Review

Harry's 145,002 word review of JOHN CARTER!!!

Published at: March 9, 2012, 2:52 a.m. CST by headgeek

 

JOHN CARTER…

 

I’ve been putting writing a review off, because I just don’t even begin to know where to begin.   It’s the book I’ve most wanted to see a film made from.  

 

Why?

 

Well, frankly – I could see it.   I could see every moment of the book translate.   I never expected to ever have a “history” with JOHN CARTER, when Jim Jacks invited me to come aboard JOHN CARTER, it was 2 weeks after REVOLUTION STUDIOS had engage me to make a few films for them, but just when we were about to get going over there, REVOLUTION went the way of the DoDo.   Working on JOHN CARTER OF MARS at Paramount was one of the most amazing & frustrating experiences in my life.   But when it ended, I didn’t go into a depression, cuz around the same time, I met Yoko and life took a far more blissful turn than the fortunes of Hollywood could ever shine upon me.  

 

In that time though, since I worked on the film, I really tried to avoid all news of Andrew Stanton’s film.  I knew the story would have to be in relatively solid shape with Andrew, because Pixar preaches STORY above all else.   But I loathed the casting.  Disliked every single still released.   Pre-hated several elements – turned down set visits twice…   I just, I couldn’t cover the film like nothing had happened.

 

I still work with Jim Jacks, and one day the world will see the awesome that we’ve been working on for years, but in a way – I just didn’t want to write about the movie.  I felt that my experience trying to make this film had perhaps ruined any chance I had to just passively watch this story told.   Then Disney called saying they wanted to show me the movie early.   The PR folks seemed beyond confident that I’d love it.   I felt they really had no idea what they walking into.  

 

The night before the screening, I was whining my whiny ass off to a friend for 3 hours about not wanting to see the movie.   That it was a now win scenario for me.   If I hate it, the world will say I was a jealous bitch.    If I somehow miraculously loved it, it would just make me insanely angsty.  

 

Before the movie played, I said quietly to myself…  “You just saw EMPIRE STRIKES BACK, Dad gave you PRINCESS OF MARS, here’s the movie!” 

 

NOW – I do have a few problems with the film.   But honestly – they’re pretty minor.  Because, overall…

 

I LOVE JOHN CARTER!

 

Well, technically I hate that TITLE.   But the movie called JOHN CARTER, is just kind of jaw-dropping.   When the first scene began playing, I was in critic mode.   I feel starting with narration and a scene on Mars is the most wrong-headed decision of the entire film.  

 

Had I not known the second and third books as well as I know the first, if I was completely ignorant of the universe of BARSOOM…  I would absolutely feel that was too much too quick.  

 

I’ve seen the film twice now.   The second time with a wonderful audience of your fellow AICNers here in Austin.   1 guy flew in from L.A. to check it out.   That’s hardcore.   Anyway, the opening on Mars is completely unnecessary.   I think it makes the film start off needlessly clunky.

 

Then John Carter sends a telegram to his nephew named Edgar Rice Burroughs…   Next Edgar is on a train racing somewhere reading the telegram…   He’s told his Uncle died unexpectedly and was locked into a crypt that could only be opened from the inside and…   his Uncle wanted him to have his journal.   Crack open book…

 

NEW MEXICO, on the backside of Hell.    The Cavalry/Apache wars are going on, the military wants John Carter’s military recorded skill set working for them.  John is bitter, wants to be rich, he’s tracking a cave of legendary gold.  

 

Then, he’s on Mars.   He has his troubles adjusting to moving on Mars.   He finds the hatchery.  He meets Tars Tarkas.  Doesn’t understand much of anything.  Then he can.  

 

I’ve known the rhythm of this film my entire life since age 9 or so.   I’ve drawn these characters.   So at what point was I just dazed by the film?

 

The first time Tars Tarkas sees John Carter leap.   The look on his face, it is awe & wonder.   I love that it is the ALIEN that initiates reasoned communication with the cornered dangerous human.   I’ve always loved that.   I love that this is a story about a man on Earth, becoming essentially Superman on Mars.   That premise appealed to me.  

 

I love that John Carter doesn’t fly, he bounds & leaps like a Fleischer SUPERMAN.   His increased strength.   But most of all…  What I love more than how fucking awesome WOOLA was…  or how magnificently that Andrew Stanton captured Sola.    No, what I love most – is that the story is still a romance.

 

You see, Disney is selling this like it’s a crazy action film – and there’s crazy action in this.   The fight with the Warhoons is my personal highlight.   

 

When PRINCESS OF MARS came out, the covers had a little subtitle that read simply, “a romance.”

 

I’m not sure what marketing amateur got hired at Disney…  DISNEY…  that talked DISNEY out of calling this PRINCESS OF MARS.   You still have the action stuff you can stuff into the commercials and trailers…   but they seem so bent on selling this like an action spectacle – and it does have action spectacle…   but if I had to compare this film to any film that exists out there…   I’d point at something like EL CID.   The film isn’t EL CID great, but it aspires to be.    And if they get to tell the first three it will certainly feel that way.   Right now – this is just the introduction.   The wonderful gateway to BARSOOM.

 

At one point during the screening on Wednesday – I actually caught myself geeking out so hardcore that Tars Tarkas was having a conversation with John Carter.   Or like when the audience roared laughing when Tars slaps John Carter in the back of the head at one point – and realizing THEY DID IT!   They made TARS TARKAS real for people.  

 

The audience was reacting to the fates and actions of the CG Characters with the same weight they were regarding the living characters.   They had done it.   People were following how a man could go from slave to Jeddak – and know what that means by the end of the film.   That when you look upon John Carter on Mars – and you look at his costume, he earns everything he wears.   It all has meaning and memory.   

 

I won’t lie.   Watching JOHN CARTER for a second time, I totally reverted.  I became a child watching JOHN CARTER again.  For the second time.  And this time, I could soak it in.   Watching for the performances and stop gazing at the amazing happening around the characters.

 

Disney’s trailers don’t convey the film at all.   The movie has a soul, it’s Edgar Rice Burroughs’ first story.   The one he wrote when he thought that perhaps nobody would ever publish something of his.   So he wrote himself into the story, Charlie Kaufman style…  Rudyard Kipling style…   But more than that, he would tell his children stories of John Carter that were never written.  Anecdotes.   He had artifacts from Barsoom as his Uncle Jack called it.  

 

People keep bringing up AVATAR and ATTACK OF THE CLONES, but this is actually nothing much like those films at all.   The visual dynamics, the types of shots.   JOHN CARTER is kind of classically shot, lots of long shots, constantly establishing the scale and antiquity of this place.    It really is hauntingly beautiful.  

 

Bringing the Therns forward in the story is something that we never discussed – and honestly it was a thought I’d never had.  I think it necessitated a bit too much exposition, but as a result a great deal of the heavy lifting for the story that is to come has been seeded.  I had Burroughs fans and complete novices tell me how much they loved the movie.   Even though I’d been shouting about how much I’ve loved this film for a month.   Even though Copernicus, noted super-genius, went gaga for it.   That Mr Beaks liked it, Quint liked it, Merrick liked it…  Folks on other websites loved it – and the talkbacks have raving reviews all over.   Most of them really seem to like the film, but have personal reservations about some of the adaptation, a few moments of extended exposition.  

 

Here at the end of the review, I am just smiling though.  Thinking of watching it again.  I’ve heard some people complain about the dark 3D at some screenings.   I can say that I’ve seen the film twice on Screen 2 at the Alamo Drafthouse – and both times it was spectacular.  

 

3D is still a tricky thing depending on the theater, dim bulbs and ill-adjusted equipment can make it a painful process.  I found the 3D to be wonderful.  But I tend to like 3D when it isn’t sloppily handled – and this definitely wasn’t.   I can’t believe I’ve seen Tars Tarkas talking in 3D!   Woola running across the surface of Mars.   John bounding to catch his soul mate.   I love Burroughs and it is about time my favorite character of his had his day on screen.  

I was joking about that word count in the article headline by the way.  I'm not insane.

Readers Talkback

comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 9, 2012, 2:56 a.m. CST

    How the hell.....

    by Geoff

    am I supposed to be sucked in by your love for the movie if it gets interrupted by some god awful grammar?

  • March 9, 2012, 2:57 a.m. CST

    I had to stop

    by Geoff

  • March 9, 2012, 2:58 a.m. CST

    Confirmed: The movie is shit

    by Mel

    Harry Only appreciates movies that are mentally retarded, so this movie is clearly shit.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:59 a.m. CST

    49% on rottentomatoes is the only thing I needed to see

    by Mel

  • March 9, 2012, 3:07 a.m. CST

    Has anybody read the 1 star Guardian review of this?

    by Jeffwode

    It's pretty funny.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:08 a.m. CST

    Now- I do have a few problems with the film...

    by NOBLOODNODALLAS

    such as...(considering they are not in your review).

