Ain't It Cool News (www.aintitcool.com)
Movie News

Quint has seen some of Andrew Stanton's John Carter and has your first glimpse at Tharks!

Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with a little report on some John Carter (nee John Carter of Mars, double-nee A Princess of Mars) stuff Disney showed to a handful of blogger-types. They called it an edit bay visit, but it was more of a presentation of footage hosted by director Andrew Stanton.

Our day was split into two parts. The first part of the footage presentation at Saul Zaentz Media Company and the second part involved lunch at Pixar in a room filled with John Carter costumes, production art and props.

Saul Zaentz’s place was kinda crazy awesome. The lobby was filled with album covers from the music that was recorded there and the walls of the floor were the screening rooms were located were covered with images from movies he had produced, including One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus.

Also, the elevator was a maneater, almost sending us falling to our deaths like a ride at Disneyland, but somehow we all survived the ordeal and got to see some John Carter stuff.

Stanton began his power-point presentation talking about his history with John Carter, so I figured I’d give you folks a little of my own. I picked up the occasional issue of the Marvel comic adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Barsoom series, but it wasn’t until Big Red himself was attached to produce John Carter of Mars for Paramount that I picked up Burroughs’ novels and gave them a read.

I quickly fell in love with the universe. It’s so pulpy and fun and such a clear inspiration to the sci-fi/fantasy movies I loved growing up. John Carter is a hero’s hero, a man of perfect morality (even though he was a Confederate soldier… but I choose to believe he was just a very strong supporter of state’s rights and not a slave-driver) who always does the right the thing and is as courageous as humanly possible.

They’re just fun stories and they’ve been cherry-picked to death by everybody from George Lucas to James Cameron (read A Princess of Mars and tell me that’s not 85% the foundation of Avatar), so it’s about time the series is getting the big screen treatment.

Stanton’s passion for the material is evident. There’s nothing fake about this guy. I’ve had the pleasure of meeting him a few times over the years and he’s just the kind of guy that genuinely loves what he does and doesn’t take one minute of his day to day for granted.

When he took the floor he was like a kid at Christmas. He even said as much, that it felt like Christmas for him to show off some of what he’s been doing over the last few years.

Here are some bullet-points from his keynote:

-Next year marks the 100th anniversary of the publication of A Princess of Mars and that fact didn’t escape Stanton.

-Stanton’s first introduction to John Carter’s world was via the Marvel comics from the ‘70s thanks to his comic-loving friends who would draw Tharks all day.

-The first three John Carter books have been optioned (A Princess of Mars, The Gods of Mars and The Warlord of Mars) and are being developed as a trilogy by Disney. If the first does well, they’ll move on. In fact, Stanton is developing The Gods of Mars as he posts on John Carter even though there’s no guarantee of it going anywhere.

-Stanton is sensitive to the pitfalls of developing a trilogy and didn’t want the movies to feel episodic in a bad way. He said he wants them to feel “interlinked, but independent.”

-The aim is to capture the feeling of reading the books, not to literally adapt it word for word. He said as a cinephile he’s seen that attempted and failed. What works on the page doesn’t necessarily work in a visual medium.

-Stanton stressed the title change was not forced on him. He’s been struggling with appealing to those that aren’t into Sci-Fi and didn’t want them turned off immediately by the title and said it was his idea to just call it John Carter, to focus on the character and sell the character, not the spectacle.

-Producer Mark Andrews, Andrew Stanton and writer Michael Chabon all drew Tharks as kids. Stanton proved it by showing pictures of all three of their Barsoom drawings. Chabon even signed his Mike “Burroughs” Chabon.

-Nathan Crowley (The Dark Knight) was hired as the production designer because Stanton didn’t want a typical sci-fi designer. Crowley comes from a more architectural background and Stanton wanted someone who could come at it from that level. How would a different world come up with doors and windows? Early on in the pre-production period Crowley had one of his guys knock up one image that Stanton used as the touchstone of the universe. Here’s the image:


 


-Basically he views this movie as the actual events of what happens in the book. It’s not crazy fantasy, but very real, almost like a period film of a period we just don’t know about.

-Taking that stance made it easy for Stanton to place the bookends in the same time period (1800s) as the books because that immediately puts you in a period film mentality.

-Much of the Martian architecture is based off of the real mountains and rocks found in Utah’s Lake Powell area. Think Petra, Jordan (where Indy finds the Holy Grail in Last Crusade) on much of Martian buildings. That way there’s a reality to everything.

-Biggest struggle for Stanton was dimensionalizing John Carter and Dejah Thoris. Stanton said character was his primary focus when adapting the material with Chabon.

-On Taylor Kitch: “Plays damaged goods really well.” He’s also very talented at acting against things that aren’t there. Stanton compared him to Bob Hoskins in Who Framed Roger Rabbit.

-On Lynn Collins: Wasn’t on his radar at all until she came in to meet for the part. He was attracted to her inner strength and intelligence.

-Stanton wanted actors that aren’t very well known so they could be John Carter and Dejah Thoris. He didn’t want movie stars playing characters, he wanted people that could become those characters.

-On casting the Tharks: Stanton wanted eyes, voice and acting ability and didn’t even consider the looks of the people he was casting because he said “that’s all that’s going to be left when everything’s said and done.” Those three things translate directly to the CG animated characters.

-The Thark actors filmed their scenes in mo-cap suits, with face cameras recording their face for animation reference (which turned out to be great for the actors because they used these things protruding from their faces as the Tharks’ tusks), while on stilts. The Tharks are 9 feet tall in Stanton’s movie (a bit shorter than they are in the books), but the actors were on stilts to make them that tall in their scenes.

-It was important to have the motion-capture actors there not just for the other actors to play against, but it influences framing. “The cameramen framed differently because there was someone there. Cameramen are trained to frame nicely, so if you take something out of the background and have nothing there they are going to use the background, whether they know it or not, to try to make the frame balanced and good.”

-Stanton cast his character animators just like he cast his actors because they have just as much influence on the characters as the actors do.

-Trailer premieres in front of Harry Potter and Stanton said he annoyed the marketing people a lot because he was very critical of their passes at the trailer, sending it back over and over again until he was happy with it. “Steve Jobs once told me a great thing which is you only make a first impression once, so we just kept holding off and holding off until we felt we had a trailer that represented what it felt like to watch the movie.”

-The song you will hear in the trailer is Peter Gabriel doing a cover of Arcade Fire.

-John Carter will be 3-D, post-converted, but the producers were quick to stress that they’ve brought on Pixar’s stereographer, Bob Whitehill, and are spending a lot of money and time on a good conversion.

-Stanton did screen the film for the Pixar braintrust and did reshoots based off of their notes. He said his process on all the Pixar movies essentially let him make his movies with four reshoots built in when you consider how they work with animation and story… Build it, display it, tweak it, critique it, scrap it, rebuild it, etc. Animation is different and it’s much more expensive to do reshoots on live action, but he was able to get one round of reshoots out of Disney to improve the film.



We were shown three full scenes, one tiny moment and the trailer, which as I mentioned above will be in theaters July 14th in front of the final Harry Potter film. These scenes were, of course, rough and not 100% with the effects, timing, etc.

The first scene had Carter’s introduction to Mars, waking up in the desert and not realizing he’s on a different planet until he takes a step and comically leaps a few feet up in the air. He has to learn how to walk again, essentially, with the different gravity on the planet.

