is Lynn Collins - she was iconic, and I'm not usually a fan of hers at all. And the special effects were really, really stunning.

by Anonymousreply 18303/09/2012

If this is even close to a success, they'll go with the franchise route; the initial costs of the CGI will go down and there are 10-12 books to work with. Plus, Burroughs did later books about spinoff characters, with JC [initials intentional, I wouldn't be surprised] making only cameo appearances; that will help if they want to milk the franchise but Taylor wants to move on.

The 2nd and 3rd books ("The Gods of Mars"/"The Warlord of Mars") are non-stop action (literally from pole to pole of Mars) and my two favorites of the series. This needs to do well enough for those two to get made. Holy Therns for the motherfucking win!

(How the fuck is Disney not playing up the history angle? "100 years ago, the creator of Tarzan took readers beyond the limits of their imagination. Now, the Walt Disney Company brings the most epic adventure in history to life. From the director of "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E", Walt Disney presents…John Carter of Mars!")

by Anonymousreply 18403/09/2012

Thanks, r182. I was too lazy to go look it up.

I think I could see it on an eye-candy basis, maybe in a dark theater or drive-in where I could pull off a Pee-Wee Herman sort of fanboi experience. If I wait two or three weeks, I'll have the theater to myself, won't I?

by Anonymousreply 18503/09/2012

Reading THIS review, it really sounds like this movie could serve for a base for a whole lot of fleshing out of the movie...

[bold]John Carter will dazzle you with the best (and worst) of retro futurism[/bold]

There is a moment in the movie John Carter where our eponymous hero is fighting an absurdly pitched battle against dozens of the green, tusked, four-armed Tharks. Because he's an Earthman on Mars, Carter has super-strength, and he slays Thark after Thark. The bodies pile up around him in a tableau whose absurdity bleeds into pathos as he repeatedly flashes back to burying his family after an Indian attack left them burned alive in their home. With each SMACK of Carter's sword, we flash to the SMACK of his shovel churning dirt into the grave of his wife and daughter. It's an electrifying scene because it does the improbable — it turns a cartoonish fight into something that genuinely reflects the horror of war.

Unfortunately, moments like this in John Carter are few and far between. But when they come, they remind you of how magnificent this flick could have been. Ultimately, the problem with John Carter is that it's perhaps too true to its origins, a pulp story by Edgar Rice Burroughs that was retro-futuristic even when it was first published a century ago, and feels even more awkwardly anachronistic today. It's an old-fashioned vision of tomorrow that weaves far too clumsily between modern sensibilities and dated ones. Spoilers ahead.

One reason we're drawn to retro futurism, or visions of tomorrow from the past, is that there's a kind of crazy, adorable wrongness to them. We chuckle at nineteenth century visions of flying contraptions and glass cities. The central conceit of John Carter, that there are ancient civilizations on Mars, is another laughable retro-futuristic misconception — especially in an era when we have robots wandering across the empty, seemingly lifeless Martian sands. But instead of playing this idea for campy humor, ala Mars Attacks or Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, John Carter writer and director Andrew Stanton (Wall-E) has tried to update it as a serious adventure for the present day. And that's a bold move.

In some ways, Stanton's daring effort is successful. As many critics have already said, the beautiful vistas of Mars and its incredible cities — one a breathtaking walking city and another a swirling confection that rises in silver spires from the craggy red landscape — are special effects perfection. The Tharks steer well clear of the Jar Jar zone, and the other aliens we meet (including the white humanoid Martians who are inexplicably called "Red Men") are all on suitably awesome quests to save the planet, fight the bad guys, etc. Their flying machines are steampunk done right, and you'll marvel at the ancient monuments of a great Martian civilization that fell when the planet's seas dried up. The acting is also unexpectedly great, with everybody from Taylor Kitsch as John Carter and Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris, the princess of Helium city, delivering heroic performances that generally manage to avoid being cheesy.

The problem, in short, is the plot. Really I should say plots, because there are a lot of them, and they fail to fit together or go anywhere most of the time. First of all, the film's writers made the bad decision to include a frame story where Edgar Rice Burroughs is a character — he's the nephew of John Carter, who uncovers the events we see in the movie by reading his uncle's diary. This launches a whole bunch of unnecessary subplottery and time hopping that we don't need. We begin in Burroughs' day (the early 1900s), but then jump backward in time to the post-Civil War period when the devastated John Carter has lost his family and lost the war, and now he just wants to mine for gold so he can become rich.


by Anonymousreply 18603/09/2012


After escaping conscription into the US government's war against the Apache in Arizona, escaping jail, and escaping some angry Apache, Carter finally stumbles by accident into the goldmine he's been looking for. But it turns out the goldmine is actually a secret teleportation hub for a group of aliens who apparently spend all their time hanging around waiting for civilizations to fall or something like that (this would be another unexplained subplot). A series of shenanigans allow Carter to teleport to Mars, and that's when the swashbuckling begins. It's a pretty cool setup, and his first encounters with the Tharks are funny and well done.

But then Carter gets caught up in a war between the humanoid Red Men — a war the Tharks sneer that they wish would kill both sides, so they could run Barsoom (the natives' word for Mars) themselves. Dejah Thoris, a scientist and badass fighter who also happens to be princess of Helium, convinces the superpowered Carter to take her city's side in the war against Zodanga, though we're never entirely sure why. And then there are a ton of internecine and unexplained politics within Helium itself, including the fact that Dejah's father apparently has the power to marry her off to the enemy king, despite the fact that she's head of the science academy and clearly an autonomous citizen. Is this a backward culture where women are chattel, or a futuristic society where women are scientist-warriors? The answer, I suppose, is that it's a retro-futuristic society, imagined by an author who lived before women's suffrage in the United States. It's retro-futuristic in its colonial-era racial politics too, where the Tharks are painted as an alien analogue to the Apache, and the Red Men are the European powers struggling to control America. (I have no idea who the teleporting aliens are.)

As if all this weren't enough, Dejah's struggle with her father in Helium is echoed by another struggle between the Thark Tars Tarkis and his daughter Sola, who have become Carter's friends — and been cast out of Thark society in the process. Honestly, there is enough richness in the Thark society alone that it could have made an entire movie. Each time we return to Tars Tarkis' storyline, it feels like we're seeing a half-realized glimpse of something that would make sense if only more time were devoted to it.