  • March 9, 2012, 3:09 a.m. CST

    AMAZING MOVIE.GO WATCH IT.

    by KilliK

  • March 9, 2012, 3:10 a.m. CST

    HARRY IS ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.THE FILM IS A MASTERPIECE.

    by KilliK

    DONT MISS IT.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:12 a.m. CST

    Alas...

    by victor laszlo

    I was excited about the word-count.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:16 a.m. CST

    Harry loved Phantom Menace and Cabin Fever...

    by Fa Fa Fooey

    Just sayin'

  • March 9, 2012, 3:19 a.m. CST

    Guardian review - "A giant, suffocating doughy feast of boredom"

    by biscuithead

    One star. http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2012/mar/08/john-carter-review

  • March 9, 2012, 3:25 a.m. CST

    It was Epic! Just got back. Loved Collins she rocked

    by WASPFAN

  • March 9, 2012, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Wow, you peeps are harsh, harsh

    by Ciderman

    So, if Harry likes it it's shit. If it's based on a 100 year old book, it's shit. If it is getting a poor, very early, metacritic score it's shit. Frak me, you guys must never look forward to a movie at all! To be honest I think many of the haters have simply had their bile stored up, waiting for the films release and Harrys review, knowing of his history with the material and looking forward to doing some hating. At the same time, here in Ireland the film has only received publicity in the last week, mere days before it's release here today. Disneys trailers online have singlarly failed to import the great aspects of the movie, only the trailer released over the last week, I saw it before Safehouse, was pretty good. No billboards, no hoardings, few TV spots, no McD's or BK promo's I can see. If they are interested in this as an ongoing franchise then Disney seem to going all out to get it wrong. Or maybe I'm not seeing "the bigger picture"? I can't wait to see it myself. I read Princess of Mars a couple of months ago and it was lightweight and fun, a change from the more hardcore SF that is typically found these days. It's easy to see where the genre got it's start, with this and Lovecraft forming a ying and yang of vintage SF. But the haters, shit, they are getting so predictable they're boring now. If you are going to critique either the movie or Harrys treatment then at least use a few polysyllabic words, beyond "retarded", an insulting and derogatory word at the best of times tbh.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:35 a.m. CST

    Read the Guardian Review

    by DrSurvey

    The guy is trying to be cool with his hate and spends the whole time looking for a joke. It is an infinitely worse review then this one. At least Harry explains why he has a connection. There was a great comment in the Guardian review where you just have to flip the guys star ratings. 1 star = 5 star.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    I said I would shut up on this topic, sigh.

    by justmyluck

    If Harry didn't know this version was going to be deemed mediocre poop, all things being equal here, he wouldn't have known a version he *produced* was to be mediocre poop. That's just logic. I couldn't imagine hiring a gushing, adoring fanboy to guide a major franchise, myself. Maybe Hollywood is stuffed with them, now. For the few who watch all those trailers and went, *ugh*, I salute you! For the many who jumped on the "Disney bad marketing* bandwagon, NOW YOU KNOW WHY IT NEVER SEEMED APPEALING. Okay, I'll shut up on this again and let the RT 49% speak. And the receipts.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:42 a.m. CST

    Thank fuck the reviews are out. Now can we move on please?

    by Kill List Hammertime

  • March 9, 2012, 3:50 a.m. CST

    deaftOne

    by DrSurvey

    It's obvious that he doesn't understand the whole history of the movie nor the books and his ignorance is just terrible. Unfortunatly it is the type of thing that most Guardian writers lap up and it is incredible that that level of writing is published wheras many other bloggers who write decent critiquing are not. I think this movie is going to be another one where it divides the community. Unfortunatly at the moment, all the cinemas currently local to me in Holland are showing it only in 3D so I think I might just have to go to that.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:50 a.m. CST

    Indubitable Review / El Cid?

    by THX1968

    Excellent review, finally it seems, though I don't get the El Cid reference. El Cid was hokey. If I remember correctly, Heston corpse was strapped to a horse at the end. I digress. I'm glad you were able to enjoy the film considering your history with the project, Harrold. John Carter is just such a cool movie despite the horrible, nonsensical title! I firmly believe the audience is out there. The audience I saw it with loved it.

  • Saw it in 2D, by the way... it'll be interesting to see how well this does... it's definitely going to have it's fans... count me among them... based on the reaction of the audience I saw it with I think word of mouth will be strong... Highly satisfying movie.

  • Here's the PIXAR plenoptic mo-cap patent: http://www.bigscreenanimation.com/2011/12/patents-suggest-pixar-developing-next.html More on PAPERMAN: http://www.billdesowitz.com/?p=4524 Can't say that showcasing a tech development as a short is a step forward for Disney, but you never know. Don't say I didn't give an actual scoop for this site to make up for the endless JC fodder.

  • Go in an enjoy.

  • March 9, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    Re. The Guardian Review

    by loafroaster

    They also praise the film elsewhere on their site - http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2012/mar/01/john-carter-week-geek One man's trash, and all that...

  • March 9, 2012, 4:14 a.m. CST

    There's a part of me that wants the movie to tank

    by Evan Meadow

    But that's cause I'm extremely pissed at the ERB estate (with Disney behind them) and the whole situation they're attempting with Dynamite Entertainment because of the Warlord of Marz and Lord of the Jungle comics and I sort of want this not doing well to be the payback. But I will go see this movie this weekend. I'm really looking forward to it. Then I'll go back to enjoying the Dynamite comics and hope they prevail.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:14 a.m. CST

    Critics Are Basically Irrelevant These Days

    by THX1968

    People keep mentioning the Rotten Tomatoes score or Metacritic and the like as being low, but the user scores are much, much higher. Transformers:Revenge of the Fallen was universally panned, but it retains high user scores and still made a buttload of cash. I think the days of true journalistic criticism is dead.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:19 a.m. CST

    Attack of the Clones you say?

    by WerePlatypus

  • March 9, 2012, 4:20 a.m. CST

    deaft0ne

    by DrSurvey

    I have never read any of them but seeing how highly they are thought of I might have to pick them up for my Kindle. I will be seeing this as it looks fun, and it has been a while since we have had a proper decent "Man goes to foreign planet and saves the day" movie. It comes across as Sci-Fi pulp, and there is nothing wrong with that. Sometimes I don't want to have to think too hard about a movie and just enjoy it.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:28 a.m. CST

    I actually really trust your review, Harry.

    by gotilk

    I can sense that this meant a lot to you, as it does to me. I know people give you shit for wrapping your reviews up in your own personal stories, but I also GET that and appreciate the context. I personally cannot wait to get carried off to Barsoom, even if there are a few bumps along the road there. And I NEED to be *taken away* like that right now. I'll be sitting in that theater with the critic part of my brain shut off so I can just enjoy it and let it settle in.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST

    If one more person brings up the ad campaign...

    by Kirbymanly

    Who the fuck cares?! They screwed it up, go see the damn film! It's the most fun I've had watching a movie in a long time!

  • March 9, 2012, 4:43 a.m. CST

    Harry: That marketing amateur? Stanton. He's admitted as much.

    by the_patriot

    Stanton himself in interviews has given his reasons for calling it John Carter and neither John Carter of Mars nor John Carter A Princess of Mars. Look em up, buddy. Although I couldn't care less about the title change because I enjoyed the hell out of the flick. The 3D IMAX I saw it at here in Denver was clear and bright and it was actually a pretty good presentation - one that I'd honestly say I enjoyed the 3D of. Go. Watch it.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:47 a.m. CST

    I wouldn't go by the Guardian review...

    by Righteous Brother

    that guy is a total c*nt - and hates anything remotely sci-fi or fantasy - in fact he hates films full stop. I wonder is Mark Kermode is going to review it on the radio today? Hmmmmm.......I'm totally polarised whether to see it or not - on the one hand I want to, but going to the cinema is so expensive these days.

  • March 9, 2012, 5:06 a.m. CST

    That Guardian reviewer....

    by Brett Peacock

    ..... has NEVER liked any American Movie ever made, ever. (as for it being Disney, that gets minus ratings from him...) My suspicion is that he thinks that unless a movies addresses REAL Issues... you know, Momentous issues like Indigenous Land Rights for Gay and Lesbian Blind Deaf-Mute Blue Whales.. its is not a movie worthy of his esteem..... That's to say he's a heartless, unimaginative pretentious pseudo-intellectual twat. The next (first) time he has any ACTUAL fun he'll probably kill himself for THE shame of it..

  • March 9, 2012, 5:08 a.m. CST

    Attack of the Apologists

    by TopHat

    Remember, you must always be positive! Put down anyone who has reservations of this movie. They're idiots. YOU know what you're talking about. Because, you are not negative. Negative is BAD. You must always give a positive spin. More people will like you. This film cost $350 million to make and market. You are fighting the good fight. You cannot just like this movie - It is the end-all-be-all representation of how much of a film fan you are. Forget the money. That does not matter. Question NOTHING. Have you seen this story in pretty much every other movie you've ever seen? Do the graphics look like the graphics in every other huge budgeted movie? Is it worth close to $100 for movie tickets to see this movie with your entire family? Do the contributors for this site have to pay to see this film? Must you have to accept mediocrity to confirm yourself as someone who enjoys movies? Why does everything have to be so polarizing? Why do you have to be made to feel like an asshole just because you don't want to see something? Or, because you weren't blown away by what you saw? Why CAN'T you accept nothing less than your favorite movie experiences when seeing new releases? Why do you have to lower expectations for the studios and/or multi-millionaires? IT-DOES-NOT-MATTER Empty your heads. You are children again. Look at the pretty colors ...or, um, the washed out colors of modern cgi. Squint your eyes to see through the revolutionizing 3-D projection. Pay your money. All is right with the world.

  • Writing is also terrible. Middle school level. You are not as cool as Bart Simpson a la "He writes like people talk!" fuck shit.

  • March 9, 2012, 5:10 a.m. CST

    Oh, and nice review Harry...

    by Brett Peacock

    but try to construct coherent sentences 'en Anglais' in future, please. Four or five words with no verb is not really a sentence.... neither is two or three verbs and no subject noun... you get my meaning. Kiwibloke

  • March 9, 2012, 5:18 a.m. CST

    Is it as good as Van Helsing?

    by syn_flood

    Or the Nightmare On Elm Street remake?

  • March 9, 2012, 5:36 a.m. CST

    Yeah I read Stanton's reasons for taking Mars out of the title

    by Nerd Rage

    and they were fucking idiotic. "Boys won't see it with the word Princess and girls won't because of the word Mars". Yeah, looks like your movie's gonna bomb anyway, genius.

  • March 9, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    The reason why Harry writes his "reviews" like this now...

    by TopHat

    ...is because he's trying to convey the idea that he's just a big kid who loves movies and can hardly contain himself while writiing about them. Its annoying. He used to be on par with Moriarty in his writing. But, Moriarty isn't even on par with Moriarty anymore. "Drew McWeeny" :(

  • March 9, 2012, 5:39 a.m. CST

    @tophat, re: Attack of the Apologists. Brilliant!

    by justmyluck

  • So how much did Disney pay you for this one? Or did they just promise you set visits and gifts?