It was here that I began to worry that I may disagree with Stanton’s fundamental approach to this universe. He wants to ground it in reality and I get that, but Mars shouldn’t look like a John Ford landscape. It should be alien, right? It doesn’t have to be as far out as Avatar and bop you in the face with bright alien foliage, but I don’t think it should look pedestrian either.

I think The Lord of the Rings is kind of the perfect template. New Zealand is gorgeous and fantastical, but Jackson hit that perfect balance between a fantasy world and something tangible for us to grab on to. It was lived in, it was rough, it was dirty, but there was a majesty to it, a slightly heightened reality that gave us the best of both worlds.

It’s still way too early to tell if the final product will or won’t convey this feeling I was hoping to see in this footage, but it was my immediate reaction to watching this scene.

If you’ve read Burroughs’ books, you’ll know that this bumbling about (fully clothed, by the way… no butt-naked John Carter hopping around Mars for a quarter of the story like in the first book!) leads Carter to a structure in the distance.

He sees something shiny against the mountains, approaches it, and peers down through glass-like material into a room filled with eggs.

The hatchery is where the baby Tharks are incubated and born and that’s what John Carter sees. The little ones are rounder, their little tusks but nubs that haven’t broken the skin yet.

Across the desert, dust gives away the approach of riders closing in on the hatchery. Heading this group is Tars Tarkas, a Jeddak (leader), who sees Carter jump away in fear as the band opens fire on him and stops his group from killing the human.

Tars tries to communicate with Carter in a scene that feels like it’d be at home in Dances With Wolves. Tars repeats his name, uses one of his four hands to touch his chest and points to Carter, who suspiciously engages, knowing full well he’s staring at an alien being who has a ton of friends with weapons aimed at him.



Willem Dafoe voices Tars and he does a really good job. The interaction between Carter and Tars was fine. The CG on the Tharks wasn’t completely done so it’s hard for me to comment on them definitively. Stanton did show a quick moment between Dejah Thoris and Sola (Samantha Morton) that was maybe 15 seconds long, but it was supposed to be fully rendered and he wanted us to see a Thark at 100%.

My worry with the Tharks is that because of Stanton’s choice to go super realistic they’re going to stick out. Even with the fully rendered Sola the design is very much in Pixar’s modus operandi of not going fully photoreal, instead giving us a really detailed, but slightly exaggerated look for the people in their world.

The fear is that by not trying to go photoreal with the CG that it’s going to clash with the reality he’s trying to set up. It’d be like if Neill Blomkamp made District 9 and the prawns looked like prequel characters. It just wouldn’t work in that world.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not comparing the CG here to the prequels. I still haven’t seen enough to gauge that one way or the other, to be honest. It’s just a concern I have as someone who loves Burroughs, loves Stanton and wants to see this movie be amazing.

The second scene was to show us the chemistry between Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins as John Carter visits Dejah Thoris as she’s in the custody of Sab Than (Dominic West), the Jeddak of a city at war with her own. She’s to be married to him, which politically should save her city. Of course, she doesn’t love him and has developed some feelings for Carter.

For fans of Burroughs’ novels, you’ll be a little disappointed to know that Dejah isn’t red. The Red Men of Mars are red because of the color of their tribal tattoos, not because they have red skin.

I’m not sold on Collins just yet (maybe I’m hung up on her not being red), but I was pleasantly surprised with Kitsch as John Carter. He carried himself well and was able to play Carter with a bit of wonder, glee and toughness that I frankly didn’t expect when I heard he was cast. Of course, this is based on, like, 3% of his performance in the movie, but that was my impression.

We were next shown the trailer, which does set up the universe a bit starting in 1800s America as young Edgar Rice Burroughs is brought the bad news that his Uncle Jack is dead. Daryl Sabara plays Burroughs and looks good in the part. In fact, everything in America looked great… the cinematography sharp with a lot of deep blacks and fantastic production design.

Young Burroughs reads his Uncle Jack’s diary and that’s what takes us to Mars as Peter Gabriel sings Arcade Fire’s My Body Is A Cage.

Basically we get the set up… Earth man on Mars, the planet is dying, he’s their only hope, etc… with brief glimpses at some of the spectacle. Interestingly enough, they don’t give us a title, just the JCM logo you see on the poster.

The cherry on the cake wasn’t the trailer, though, it was a snippet from an action set piece that involves John Carter in a coliseum, one ankle chained to a rock, as a Great White Ape of Mars is unleashed. Think albino, tiny beady eyes, about Kong-sized, but with four arms.

Tars Tarkus is in there with Carter, obviously hurt, as other Tharks cheer from the stands. Of all the stuff they showed, this is the piece that I liked without reservation. Carter is handicapped and can barely jump free of the rampaging Ape, Tars is in trouble… there’s a genuine sense of thrilling adventure and real danger as these two do what they can to survive the encounter.

There will be those who think this scene rips off Attack of the Clones, but they will be the same people that were all over the talkbacks when Fellowship of the Ring came out talking about how Gandalf falling into flame was just ripping off Obi-Wan’s sacrifice in Star Wars (ie, the uninformed).

We left Saul Zaentz’s place to head over Pixar-way and have a bite to eat amongst props, maquettes, production art and models. They pounded it into our heads over and over and over again that just because we were at Pixar doesn’t mean this is a Pixar movie. It’s a Disney movie. Live action, most likely PG-13… Disney, not Pixar. So, do you get it? John. Carter. Is. Not. A. Pixar. Movie.

So, we went to Pixar and scoped out the room, which had a life-sized Tars Tarkas in one corner, a ship in another, a long conference table littered with maquettes of Tharks, Thoats (think war beasts), White Apes and even Woola, a faithful animal companion for John Carter that has an attitude of a loyal (hairless) dog (with 8 legs), but a giant mouth with Great White Shark-like rows of fuck-you-up teeth.

If you check out the picture below (click for mega big version) of Stanton talking with us in this room you’ll be able to see your first glimpse at his version of Tharks as well as the realized model version of the ship seen in the above production art:

 

 

 

The art up around the room was designed to show the difference between the factions of Barsoom. The Heliumites are peaceful, their flag red and blue with round edges while the Zodangan flag is more Third Reich-ish, hard lines harsh red and black. The design of their ships (and city, which is itself a giant floating ship) is very much like the Empire in Star Wars… that blocky, hard edged design.

That difference as apparent even in their weapon and armor design.

 

 

 

It wasn’t long before I had to take off, departing slightly early in order to catch a plane to destinations unknown. That next adventure you’ll hopefully be reading about sooner than later (but probably later). It’ll be worth the wait, though.

Overall, Stanton is always impressive when speaking. I’m a big fan of his previous movies and that buys him a lot of trust. I have some issues with what I saw, but I seemed to be the great minority as most all of the other guys on the visit loved what they saw.

We’ll see what we end up with. If Stanton captured the right adventurous feeling I saw in the White Apes footage throughout the movie then we could be in for something special. There are still a lot of X factors here, the most important of which is if we buy the central romance between Dejah and John Carter. If that doesn’t work, nothing works.

Hope you guys enjoyed my rundown of this visit and have a better idea of what Andrew Stanton and his crew have in store for us next year.

You don’t see a lot of video content on AICN, but the more progressive guys at Slashfilm and Collider roped me into a video discussion of the visit, which you can watch below if you wish. It’s a good chat, but you’ll see why I’m a writer and not an on-air personality.

 

JOHN CARTER Video Blog from ColliderVideos on Vimeo.

 



-Quint
quint@aintitcool.com
Follow Me On Twitter

Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • July 11, 2011, 10:42 a.m. CST

    John Carter must die.

    by Mr Soze

    Is this a sequel???