Not that I'm saying this movie should have been longer. I'm just saying it needed fewer subplots.

At any rate, all these hopelessly messy subplots do add up to lots of fighting, and the fighting looks great. They also add up to some genuinely moving scenes like the one I mentioned earlier, as well as some extremely intriguing questions about what those teleporting aliens are doing on Barsoom. Frustratingly, however, these questions are never answered. Nor are more overarching questions, either, like what's really at stake in the war between Zodanga and Helium, or the enmity between the Tharks and the Red Men.

What's heartbreaking about watching John Carter, with its brilliance undercut by so many flaws, is that it's easy to imagine all the ways it could have succeeded if its creators could just have agreed on what the damn thing was really about. It feels like an entire trilogy worth of subplots all got crammed into one, confusingly edited mess. The real question is should you watch the movie to catch those moments of greatness, or skip it because you know you'll be frustrated by its problems? I would err on the side of watching. This is an imaginative bit of fun, and it looks fantastic splashed across a giant screen. (Do not, however, make the mistake of seeing it in 3D. It wasn't filmed in 3D, and the 3D frankly looks like crap, spoiling the visuals at every turn.) John Carter may not be the gamechanging retro-futuristic epic we were hoping for, but it's still worth checking out.


by Anonymousreply 18703/09/2012

Interesting that they came up with a plot device to make Carter's teleportation seem logical (in the books it's never really explained; by the later books he can just will it), but I agree that the framework of Burroughs relaying his "uncle" John's tales is completely not needed. It's not as though Burroughs was writing this or is much of a famous name these days. That seems an unnecessary layer.

I'm flabbergasted that the Red Men aren't red. In the books, Dejah Thoris and Kantos Kan and all the citizens of Helium are surprised that Carter is relatively pale; IIRC, when he goes undercover on spy mission to Zodanga (in "Swords of Mars", I think) he has to disguise himself with red bodypaint. I think Burroughs was using the skin tone issue to emphasize how alone Carter was: paler than the Red Men, but redder than the albino-white Holy Therns. Odd choice to be cheap on, IMO.

Still, I'm going to see it this week. (Think I'll reread at least the first three books before, though, just to get into the mood.)

by Anonymousreply 18803/09/2012

Can you even tell Willem Dafoe is playing the Jar Jar Binks character in this?

It didn't seem like you could based on the clip they showed on his appearance on The Colbert Report the other night.

by Anonymousreply 18903/09/2012

[quote]I'm flabbergasted that the Red Men aren't red.

As I understand it, it was just beyond the bounds of current technology and the budget to create a film full of a whole race of actually red people without screaming "Turkey!" So they decided to go with henna-like red tattoos so that "red men" was more of a symbolic, cultural reference than literal skin color, as a compromise.

The film is breaking box office records overseas, but unlikely to do so here. I think this review says many of the same things Ebert does, but had a lot more fun with the movie than he did.

by Anonymousreply 19003/09/2012

Damn, I LOVED the movie. I didn't find the characters or plot(s) confusing at all, and I'm often prone to. The whole thing seemed to have a patina and the CGI wasn't headache inducing like Transformers etc. It spoke to me. Lots of funny stuff well integrated and Taylor Kitsch has a rare charisma (at least for me). I saw it about 2 hrs ago and still have a happy feeling from it. I went to see Taylor Kitsch's body and face and expected a terrible film. VERY surprised how good a film after reading the reviews. I can't believe some critics panned it. Seems like they simply didn't get it. The audience in the theater where I saw it applauded strongly at the end. Might get word of mouth boost.

by Anonymousreply 19103/09/2012

r191, I might have believed you weren't a PR shill if you didn't make up the thing about people applauding in a movie theater. Who the fuck applauds in a movie theater, ever?

by Anonymousreply 19203/10/2012

I haven't been to the cinema in ages, but think I might go and see this one...

How do people with glasses fare with 3-D specs?

by Anonymousreply 19303/10/2012

R193- those 3D glasses on top of my own glasses can get pretty heavy. Wish I still had contacts. Not a big fan of 3D anyway, everything is so dim on screen.

by Anonymousreply 19403/10/2012

R192 I was surprised at the applause too. Don't see many movies and thought maybe it's a new thing to applaud. I'd love to be a PR guy for Taylor Kitsch.

by Anonymousreply 19503/10/2012

I actually liked "John Carter" more than I thought I would. Loved the 3-D effects, and Taylor Kitsch was so dreamy! I give it **** 4 Stars!

by Anonymousreply 19603/10/2012

If it wasn't filmed in 3D, the 3D is going to suck, and it's not worth your money. This movie was not filmed in 3D.

Go see the 2D version.

And anyone who has never heard an audience applaud after a movie lives under a rock. It's not that common, but I've experienced it dozens of times.

by Anonymousreply 19703/10/2012

There's just no reason to spend $350 million on the production of a movie. No good reason at all.

by Anonymousreply 19803/10/2012

[quote]There's just no reason to spend $350 million on the production of a movie. No good reason at all.

If you think it'll gross twice that, then sure there is.

by Anonymousreply 19903/10/2012

A lot of the "cost" of movies is really guaranteed profit for the big above-the-line players. 20-40 million to one or more producers is called a "cost" and subtracted form the "profit". Of course, the "profit" is what goes to these same guys; but, this keeps the residuals down to people who get a percentage of the profits. Hollywood accounting is more imaginative than the scripts.

by Anonymousreply 20003/10/2012

Taylor is a total dreamboat, he makes me swoon.

by Anonymousreply 20103/10/2012

Interesting thing about "Rotten Tomatoes" figures-only 50% of critics like it, but 73% of audience. Silent House-49-48; Lorax-57-72. Some hope for word of mouth.

by Anonymousreply 20203/10/2012

People applauded at 3 different times in the (packed) showing I saw, and yes, it's embarrassing and weird.

Nikki Finke from Deadline, who has literally been crowing about this film's failure since the trade rags announced it and before a single frame was filmed, is now crowing that it won't do more than $27million domestically this weekend (probably another $13m worldwide). What do people get out of forecasting a film's failure, then making sure to mention you think it'll be unwatchable at every available opportunity, then being smug when it turns out to be a self-fulfilling prophecy? I don't get it at all.