  • March 9, 2012, 6:08 a.m. CST

    Uh, 53% on rottentomatoes and Ebert hates it...

    by mdk

    ...not good signs.

  • March 9, 2012, 6:15 a.m. CST

    Wouldn't it be cooler to refer to AICN'ers as 'coolers'?

    by steve

    Or is that totally not cool?

  • March 9, 2012, 6:33 a.m. CST

    It's good - go see it

    by goodhorse

    Saw it yesterday and really enjoyed it... the jumping bits are excellent, the dog creature is funny without being corny and there are some excellent sequences. Standout for me (mild spoiler ahead...) ...is when Carter is fighting the mass of alien guys while the Princess and the alien woman are escaping... all the while flashing back to the most painful experience of his life, the loss of his wife and daughter. Lovely direction from Stanton. There are a number of payoffs, I loved the end (Stanton's Pixar pedigree shining through) and the final title brought a big mile to my face given the ridiculous naming of this film. It has soul and I think it deserves to succeed.

  • i just wonder why we had to wait until NOW to hear Harry's opinion on the title change, and get the other honestly tepid reviews. I even read harry's as tepid- we was really only excited to see a beloved property and imaginary friends finally onscreen.

  • March 9, 2012, 6:38 a.m. CST

    deaft0ne

    by Scarecrow237

    Directed by Alan Smithee

  • March 9, 2012, 6:42 a.m. CST

    HOW THE FUCK DOES HE BREATHE? MARS HAS NO ATMO.

    by Eric

  • March 9, 2012, 6:43 a.m. CST

    Shut up deaft0ne! You are an idiot.

    by George_clooneys_caesar_cut

    The 210 minute cut of DUNE is NOT David Lynch's cut. He had his name removed from it and replaced with Alan Smithee and Judas Booth. The theatrical version of DUNE is in fact the Lynch cut. The idea of a super long Lynch approved cut is a geek myth.

  • March 9, 2012, 6:46 a.m. CST

    one reason to never trust any professional critic:

    by zom-bot.com

    -They don't have to pay to see the movie. Not having to pay, in itself, negates them of having a valid, realistic opinion. Paying to be allowed to view a film is part of the movie going experience, believe it or not. why? Because it's what the rest of us have to do. We gamble a chunk of our hard earned wages, and on average two hours of our lives, that the film we watch will not be a waste of either thing. The interesting part is that does tend to polarize our reaction. If we didn't like a film, we HATED it. If we enjoyed a film, we LOVED it, and if the film was uneven, we come out feeling mislead, confused, embarrassed or just uneven ourselves. i can't tell you how many times I've left a theater literally feeling a little ill because I wasn't quite sure what I had seen, if i liked it, and if I felt I'd wasted my time and dollar. You can argue that critics are able to go in fresh with a clean slate of opinion, having not been bothered to pay before hand...but that is not our experience. That's why, in this economy, at my age where time and money are becoming more precious, too precious to toss at even mediocrity, I prefer to listen to the reviews of a paying moviegoer.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:07 a.m. CST

    if it was free for everyone, as for me, then yeah.

    by zom-bot.com

    but I'm talking about people who are paid and treated to go see movies, and are paid to express their opinions on them.

  • Quite a difference. Personally, I'm still struggling with my confusion after seeing it. I think I would have preferred to just hating or loving it, this middle zone is far too uncomfortable to my taste.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:21 a.m. CST

    This is all win for Harry.

    by FluffyUnbound

    He gives the film a positive review, and he gets to show people that he's clearly a magnanimous guy who doesn't care that his version of the film didn't get made. BUT he ALSO gets to watch Disney lose their fucking blouse on this one this weekend, and sit around thinking, "My version would have been a huge hit!" If the film was about to be the next AVATAR he'd be in a much less psychologically pleasant place. It's awesome when you can show everyone you don't hold a grudge - because you don't need to, the other guy fucked himself better than you ever could.

  • oversaturation. your case in point, with so many bloggers and regular people- with and without film degrees- reviewing movies, you have a wider spectrum to get opinions from. i think most old school critics are either in the bag, out of touch, or jaded to just about everything now.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:25 a.m. CST

    deaftOne: I like the backstory with the robot rebellion.

    by UltraTron

    They should've included that in the original. Explained to the audience the reason why they didn't have computers or robots and used analogue equipment. But the other hand holding narration that follows along eats shit. The extra worm milking scene is aight and maybe the fight when they meet the fremen.

  • Imagine a world without decades of paid professional film reviewers who created volumes of books on film for future generations. (shiver)

  • March 9, 2012, 7:34 a.m. CST

    Exactly. Just see the fucking movie.

    by NightArrows

    I don't take anyone's opinion to heart on ANY film, before I see it. I certainly wouldn't listen to most of the collected fuck stains on this site who's only goal in life is to hate everything. I can gripe about certain things I see in a trailer, but those little things will never stop me from seeing something. As for "professional" movie critics, I'm sorry but they are fucking WORTHLESS. And beneath them lies the bloggers and other fucktards who are scrambling to yell louder than those who actually get paid for their bullshit. Critics are simply who think that writing about someone else's work, instead of actually creating something themselves, actually matters. Fuck 'em. As for this film? I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend, and whether it sucks or it impresses, I don't care because I will be at the theatre watching a movie and for me, that's a great place to be.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    I saw human centipede 2 in the best theater on earth last night.

    by UltraTron

    Wow! Like watching a Sims' video game from the future with photorealistic graphics and you can do anything. The humans all have built in physics and more break away parts than a soldier of fortune game. The person playing is just trying to see if there's any limit to the sick shit he can do to the game characters. We've all blown away characters in games- why not staple them together for a laugh and see if the sims can feed each other when they go poopy? If I don't think of it like a video game then what is the alternative? It's the most horrendous torture and murder this side of the 9th circle of hell. It's got barb-wire raping shit eating goodness for your entire family. This movie would probably be worse for a young child to find than gay porn. You cannot un-see this movie. But that scene with his mom at the dinner table and what's left of her head is friggin hysterical.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:37 a.m. CST

    it did hurt my brain to read this review.

    by zom-bot.com

    harry's new review structure- it makes me think of an out of breath person. you know, who is talking through fistfuls of candy. i like candy. i have a long history with it. as a child, my father took me to the hershey's factory and it's been a passionate bromance with chocolate ever since. so when i polished off the the king sized m&m's (mars brand! get it! giggle) during just the previews i felt like i was having a naughty affair. when John Carter of Barsoom lept, my wife and i had hands over our mouths like -OHMYGOD- reactions. it's not the John Carter I struggled and failed to make, I always envisioned carter as a ginger haired wonder who would have no problems pushing a toy cart. and the princess of mars would look more like an asian child-bride.

  • I guess you didn't.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:42 a.m. CST

    Harry's 145,002 word review of JOHN CARTER!!!

    by BlueLando

    Yeah, more just shy of 2,000 words. ... What?

  • March 9, 2012, 7:44 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by NightArrows

    You forgot "...and the biggest cockpile in the Universe, Armond White" That man is such an incredible stain.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:48 a.m. CST

    zombot...

    by loafroaster

    Amen, brother.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Is it better than Van Helsing? Yes & no...

    by StatelyWayneManor

    The effects are better in John Carter but lacks the Taylor & Lynn lack the charisma of Hugh & Kate. I think they forgot the 3D in this 3D movie.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:01 a.m. CST

    Only part of this review that is a flat out lie...

    by knowthyself

    ...is at the end when Harry says he's NOT insane. Good one Harry.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:17 a.m. CST

    deaft0ne is one big moron!

    by George_clooneys_caesar_cut

    What does HELLRAISER: BLOODLINE have to do with DUNE? Because they are both Alan Smithee films? You do know Alan Smithee isn't real right? What a bad segue, what a moron. You suck dong.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:20 a.m. CST

    33% from Top Critics on RT. That's worse than Clones! (40%)

    by Simpsonian

  • March 9, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    THIS IS THE WORST MOVIE I HAVE NEVER SEEN! HAAAAAAAAA

    by Simpsonian

  • March 9, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    So nobody got Mondo posters at the midnight IMAX screenings?

    by Ye Not Guilty

    If I had known that Disney was going to renege on the poster offer, I probably would have seen it in standard def and waited until Sunday to see it. Now I'm exhausted at work and no poster to show for it. It didn't help that the projectionist started playing The Lorax before somebody notified the manager that we were supposed to be seeing John Carter.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Fat, orange & bitter

    by Tera Sanders

    ... is no way to go through life, son.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:24 a.m. CST

    Does anyone thing they are using a Harry Muppett because real Harry would scare normal people?

    by harryknowlesnothingaboutfilm

  • March 9, 2012, 8:32 a.m. CST

    terasanders

    by NightArrows

    LOLOLOLOLOLOL Awesome.

  • i was stating my rightful douchebaggy opinion in an open forum, and you were bing a douchebag telling me i was wrong and asking questions with no answer. if it makes you feel better to get a victory in a one-sided battle of opinions, congrats. however, i think i recognize your username and that we've agreed on several things in the past. this is not one of them. the world will continue to suck and be awesome.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:33 a.m. CST

    Harry... wait.. you say you didn't want to write about this film?

    by goatboy500

    because seriously.... you haven't shut the fuck up about it for the last 4 years.