  • July 11, 2011, 10:44 a.m. CST

    by Mr.Stiggs

    Dorks

  • July 11, 2011, 10:45 a.m. CST

    Sorry, that was mean.

    by Mr.Stiggs

  • July 11, 2011, 10:46 a.m. CST

    But come on!!

    by Mr.Stiggs

  • July 11, 2011, 11:02 a.m. CST

    Get yo ahsss to Maasss!

    by Andy Pandy

  • July 11, 2011, 11:08 a.m. CST

    Can we really trust the AICN guys about "John Carter"?

    by frankenberry

    Most critics already have a "I could have done it better" attitude. But Harry actually came close to making his own big-budget "John Carter of Mars". When the reviews arrive next year, I can't help but feel Harry is going to be like, "Yeah, it's good, but not quite what I would have done." Meanwhile, the other AICN writers, not wanting to piss off their boss/hurt their friend, are going to concur, "You guys should have seen what Harry's vision for the project was!"

  • I just can't take this genre seriously.

  • July 11, 2011, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Sorry. Can't view that JCM logo without thinking of choppah's

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    interpretation. Too. Funny.

  • July 11, 2011, 11:24 a.m. CST

    so this is another Pixar movie right?

    by CARTMANEZ

  • July 11, 2011, 11:30 a.m. CST

    I am suddenly very interested in this...

    by Ryan

  • I don't see a difference. The whole "state's rights" thing is bullshit anyway. Either slavery was wrong, or it wasn't. End of story. If you fought in defense of it, fuck you. Yeah, there were plenty of hypocrites in the North who were happy to profit from it (fuck them) and some Southerners who opposed slavery and put their money where their mouth was by participating in the Underground Railroad. But if you supported the Confederacy, you were supporting slavery. So really, I'm not gonna be able to root for John Carter. <p> <p>Oh, and even if Lucas cribbed narrative ideas from Burroughs or Tolkien, if the cinematic adaptors of their work crib from Lucas in their visions (which Jackson did in just about every other shot of LOTR, and Stanton did a fair amount in "Wall-E"), then I don't think it's fair to call it "uninformed". True, bitching about it is stupid and only holds people back (where would we be if Tarantino decided to only use "original" ideas?) but if it looks like a duck, don't get upset for someone saying it quacks like one, too.

  • July 11, 2011, 11:32 a.m. CST

    Stanton mentioning the trailer process

    by Arteska

    Like he did was good to hear but it's the second time recently I've seen it confirmed that the approach seems to be to replicate the entirety of experiencing the movie in trailer form, which is damn near brain dead and is why we have so many spoiler filled, money shot brimming trailers that leave nothing for ticket buyers. Going to a cinema is already unpleasant enough. Reducing the decision to actually see a movie out to a formality has been killing the business too. Trailers should pique, interest, excite or promise something more, not give you a Costco sample of the bulk item.

  • July 11, 2011, 11:55 a.m. CST

    i hope this is as good as Gay Lantern....derrrp.

    by Arkhaminmate001

  • July 11, 2011, 11:59 a.m. CST

    I'll miss Tracy Lords.

    by cookylamoo

  • July 11, 2011, 12:04 p.m. CST

    Calling it "John Carter" is stupid.

    by robogeek.com

    Sorry, I love ya Andrew, and am dying to see the film, but it's gotta be said that "John Carter" is a stupid title for this movie. I've heard the lame "he doesn't fully earn the 'of Mars' part until the end of the movie" bullshit, but that's just stupid. (He's on Mars in the first act!) By that logic they should've called "Batman Begins" "Bruce Wayne" (or "The Wizard of Oz" "Dorothy"), but this is ten times worse, because at least in that case most moviegoers would've had the name recognition. In this case, if you say "John Carter" most entertainment consumers will think of Noah Wyle's character in ER, and/or simply be scratching their heads. Look, I get the arguments (and logic) against calling it "A Princess of Mars" -- that's fine -- but there's no good reason not to call this "John Carter of Mars", nor is there a good reason to call it just "John Carter". (And sure wish Dejah were at least reddish...)

  • July 11, 2011, 12:30 p.m. CST

    God damn it.

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    Why did I ever think for a second that this movie wouldn't suck? Hollywood has never met source material it didn't want to destroy. Tribal fucking tattoos. Not red skin. Fucking tattoos.

  • July 11, 2011, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Isn't Harry a producer on this?

    by UGG

    Or was it that Traci Lords one he worked on?

  • July 11, 2011, 12:46 p.m. CST

    They got rid of "of Mars" because of the curse

    by Jardinier

    MISSION TO MARS, GHOSTS OF MARS, MARS NEEDS MOMS, RED PLANET... all movies set on Mars with the planet mentioned/alluded to in the title... and they bombed hard. Now, one could argue that that's because those movies sucked. But Hollywood prefers to believe in a Mars title curse. Hence "JOHN CARTER". (And I call bullshit on "it was my idea". Just like it was the directors' idea to change RAPUNZEL into TANGLED, I'm sure.) Also, what the fuck, Quint? "States' rights" was definitely code for "right to have slavery", just like it was code for discrimination against blacks after Reconstruction. Not all Confederate soldiers were evil, but if they weren't, they were stupid, deluded or misguided. There is no tragic honor in defending a morally corrupt system despite knowing that it is indefensible. What, are you going to tell us next that SS butchers were just following orders and shouldn't be held at all responsible for their actions? If the movie is going to insist to stick to Carter's literary origin, it had better address this (and tone down some of the other race issues in the original novel). It's one thing to read a book as a product of its time, with all the insensitivities that implies; it's quite another to reproduce those problems in a modern adaptation for a modern audience.

  • July 11, 2011, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Tough sell in an Avatar-poisoned world

    by Beezbo

    I hope they don't destroy this character the way the Spirit was abused. I can live with the deviations from the source novels that we know about so far, but I hope there aren't many more changes.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:10 p.m. CST

    Deja Thoris isn't red?!?!?

    by DeckardB26354

    That blows. Why wouldn't they make the martians red, that was a cool element.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:14 p.m. CST

    Saul Zaentz’s place was kinda crazy awesome

    by Righteous Brother

    Come on Eric, you're not a 12 year old.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:17 p.m. CST

    A Princess of Mars, The Gods of Mars and The Warlord of Mars

    by Righteous Brother

    = John Carter, John Carter 2 and John Carter 3. Boring! The orginal titles are much better, who cares if they're pulpy? Studio execs never fucking get it, those other films Mission to Mars, Ghosts of Mars etc......were failures not because they had Mars in the title, its just they were crappy films.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:19 p.m. CST

    THAT ISN'T NOAH FUKKIN' WYLIE!

    by THE_CHOPPAH

    Defuck ...

  • July 11, 2011, 1:21 p.m. CST

    I don't believe him about the title.

    by SnootyBoots

    The powers that be changed the title to JOHN CARTER OF MARS long before he was involved because they're afraid of the word "Princess." Now they're calling it just JOHN CARTER because they're afraid of the word "Mars." I believe if he were being honest he'd say something like, "Hey, I hate JOHN CARTER. I want to call it A PRINCESS OF MARS more than anybody, but the marketing people have spoken and that's the way it's going to be. Hopefully, if it makes a lot of money, they'll let me put Mars in the title of the next one."