I still think it'll do all right overseas. I may go see it again in 3D. I've heard three scenes in particular are really good in 3D.

by Anonymousreply 20303/10/2012

Nikki has her own agenda. Sometimes she actively campaigns for a movie's failure and seems to take quite a lot of pleasure out of it, and then other times she'll do a whole bunch of spinning and fluffing to make a box office bomb not seem so bad.

I'm assuming studios pay her off or something because she's very inconsistent.

by Anonymousreply 20403/10/2012

Entertainment Weekly saying it made about 10 million on Friday.

This is gonna be a bomb of EPIC proportions!

by Anonymousreply 20503/10/2012

Did anyone see Tyler in The Covenent? He has the best abs of all the hot guys.

by Anonymousreply 20603/10/2012

R206 is the troll from the "Tyler" thread.

by Anonymousreply 20703/10/2012

I saw the Covenant. Great eye candy. if I see this movie it will be in hopes TK looks just as good.

by Anonymousreply 20803/10/2012

He's cut his long locks recently, and looks drop dead gorgeous.

by Anonymousreply 20903/10/2012

John Carter with short hair.

by Anonymousreply 21003/10/2012

[quote]Sometimes she actively campaigns for a movie's failure and seems to take quite a lot of pleasure out of it

And DataLounge doesn't? We routinely get rooting for failure of any film starring Reese Witherspoon, Angelina Jolie or Gwynnie Paltrow.

by Anonymousreply 21103/10/2012

[quote]If you think it'll gross twice that, then sure there is.

The only truly guaranteed grosses above $350 million are for well-established sequels whose predecessor(s) made at least that much.

by Anonymousreply 21203/10/2012

[quote]Right now it seems to be trailing "The Lorax." Ouch.

"The Lorax" is based on a famed Dr. Seuss book and had the single biggest opening weekend of 2012 last week. Idiot!

by Anonymousreply 21303/10/2012

I thought this photo shoot with the short hair was pretty good.

by Anonymousreply 21403/10/2012

Taylor, before becoming a brunette.

by Anonymousreply 21503/10/2012

The difference is Nikki is a Hollywood insider, DL is just an anonymous message board. Apples and oranges.

by Anonymousreply 21603/10/2012

Amazing torso!

by Anonymousreply 21703/10/2012

Just got back from seeing it. I really had a lot of fun... thoroughly entertaining.

I dunno, the "framing story" worked just fine for me. So I don't get the criticism there, and I definitely don't think it should have been left out.

The movie really is equal parts "Star Wars", "Indiana Jones", "Superman", and "Flash Gordon" ... with a pinch of Dune maybe ... and maybe a dash of "Chronicles of Riddick". Of course, the source material predates most of those by generations, and in fact inspired all of them in one way or another.

Lots of great eye-candy (and I don't just mean John Carter's very luscious and distracting nipples).... the special effects are stellar from top to bottom. Very impressive visually.

And the story didn't suck at all, which is what I was afraid of. I think it's a good solid action pop-corn flick, and deserves whatever success it gets. And I'm hoping it gets some.


by Anonymousreply 21803/10/2012

R207, there is a Tyler thread? Link please :)

by Anonymousreply 21903/10/2012

R219 look on the first page or two (if you haven't reset your items-per-page above 20)

by Anonymousreply 22003/10/2012

I just saw it, and enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. I left the movie wanting to see the next chapter, so I hope they go ahead with a sequel.

by Anonymousreply 22103/10/2012

[quote]If it wasn't filmed in 3D, the 3D is going to suck, and it's not worth your money. This movie was not filmed in 3D.

Simplistic nonsense. As with anything else, conversion is something that can be done well or poorly, depending on a variety of factors.

by Anonymousreply 22203/10/2012

[quote]...and "Flash Gordon" ... with a pinch of Dune maybe ... and maybe a dash of "Chronicles of Riddick".

Wow, that sure makes me want to see this film! What a winning combination!

by Anonymousreply 22303/10/2012

You all do realize that the "it didn't suck as much as I thought!' comments coming from people who went to a movie they thought would suck on opening weekend are coming from idiots, right?

Do some of you even think before you write?

First of all, dimbulbs, you are the fanboys this was made for. If you can only manage an 'it wasn't that bad', the movie must really, really suck.

by Anonymousreply 22403/10/2012

R221 here. I'll just add that it was far better than any of the shit-fest Star Wars prequels or Avatar. That's not saying a whole lot, but at least I can imagine wanting to see John Carter again at some point in the future. I can't say that for the others.

by Anonymousreply 22503/10/2012

R224, quite the contrary: I consider you an idiot, and everyone who trashes this movie as "bad" is an idiot.

It's definitely worth seeing, and it's a whole lot of fun.

by Anonymousreply 22603/11/2012

[quote]Simplistic nonsense. As with anything else, conversion is something that can be done well or poorly, depending on a variety of factors.

Not. ALL post-production conversions SUCK. Period.

It's not simplistic nonsense. It's a basic fact. It's not worth your money. Period.

by Anonymousreply 22703/11/2012

[quote]Wow, that sure makes me want to see this film! What a winning combination!

Yes, you miss everything. Not just the point - everything. To scifi fans, that IS a winning combination. I hear a comparison like that and I'm suddenly interested. I truly think that's the problem with a lot of the bad reviews this film is getting: it's from people who either don't get, or don't like, or actively dislike speculative/science fiction as a whole. To me, John Carter was a fantastic, faithful, intelligent example of the genre, but if you think movies like "Flash Gordon" and "Dune" are cringeworthy dreck, I think it's virtually guaranteed you're going to hate "John Carter," too.

Case in point: my younger sister saw John Carter today and hated it to the point that she hate-tweeted about it in all caps. Walked out with half an hour to go. The last three movies she saw that she loved: The Vow, This Means War and Project X.

by Anonymousreply 22803/11/2012

Well said, 218. I enjoyed it and will see it again. The lack of expectation is good for the movie, I think. I was pleasantly surprised, unlike tentpole actioners I was really looking forward to, like the last Indiana Jones, which left me bitterly disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 22903/11/2012

There was no Martian cock in this movie, so I was disappointed.

by Anonymousreply 23003/11/2012

Weekend take-31M domestic; World Wide-101M

by Anonymousreply 23103/11/2012

R228, no offense, but your younger sister is both delusional AND has no taste :-P

by Anonymousreply 23203/11/2012

[quote]The good news for Disney was that John Carter received a B+ CinemaScore and was up 25 percent on Saturday, reflecting positive buzz. The film played best to older fanboys, but needed an equally strong showing from younger males. On Saturday, families turned out as well, making up 20 percent of the audience.