  • his John Carter of Mars project was his highschool sweetheart. They did everything together, and he daydreamed about marriage, and a bunch of little John Carters running around the backyard, road trips to Barsoom every summer....But as highschool came to a close, they both knew they'd be going off to different colleges, and it would be better to separate now than drag out a painful long distance relationship. So they split peacefully, though in his heart, Harry would always wonder what could have been. Then after college, Harry heard that John Carter of Mars was engaged..to an old friend of his from art class in high school. A guy he respected, but the act still felt a little like betrayal. The new couple invited Harry over to their new house but he refused, finding some polite excuse each time. Finally, he realized that they could all be friends. They were all adults, and although it wasn't the fantasy life he'd wished for himself and John Carter, and maybe it seemed like John Carter had settled down for a normal life of mediocrity, at least John seemed happy. And when there was talk of a sequel, harry promised he would be there to see it born, and they promised to make him it's godfather.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:49 a.m. CST

    Wouldn't a "now win scenario" be a good thing?

    by Blanket-Man

    I'm an editor, Harry. You really NEED my services (or at least someone like me who, ya know, can actually WRITE... in English).

  • March 9, 2012, 8:50 a.m. CST

    I'm more impressed that Harry read a book.

    by BilboRing

    And it wasn't a comic book. Now read ASOIAF Harry. It's real reading for adults but you will love it.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:51 a.m. CST

    @Zombot - that's the best thing I've read today.

    by john

    Thanks for that.

  • i don't doubt they would have been better..more true to the book, more visually impactful and not so damn drab and brown/gray/orange as this one. I'd really like to know who he would have cast for each main character. I'm serious..I'd love to hear his dream casting..and I'd hope one day he'll take the time to write a full article on his time on the aborted attempt, instead of just mentioning it here and there. Sometimes the stories of failures are more interesting than the stories of success. Maybe there is a documentary to be made on this, Harry- ever thought of that?

  • Thank Rotten Tomatoes for clearing that up :s

  • March 9, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Cannot wait to see this.

    by fbarich

    I have been waiting over 35 years for this to happen, and will be seeing this tonight!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:07 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night at a midnight screening

    by D.Vader

    And I loved it. Great action, great humor. Its earnest and has some real heart. The effects are fantastic, Dejah Thoris is hot, The Tharks feel real, and it was a good, old-fashioned time at the theater. I have a feeling kids are going to love this like Star Wars.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    This film is a $20m disaster; why won't anyone believe me?

    by workshed

    I wonder if Stanton is thinking of shooting himself..?

  • March 9, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    Hey Assholes

    by impetus

    Quit shitting on Harry all the time. It gets fucking old. He's a film lover who writes honestly. He runs an independent website with no editor so the typos get a little sloppy. If you hate him so much, then why are you even reading his site? Go back to fucking Entertainment Weekly or AOL Movies.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:11 a.m. CST

    I can't believe how mean you guys are to Harry

    by Timelord-2112

    I may disagree with some of his reviews but jeeeebus man the first talkbacks out the door are people just straight rude to the guy responsible for creating one of the best media sites on the net. I know you won't read this but I'm sorry Harry....these kids are obviously upset they can't get out of their parents' basement and make something of themselves. So embarrassed for them and their parents... Anyway as for the movie... we know your love for the classics and if you really think it's that great it's got to at least be worth watching. I can't wait!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:16 a.m. CST

    Ultratron... so did you like HC2..?

    by workshed

    I thought it was hilarious, especially the scene with 'mom' at the table. Six certainly gets my vote for the go ahead to make #3... especially if it involves brutally f*cking up a huge pile of US citizens.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    SWM's 2 word review of John Carter.

    by StatelyWayneManor

    Rental only.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST

    Guardian reviewer Peter Bradshaw is a total cunt

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Unfortunately John Carter is still terrible. Worst opening to a blockbuster movie in memory.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    god it's fun to make nerds angry, and so easy too. NERDS!!!!!!!!

    by Simpsonian

    JOHN CARTER IS TERRIBLE! HARRY'S REVIEWS SUCK!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    If I had to pick between AVATAR and JOHN CARTER...

    by D.Vader

    I think, based off of one viewing for it so far... I'd pick John Carter. I liked AVATAR. But I loved John Carter.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:23 a.m. CST

    Also

    by kwisatzhaderach

    Harry is out of his mind.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:27 a.m. CST

    I feel the opening on Mars is actually very necessary

    by D.Vader

    It gives the audience I nice little action sequence to jump-start the picture rather than a very slow sequence set in New York centering around John and then Edgar. So yes, the opening on MARS is a great audience primer for the Civil War that's happening on the planet. What doesn't work so well about the opening is the narration. It goes by pretty quick. But then, so did Gladriel's opening narration in LOTR, throwing foreign names and terms out pretty quickly. I wonder if an opening crawl would have worked better, but I'm sure that would have been accused of being derivative.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:29 a.m. CST

    My favorite sequence was the fight against the Warhoons

    by D.Vader

    It gets positively ZULU-like by the end.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Kermode reviewing now...

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    Lot of audience 'hate' in the UK judging from the emails just before the review. They cite, Cast changes, script changes, the amount of money spent, 3D retro fit, the stupid title change and an interview Andrew Stanton did where he said no matter the amount of money spent he made the movie for himself...in spite of ALL those marketing changes. Kermode: 'Title is rubbish.' He's started to mention 'Howard the Duck', 'Heaven's Gate' and 'Scott Pilgrim' all these he actually likes because the failed but at least they were personal failures. 3D is awful. Film is incomprehensible, turgid, dull, poorly written, makes the Phantom menace seem like Shakespeare. 'It's BORING, it's REALY BORING. It's a film about a man who can jump.' The film is derivative of the remake of Clash of the Titans. It makes DUNE feel like Speed, it wibbles and wobbles and floodles!' It's not a personal movie, it looks like a film that was made by a committee. It's extravagance becomes really tiring. Even the set pieces are BORING. It's a headache of a film. It's an oil tanker lumbering behemoth of a movie with people explaining the movie like, ‘On the fourth spingly of the spangly spong the sppingly spong...it's just really BORING!' It's been so focus grouped it's almost been focus grouped out of existence. IT'S BORING!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST

    How could you possibly think this would be good?

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    All these movies with such a huge amount of money spent on them they have to appeal to as big a demographic as possible. They only exist to make a profit and that's it. Therefore all actual creativity gets sucked out of these souless shit pieces. How anyone could have thought this wouldn't be anything but average to terrible is beyond me.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Using budget as an arbiter of a film's quality...

    by D.Vader

    Is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. Budget doesn't matter. Story and the storytellers behind it do.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST

    You will believe a man can jump.

    by StatelyWayneManor

  • March 9, 2012, 9:48 a.m. CST

    Harry's 7 word review of John Carter...

    by CountOrlok

    ...along with 144,995 words about his childhood and everything else that has nothing to do with the movie.

  • You want to see something with real heart made from people with a real love for the material trying to tell the best story they can, you see JOHN CARTER. Comparing this movie to a horrible cash-grab like Nu-Conan is extremely disingenuous.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:51 a.m. CST

    The Guardian review is moronic - seriously

    by V'Shael

    I don't know if the movie is good or not (I suspect not) but that reviewer is another SF illiiterate moron who uses inter-galactic as an adjective with fuck all understanding of its meaning. Asshole! It's a word! With a meaning! You write for a fucking newspaper, you should know that words are not inter-fucking-changeable! Cretin. I'm glad Harry liked his movie, but I suspect he was judging it as an adaptation of a book he already loved, whereas a viewer like myself will be slamming it for all the logical problems which probably existed in the original text anyway, and which a young Harry never picked up on.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:54 a.m. CST

    Now down to 46% on rottentomatoes!

    by Jaster Mareel

    HOLY FUCKBALLS this film is crashing and burning!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:55 a.m. CST

    by fathergeek

    Enjoyed "JOHN CARTER" for the 2nd time in the last 30 days in 3-D Wednesday night. Experienced it in a totally packed house that was The Alamo South's largest theater. It was a real family affair for me this time out with my daughter's family, Harry & his wife, annnd from Detroit my brother's family. All (3 females, 6 males, ages between 11 - 67) loved it. My Brother, retired after 20 years an USN Atomic Sub Commander who's read the entire Burroughs series & his son a honors senior in government at Georgetown both had a great time with the motion picture. All 3 of the women in our party had never read the books and fell in love with the film. My grandson Gio was entranced with the Tharks & Woola, annnd is now completely sold on reading the entire "Mars" Burroughs series & ALL the related comics. All in all it was a wonderful time with a great family fare film...

  • March 9, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    The New York papers were pretty withering to JOHN CARTER.

    by Orbots Commander

    The NY Times and The Wall Street Journal's Joe Morgenstern, who usually gives favorable reviews to genre films, both gave it outright pans. The kindes words came from Long Island's Newsday, which called JOHN CARTER "muddled and overlong" but that in its best moments, recalled the campy stop motion fantasy epics of the early 60's, like One Million Years B.C. All reviews I've read all have in common that they criticize the uneven tone of the film, saying that it by turns veers from the oh so serious, to 80's Flash Gordon cheese-fest.