  • July 11, 2011, 1:22 p.m. CST

    This is the idiot who brought us Finding Nemo and WALL-E...

    by ClayMatthews

    ...oh wait: those were masterpieces.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:26 p.m. CST

    "My Mind is a Cage"....

    by WONKABAR

    interesting choice... http://tinyurl.com/3vxltuv

  • July 11, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    eer.. I mea

    by WONKABAR

  • July 11, 2011, 1:27 p.m. CST

    errr... I meant "Body is a Cage"

    by WONKABAR

  • July 11, 2011, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Not photorealistic

    by Koyaanisqatsi

    I am so sick and tired of people complaining about how aliens in movies don't look photoreal. Fuck you, when was the last time you saw an alien in person? Just a bunch of goddamn whiners.

  • Really, once you hear phrases like that, the air just slowly starts to leak out of anticipation, and it's usually justified. I have to wonder if all the compromises being made to bring things like this to the screen are worth it. So many of these kinds of films just end up being testaments to how dull and unimaginative - even afraid of imagination - Hollywood money, and the general moviegoing masses, are. Makes me think back to Star Wars, and how utterly deranged and ambitious that was. And how the utterly fearless, going-for-it quality about their approach was pretty much entirely responsible for the character which hooked entire generations of fans. When creators aren't afraid to go all-in to being imaginative, it creates that same freedom in the viewer, which is liberating. Technology is making it easier to realize fantasy worlds, but not easier to do it with conviction. Here's hoping this film finds some way to do that.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:31 p.m. CST

    Wow.

    by victor laszlo

    This is coming out even more whitewashed than expected. I'm almost surprised he's keeping the Tharks green.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:32 p.m. CST

    I like red Martians

    by Anthony Torchia

    Crazy Horse's ghost will be really pissed at the lost chance for great P.R. I haven't thought of Woola in 20 years, that name gave me a big smile. Oh, and I HATE CLOWNS!

  • July 11, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    WHITE LETTERS ON BLACK SCREEN: Chapter 1: A Princess of Mars

    by Jake Pantlin

    Just do it Tarrantino style. Have a black screen appear on the screen with bold white letters saying Chapter 1: A Princess of Mars. The title doesn't have to be used as teh title of the film, but it could be used in the film as a place card to introduce the events of the story. Not a perfect solution, but one that would work for me. They could do that with all the movies, as a way to slip in the original titles of the books.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Flash! Ahhhhhhahhhh! He's unstoppable!

    by Spandau Belly

    This movie sounds like an even more boring version of Avatar. I pass.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:38 p.m. CST

    kevred...

    by WONKABAR

    Funny that you mention Star Wars. When he says "grounded in reality" he means exactly that type of lived-in design. From a recent LA Times article..."I kept using the word “authentic” when I was out on set or doing art in development. I just wanted things to look like they had been through weather and use. I wanted things to look beat-up and old. This may sound weird, but I was always so impressed by the Monty Python films and Terry Gilliam’s sense of production value. Things really felt like they had been through the mud. And if you look at most historical films, for a little too long they always gave us things that looked a little too clean. People on my set could not distress things enough for me. Everything was pre-industrial; I wanted it to look made by hand. I wanted the pre-revolution days of Mars to look like tall ships on the skyline. And to get that to come across through the lens and then up on the screen, you just couldn’t beat stuff up enough. I remember once we had this great big deck gun and my weapons guy made this beautiful object. In his mind it looks weathered but I stepped back about 20 feet and said from here it looks brand new. I told him he should go take an ax to it and get it some really big nicks to it. He said, “You’re kidding me?” But he did it, he took the ax to it, he wouldn’t let anybody else do it to his baby. But that’s how we wanted everything, dirty, used, distressed and, hopefully, historical." - Stanton

  • July 11, 2011, 1:43 p.m. CST

    What Robogeek.com said...

    by BiggusDickus

    Not calling this 'John Carter of Mars' is just plain idiotic.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    uncomfortable

    by whatevillurks

  • July 11, 2011, 1:44 p.m. CST

    So far, they're making the right choices.

    by SmokingRobot

    Red people on screen for two hours would just be fucking ridiculous.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Red people on screen - Darth Maul!!!

    by Jake Pantlin

    The only cool part of THE PHANTOM MENACE was a character with red skin: Darth Maul! So I can't diss red aliens.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:52 p.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER NEEDS A BETTER TITLE

    by Mullah Omar

    Just calling this "John Carter" is going to put a lot of trust in audiences to figure out what kind of film this is. I'd love to see the stats showing the expected decrease in sales due to a generic title versus a title with "of Mars" in it. Personally, I'd probably err on the side of adding "of Mars" just so people assume it's a sci-fi movie.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    @starwarsredux

    by kyle martin

    You should read a few more history books... Slavery did not become a key issue for the war until several years in. Lincoln needed a catalyst to drive recruitment. It was propaganda more than anything else. In fact, Lincoln thought it would be best to ship all slaves to an island. Most confederate soldiers fought for state's representation. Not for slavery.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:53 p.m. CST

    @starwarsredux

    by kyle martin

    You should read a few more history books... Slavery did not become a key issue for the war until several years in. Lincoln needed a catalyst to drive recruitment. It was propaganda more than anything else. In fact, Lincoln thought it would be best to ship all slaves to an island. Most confederate soldiers fought for state's representation. Not for slavery.

  • July 11, 2011, 1:58 p.m. CST

    @frankenberry

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    LOL good point!

  • July 11, 2011, 2:02 p.m. CST

    hmmm

    by Dollar Bird

    Some of this has me excited. Some of this does not. Still, can't go wrong with Willem Dafoe as Tars Tarkas.

  • July 11, 2011, 2:17 p.m. CST

    Wonkabar, thanks for that quote, I hope that's what results!

    by kevred

    If the storytelling is comparably unafraid, it could be something special. I hope so - it's discouraging when things like this fail, and I don't mean commercially.

  • July 11, 2011, 2:30 p.m. CST

    Wait, he justifies the title change...

    by blackwood

    by saying he doesn't want to alienate people who aren't into sci-fi? In a film where every single shot screams THIS IS SCI FI? That's dumb. Dumb dumb dumb. The 'Mars' curse, copyright, anything else, makes more sense. Like, I'm pretty sure AVATAR wasn't chosen as a title to trick Hindus into going to see a movie about Krishna. Although they are blue, so maybe.

  • July 11, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    kyle.martin

    by Lobanhaki2

    You should read a few more history books yourself. War started in 1861, 1863 saw the emancipation proclamation. Also, the war only lasted until 1865, so it was about four years long. As for what the Confederate Soldiers fought for? I would imagine mostly their homes and their states. I wouldn't imagine them to be saints on slavery, but something as abstract as states rights, in its legal sense? No. Let's not sell the Confederacy as some politically correct paradise. But let's not act like the Confederacy was a hell of stereotypical villains, either.

  • July 11, 2011, 2:31 p.m. CST

    WTF is a Thark? A gay shark?

    by Mattman

  • I actually work out and have a shave almost every day.

  • July 11, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    What'

    by Koyaanisqatsi

  • July 11, 2011, 2:51 p.m. CST

    s wrong with having a beard?

    by Koyaanisqatsi

  • July 11, 2011, 3:06 p.m. CST

    It's annoying that in the wake of LOTR every fantasy movie

    by Dennis_Moore

    has to have those bird's eye view/helicopter tracking establishing shots for giant structures and cities. One, get your own style, and two, the scale and sense of weird wonder would seem more grand and immersive establishing the location from human eye level looking up.

