John Carter of Mars

Batutta

Batutta

Major Contributor
Don't know about you but I've been waiting for this movie for a long time, since being a fan of the books. Burroughs Mars series are great, pulpy fun and a must read for any sci-fi/fantasy fan. Lucas lifted a lot of material from these for Star Wars. Avatar is practically the same story as A Princess of Mars, the first book, which they are doing here. The marketing idiots at Disney have dropped Of Mars from the title, making this trailer sort of confusing for the uninitiated, who don't know where Carter is sent, and who going by the title might think it's a movie about Noah Wyle's character from ER. I really hope they go back to the original title, or even better subtitle it JOHN CARTER: A Princess of Mars. Visually, the trailer works for me, and I love the Arcade Fire cover by Peter Gabriel, but I HATE the casting. They needed and real man, not a Tiger Beat pinup. Someone like Jon Hamm or Hugh Jackman. Taylor Kitsch with his long hair looks like The Prince of Persia. Actually the whole trailer has a Prince of Persia vibe to it, and not for the better. And Dejah Thoris should be way, way hotter and actually have red skin. Also, not crazy about the human like eyes on the green Martian Tharks. Would have preferred something blacker, more insect like, but that's nitpicking.

http://trailers.apple.com/trailers/disney/johncarter/
 
I've never read the books. So it actually takes place on Mars? Because a lot of that didn't look like Mars. It looked like a cross between Cowboys and Aliens, Prince of Persia, and The Chronicles of Narnia (plot wise). Because it looks like so many other recent things, I can't say it really sold me, but I may give it a chance depending on reviews.
 
A friend linked me to this on a sci-fi news site (Io9), and it was getting lots of flack there for non-Mars-ness. I have to admit to quoting "Total Recall" to myself at about 0:46--"There's a new one: blue sky on Mars."

I know next to nothing about the novels, other than that they exist, but this looks like it could be fun.
 
Why did they change the title? "John Carter of Mars" is infinitely more interesting than plain old "John Carter".
 
agcohn said:
Why did they change the title? "John Carter of Mars" is infinitely more interesting than plain old "John Carter".
Click to expand...

Because Mars Needs Moms was one of the biggest flops in Disney's history, so they didn't want another movie with Mars in the title. Typical stupid corporate thinking.
 
Seems like the few recent films about mars were big flops (including around the rover time period). It's unfortunate, it's my favorite planet and I feel it doesn't get enough spotlight in hollywood sci-fi.

Perhaps I should check out this series.
 
Jon Starr said:
Seems like the few recent films about mars were big flops (including around the rover time period). It's unfortunate, it's my favorite planet and I feel it doesn't get enough spotlight in hollywood sci-fi.

Perhaps I should check out this series.
Click to expand...

They are pure pulp fantasy and about as accurate scientifically as early 20th century novels could be, but they are immense fun.
 
Last edited:
New trailer.

http://disney.go.com/johncarter

They had me up until Kashmir...I love me some Led Zeppelin but, doesn't work for me, especially the movie trailer choir version that kicks in at the end. This feels like it could go either way still. A lot of the imagery seems faithful to the books. Yes they show blue sky on Mars, but the rover pictures have proven Mars actually does have blue skies. But there is a faint Prince of Persia odor hovering over the whole affair. I hope it's as fun as the books.
 
the reason I checked out the trailer a month or so ago... was a fan saying he was upset because they dropped Mars from the title... I kinda agree... but then I'm sure once the marketing campaign kicks in... it'll take care of it...

I gotta go find a book that's packed away... about scifi and pulp comics of that time period... used to sit and look at it all the time as a kid... gave me so many ideas...
thanks for the reminder...
 
Between this and The Lone Ranger, Disney has spent nearly $600 million on two films I wager most people don't really care about.
 
lwright84 said:
Between this and The Lone Ranger, Disney has spent nearly $600 million on two films I wager most people don't really care about.
Click to expand...

They said the same thing about Titanic and Avatar...Nobody knows anything. This one has enough special effects in it that I think it should do really well overseas, making its money back even if it tanks here. Then again special effects didn't save Green Lantern. Still, i think this one might have more global appeal.
 
I think Titanic and Avatar both had special\unique aspects that considerably broadened their appeal. The only thing either of these films have going for them -- broadly speaking -- is Johnny Depp in The Lone Ranger. Still, you're right, no one knows for sure and time will tell. These two are definitely a much larger gamble\risk than your two examples though, I'm sure you'll agree.
 
lwright84 said:
These two are definitely a much larger gamble\risk than your two examples though, I'm sure you'll agree.
Click to expand...
Didn't Cameron end-up giving points to the studio on Titanic? At well over $200M to produce, had tanked it at the box office, it would have gone down as an overwhelmingly expensive failure.
 
John Carter's tracking extremely soft. I don't want to call it for this film, but it seems like Disney's almost itching for this to be a loss. They say they're still planning a full campaign for JC, but for god's sake, they've got 3 weeks till the film hits theaters and almost nobody even knows about it. The Avengers has over 2 months still, and they've been advertising that since last July.

http://www.deadline.com/2012/02/joh...-be-biggest-writeoff-of-all-time/#more-229292
 
I keep hearing the movie is pretty good...But that may not be enough at this point. The film is coming out anyway though, so if it's good, that's all I care about in the end. Maybe bodes ill for a sequel, but If they follow the plot of the first book closely, it's a good, standalone story.
 
Yeah Avatar did pretty well at the box office, but Avatar was pretty much A Princess of Mars in the jungle in a lot of ways. James Cameron even admitted that he was HEAVILY INFLUENCED by Edgar Rice Burroughs with Avatar.

So had John Carter gotten there first, it might have been the huge hit that Avatar was, but now? I don't know, maybe it won't matter. Maybe it will. It looks like a good time at the movies for a science fiction/fantasy junkie like me. I don't really care what the studios spend on movies anymore. 200 million on one movie! That seems to be madness to me.
 
Nektonic said:
So had John Carter gotten there first, it might have been the huge hit that Avatar was, but now? I don't know, maybe it won't matter. Maybe it will. It looks like a good time at the movies for a science fiction/fantasy junkie like me. I don't really care what the studios spend on movies anymore. 200 million on one movie! That seems to be madness to me.
Click to expand...

Without Avatar's blowout box office take and massive budget as a precedent, Disney would have shut JC down long ago, I think.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top