  • March 9, 2012, 9:58 a.m. CST

    I will see this soon... It looks like a good movie to me

    by Autodidact

    I bet it's pretty good! (woke up optimistic today)

  • March 9, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    John Carpenter of France (makes snore noise)

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    This is what Kermode is now calling it.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:02 a.m. CST

    This movie is JUMPTASTIC!

    by Simpsonian

  • March 9, 2012, 10:04 a.m. CST

    JC probably needed to be...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...a shorter, lower budget, leaner film. It probably would have been much better as an $80 Million, Ninety Minute sci fi swashbuckler. All Stanton really needed to do was ditch the entire Civil War vet and prospector background, and open it like the original Planet of the Apes with Charlton Heston: you open from the first shot, with Carter waking up on Mars, and you go from there. It would probably have made it more interesting too, because the audience would obviously be wondering if the entire story was unfolding in Carter's possibly warped mind, and maybe drop a few Easter Egg hints towards that, maybe have the enslaving Tharks act a bit like asylum orderlies.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:09 a.m. CST

    Johnny C will make you Jump Jump!

    by StatelyWayneManor

  • March 9, 2012, 10:10 a.m. CST

    I haven't even bothered to read this review

    by Denty420

    ... because I know what it will say. And I'm going outside to avoid the semen being flung about. I might just come back inside in a couple of months when it's all been cleaned up. In the meantime, I'll go see John Carter and form my own opinion rather than read some over-indulgent shit from an amateur.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST

    d.vader, if budget doesn't matter

    by Joe Plumber

    than why does Hollywood spend so much obscene amounts of money on these films in regards to everything except the writing it seems. God, I hope the writers of these things aren't being payed a lot. And just so I'm clear, not speaking about JC in particular, but Hollywood films in general.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:14 a.m. CST

    audiences are JUMPING into theaters

    by zom-bot.com

    don't jump to conclusions, Jump Carter is a jumpingly good movie. Jump over to your nearest theater, ignore the jump in ticket and concession price, jump into your seat and prepare to be JUMPED.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    I can't get behind this movie because of Taylor Kitsch

    by sunwukong86

    He just isn't a good actor

  • March 9, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    I'm not saying budget doesn't matter overrall, JJ

    by D.Vader

    I'm saying, budget shouldn't matter to *us*. It shouldn't be important to us as in "Oh, its over $200 million? Its gonna suck! Its under $100 million? Its gonna be great!" I think its ridiculous to use budget to gauge a film's quality. We should instead focus on the people making it and their history of storytelling, in my opinion.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    Sorry, can't take Harry or his Dad's word on this

    by Joe Plumber

    They both LOVED Ghost Rider, remember. I will take d.vaders word, however. Going to see it tomorrow.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:19 a.m. CST

    from the things i'm reading so far...

    by zom-bot.com

    positive but wishful (i.e, i didn't like this element, wish they had done this...) reviews from people who have a fondness for the source material, as well as those that were genuinely surprised it wasn't bad.. ..and negative reviews that are pretty straightforward and all agree on the blandness of the whole thing and weak leading man. and i can agree with both.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    That was hilarious Zombot

    by D.Vader

    Particularly the "ignore the jump in ticket and concession price".

  • March 9, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    @melgibsoncalledmethenword

    by Wyrdy the Gerbil

    ..49% on rottentomatoes is the only thing I needed to see... and only a fucking moron takes any notice of the hack paid reviews of a bunch of jumped up little pricks like the critics at rottentomatoes

  • JUMP JUMP

  • March 9, 2012, 10:20 a.m. CST

    So get off your thoat & jump around, jump around

    by StatelyWayneManor

  • March 9, 2012, 10:22 a.m. CST

    I wish I had more time to edit stupid videos like that

    by D.Vader

    And put them on YouTube.

  • It's one thing to see a movie more than once to see details lost the first time, or to re-experience the feelings and emotion. But to say it took two viewings to get into it properly....then, the movie has problems.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:27 a.m. CST

    John Carter

    by Darth Scourge

    Saw the movie this morning in IMAX 3D. Spectacular. Sure, it takes a few liberties with ERB's original stories, but the essence is more than intact and the adaptation is worthy. There are some truly amazing action set pieces, and the FX are stunning. Highly recommended.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:28 a.m. CST

    A PRINCESS OF MARS

    by film11

    You want a shorter film? Don't like the title JOHN CARTER? Then why not just watch A PRINCESS OF MARS, starring Traci Lords as Dejah Thoris? Been out on video for a while.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:29 a.m. CST

    zombot

    by Orbots Commander

    That's a legitimate criticism, the jump in prices. It's BS that it costs $15 to see most movies now, and if you want to get only a small soda or a bottle of water, it'll cost you, no joke, $5, probably three times that for a small popcorn. And anybody going to see JC likely won't be able to see it in 2D; most theater chains around my area (LI and Queens), if they even bother showing a 2D version of a 3D film, only screen one showing at the worst possible time, like 10 AM on a weekday. It's a scam.

  • Alas, I don't have time for that shit either, but somebody needs to do that! Who will heed the call?

  • March 9, 2012, 10:30 a.m. CST

    OpenthePodBayDoors, I think you missed something

    by D.Vader

    Remember, bc Harry has mentioned it in *every* JC story he's written and he can't stop talking about it, Harry was once attached to a John Carter movie and so he can't see the movie without thinking of how he would have done it or the plans they had for the story. That's what he means that during the second screening he could revert to being a kid. He could enjoy the movie free from the "what I would have done" attitude.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    actually the correct word count is 1,595.

    by iampain

    word count apps = more fun than harrys movie reviews.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:34 a.m. CST

    Haha, Wrath of Fett

    by D.Vader

    I've got a long list of music videos set to movie scenes that I've wanted to do for years. I've just got too much other stuff to edit first. I'll never get to it. I'd have to half-ass it to get it done, and I don't like to half-ass anything. Maybe when it comes out on DVD, I can do it. All you need is the jump scenes and there are plenty in this movie, that's for sure.

  • Does "John Carter" get the job done for the weekend action audience? Yes, I suppose it does. The massive city on legs that stomps across the landscape is well-done. The Tharks are ingenious, although I'm not sure why they need tusks. Lynn Collins makes a terrific heroine. And I enjoyed the story outside the story, about how Burroughs wrote a journal about what he saw and appears briefly as character. He may even turn up in sequels. After all, he wrote some.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:43 a.m. CST

    Wait, did Ebert actually say that?

    by D.Vader

    "The Tharks are ingenious, although I'm not sure why they need tusks " Did he say that? That's a whole new level of facepalm right there. Jeebus Ebert, what happened to you?

  • March 9, 2012, 10:43 a.m. CST

    @tophat Apologists, Haters and other stories...

    by Ciderman

    Apologist? For asking that people who haven't even seen the film, who are making sweeping statements about a movie they have, thus far, only read a review of, that they hold off on their vitriol until they have a legitimate point of view based on facts rather than the desire to swear on AICN and maybe get Harrys attention? I am happy to call the ball on films I have seen that I didn't like, Green Hornet and Green Latern being two, the former was so off target it was like watching a tragedy unfolding, the latter simply didn't give me enough and felt more like a toy franchise commercial. I cannot make definitive statements about films I have not seen, I love the SF genre, I will watch almost anything, either on the big screen or TV depending on how much I am looking forward to it. Thing is, I will wait to see them before slamming them. People here are complaining about the director, the film length, the ad campaign (I am guilty of that), the opening, the 3D, all without actually seeing the film. Some here are making a judgement on the film based on films Harry has previously recommended but they did not like, so frakking what? So your taste in films doesn't match with Headgeeks? Who gives a crap? I mean, there are several other reviews here, see if they are closer to your way of thinking, better still go elsewhere and see if there is something there that suits you better. Otherwise, if you dislike Harry that much, piss off! I mean, this is not a public service website, the opinions here are the reviewers own, they may be similar to yours but there is no contract with you to provide content you like or agree with, so if it affects you that strongly, go somewhere else for gods sake! As for Harry being over-indulgent on this one, sure he has a personal stake in the material, an attachment to the 21st century efforts to get the Barsoom books onto the big screen. To his credit he has always been upfront about it and so there is transparency, just as a critic should. Now, knowing this why take issue with his indulgence? You know it out the outset, so stop reading! I honestly think there is a good proportion of haters here on this talkback who haven't actually read Harrys article and are, instead, simply reading the other comments for guidance and then spout their nonsense from the comfort of their keyboards. I'm not going to talk about them in withering terms, no name calling is needed, they are simply here to pour scorn and get reaction and readers. Sad really, isn't it?

  • March 9, 2012, 10:48 a.m. CST

    that is not a 145,002 words long review!

    by AsimovLives

    That would make the review longer then CLARISSA. This is even much shorter then THE PEARL.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:48 a.m. CST

    Ebert does not say anything anymore

    by shalashaska

    Yay cancer

  • ... oh boy!

  • March 9, 2012, 10:50 a.m. CST

    HAH!

    by D.Vader

    Nice one shalashaska.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    Ebert is just jealous of the Tharks.

    by Robert Evans

    They have more face bones than they need.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    I knew about the Jon Favreau cameo, but IMDB lists David Schwimmer too??

    by BEHEM Pascal

    As a "young Thark warrior".

  • March 9, 2012, 10:55 a.m. CST

    Meh

    by Joe Plumber

    Wake me up when Harry finally takes a bath.

  • and make jokes about parts that are explained in the article - (word count, etc).

  • March 9, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    Oh is JC in there, openthepodbaydoorshal?

    by D.Vader

    I flipped through it years ago but never picked that book up. I remember the Arnie/Scott I Am Legend and... what else? A Planet of the Apes reboot too? Arnie and Crusade? Was Harry's John Carter in there or was it just a general "They've been trying to make JC for 70 years" kinda thing?

  • March 9, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    People who say, "Meh" should be shot!

    by Joe Plumber

    Let's just get that out of the way, right now.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    Harry Knowles: Champion of the mediocre, once again

    by Fortunesfool

  • It was the Tharks one, for UK Listeners :)

  • March 9, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Harry, don't you think it's high time for you to un-block me on Twitter?

    by Robert Evans

    I need your feedback on Fudgepack Friday. Speaking of which, I'll be announcing this week's contestant within the hour ... Follow me at @iamchoppah

  • March 9, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    Did Conspiracy post his JC review yet?

    by Joe Plumber

    Anyone know? If so, where, please?

  • March 9, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    Meh.

    by Orbots Commander

  • March 9, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    Fuck Mark Kermode.

    by Robert Evans

    His notes for his review were probably just: *NEEDZ MOAR PAZUZU*

  • March 9, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    of course Ebert is grumpy, the man hasnt eaten a solid meal in years..

    by Robert Evans

    Rather that gnawing on some baby back ribs, he has to settle for RoboCop's pudding scraps.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    What did Devin Faraci think?

    by Joe Plumber

  • March 9, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    darth meh--its in node 54130

    by Robert Evans

  • March 9, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    People who say "Vader" should be shot!

    by D.Vader

    Let's just get that out of the way right now. Wait, that's what we're doing here, right?