  • July 11, 2011, 3:25 p.m. CST

    Is John Carter still a Civil War vet?

    by D.Vader

  • July 11, 2011, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Carter and the Confederacy and a compromise

    by JackieJokeman

    Have John be found with no memory and be adopted by the Carters about 10-15 years before the story begins. He fights for the Confederacy out of loyalty to them. Then have Jim Powell, his prospecting partner, be an ex-slave. Throw in a line by JC like this: "When we return to Virginia, my friend, my account of your bravery and loyalty will have you welcomed with open arms into the hall of Carters... of course it wont hurt that you will be by far the richest person present." as he laughs and nods at the bags and bags of gold they have discovered on Powells claim. Yeah, Ive thought about it a little.

  • July 11, 2011, 3:32 p.m. CST

    dennis_moore

    by TheWacoKid

    I love those kinds of shots. For me, they are always welcome. SoI'm hoping there is more and more of them. Perhaps have a human eye perspective, the helicopter shot that follows? In any case, I love 'em no matter what.

  • July 11, 2011, 3:35 p.m. CST

    I love the line about motion capture + animation...

    by zinc_chameleon

    because mocap is too jumpy to capture micro-expressions, and animators have to step in to make those facial expressions real. This is one of the reasons James Cameron wants to go to 48 or even 60 frames per second: that's what it takes to beat the 'uncanny valley' problem. If you don't know what that is, check out: "Final Fantasy Spirits Within".

  • July 11, 2011, 4:30 p.m. CST

    IO9 has also a very interesting interview with Stanton

    by KilliK

    you can read it here: http://io9.com/5819836/ Apparently,like what PJ did with LOTR and Hobbit,Pixar people are going to bastardize this classic story in order to make a popcorn movie which will sell to the mainstream audience.and all the merchandise that will follow it. i didnt expect anything less than that.

  • July 11, 2011, 4:39 p.m. CST

    @mattma No a shark with a lisp

    by KilliK

  • July 11, 2011, 6:03 p.m. CST

    The IO9 article makes it sound even worse.

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    I could live with an endless stream of cosmetic and biographical changes as long as the core of the characters remained intact...but John Carter is not a man who needs to "rediscover his humanity". I bet they leave out the shit about him never aging, too. He'll just be some normal asshole who winds up on Tattooine.

  • July 11, 2011, 6:26 p.m. CST

    Re: John Carter title change

    by Mace Tofu

    Most of America thinks the poster is for a new Terminator film...

  • July 11, 2011, 7:09 p.m. CST

    Not Red!?!?

    by BirdMcMonster

    The issues are starting to stack up for this. I'm going to be devastated, aren't I?

  • July 11, 2011, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Cool! A new Terminator movie!

    by freerangecelt

    What? Aw crap...

  • July 11, 2011, 7:45 p.m. CST

    this could be huge, enormous, outstanding...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... but during that video discussion i got nervous when it was mentioned that an attempt is being made to attract people that hate science fiction - like omitting "mars" from the title - bad movie - the entire premise depends on the fact that it takes place on mars - is the idea of a story about mars suddenly not cool enough for joe cineplex to buy a ticket? - if i were disney id be revving up the mars angle not hiding it - how can you sell this movie to the public without selling them mars as its backbone - if the character and books are so beloved by the film's creators, have some balls and feed the uninitiated the premise up front - all 3 movies will be on fucking MARS

  • July 11, 2011, 7:51 p.m. CST

    dennis_moore, exactly...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    cg camera moves cement the fact that what youre watching is fake - theyre cool, but really only belong in animated movies where its established up front what your watchibg isnt real its animated (including the camera moves) - give me crane shots and helicopter shots that look real - save the 500 mph pull backs from a 2 shot on a submarine deck to an establishment shot 25 miles away in 3 seconds for cartoons (xmen first class)

  • July 11, 2011, 7:56 p.m. CST

    could john carter have been a confederate and...

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    ... not been a racist? i hope so - i hope it plays out that way - their were nazi soldiers that broke ranks out of disapproval with what was happening - they were usually shot up against a wall - didnt make it to mars

  • July 11, 2011, 8:03 p.m. CST

    koyaanisqatsi, i agree

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    as "photo real" as the aliens in avatar were described, i was still very aware that they were an effect - suspension of disbelief is half the battle

  • July 11, 2011, 8:22 p.m. CST

    Red Martians NOT RED?!?!

    by Jeff Dee

    What the hell? The racial conflicts on Barsoom are FUNDAMENTAL to the story. It's over. This is gonna suck. Not making the Martians distinct races doesn't just mean Stanton is engaging in a bit of personal creativity. It means he does not fucking understand the goddam material. Shit. And I was SO hoping this would be done right.

  • July 11, 2011, 8:31 p.m. CST

    lol @ Pixar distancing themselves from this

    by Fridge

    IT ISN'T A PIXAR MOVIE. WE SWEAR.

  • July 11, 2011, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Completely Agree with the Issues

    by locater16

    The entire thing sounds... Sort of like Tron Legacy. A lot of money, a lot production design, a lot of CG, not really cohesive. At least Stanton sounds a lot more familiar, and should be more familiar, with CG than Kosinski. But my question is why, why did they choose the art directions they went for? Why does Mars look like Utah? Why, besides hard edges vs soft for good vs evil, any of that? Great Art direction, such as The Lord of the Rings, has thought behind that. It has a "why" to those questions. Even Star Wars did, even if most of the answers were "because it's cool". Well, it worked. Sounds like it'll be good, but not fantastic, not billion dollar grossing applause worthy. Still, a good sci-fi action adventure could be perfectly entertaining.

  • July 11, 2011, 10:44 p.m. CST

    What the heck is John Carter of Mars anyway?

    by Yelsaeb

    I've never heard of it.

  • July 11, 2011, 10:53 p.m. CST

    Holy crap those are some major dorks.

    by googamooga

    The guy with the facial hair could pass for normal, but the other two make me ashamed to be a movie fan...

  • July 11, 2011, 10:54 p.m. CST

    And not a wedding ring visible among the three of them...

    by googamooga

    I'd like to say I'm surprised, but I've been told lying is a sin.

  • July 11, 2011, 11:12 p.m. CST

    Hey confederates, think black people are a laugh riot? Wait 'til you get a load of...

    by Gary Busey's Upper Half

    RED people!

  • July 11, 2011, 11:22 p.m. CST

    MARS NEEDS MOMS is why MARS is gone from the title

    by Dursman2000

    One of the biggest bombs in Disney history. They're hoping it's not a repeat!! (Of course it was probably done before -- I didn't bother to look it up).

  • July 12, 2011, 1:46 a.m. CST

    John Carter is a Confederate

    by apewithchain

    only because he's from Virginia. The state he's loyal to, for better or worse (and with him, loyalty is a fetish) is a big part of his character. The Civil War angle is just a red herring--though it's a tempting connection to make for the movie. The Red Men being red-skinned isn't a red herring, however. Color is a big part of the Martian character; a relic of how their races evolved over the eons. To nitpick even more: are those helmets? Martians never wear helmets. The title, "John Carter" is probably not due to public domain issues, though; that name (along with others from the books) is trademarked by Burroughs, Inc.

  • July 12, 2011, 1:54 a.m. CST

    You don’t see a lot of video content on AICN

    by Bass Ackwards

    That's for the better, the article was a great write up, but that video was just a long rambling nothing of information.

  • July 12, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    Sounds like he was really underwhelmed

    by Winston Smith

    I've read enough of these "reports" and seen the movies to know the basic reaction... "damn, that was disappointing" was the reaction here. Doesn't mean the movie will suck. But this certainly was far from a slam dank for Quinty.