[quote]Nearly 60 percent of the audience was over the age of 25, according to exit polls conducted by Disney, while 64 percent of those buying tickets were males.

by Anonymousreply 23303/11/2012

R232 LOL, trust me, I am aware. I'm just making a point that this movie has limited appeal. One of the longest rants about how bad it is on RT is from a woman who gave Breaking Dawn Part 1 5 stars; Entertainment Weekly's D-rating is from a guy who goes on for 4 paragraphs about how it's bad because the lead is too good-looking. Surprise, the movie got an unexpected 25% bump Saturday night due to positive word of mouth. Grossing over $100m worldwide on opening weekend is hardly a flop, and it hasn't even opened in a few major markets like China and Japan.

The comments of this article are pretty telling - a lot of industry insiders admitting their desire to see this movie fail has nothing to do with the movie - not to mention the 3 new paragraphs of delusional ranting Nikki Finke just added. She seems livid.

by Anonymousreply 23403/11/2012

Nikki Finke said there was no way it would gross $30 million domestically this weekend yet it did, so of course she's fuming. Anytime she doesn't get to scream "TOLDJA!" an intern gets assaulted with a stapler.

by Anonymousreply 23503/11/2012

There is a simple reason for the strong desire by the industry to make this fail, Old Hollywood(really Burbank) hates CGI because it takes away money from prop-makers, stunts, fx (traditional), costumers etc. These people still play a role but it's greatly lessened. IMO, after the American public realizes they've been used and that this is a damn good film, its take will increase. Foreign markets haven't been subjected to the same spin, so it's getting the gate it deserves there. Of course, DL is basically about being cool, so the mob is terrified about the perception that they might like this film, and so, they follow the flock.

by Anonymousreply 23603/11/2012

Why does the industry want this movie to fail? Is it because that particular movie is based on the book(s) on which all the important syfy movies and franchises of Hollywood's past are based on? Do they want to go back to making cheaper movies but are to greedy to do it without having proof that a big investment does not guarantee bigger returns?

by Anonymousreply 23703/11/2012

I really hope there is more... there was such great world-building, that there's a lot of great stuff to mine for future movies, areas to explore.

Never mind how many books there were... just the stuff added to the movie (the mysterious shape-shifting aliens are entirely made up for the movie) provides enough to hang a sequel on, never mind the additional source material.

by Anonymousreply 23803/11/2012

Most of the industry hate is fat Harvey W. and his brother's anger at Disney over the Miramax sale.

by Anonymousreply 23903/11/2012

I saw it in 2D yesterday and was surprised at how much I liked it and how good it was. I think Disney really fucked up in the marketing of the film. What's advertised and what is on screen are quite different.

by Anonymousreply 24003/11/2012

R239 might be right. IDK much about the higher ups. But it's obvious that the spin has something behind it other than the quality of the film.

by Anonymousreply 24103/11/2012

R236, I might have bought that argument 15 years ago, but CGI is so commonplace now, no one in the industry gives it a second thought.

I do agree though that there's some kind of desire to see this fail. It almost seems like it's coming from within Disney, seeing how poorly the film was marketed.

My biggest peeve as a visual effects artist is that this was all done in the UK (minus some live action stuff in Utah & NM). Most CGI is now done in the UK and Vancouver. With a couple exceptions, California is on the verge of being abandoned by the industry.

by Anonymousreply 24203/11/2012

[quote]I saw it in 2D yesterday and was surprised at how much I liked it and how good it was.

This seems to be a common theme.

by Anonymousreply 24303/11/2012

R242, I wasn't very clear about why H'wood wants the failure. It's about mega-budget films that rely heavily on CGI. They prefer mid-budget films.

by Anonymousreply 24403/11/2012

Is George Lucas' Industrial Light and Magic studio no longer the #1 place for CGI work?

by Anonymousreply 24503/11/2012

This is a case where the budget was being reviewed before the film came out.

I have several friends who have seen it and say it's pretty good. Is it 200 million good? Probably not.

It might develop a cult following, especially among Christians. The director employs some pretty heavy handed Christian imagery.

by Anonymousreply 24603/11/2012

R246, any Christian imagery is due to the original source material. There's Christian imagery in Star Wars, Superman and Avatar, too (all based on these books) for the same reason. Edgar Rice Burroughs was a religious man and probably did intend John Carter to be a Christ allegory in some ways. I thought the film had a fairly light touch when it came to all of that, and actually tried hard to give the different Martian cultures a sense of diversity.

I did think the explanation of the Mark Strong character's motives had a very classical Luciferian feel to it, but he was creepy as hell, so it worked for me.

by Anonymousreply 24703/11/2012

[quote]I have several friends who have seen it and say it's pretty good. Is it 200 million good? Probably not.

Well, other than the fact that you really see all 200 million up on the screen.

by Anonymousreply 24803/11/2012

R245, Sure, it's one of the primaries that a few of the highest-budget films will go to, but they don't have a corner on the market anymore. Even ILM has expanded into Singapore, and is considering opening a Vancouver branch.

The top VFX companies now are MPC, Double Negative, Framestore, & Cinesite (all in UK), Weta in New Zealand, Animal Logic in Australia. The top studios in Los Angeles (Digital Domain, Rhythm & Hues, Zoic, Method, Prime Focus, Stargate) have moved a large portion of their production to Vancouver & India. Even Pixar has opened a branch in Vancouver.

In short, the industry is leaving California.

by Anonymousreply 24903/11/2012

[quote]In short, the industry is leaving California.

Hoo-ray for Bollywood!

by Anonymousreply 25003/11/2012

Yeah, R249 is right. A lot of 3D rendering work is still being done in SoCal, though... for now.

by Anonymousreply 25103/11/2012

R247, the director Andrew Stanton is a devout Christian. The movie fades to the initials JC and he's admitted that isn't an accident.