  • March 9, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    Good one Darth_Meh, like anyone gives a shit what Faraci thinks.

    by Fortunesfool

  • Would love to divulge details, but I don't Pack and Tell.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:07 a.m. CST

    gotilk

    by AsimovLives

    Just behare to not get yourself fooled like you did with Abrams Trek.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    Heard Ebert's been joining Steven Hawking at Swingers Clubs

    by Joe Plumber

    Might have to rename those places, "Wheelchair Accessible Clubs" soon.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Prince of Persia got a toy line & this did not?

    by StatelyWayneManor

    I want my Woola plushie!

  • March 9, 2012, 11:10 a.m. CST

    Thanks, choppah!

    by Joe Plumber

    Gonna go check it out.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    But what does Raven McCoy think!?!?!?

    by Robert Evans

  • March 9, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    choppah

    by AsimovLives

    Mark Kermode loved VALHALLA RISING, called it the best epic of 2009. And he loved DRIVE as well. Think about it.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    Α ΜΑSTERPIECE.WATCH IT.

    by KilliK

  • March 9, 2012, 11:19 a.m. CST

    Kermode ain't too far from commode in my book.

    by Robert Evans

  • March 9, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    At the very least, JOHN CARTER could become a cult classic.

    by Robert Evans

    Sadly, it's looking like a bomb at the B.O., so I have to go see it as soon as I can. Too bad, because many top men have advised me it's actually really fucking good.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    Saw it. Loved it.

    by PhxMonsterGuy

    Not a fan of the source material, have tried to read it multiple times but always get bogged down early with Burroughs' writing style. Saw it at a midnight IMAX 3D showing at midnight last night. Bigger than expected crowd. My friend and I both loved it and he's read the books. It's a big sprawling epic science fiction film that we don't get too often. Is it perfect? No. Is it better than 95% of the science fiction crap foisted on us lately? Hell yes. I got completely caught up in the story and for 2 hours I was in Barsoom and didn't want the film to end. For me it comes down to if I got my $15 worth. The answer is FUCK YES and they will get another $15 out of me so I can see it in glorious six story IMAX 3D again. I don't want to hear all you fuckwads griping when you line up for the next Transformers film about how Hollywood doesn't give us any good epic science fiction films anymore. Here one is and half of you fuckwads won't go see it. Well have fun when Michael Bay is fucking your eye sockets with his giant robopenis because that's about all you deserve if you don't support John Carter.

  • You just referred to rottentomatoes.com as "paid hack reviews" AICN has been doing interviews and screeners for this movie for 6 months solid. Every single day there's a new John Carter something or other. And you're going to seriously try to say that the AICN praising of this movie wasn't paid for? R O F L Fucking shill.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:25 a.m. CST

    I Didn't like it...and I wanted too..

    by conspiracy

    But I found the film uneven, with lots of totally pointless oft times confusing dialog and wasted space. I found the lead unconvincing and the pacing horrible...there is 30 minutes of dull, lifeless, walking in the the middle of the film that serves to act like throwing out an anchor on a boat. People who loved the books seem to love this film...and I think that is childhood projection; those of us who went in cold by and large don't seem to care for it. 4. I can not tell you how little I cared for the character of John Carter. I did not connect with this guy on any level. Part of that is that he is by and large a hold over of the typical Victorian era characterization of the civilized man; born to lead the savages, unflappable, unimpressed, in control at all times....as with many characters created in the end of that era...we are supposed to find comfort in his superiority...I simply found disbelief as a 21st century man. The only time I connected with this character is the few minute we spend with him getting used to Mars Gravity. What was good? 1. It is very pretty to look at, though a bit colorless. The costuming and CGI for the most part are wonderful. 2. Lynn Collins does a good job in her role...and from my point of view is, besides the CGI characters, the only actor who provides a decent performance of what is mostly inane, silly dialog... 3. The Tharks are really the only thing of interest in this film, they ad their interactions were fun to watch and Dafoe does a good job voicing Tars Tarkas. There just isn't enough of them. Conspiracy gives it 3 stars max...maybe 2 1/2...and I say that as a Disney Shareholder and Andrew Stanton fan.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:26 a.m. CST

    d.vader - yup - there's a chapter (titled Get Carter)

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

    in the most recent revised edition (the one with the toy robot on the cover). It is a good read.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:29 a.m. CST

    Speaking of McWeeney

    by FluffyUnbound

    I just tried to go from rottentomatoes to one of his reviews, and his fucking site triggered a download without my authorization. It's some file claiming to be some kind of master codec file. WTF, Drew? I guess I can never visit hitfix again.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    For the record, I've never read the books

    by D.Vader

    But loved the movie regardless.

  • The editing during the Warhoon attack sequence was fantastic, I thought.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Skip to the end...

    by higgledyhiggles

  • March 9, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Anyone remember the music?

    by StatelyWayneManor

    I don't.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    I love the books and have a difficult time to cope with the movie

    by BEHEM Pascal

    To simplify: All that is great = Burroughs All that is boring = invention of Stanton & co That's mostly my feeling, even if some of Stanton's ideas felt great, like the rationalizing behind Carter's teleportation. I also thought the ending was very clever.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:35 a.m. CST

    Oy where`d my quotes go ? darn it !

    by higgledyhiggles

  • March 9, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Happy Fudgepack Friday!

    by Robert Evans

    Today's subject ... former wrestler and current Clooney arm decoration STACY KEIBLER! Well, does she or doesn't she?

  • March 9, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    No time to write a full review...and decided to play it straight.

    by conspiracy

    I'll watch it again on Netflix...and maybe my opinion will change. But I really feel this is a film that was made too close to the heart, for those already invested in the story from the books...and that is not the right way to make a film you hope will appeal to a wider audience. That is an subjective opinion...not a objective fact. Maybe I was tired from a day in LA...maybe the Ramen I had before was influencing me...maybe I was pissed about standing outside for an hour in 40degree weather. But I just couldn't get into it... Your mileage may vary.

  • Harry loved TPM and many of the talkbackers did as well..when i finally saw it i couldnt believe anyone could ever like that piece of shit...same here. I saw it last light and was shocked any self respecting geek could like this movie..its terrible! Well i saw Jar Jar..and i loved him!!!...Harry K just a reminder

  • March 9, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    choppah - I know Febs over but have you mentioned Paula Patton..?

    by openthepodbaydoorshal

  • March 9, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    Not yet, openthepodbaydoorshal.

    by Robert Evans

    In due time.

  • The only thing that sticks is the female lead and Tar Tarkas. Even the Action was forgettable but for the White Ape segment...which is 7 minutes of the film. And the confrontation with the new Thark leader...horrible. ...but it just falls flat. In fact this segment so closely mimics Attack of the Clones I heard at least 3 or 4 people actually saying it on the way out of the theater. And I should say copies...right down to the Mace and Jango showdown.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:45 a.m. CST

    This is in no way comparable to TPM

    by D.Vader

    That's a bit laughable, in my opinion.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:46 a.m. CST

    Take all the time you need, conspiracy.

    by Robert Evans

    The rest of you, though ... I expect answers straight away! And back up your statements!

  • March 9, 2012, 11:48 a.m. CST

    Give Woola a spin off

    by shane peterson

    film. I'm not kidding. LOL funny at points.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

    In a poll of real John Carters to see if they will attend...

    by Morte_Bea_Arthur

    One John Carter says, "I'm not spending $15 to see no damn movie."

  • March 9, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    I remember the music

    by D.Vader

    But then, I've listened to a few tracks from the soundtrack. Like every movie, you're going to have to see it a few times before you can hum the theme.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Oh come on Conspiracy! SPOILERS

    by D.Vader

    SPOILERS The new Thark leader fight was nothing like the Jango Fett fight (aside from the same end result). They were handled in completely different manners. I thought it was great (though it could have used a bit longer buildup, maybe just one beat more). I let out an audible "HAH!" in the theater when I saw that head land. END SPOILERS

  • March 9, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    Sad how negative people are

    by shane peterson

    for wanting this film to fail. Why? What do you have to gain? And why so personal towards Harry. God, so he loved the film. Great. I hope I do too. I'm going to see it Sunday. I love low brow pulp and if the film is fun and exciting: mission accomplished.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    ????

    by Miss 45

    Couldn't read your review too many spaces and not enough substance.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Poor midnight showing and low advance ticket sales =

    by FlandersBum

    biggest bomb of the year when all is said and done. General public has zero interest in this film.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA slow down there....

    by Series7

    Harry has a sister?

  • March 9, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    Also

    by Series7

    Thank god for Russia is all Disney is thinking right now.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    Half a million in midnight sales...

    by StatelyWayneManor

    ...which, according to Box Office Mojo, is on par with Prince of Persia.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Series7

    by D.Vader

    You're joking about Harry's sister, right?

  • March 9, 2012, 12:15 p.m. CST

    Harry writes the worst reviews

    by georgecauldron

    unreadable

  • March 9, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    I LOVED IT

    by bob_uzumaki

    It truly captures the essence of the book. I prolly loved it more than Harry did. Fucking Disney sabotaged everything because of it's shitty marketing. Also, if you go by Rottentomatoes, geeks and fans of the book are giving it good reviews because it truly is a movie FOR THE FANS of the book. And no, I'm NOT A FUCKING PLANT. Disney turned down my request for a preview pass, infact, and I was ready to pay even. I really hate Disney for the crappy marketing because Stanton did such a good job with it.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Yuk it up, Choppah

    by BenBraddock

    And hope cancer doesn't happen to you. Wanker.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Also, fuck Attack Of the Clones

    by bob_uzumaki

    AOTC was such a piece of crap movie that I'd forgotten EVERYTHING about it. I haven't seen it more than twice.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST

    Yes U R Harry

    by Anthony Torchia

    You are batshit insane, just not insane in the way needed to write book length reviews. Yet No offense, I'm probably crazier than you :-) I ADORED these books as a kid, "and kissed her upon the lips" still gives me goosebumps, even as I type it. Pretty great work Edgar. The movie better be as good as you all say, Harry. I have spoken

  • March 9, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    It’s the book I’ve most wanted to see a film made from.

    by Bartleby T. Scrivener

    Oh hyperbole, how I have missed you so! Everything with this guy is "This is the one I've been waiting for".