  • July 12, 2011, 3:17 a.m. CST

    slam dank

    by Winston Smith

    Is a registered phrase, btw.

  • July 12, 2011, 3:22 a.m. CST

    as for the civil war stuff

    by Winston Smith

    Firstly, this film isn't really about that, so it's irrelevant. Secondly, it's very easy to judge from our standpoint now (even though slavery is alive and well in the world, even in the US, and I'm not talking about the metaphorical low wage "slavery".) Many people were just born into a side and were fighting to fight... and there's a lot that is very wrong with our culture now. Humans are humans, and our culture defines us. If all of us, literally US, were born 150 years ago, it's not like we'd have modern viewpoints on life. It was said best this way... humans roughly break down into 3 groups. 10% of humans will want to create chaos and misery and seek their own satisfaction whatever the costs no matter what society or world they are born into. Another 10% will have their own vision for the world that is not based on selfish desires and will do all they can to try and right what they see as the wrongs of their age. Sometimes the first 10% will use the trappings of this latter group to gain power. Finally, the rest of us, that 80% is best defined by the era and culture they are born into. They don't actively want to harm others, nor do they really care to change anything. They're along for the ride. And that, to me, explains most of human history, even if it's a very over-simplified grouping (obviously).

  • July 12, 2011, 3:27 a.m. CST

    John Carter: The First Avenger

    by Julius Dithers

    Problem solved.

  • July 12, 2011, 4:21 a.m. CST

    The civil war stuff is not at all irrelevant

    by Chrispmeat

    It is very important to the character of John Carter that he is a confederate soldier from viginia. Out of all of the amazing things he accomplished on mars in the first three books the most powerful feet was overcoming his own prejudices. He took a society separated by color, controlled by religion, and in a constant state of warfare and bound them together in peace free from a false religion. that becomes far less remarkable and interesting if he does not grow and discover that importance of unity through the course of the film. as a society if we ever want to do away with racism we need to be able to talk about. To just shove it under the rug is a disservice to everyone. (fun fact: Robert E Lee was the first white American to take communion with a black American)

  • July 12, 2011, 4:56 a.m. CST

    frankenberry

    by HEADGEEK

    JOHN CARTER was a passion for about 7 years. Something I lived and breathed. But I've moved on, new passions. I want Stanton's JOHN CARTER to succeed and underline just how stupid that one Paramount exec was, she's no longer there, when Stanton has another film making over $700 million world wide. But that's just a modest expectation. But you have to understand... When I was on this movie, I had 4 different directors that we producers were conspiring with. Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro (never fully signed, but we had over a month plotting & planning), Kerry Conran (whose version nobody has a chance of topping visually) and then Jon Favreau's and there - I feel will be the best full script, though the Protosevich script we had with Rodriguez was pretty goddamn killer. But Andrew Stanton hired a ton of the artists we had at different iterations of our projects - but the mere act of having those different directors - 3 of which got to very nearly fully design their films - I have to say. None of those films looked anything like each other - and the joy of producing on the John Carter project at PARAMOUNT - was getting to see up close and personal - just how different and amazing each director was in what they did. Robert's was aggressive. Guillermo's I wish I'd had more time on, to just more fully see his design approach - we just didn't get that far. But Kerry's - it's the version I dream of. It was never captured in any of our scripts - we were victimized by bad decisions from up on high. But the film we were designing, the film we knew we were making - and would have made - sigh. Then Favreau's... it was BEN HUR. It was epic. Andrew Stanton is another great director. I'm fascinated to see an animation director transition into making a great live action film. Thus far, that hasn't really happened. Shortly we'll see it with Brad Bird, then shortly thereafter we'll see if Andrew can match. But what I can't wait to discover is Andrew's take. In the same way that I love all the different artists that have painted and illustrated the Barsoomian realms, I'm equally curious to see the final version. I always told everyone. I could never believe that I would be lucky enough to be one of the guys that brought this particular work of magic from Burroughs to life, but I'd love to. Because it must be done. I've been offered every visit and asked to the set, but I've stayed away. I just want to see the film. At long last to see it up there and to lay each of those 4 wonderful directors that I worked with - and their visions alongside... and not compare, but admire the differences. To be able to discuss each one at varying degrees of appreciation. Just as I do when talking about Frankensteins, Draculas, Tarzans, Batmans, Sherlock Holmes, and that's just amongst my favorite past times.

  • July 12, 2011, 4:57 a.m. CST

    frankenberry

    by HEADGEEK

    JOHN CARTER was a passion for about 7 years. Something I lived and breathed. But I've moved on, new passions. I want Stanton's JOHN CARTER to succeed and underline just how stupid that one Paramount exec was, she's no longer there, when Stanton has another film making over $700 million world wide. But that's just a modest expectation. But you have to understand... When I was on this movie, I had 4 different directors that we producers were conspiring with. Robert Rodriguez, Guillermo Del Toro (never fully signed, but we had over a month plotting & planning), Kerry Conran (whose version nobody has a chance of topping visually) and then Jon Favreau's and there - I feel will be the best full script, though the Protosevich script we had with Rodriguez was pretty goddamn killer. But Andrew Stanton hired a ton of the artists we had at different iterations of our projects - but the mere act of having those different directors - 3 of which got to very nearly fully design their films - I have to say. None of those films looked anything like each other - and the joy of producing on the John Carter project at PARAMOUNT - was getting to see up close and personal - just how different and amazing each director was in what they did. Robert's was aggressive. Guillermo's I wish I'd had more time on, to just more fully see his design approach - we just didn't get that far. But Kerry's - it's the version I dream of. It was never captured in any of our scripts - we were victimized by bad decisions from up on high. But the film we were designing, the film we knew we were making - and would have made - sigh. Then Favreau's... it was BEN HUR. It was epic. Andrew Stanton is another great director. I'm fascinated to see an animation director transition into making a great live action film. Thus far, that hasn't really happened. Shortly we'll see it with Brad Bird, then shortly thereafter we'll see if Andrew can match. But what I can't wait to discover is Andrew's take. In the same way that I love all the different artists that have painted and illustrated the Barsoomian realms, I'm equally curious to see the final version. I always told everyone. I could never believe that I would be lucky enough to be one of the guys that brought this particular work of magic from Burroughs to life, but I'd love to. Because it must be done. I've been offered every visit and asked to the set, but I've stayed away. I just want to see the film. At long last to see it up there and to lay each of those 4 wonderful directors that I worked with - and their visions alongside... and not compare, but admire the differences. To be able to discuss each one at varying degrees of appreciation. Just as I do when talking about Frankensteins, Draculas, Tarzans, Batmans, Sherlock Holmes, and that's just amongst my favorite past times.

  • July 12, 2011, 6:37 a.m. CST

    Lynn Collins...

    by MaxTheSilent

    ...is pure sex.

  • July 12, 2011, 8:03 a.m. CST

    re: Trying to Appeal to Those Who Aren’t into Sci-Fi

    by buggerbugger

    It's pointless trying to "trick" people into going to see a type of film they're not interested in. They're either going to see posters or trailers or read reviews beforehand. Or, on the other hand, if you **do** manage to "trick" people into going in completely blind, they're probably not going to be very amenable to your film once the flying monkeys sweep by onscreen, flinging shit at them in glorious 3D, and the blue-skinned cat people start whispering solemnly about the Ritual of Wis'Kurz or whateverthefuck. Similarly, you really shouldn't try "tricking" people who don't like rom-coms into going to see a rom-com by changing the title to 'Superwar of the Alien Tentacle Rapeyfiends from Venus' in the hope that some of those rom-com-hating people will come out of cinemas spreading the word about how fucking unexpectedly cool that rom-com was that they were tricked into seeing, despite expecting a film full of explosive rapey goodness and being just a little bit disappointed that they didn't get any whatsoever. Plus, these things work both ways. For every person who doesn't like sci-fi and is "tricked" into seeing your movie, you're no doubt losing someone who **does** like sci-fi, but doesn't realise your film is sci-fi because of the shitty change you made to the title. Personally, if it were a choice between one or the other, I'd rather be blatant about the film being sci-fi and attracting the people who are amenable to that type of movie. There might be more than you think. Or did some gigantic sci-fi film called 'Avatar' not make twenty gazillion dollars recently?