Spielberg used Christian imagery in ET, so you don't have to be devout or a Christian to use it, but Stanton is a fundie.

by Anonymousreply 25203/11/2012

Stanton is a very, very liberal Christian, not a fundie. I am agnostic, and I wasn't hit over the head with Jesus-preaching at all. From Slate magazine's article asking the same thing: [quote]Much of John Carter's story has no resemblance to the story of Christ: His primary motivation is a selfish one, for instance—specifically, an attraction to the warrior princess who wears a metal bikini—and his main skill is his ability to jump really high.

For a Christian movie, it had a lot of very explicit references to a goddess religion, including [spoiler alert] John Carter invoking her at the end. Lots of Native American imagery and Egyptian paganism references, too.

by Anonymousreply 25303/11/2012

He's a fundi? Well I won't being going to see it? Are you sure...?

by Anonymousreply 25403/11/2012

If films are all made overseas, I'm going to get a new hobby.

by Anonymousreply 25503/11/2012

R254, no.

Go see it.

Good movie. And the director is a good guy. He also did Wall-E for Pixar.

by Anonymousreply 25603/11/2012

[quote]He's a fundi? Well I won't being going to see it? Are you sure...?[/quote]

The jury is out on that. He's a very devout Christian, that is certain, and there are rumors that Pixar is very conservative for a big, creative house. But fundie might be too strong a word.

by Anonymousreply 25703/11/2012

Well R222 tell me of a good 3D movie that was not originally shot in 3D.

Honestly the best 3D movies I have seen where shot or made specifically for 3D.

Avatar and UP

by Anonymousreply 25803/11/2012

And transformers 3 was a horrible movie... but the 3D was awesome.

by Anonymousreply 25903/11/2012

From the "Deadline" comments:

"I was at Starbucks yesterday and overheard the girl at the next table say, “I kind of want to go see John Carter, but everyone’s bagging on it so much that I would feel stupid spending the money.”

I have nothing to do with this movie, but that broke my heart a little (particularly as a member of this industry). Here is someone who wanted to see the movie, but the haters have been so vocal that she was scared away. It smells of orchestrated PR by a competitor. Sure, the marketing was incompetent, but the backlash has been extraordinary.

Also, the local CBS news broadcast last night had a 3-minute segment about how much money the movie is going to lose. Way to go, VIacom. Keep the hate alive."

I wonder what caused the hate-fest; I don't think it's fear of CGI (as posited upthread) and I don't know if Harvey Weinstein could get *so* many daggers drawn. Bizarre.

"Schadenfreude is really the DNA of this industry…" Lol, probably true. I've had my own vicious periods, but really.

(Disclaimer: I haven't seen the movie yet. Tuesday, perhaps.)

by Anonymousreply 26003/11/2012

[quote] It smells of orchestrated PR by a competitor.

Andrew Stanton and producer Lindsey Collins have said as much. You'll notice a lot of earlier articles have quotes from "anonymous rival studio execs," but of course, saying so has gotten Stanton branded arrogant and delusional.

$102 million in three days is insane and it hasn't even opened in China and Japan, where they turn out in droves to see shit like this, and where the movie hasn't been crippled by the relentless PR backlash. I still think it'll be crushed by The Hunger Games the weekend after next, but there's no way it's not making its money back.

by Anonymousreply 26103/11/2012

Saw it. Liked it.

by Anonymousreply 26203/11/2012

R261, I think "making its money back" depends on the actual cost. Stanton says he brought it in for $200 million or so, but most are claiming $250 MM and $100 MM marketing (really?) and some of the truly-hyperbolic are (deliberately?) misinterpreting that $350 MM total as the cost of the movie and acting as if marketing isn't included in that number.

If the true cost (marketing included) is closer to $250 MM, then it should definitely gross that much, although I don't know if it will get high enough to be profitable, with distribution/exhibitor costs factored in.

by Anonymousreply 26303/11/2012

The Hollywood Reporter article sums it up; it looks like it isstill a money loser for Disney.

by Anonymousreply 26403/11/2012

That article says that the outcome still isn't certain either way and could still do okay due to positive word of mouth. [quote]Box office observers are now comparing John Carter's potential to Disney's Prince of Persia, which earned $90.8 million domestically and $244 million internationally in 2010 (opinion is divided as to whether John Carter will do more than $200 million offshore)... The good news for Disney was that John Carter received a B+ CinemaScore and was up 25 percent on Saturday, reflecting positive buzz... "While of course we appreciate the larger economics of the film, we're encouraged with how it's been received by audiences and hope to see that generate positive word of mouth," Disney executive vice president of worldwide distribution Dave Hollis said.

by Anonymousreply 26503/11/2012

Partner and I saw it tonight, thought it was fine. Too long and action-crammed, but that's a common fault these days. Not an automatic fan of this kind of flick, but would definitely see a second/third installment. Certainly see where all the money went; I enjoyed it more than AVATAR, as eye-popping without all the lousy Cameron dialogue. Would recommend it.

by Anonymousreply 26603/11/2012

Here's a Forbes article calling a $31m opening domestic weekend a "disaster," then actually resorting to ethnocentricism and racism to explain why it was a huge hit overseas: people who don't speak English don't care about plot, only cool effects!

The press is getting absolutely desperate with the John Carter hate. Good comments at the link, too.

by Anonymousreply 26703/12/2012

Saw it today. It's good. Much better than Avatar.

by Anonymousreply 26803/12/2012

NY Times' post-mortem places the blame (with assistance from cowardly Disney execs I'm sure) firmly on director Andrew Stanton, who they are quick to point out also had considerable influence on how the picture was marketed. Compares it to how Columbia poured money into "Ishtar" so as not to offend Beatty and Hoffman.

by Anonymousreply 26903/12/2012

Wow. Someone must have peed in someone else's soup, because that movie dissing sure looks quite personal.

by Anonymousreply 27003/12/2012

They've got the scent of blood in their nostrils.

Perception is everything.

by Anonymousreply 27103/12/2012

In all honesty, I think it's one of the worst films I've ever seen.

by Anonymousreply 27203/12/2012

It seems like a case of a huge, bloated production where the reviews and press focus on the massive budget rather than the fact that the movie isn't that bad for a big, retro genre piece.

Everyone I know who has seen it says it's entertaining if you like that kind of hokey, retro sci fi. But do that many people?