  • March 9, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    benbraddock

    by Robert Evans

    You already happened to me. I don't see how it can get much worse.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    The Problem With Any AICN review...

    by Mako

    ...of JC is that it already comes with a long back story of the AICN guys already in major love with the source material. Which isn't a bad thing. But even reading Harry's review - I couldn't help but notice how his love for all things JC has tainted his possible objective review of JC as a major motion picture. I admit I had the same issue myself when going to see TPM and all the love I had for the OT that tainted me back in the day. The movie is flawed. It's pacing is rough. The story is convoluted and hard to follow (to mention the motivations of characters). The lead actor is boring. The animation was not up to AVATAR quality and I have to admit I wasn't really drawn to the visual style of the movie or character designs. There are some good things about the movie. I've always liked the parallel nature of what is going on - on Earth and then on Mars. Some of the action scenes were well constructed. And Lynn Collins wasn't too bad. But I find it interesting that Harry has to go out of his way to justify that this movie is good by explaining that his peeps around him liked it. Why does someone need to put a spotlight on it? Seems suspicious to me. All in all... JC is not the movie the AICN want it to be. They are wearing rose colored glasses. This movie was less enjoyable than AOTC. And if you look at RT - you will see most critics point out all the things wrong with it. This movie will make a decent amount of money this weekend - but will tank soon after with Hunger Games and WOTT in the coming weeks.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Also, more :

    by bob_uzumaki

    It's a movie for the fans. Totally for the fans. So I don't fault anyone for not enjoying this movie. Sometimes, I started judging this movie as a critic, you know. Some dialogues made me think "That's very bad screenwriting" but then I'd realize that that's just the sort of dialogue that ERB would write. As I said, it's for the fans of the book. And for a lot of 10 year olds, this could have been their Star Wars had Disney manufactured toys for it.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST

    Don't forget to ask for the free poster!

    by StatelyWayneManor

  • You don't invest 250M for a movie made "for the fans" only.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:48 p.m. CST

    A SENSATIONAL CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE.DONT MISS IT.

    by KilliK

  • March 9, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    145,002 words or thereabouts

    by A_Banned_Apart

    Harry, you are more than welcome to write as much or as little as you want, but please consider hiring an editor. It's not about censoring or filtering your thoughts; it's about making your thoughts more comprehensible to your readers. Glad you enjoyed the film!

  • March 9, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST

    @pascalahad2

    by bob_uzumaki

    I bet you haven't seen the movie. It feels like the books. Andrew prolly wanted to give us something that felt fresh to us, a new storyline, some really good new ideas, and Disney prolly didn't want it to be just for the fanboys, but I guess he couldn't resist. Also, it felt as if he was trying to make a movie for the non fans but then went "Fuck it. I'll do justice to ERB's prose" and made this.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Don't get the negativity.

    by bob_uzumaki

    If you're a fan of the book, DO WATCH IT, and if you're a scifi geek, you MUST WATCH IT. Fuck Disney. Do it for Stanton.

  • March 9, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Frankly...

    by zer05um

    I thoroughly enjoyed it. Was it a touch flabby in places? Possibly. Was the romance rushed, maybe a little. That is beside the point, it was a real throwback to the days when you could go and watch a movie for the fun of it without having a whole load of post-modern wank thrown over the top in an attempt to make a quintessentially pulp story into some kind of worthy art piece. My real complaint is that the marketing folk at Disney need to be re-assigned as reactor shielding for the woeful effort they have put in for this project. Removing the word Mars from the title because of possible associations with the turdfest Mars Needs Moms? SERIOUSLY? I give it a solid A- and recommend it to all. Just leave your depression and cynicism at the door please.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    I have seen the movie, it doesn't feel like the books at all

    by BEHEM Pascal

    You seem to forget they changed Carter's character, Dejah's too (notably by making her Xena Warrior Princess), inverted the personal history of the Tharks main characters, humanized them (Tharks as comic relief, really?), invented a Weapon of Mass Destruction, played not one beat of Carter and Dejah's relationship during their time among the Tharks, erased Mors Kajak from History (not a huge loss but still), gave something interesting for Kantos Kan to do (he's the most useless character of the first novel!), compressed months in the novels into hours, added exposition that is not from the books, made Zodanga a moving city, never showed the fast-moving moons, and didn't featured Barsoom as described in the novels, at all. Apart from that points, yes, it pretty much played like the novels. Yikes.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Stacy Keibler

    by Patrick Pettay

    If she didn't before she certainly does now. You see there is a price to paid to be amongst one of the select few who have been part of Clooney's harem. Those fair beauties who have enjoyed the spotllight of awards show red carpets and the stately elegance of the Lake Como Villa know that with such luxuries come a harsh reality. They know that as charming and good natured gorgeous George appears to his adoring fans the world over that, much like a werewolf, his more animal nature often surfaces at night. Oooops sorry Conspiracy didn't mean to step on your toes there. I look forward to your comments.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:10 p.m. CST

    STACY KEIBLER'S TIGHT LITTLE FUDGE COOKIE IS UNCOMMONLY GOOD!

    by Joe Plumber

    AND OPEN FOR BUSINESS! Do you really believe that the former Heterosexually-Challenged Batman would even ponder marrying anyone who doesn't enjoy their Thin Red Line separated and pounded with Intolerable Cruelty. Cloondog likes to make Keibler stick her aerobically sculpted gluteus maximus Up in the Air. And while the Cloondog may not enjoy Staring at Goats he sure does like to look at Keibler's Perfectly Puckered Fudge Cookie before he puts his batarang Out of Sight. Good Night and Good Luck!

  • March 9, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Should have renamed it "John, Farter in Bars"

    by Jared Syn

    That would have got some butts in the seats.

  • Simpletons gushing over an action sequence that was previously shown and spoiled on a teaser trailer, which ends up being the only real selling point and the only bright spot of an otherwise terrible film. <p> This is the dilemma of the thinking man, do I listen to professional critics or undereducated idiots who are content to spend 20 hard-earned dollars to watch TOTAL FUCKING DESTRUCTION, with no thought to story, plot, or characterization? Or do I go off my instincts which tell me this film was compromised the moment Disney got ahold of the property? <p> I think I'll listen to my instincts due to one huge, gaping factor - Disney. The fact that this movie is obviously censored by an idiotic studio that cant think beyond how much money something like this will make opening weekend. Forget cinematic timelessness and making everyone happy, the studio could give a shit about you, they just want your dollar. So therefore all the bloody violence, casual nudity and sex is cut out and neutered so we really don't get the promise of what the book's magic truly is. <p> Smart people got better things to do than pay for studio-neutered movies. Smart people will wait a few months for a good torrent release.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    Far better than I expected...

    by attilathehun

    Just got back from seeing it at the only theater in Budapest showing it in the original English w/no Hungarian subtitles either. ANd it was frankly fantastic. Disney deserves brickbats only for the horrific marketing of the film. This is their best live action pic in ages, and beats everyone of the Stars Wars flicks excepting Empire. I'll see it again...

  • March 9, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST

    bob_uzumaki

    by Mako

    I personally see JC more as a 'fantasy' than Sci-Fi. But putting that aside - I thought "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E" were two of Pixar's strongest movies. So of coarse I'm a Stanton fan. But I just don't like JC. It's a weak film, and many critics and people I know agree. And as much as I want to support the director - sometimes it's best when they have a flop - and become humbled enough to learn from their mistakes and make an even better movie the next time around. Spielberg's failure with 1941 is a big reason why RAIDERS and E.T. turned out as well as they did. Spielberg learned from that experience and became a better film maker for it. Here's hoping Stanton does the same.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST

    DV

    by Series7

    Ummmmm Father geek said: "It was a real family affair for me this time out with my daughter's family, " unless he considers Harry his daughter.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Yeah Series, you didn't know that?

    by D.Vader

    Harry has talked a lot about his sister in the past. She got pregnant when she was 15 or 16 I think. Harry has a nephew he often exposes to geek movies (and movies talkbackers don't think he should). TBs give him grief about the movies he shows his nephew sometimes. I thought you knew this? I guess Harry doesn't mention her and him as much as he used to.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:35 p.m. CST

    80 years too late?

    by Samuel Fulmer

    This reminds me of when they finally made Puppet Masters into a movie afterover 40 years of horror/sci-fi films that had ripped it off.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:38 p.m. CST

    Shows Mars at the beginning? Horrible mistake!

    by Quake II

    Why do producers think that the audience is so stupid and impatient that they can't slowly work up to anything? It's the Wizard Of Oz effect. TEASE the audience with ideas but don't SHOW them the world they will soon visit. And the movie looks like a giant noisy CGI mess of creatures and battles. If it's a deeper, more thoughtful movie than that, then the commercials have failed on every level. I'm seeing Act Of Valor for a second time this weekend.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    I hate that I missed this Harry

    by aabiohazard1972

    I was luckily selected to see this by Harry, unfortuantly had a minor family emergency back in San Antonio and was unable to attend....GERRRRRRR but too Harry, I'd like to offer a heartfelt thank you for the selection, it was the thought that counts, YES I wanted to see this badly, and will in fact see it this weekend But man!! did I want to see it with some Moviefans in Austin, nothing really equals that when it comes to movie going. (Like when I saw Cronicle with you guys, THAT was singulary one of the best movie going experiances I have ever had) I'll try and catch the next one don't let the haters get you guys down.

  • The cineplex I go to has a large theatre for the big opening weekend shows it 3d is pretty good. I saw starwars and tin tin in one of the smaller theatres the 3d was terrible. The 3d I watch at home is clear and sharp.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:45 p.m. CST

    Harry's sister was actually a character in Fanboys

    by Joe Plumber

    She was underage and a huge geek herself and all the pedo fanboy characters were fawning over her.