  • July 12, 2011, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Speaking of Kerry Conran... is he still in the film business?

    by Andy Pandy

    He has like 1 credit to his name

  • July 12, 2011, 11 a.m. CST

    "...the feeling of reading the books..."= bad omen

    by Bob Cryptonight

    That feeling is different for everyone, obviously, so he's trying to please everyone. Maybe Queen can reunite with a sound-alike singer and do the music. Or maybe get Toto...

  • The stills look great, but it does remain to be seen if that can translate to a great movie. I hope it does, because it would be awesome.

  • July 12, 2011, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Harry, you have to admit...

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    ...that a lot of the decisions this crew has made sound pretty fucking bad. The LOTR trilogy and the Harry Potter films stick fairly close to the books, and fans love them. The Burroughs books have been fan favorites for 100 years...and with "Princess" we are talking about one of the greatest and most influential adventure novels of the 20th century. Why would someone as smart as Stanton fuck with that to such a huge degree? The red men aren't red? That is kind of a MAJOR change. There's no telepathy? Again, major change. Will John Carter even be ageless in this? This is starting to remind me of the Aronofsky Batman project.

  • July 12, 2011, 12:26 p.m. CST

    MORONS

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    you know u dickheads r always constantly bitching about how hollywood is so unoriginal and produces nothing but sequels, prequels, remakes, reboots etc. about how things are spoiled for u in trailers & how shit is too overhyped and overexposed for months in advance of a film. so i take a look today and its all a bunch shit-talking about this film and all the other talkbacks r about the retarded alien 5 prequel, superman 6, batman 7, johnnyfuckingdepp/kolchak, muppets...most of which just started shooting & ur already being bombarded w/ posters, teasers, set reports, concept art etc. ur all gonna know the whole fuckn thing 3 months b4 it even comes out. and then u fat fucks come 2 this board and post "never heard of it" "pass" "sounds like flash gordon" etc. or u go the fake-purist route "oh, they aren't red" or "im not sure if they did it right" "it should look this" all u idiots who just became familiar with the property over the last couple years r suddenly fucking experts--go fuck your self. no wonder disney didnt want 2 roll to comic-con and share with your sweaty, smelly, hairy, disgusting lard asses. u dont fucking deserve a good movie, all u need is more pimples and hair in all the wrong places. btw all y'all internets dudes shouldn't make videos of ur selves...u look like assholes. oh, and harry "Kerry Conran (whose version nobody has a chance of topping visually)...way to enforce frankenberry's point guy ; ) lol eat a fat dick all u talkback loser-loving homos

  • July 12, 2011, 12:34 p.m. CST

    spacehunter3-d

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    First off, great screen name. My dad took me to see that movie as a kid and I have had a soft spot for 3D shit ever since. But...you're way off. Personally, I first read A Princess of Mars 16 years ago, and it has been one of my favorite books ever since. The red skin thing...it is pretty integral to the entire concept of the series, which is that a number of different races with various skin colors--all existing in a state of constant war with one another--all evolved from the same ancient race. And there is nothing wrong with someone who has been dreaming of seeing this as a film for almost two decades being extremely disappointed that there are major, seemingly senseless changes to a classic, time-tested property. Why didn't Disney take this film to Comic Con? I think because they realize that the people who are most excited about it--actual fans of the source material...the kinds of people who go to Comic Con--are destined to be extremely disappointed. And why do you think Pixar seems to be trying to distance themselves from this film? Originally it was supposed to be the first Pixar live action movie...now they are saying they have almost nothing to do with it.

  • enjoy. u buncha fuckin pussy-farts

  • July 12, 2011, 12:56 p.m. CST

    generaljackcosmo

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    #1...thank u. i do have a bitchn name. 2...practicality dude. red skin would be hard and look lame in the same way that frodo riding his own horse to the ford would be difficult & probably look stupid. dont think 4 a second they did it solely 2 work more liv tyler in there...they knew.. hobbit-on-horse = retarded. and btw the lyn collins chick said that they DID have her wearing "tan" makeup, so its not like they totally changed it. 3...not necessarily referring 2 u specifically when i speak of faux-experts. 4 this was NEVER a pixar film. and saying they r "distancing" themselves is some seriously typical TB-BS speculation. peace

  • July 12, 2011, 1:11 p.m. CST

    spacehunter3-d re: point # 4

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    I am only going by the following from Quint's report in saying they are distancing themselves: "They pounded it into our heads over and over and over again that just because we were at Pixar doesn’t mean this is a Pixar movie. It’s a Disney movie. Live action, most likely PG-13… Disney, not Pixar. So, do you get it? John. Carter. Is. Not. A. Pixar. Movie." That said, as a huge fan of the books I have been following every near-miss and false start incarnation of this movie since the mid 90s, and when this version of the production first started to get rolling, all the trade papers and web-sites were reporting that this was going to be Pixar's first live action movie. It wasn't until about a year ago, if memory serves, that it was announced this movie would be released under the Disney banner. I think it was around the same time that Prince of Persia came out.

  • July 12, 2011, 1:30 p.m. CST

    Current top5 TBs...

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    the 3rd sequel to a reboot of a four film franchise. (they've only been filming 4 a few weeks & we've already been treated to numerous set photos/videos, a poster, a trailer, possible viral bullshit etc. etc. shutup already.) a remke/reboot/sequel/prequel to a movie made in 19eightyfucking2. a semi-sequel/spinoff do the right fucking thing. a remke/reboot/sequel/prequel to alien that is sounding more and more stupid & convoluted every time ridley scott opens his dumb mouth. (seriously, watch the extras on the blade-runner blu and witness all the witless plans he had for that film.) and finally, yet another remake of an old tv show starring none-other than mr fucking depp who seem to be on an over-acting quest to destroy as many already established/beloved characters as he can in a single ten year period. fuck, y don't he burton make little house on the fuckn Prairie and have charles ingalls be a fuckn pedophile or some fuckn shit. fuckn dickholes. burn in hell. please

  • July 12, 2011, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Love my first edition of Princess!

    by Leatherw0lf

    Been a huge John Carter fan my whole life. My first introduction to Science Fiction was through Edgar Rice Burroughs and the book Pellucidar. Then the horrible effects on the motion picture adaption of The Land That Time Forgot hooked me for life. For my 11th birthday my parents bought me the first 2 Tarzan collevtions by Ballentine books. My life was never the same again. I wrote my highschool and college research papers on Burroughs. I few years ago I was at a side of the road auction house in Maine and found a first edition of A Princess of Mars. It sits on a sofa table in my house for all to see. I for one am excited for this movie. Don't fuck it up Disney! This movie is the source material for everything that has come since. Leather

  • July 12, 2011, 1:56 p.m. CST

    my dear generaljackcosmo...

    by SPACEHUNTER3-D

    they kept pounding it in2 their stupid heads bcuz of all the morons in the blogosphere and all the sub-retards on all the message-boards kept, and STILL refer to it as a PIXAR film. they all simlpy made that assumption bcuz of mark andrews & andrew stanton's involvement...even going so far as to speculate that it was some kind of mix of animation/live action. this shit continued for almost year after stanton finished the script and announced it WILL BE LIVE ACTION>>PIXAR IS NOT INVOLVED. hell, they finished filming last fucking year and dipshits were still saying "pixars first live action/animation hybrid."dude, it wasn't just last year that it was put under the disney banner. its been disney since it was greenlit....by disney. the pixar name was never attached. fact

  • July 12, 2011, 3:48 p.m. CST

    As a long time fan of ERB's Mars novels

    by django_il_bastardo

    I can tell you that the Avatar comparison's are somewhat over exaggerated.