And I also don't think that it's racist to say that people who don't speak English and/or are from a different country prefer dubbed/subtitled action films without a lot of plot over talkie indies. That's always been true going back to the 80s. Most countries produce their own small budget, plot driven movies. People will go see dubbed Hollywood blockbusters for flash and star power.

I'm going to go see this this week for sheer curiosity.

by Anonymousreply 27303/12/2012

R273, it's the #1 movie in English-speaking England and Australia too.

by Anonymousreply 27403/12/2012

R272, you've either never seen many movies, have zero taste what-so-ever, or are engaging in gross hyperbole.

by Anonymousreply 27503/12/2012

I wonder if producing a sequel could help with the cost... I mean, all the modeling work is already done, so a sequel woudln't be as expensive. And the presence of a sequel would drive additional rentals of the original, and help reduce the perception that the original was a "failure"...

Because I really want to see more of this world.

by Anonymousreply 27603/12/2012

r276, Stanton said in an interview that Disney won't greenlight a sequel unless the movie grosses $700 million.

by Anonymousreply 27703/12/2012

Part of the schadenfreude is seeing a spoiled, arrogant director get his commupence.

by Anonymousreply 27803/12/2012

Stanton never said that, R277. But it probably needs to make upwards of $500m worldwide to get a sequel, and it probably won't.

by Anonymousreply 27903/12/2012

It's never going to make $700 million.

by Anonymousreply 28003/12/2012

[quote]Stanton never said that, [R277].

The New Yorker interviewed Stanton and printed that the movie "will have to earn about seven hundred million dollars to justify a sequel." They may not have printed a direct quote from Stanton, but where else would they get the information in their Stanton interview and why haven't they printed a retraction if he didn't tell them that?

by Anonymousreply 28103/12/2012

Because The New Yorker was quoting the guesstimates floating around at the time that the film had a production budget of $350 million. That figure had come from the starting stated budget ($225-250m) and some fanboy on some blog - I think it was Collider, but it was a while ago - said that Disney was probably underreporting and "guessed" that it was closer to $350m. From that point forward, because it was a fairly high-profile media blog, everyone said for months the film cost $350m as though it were absolute fact. From that figure, using a very outdated box office model that guesses a film needs to gross twice its production budget to make a profit, The New Yorker calculated that $350m x 2 = it needed to make $700m to merit a sequel.

It's only after Stanton and Disney repeatedly refuted this figure that people started saying $225m or $250m again.

Either way, it probably won't make $500m. And it's stupid to dismiss a decent movie to put an arrogant director in his place. A good movie is a good movie, and it's not like Hollywood doesn't regularly ignore arrogant douchebags for its own purposes.

by Anonymousreply 28203/12/2012

It deserves a sequel regardless.

Its' a good movie.

The haters are wrong, and are just vile people.

by Anonymousreply 28303/12/2012

[quote]The haters are wrong, and are just vile people.

If there are haters of this film, then surely what's more bizarre are those who seem to take criticisms of the film so personally.

I count you as one of them, r283. Are you personally reaping profit from the film? Did you work on the film or have a family member who did? It's weird to take it so personally. You've spent so much time on this thread defending it as if someone was insulting your own child. Bizarro world.

by Anonymousreply 28403/13/2012

[quote]If there are haters of this film, then surely what's more bizarre are those who seem to take criticisms of the film so personally.

When someone hates on something, sight-unseen, and takes JOY in its failure... yeah, that pisses me off. It's not about taking it personally, it's about being annoyed by stupid, annoying, hateful-for-no-good-reason people.

Don't be an idiot.

by Anonymousreply 28503/13/2012

This movie was terrible. Very boring, I thought it would never end. The theater was only about 25% full on free movie Tuesday so that's really not a good sign.

by Anonymousreply 28603/13/2012

Love Taylor, but he's getting panned for this.

I can't imagine there will EVER be a sequel.

by Anonymousreply 28703/13/2012

R286, perhaps you should stick to Michael Bay films. Or perhaps Dora the Explorer movies.

by Anonymousreply 28803/13/2012

It certainly isn't Taylor's fault. It's the tightass marketing that caused the problem...and a bad trailer. The trailer is the most important part of the campaign, when it leaves people confused...

by Anonymousreply 28903/13/2012

The role was so physically demanding and Taylor is so athletic that I thought they really complemented each other. Can you imagine Josh Duhamel or Jon Hamm, two of the other main contenders for the role, having done any better? I like both those actors, but I can't.

The onslaught of gleeful doomsaying for this film has been in large part due to the fact that "serious" filmmakers are seething that a quarter of a billion dollars went into what they see as a "non-serious" (science fiction/ action-adventure) film when Disney could have made ten "quality dramas" at the same price. That kind of sentiment has been expressed in many, many comments on Deadline,, etc.

They're now pointing to the film as a cautionary tale bolstering those claims, and the tons of pearl-clutching press Disney is getting about how this means DOOM! for the studio (in no way does it do so, at all, but that's the party line the press is towing) is likely to scare away studios from making any more attempts at big-budget sci-fi movies or adaptations.

That "Stranger in a Strange Land" adaptation that's been rumored for a couple of years? Forget it. Not happening any time soon.

That's the kind of consequence that has sci-fi fans taking the hate campaign against the movie personally - it was underwritten by a desire to sabotage this [b]kind[/b] of movie getting made at all. And that it seems to have worked despite this being a very good sci fi movie absolutely sucks.

by Anonymousreply 29003/13/2012

R288. I'm not interested in Michael Bay and Dora the Explorer movies, but thanks so much for the suggestions. JC actually reminded me of a Michael Bay movie since it had a lot of boring action scenes and bad dialogue.

by Anonymousreply 29103/14/2012

R193 here - I saw it, and ended up with a migraine. Not a good introduction to 3D...

As for the film - LOVED it to bits. Don't really see what the complainers are complaining about. Heaven's Gate, it aint...

by Anonymousreply 29203/14/2012

Stranger In A Strange Land is a very odd book - so many people love it, but for many others it indicates the point where Heinlein started to believe his own press...

by Anonymousreply 29303/14/2012

Total gate, domestic and international with this weekend=$180M

by Anonymousreply 29403/18/2012

R292, don't go see movies in 3D unless they're FILMED in 3D. The difference is dramatic.

This movie was post-processed.

But yes, this is a really good movie, and it deserves a lot better than its getting.

The people trashing it are just haters. That's all I can think of. It's not without its flaws, but it's definitely entertaining, and is very well made. If you hate sci-fi, yeah, you'll probably hate this movie. So what. Move on. It's not a flaw in this movie, it's just that the movie is not to your taste. So why rag on it?

If you haven't seen it, and you liked movies like Indiana Jones or Star Wars at *all*, give this movie a chance and go see it.

Just see it in 2D if at all possible.

by Anonymousreply 29503/18/2012

Since I have no doubt that there's a huge overlap of DL & Deadline Hollywood readers, what you need to remember first and foremost, is that Nikki Finke is a pretty nasty piece of work. Yes, she's amazingly accomplished at breaking showbiz stories (no small feat), but she truly comes across as so mean and vengeful, seeming to get absolute pleasure in the travails of others - whether it's disappointing box office, or a career in tatters. She truly wishes everyone away to the cornfield...

So while Disney bears a great deal of responsibility for the atrocious marketing (under MT Carney), I also think that Finke is ground zero for the negative word on the movie. And one more thing:

According to D.H., John Carter was a bomb at $30m; 21 Jump Street is a smash at $35m (yes, I know this is a bit simplistic, but nonetheless).

I did see the movie. Not only is it NOT a disaster and fairly enjoyable (albeit not a brilliant classic), it also has DL fave Michael Chabon listed as a credited writer.

by Anonymousreply 29603/18/2012

I saw it yesterday with three other people. Three of us had either grown up with the source books, or read them recently. For one person, the movie was his first exposure to the story and the world, and sci-fi isn't usually his thing.

All of us loved it. I thought they did a magnificent job of adapting the source to the screen for a modern audience. The adjustments to the story worked well, and were necessary. Carter's mystical transportation from Earth to Mars in the books may have worked a century ago amidst the faddish wave of spiritualism going on then, but would leave a movie audience rolling it's collective eyes today. And weaving the Therns into the story from the beginning would have proved very useful later if a franchise were to take off.

Taylor wasn't my ideal preconception of John Carter, but he won me over quickly enough. All-in-all, it was a very satisfying experience. The one person in our party who knew nothing about it beforehand ... his first word afterwards was "awesome."

I'd love to see more, and it's sad that there probably won't be more. It's criminal how badly this was marketed.

by Anonymousreply 29703/18/2012

[quote]According to D.H., John Carter was a bomb at $30m; 21 Jump Street is a smash at $35m (yes, I know this is a bit simplistic, but nonetheless).

But 21 Jump Street is an R rated comedy that cost a fraction of John Carter's $250 million budget. Apples and oranges. John Carter should be compared to other fantasy films like Captain America or Thor. Both came out last year and opened to $50 million+ weekends. That's the kind of money John Carter should have brought in to justify its production cost. It is a flop, even though I agree that Nikki Finke is a cunt who just loves to crow about other people's failures.

by Anonymousreply 29803/18/2012

To clarify, the $180M total includes foreign to this weekend , but most of foreign is updated only to 3/11. It is probably close to even with production cost now. Has not opened in Japan and China yet. Might break even or better.

by Anonymousreply 29903/18/2012

R297, the only hope this movie has is word of mouth... so make sure you suggest others see it. Post your positive review on Facebook, imdb, twitter, flixter, whereever you can...

by Anonymousreply 30003/18/2012

R283 (etc.) regarding your response at R285 - how do you know R284 did not see the film? You are almost proving his point.

by Anonymousreply 30103/18/2012

R298 [quote] It is a flop, even though I agree that Nikki Finke is a cunt who just loves to crow about other people's failures.

I'd agree that at this point it's might be considered a financial disappointment, not sure just yet if it'll qualify as a flop. Who knows, maybe it'll be another Polar Express (which I hated) - a film that everyone predicted was a costly flop, opened weakly (IIRC), and yet turned things around.

As for FInke, I don't think one has to reach the stage of failure before she pulls out the knives.

by Anonymousreply 30203/18/2012

My partner and I saw it today. We were completely won over. A very, very good film in its genre - a great popcorn movie and on its own terms just about perfect. The director made no mistakes. Actors, sets, story, design, pacing, editing - everything was beautifully done. And without cynicism or camp, but with knowledge and humor.

Why this movie was pre-set to fail I don't understand. The press was weirdly bad. It doesn't deserve it. I don't even understand the negative reviews. Compared to the horrors the Lucas shat out with the last four Star Wars movies, and just about every other PG-13 science fiction fantasy that has been done in the last 20 years, "John Carter" is the best of the lot.

by Anonymousreply 30303/18/2012

The movie is similar to and a flop on the scale of Bryan Singer's Superman. Strong director with a mess of a movie headed by an ineffectual, weak, bland male lead whose career ends with this film.

It will lose a lot of money and there won't be a sequel.

by Anonymousreply 30403/18/2012

R300, I think you're right, but unfortunately I am a social media luddite. I have no accounts at those outlets, and I don't want them. Datalounge is currently the only place I post anything, so I was trying to do what I could here. Every friend I see in 3d will certainly hear about it from me, though.

This film has been generations in the making, being bounced around from one studio to another, with bits and pieces of the source material being ripped of for one derivative, inferior sci-fi film or another, while the authentic article was deemed too difficult to achieve. And until now it would have been technically impossible to do justice to the source, and I commend Disney for devoting the resources necessary to realize the vision.

John Carter ("of Mars," dammit, you idiot marketing suits!) deserves much, much better than it has received from the soulless industry drones.

People ... go see this.

by Anonymousreply 30503/18/2012

I probably would have seen this movie if it weren't a 3D movie.

by Anonymousreply 30603/18/2012

R306, so go see it in 2D, like I did?

by Anonymousreply 30703/18/2012

I loved John Carter! Taylor Kitsch deserves to be a star!

by Anonymousreply 30803/18/2012

Domestically, the film has earned a measly $53 million. The film could break even because of the international market. I can't believe it's down 55% from last week. If some of you were hoping that business would improve through word of mouth, that simply ain't happening.