  • July 12, 2011, 4:09 p.m. CST

    No red aliens is a major problem

    by Beezbo

    The various races of the martians is obviously a VERY important part of the book(s)

  • July 12, 2011, 4:19 p.m. CST

    spacehunter3-d

    by GeneralJackCosmo

    I found trade articles (Hollywood Reporter, Variety) dating back to 2007 calling it Pixar's first live action film. However, it does turn out that all those trades fucked up: I found an article from one of the producers dated 2010 correcting it and confirming that that trades had been wrong all along. BUT, it wasn't just blogs, internet geeks, etc...it was the two most respected industry publications that were also getting it wrong as far back as 4 years ago. That's where I was getting my information from.

  • actually aicn here got it right way earlier ... http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39879 ... "- It is live action. - “It is huge, it is exciting, it scares the crap out of me. It’s either going to make me or break me.” - It is NOT a Pixar movie, rather a Disney film. However Stanton’s creative team from Pixar are all still involved. ... = Jan 25, 2009

  • July 13, 2011, 4:27 a.m. CST

    I had to abort the video blog...

    by justmyluck

    .. due to wanting to jump through the video playback window and nail that one in the middle with a flurry of bitch-slapping. This is why I never go to cons. So, there's like eleven of these things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barsoom ..and the AVATAR similarities are evident even in the Wiki summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Princess_of_Mars Anywhoo, reading Harry's recount of the aborted production, JOHN CARTER OF MARS is obviously really difficult to adapt, so it's probably better if I stay fresh and hope the PIXAR Brain Trust comes through. Would like to see Kerry Conran's pre-production art, tho.

  • July 13, 2011, 5:35 a.m. CST

    Re arteska "Stanton mentioning the trailer process"

    by The Ringwraith

    I completely aree with you on fronts, except that I have heard Andrew Stanton speak on this very topic and he also agrees with us! So don't worry! I believe he meant "best represents the film" or "best sells it"

  • July 13, 2011, 7:26 a.m. CST

    REDNESS UPDATE

    by Jeff Dee

    How Red did you visualise? I was just an Extra. (Along with several hundred other 'Zodagans). We were all naturally Olive skinned, different ethnicities, but on set we were spray tanned, we were redder; but we were not RED (as in Blood Red or Tomato Red) more like a spray tan dark Orange red. Plus Tattoos (face and body) were red/dark pink/purple - ish! I don't have a visual reference to what the original concept should look like. I think we looked pretty stunning though!

  • You've almost outdone yourself with that comment. Production art IS NOT a movie. Same way Sky Captain is less a movie (something which can engage on emotional and thematic levels) than a series of animated concept art clips. Harping on about your aborted project makes you sound like a completely delusional twat.

  • July 13, 2011, 10:48 a.m. CST

    REDNESS UPDATE: Corrected

    by Jeff Dee

    Might Quint have been mistaken about Dejah Thoris' skin? Someone who claims to have been an extra on John Carter told me this: -How Red did you visualise? I was just an Extra. (Along with several hundred other 'Zodagans). We were all naturally Olive skinned, different ethnicities, but on set we were spray tanned, we were redder; but we were not RED (as in Blood Red or Tomato Red) more like a spray tan dark Orange red. Plus Tattoos (face and body) were red/dark pink/purple - ish! I don't have a visual reference to what the original concept should look like. I think we looked pretty stunning though!- So now I don't know what to think.

  • July 13, 2011, 5:12 p.m. CST

    Fucking morons don't have a clue about the Civil War

    by Taillefer

    State rights was a legitimate issue with it's own merits and back in those days people thought of "their country" as their home state, like Virginia. People like Robert E. Lee sided with the South because he thought he was defending his "country's" sovereignty. Not all member of the Confederacy were slave owners, or slave haters. Brothers fought on opposite sides of the conflict. Generals were torn about their loyalties. Crack a fucking book, "starwarsredux," instead of getting your flimsy fucking education from fucking Steve Spielberg movies. Or, if you like moving pictures, at least try a fucking Ken Burns doc. Your shallow characterization of the war is ridiculous and a sad commentary on the state of modern education.

  • July 13, 2011, 8:40 p.m. CST

    taillefer

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    good points - but what it boiled down to was these states (confederacy) not wanting the fed. govt. and wash. telling them how to live - no matter how fucked up they chose to do so - they were anti union - all about local govt. making their own laws - like rand paul and sherif joe arpaio - the reason there was such a schism between rich and poor whites in the south back then was because the entire confederate economic system depended on free labor (slaves)

  • July 14, 2011, 1:18 a.m. CST

    @kyle.martin

    by SailorBarsoom

    When the various states wrote their articles of secession, they mentioned slavery as one of the reasons. You can look it up. If it wasn't an issue until several years in, it wouldn't have been given as a reason from the start. That said, this was written by politicians, not soldiers. John Carter or for that matter some randomly-selected Confederate soldier was generally fighting for his state, not to maintain or to end slavery. If Virginia had gone Union, so would John Carter (as would the vocally anti-slavery Robert E. Lee).

  • July 14, 2011, 1:32 a.m. CST

    googamooga

    by SailorBarsoom

    Google is your friend. The first three books are online. Actually, I think all eleven are. This movie is based off of the first. They were written a century ago and are the inspiration for Star Wars, Flash Gordon, Avatar, Superman, Gor, and Dune. Oh, and also for El Hazard: Magnificent World and the Dark Sun setting for D&D. Probably a lot of other stuff too. Oh, yeah: Adam Strange.

  • July 14, 2011, 3:02 p.m. CST

    So it turns out Dejah Thoris IS red.

    by Jeff Dee

    Quint must've been on the crackaine.

  • July 15, 2011, 4:11 p.m. CST

    wow Harry is a serious nerd

    by sunwukong86

    and he will be seriously let down by this movie

  • July 15, 2011, 4:41 p.m. CST

    In Stanton I trust - but that Thark design is utterly uninspiring

    by Movietool

    Actually, I hate it.

  • July 19, 2011, 7:15 a.m. CST

    Dejah's More Orange....

    by Jmacq

    From the trailer, it looks like she's been heavily dosed with that unnatural looking spray-on tan. Ordinarily it looks hideous, but it actually looks to have been used to good effect here. Just enough to look "not quite normal." IMO, a decent enough compromise. I just hope the movie ends up being fun and not an overly-serious bore.

  • July 21, 2011, 8:28 a.m. CST

    I didn't notice it at first but I get a real McQuarrie feel

    by MoffatBabies

    from those illustrations, and that makes me feel all warm inside.

  • July 26, 2011, 5:56 p.m. CST

    Once more

    by Tera Sanders

    Worst casting since Michael Keaton as Batman.

Top Talkbacks