Quite honestly, I'm just not interested in seeing this film. Aside from it being 3D, it doesn't sound like the kind of film I'd see. A Civil War hero battling aliens on Mars? Might be good in books, but mixing the 2 genres don't make good movie. Didn't they learn anything from "Cowboys & Aliens?"

by Anonymousreply 30903/18/2012

"a movie headed by an ineffectual, weak, bland male lead whose career ends with this film."

Bullshit. Kitsch is so much better than Routh and did a fine job with this film.

by Anonymousreply 31003/18/2012

[quote]Bullshit. Kitsch is so much better than Routh and did a fine job with this film.

I couldn't agree more.

by Anonymousreply 31103/18/2012

Regarding the question whether or not to put "of Mars" in the title, I saw a poster on another site (one of those download sites, presumably for a pirated version) that was in, I believe, Portuguese and appeared to call the film "John Carter [something] Two Worlds". (It was "Dois Mundas", I think; my translation is a guess, but that seems right.)

Frankly, I think it's an inspired solution; it lets people know this is an Earthman on another planet, without bringing the "M"-word into it. The copy at the top of the poster, as far as I could tell, was along the lines of "[Something] in one world. {Something else] in another."

Too bad Disney didn't think of this for the American release. However, if the overseas campaign is doing a better job of marketing the film, that could be part of why the foreign box office is so strong.

I hope it gets to sequel dollars. I am seriously craving to see the second and third books visualized. Fingers crossed…

by Anonymousreply 31203/18/2012

R306 and R309, it is also in 2d, which I saw.

R30d, you are a victim of the crappy marketing. "Cowboys & Aliens" doesn't belong in the same breath as John Carter. It still may not be your thing, of course, but you have no way of knowing that from the imbecilic ad campaign you've been shown.

by Anonymousreply 31303/18/2012

[quote]Quite honestly, I'm just not interested in seeing this film. Aside from it being 3D...

For about the tenth time in this thread alone, if that's an issue for you, GO SEE IT IN 2D! Jesus people, what is your problem?

I saw it in 2D! It's not hard! Just go to a 2D showing instead of a 3D one!

by Anonymousreply 31403/18/2012

"a movie headed by an ineffectual, weak, bland male lead whose career ends with this film."

Bullshit even aside from the talent issue, R310; TKitsch has two other lead roles this year.

And I don't *think* he got the part the same way Brandon "B.J." Routh got his; at least I haven't heard of Stanton "auditioning" actors the way Singer is known to do.

by Anonymousreply 31503/18/2012

[quote]Quite honestly, I'm just not interested in seeing this film. Aside from it being 3D, it doesn't sound like the kind of film I'd see. A Civil War hero battling aliens on Mars? Might be good in books, but mixing the 2 genres don't make good movie. Didn't they learn anything from "Cowboys & Aliens?"

Nothing like prejudging from ignorance and coming to utterly bizarre and wrong conclusions...

by Anonymousreply 31603/18/2012

r313 can't you just let it go? There are people who just aren't interested in these kinds of films. Apparently you are and you're up-in-arms over perceived negative comments.

Apparently Cowboys & Aliens does belong in the same breath as JC because they're both flops. However, whereas C&A were praised for the acting, but dismissed for the mashing of 2 genres, JC has been lampooned for both acting and the storyline.

There won't be a sequel to either films. No studio is going to take a risk on JC. If it has dropped 55% from last week, the studio is now just hoping and praying to break even.

by Anonymousreply 31703/18/2012

John Carter will make more money overseas, Blu-ray, and digital download.

by Anonymousreply 31803/18/2012

R317, did your blinders edit out the part where I said " It still may not be your thing, of course ... "

You seem to be a bit on the under-perceptive side. That's okay. It's very common.

by Anonymousreply 31903/18/2012

[quote]Apparently Cowboys & Aliens does belong in the same breath as JC because they're both flops.

Dumbest statement ever.

[quote]However, whereas C&A were praised for the acting, but dismissed for the mashing of 2 genres, JC has been lampooned for both acting and the storyline

Not entirely factual (as in, highly biased spin).

by Anonymousreply 32003/18/2012

r320 you remind me of Ron Paul supporters who seem to think if you can scream loud enough and be obnoxious you can convince people to come over to your side.

When I click on your posts, this thread lights up. You can have this thread. People criticize this film, but your replies are always a personal attack. That's bizarre. It's a damn film. No one is insulting your mother.

by Anonymousreply 32103/18/2012

R309, I think the point is that you're incorrect in arguing the 2 genres angle. There is only 1 genre here, sci-fi. His origin in the civil war is inconsequential to the rest of the story. It can't be compared to C&A as far as that goes. Financially, sure, they can be compared.

If you're interested in a good, fun, action-adventure, then this is the movie for you. If that sort of film doesn't interest you, so be it, but this is one of those times when you really shouldn't listen to the negative reviews. They really are oddly biased for some reason. Is it the greatest thing ever? No, but it's really fun to watch, and certainly not worthy of all the scorn.

by Anonymousreply 32203/18/2012

Fanboy meltdown.

by Anonymousreply 32303/19/2012

R321, all I can ask, is what the fuck is your problem?

Seriously. I'm no Ron Paul supporter. I'm merely pointing out that those basing their decision to not see the movie on the negative reviews are not doing the movie justice, and not doing themselves any favors.

I don't know WHY you, and others like you, so desperately want to see a movie you've never seen fail... that's just bizarre.

by Anonymousreply 32403/19/2012

It's doing decent business - there just seems to be people who are invested in branding it a flop. It will probably make back its money, or more.

No one I've talked to who's actually seen it has disliked it, other than a few complaints about it being somewhat long.

This entire media campaign to brand it a flop is repugnant.

by Anonymousreply 32503/19/2012

It's not a Dud, STOP IT!

by Anonymousreply 32603/19/2012

The movie is now OFFICIALLY a fucking flop.

I feel bad for Kitsch; this could have been his breakthrough flick.

by Anonymousreply 32703/19/2012

Well, it's finally on cable and I'm watching it. The boy is very appealing, nipples and pits anyway. I've been a sci-fi geek all my life, but I'm having a real problem folowing this story.

by Anonymousreply 32801/19/2013
Need more help? Click Here.

Follow theDL catch up on what you missed

recent threads by topic delivered to your email

follow popular threads on twitter

follow us on facebook

Become a contributor - post when you want with no ads!