  • March 9, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    Thanks, conspiracy...the 3D in JC

    by StatelyWayneManor

    ..was only noticeable during the end credits. I hope the 3D was better in IMAX.

  • If you payed money for those shitty Transformers movies, then you owe it to yourself to see this. If you're a geek, you will love it. The 50% of critics on RT seem to be more ripping on the sci-fi "jargon" and the genre itself from what I've read, rather than the quality of the movie. I even saw one complaining that John Carter can breath on Mars and not freeze to death. I shit you not. This film makes no apologies for what it is and if you're gonna be and Ebert and wonder why the Tharks have tusks or why they still use swords or you dont like John Carter's jumping ability or if the dialogue of a typical Star Trek episode is too much for you to swallow....then yeah, you're gonna have a problem with this movie no matter how good it is. It's well made. If you're worried about being a Van-Helsing or Green Lantern style disaster, rest assured, it is not. Other than Nolan's Batman films I'd rank my enjoyment of it well any of the Superhero movies I've seen in the last ten years. Light years over Pirates the Carrabean. It not only deserves a sequel, but I think a JC sequel would be truly something amazing. Like Batman Begins or Star Wars the potential is there for a TDK or TESB on the second film. Go see it. Again, if Tranformers earned endless sequels....then this is the fucking Medal of Honor.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:02 p.m. CST

    Everyone is encouraged to hold forth on Fudgepack Friday!

    by Robert Evans

    Conspiracy may be the star of the show, but there is plenty room for strong supporting players. Good efforts, darth_meh and dickwhitman. I laughed heartily.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:38 p.m. CST

    50/50 split amognst critics

    by Logan_1973

    Tells me it doesn't have a wide appeal, and works for sci fi fans only.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    OHHH yeah the fucking Nephew

    by Series7

    I just always assumed that was a made up character.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:49 p.m. CST

    Woolahhhh I love you! Woolalalalalalalallalalalalala

    by UltraTron

  • March 9, 2012, 2:51 p.m. CST

    UltraTron's 3D IMAX John Carter of Mars? Review Spoilers!!!

    by UltraTron

    Woola is the new R2. Not one other soul in the theater for the 10:30 IMAX 3D premiere. Sat in optimal seat. Got up and adjusted seat for optimal 3D experience. Ok so this movie is fucking great and the only thing wrong with it is that the costumes are basicly not anywhere near as good as the costumes in Flash Gordon. Ok there's more wrong but It's kind of a remake of flash Gordon that feels really old school like Krull because of the shitty costumes. The movie takes it's time and I'd love to have a trilogy all done to watch on blu. It's got some seriously gigantic spectacle. It sets up the universe and the villains and you want to see more. It's got some clunky stuff and when your mind starts to wonder because you can't care about some of the details you realize that stronger costumes would have helped you stay interested in who's talking. It's got fliesher superman moments that will have you laughing, cheering- it has the closest thing you'll see to superman going ape shit and killing an entire army of hundreds of aliens with a sword and his bare hands just  ripping them apart. It's got a chick with the deepest blue eyes I have seen in 3D IMAX.  It's better than the romance between Luke and Lay Uh. It has a better kiss than the Luke and Lay Uh kisses. The 3D conversion was just fine. Real 3D IMAX is much better. So is it a must see?  Well it's a historical thing this movie. It's finally here when there were 90 tarzans before it. I wish they would make my trilogy of Leagues films next. I cast Daniel Day Lewis as Nemo years ago and time has proven no man better for such a task. Make it so! 

  • March 9, 2012, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Should you take a date? Yes. Cuddly moments await

    by UltraTron

  • March 9, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Still going..

    by UltraTron

    Holy shit Malcolm's dad gets screwed.

  • March 9, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    Harry sure does love that Enter button on his keyboard

    by CHRISTIAN_BALE_TRASHED_MY_LIGHTS

    It's like he sees the Enter button and presses it because he likes the look of it and then he thinks how fun that was and so he pushes it again. But wait! We need to emphasise something here and so ..it's time for the Enter button once more! And one more time for luck.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Malcolm

    by D.Vader

  • March 9, 2012, 3:02 p.m. CST

    Malcolm's Dad

    by D.Vader

    HAH! What a punchline that was.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    An Anus will decide it...Pt.1

    by conspiracy

    George Clooney for all his reputation as a master Cunt Hunter is a genteel and traditional one woman, at a time, man. But while watching Stacy Keibler's endless legs on Dancing with the Stars...he soon became aware that the new Slit Smell had long faded from his Italian cock garage. So a decision was made; a decision that would forever change the lives of his live-in Wop Well and that of the Former WWE Masturbation Motivator. A fight...a fight amongst equals, but how to declare a winner? Clooney had no clue...but like porn, he'd know it when he saw it. Twas late in the spring of 2011 When Stacy was summoned to the Lake Como Villa..., an invitation from the worlds Sexiest bachelor could not be ignored, especially given her own quickly fading celebrity. It was well known that Clooney was a Queen maker..a sure fire way back into the public eye, even at the cost of being seen as nothing but cock fodder, Stacy knew she could not refuse such an opportunity, that the invitation came with a private jet helped. The Italian countryside sparkled in the late afternoon sun, and Stacy was in awe as she drove up towards Georges immaculate lakeside estate. "You like what you see" Fabrizio, Clooneys personal driver asked as he entered the gates. "Oh yeesss..it is so beautiful!" replied the leggy blonde as she adjusted her minidress in the backseat of the Masserati; Fabrizio smirked, he had already known the answer, for even from the drivers seat he could smell the pungent sweetness of Stacys cunt pollen as it poured from her moist flowering orchid. "Oh yess..." he though, "George will like this one...that new cunt smell". Fabrizio chuckled as he drove on; he couldn't wait to get the panties from George and put them where all such things ended up, in the cars cabin air filter, "Fuck the Smell of Leather Fab..." Clooney once told him, "...a mans car should smell like freshly waxed pussy and Scotch", Fabrizio could not help but agree as he inhaled deeply. Elisabetta watched the car pulling up the driveway, 18 months before she had been in that car, 18 months ago another woman stood and watched and now it was her turn; she knew it was coming, George had told her during the usual 8am feeding. As always she knelt before him on the veranda, knees splayed, 5" stilettos and collar in place, and had begun Georges required morning servicing as he stood looking out over Lake Como while drinking his coffee; usually George didn't speak...but this morning he did. "Baby...I'm just not sure about us anymore..." she remembered the Cloonster musing flatly, "...I just feel like your heart isn't in this anymore, are you ready to prove otherwise?". Elisabetta could still feel the knot in her stomach as George mumbled the words...remembered looking up at him, his turgid member still deep in her mouth, and how she had worked harder than ever to satisfy him as he stood there stoically drinking his java...even as she gagged trying to touch his stomach with her nose. "Get ready Elisabetta..., contest starts at sundown. Don't worry...I'll finish this myself" Clooney had said, pushing her off the cock that slew a thousand cunts, strings of thick saliva still hanging from her lips as he handed her the empty cup and walked back into his massive bedroom and his favorite mirror. Elisabetta, turned towards her bed...clothes had been laid there for her by the help..a thong, stockings, peek toe pumps...all in white; she felt her stomach churn...but also knew she wasn't going without a fight, "winner take all" was what George had said when she had first arrived and won the right to a life of luxury, fame, and A-List Cock...and she was going to make sure that she was again the victor, slowly she walked towards the garments she would wear to decide her fate

  • March 9, 2012, 3:23 p.m. CST

    christian_bale_trashed_my_lights

    by Chris

    No kidding, pal. Pretty much everyone that writes for this website is unconstrained by things like syntax, punctuation, and what constitutes a paragraph. The key to writing the way people speak is for what you're saying not to be what a moron would say.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:24 p.m. CST

    Good review, GREAT film

    by Andrew Coleman

    The haters here are simply sticking to their guns because they are children and can't admit they are wrong. I don't care if the movie makes just ten dollars I loved it. I hope a lot of you come off like children. I mean if you are in high school and posting here it's all good then, but if you're in your 20's or 30's and gloating about movies sucking or hoping for a movie to bomb... Holy shit get some therapy.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    Still...

    by Chris

    It's almost as though Harry exist so that the common person feels as though they have a chance at making it in America. Do you think Harry name drops so that it will make us feel like we can be friends with Stallone too? We can live vicariously through him. So if that's true, does Harry exist to give us hope or a false sense of hope? I have to think that it's a false sense of hope, like the way a hooker might be able to pay for her kids college by blowing the dean.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    myphdisdoom

    by Chris

    Why do you hope we come off like children? Sounds like you need the therapy, pal. That's sick. Also, it's not wise to judge people who hope this movie bombs as childish when you're chastising them like you're in high school.

  • -- And Stacy Keibler is literally the perfect height for standing anal, unless you were really short then I guess you could grab a foot stool.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    Another possible series

    by Adexsi

    ... ruined by adding a moronic cute dog so that the movie can appeal to 4 year old kids. Just like SW Jedi was ruined by having Ewoks. Sad! :(

  • March 9, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    The thing about the 50/50 split is...

    by WONKABAR

    that the 50% that like it, LOVE it. Albeit with a couple minor nitpicks. The other 50% still have good things to say about it but just can't get past the so-called "convoluted" sci-fi cheese of it. As wide appeal it seems that audiences in general are going for it about 70% judging by the reactions I've witnessed and read about. Most people like sci-fi fantasy. If you look at most of the reviews of Star Wars in 1977... I'm talking the old ones, the first ones... a lot of them dismissed the film as childish rubbish. Paper thin characters, boring exposition ridiculous dialogue, simplistic story etc. etc. In short, they just didn't get it. Of course, there were the ones that recognized the escapist fun of it right off the bat. I would go so far as to say that JC actually does a better and more economical job of setting up it's world than A New Hope did. I'd say also that the characters are more fleshed out and realistic and that the overall scope of the film is far more epic. The FX of course, are a given.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    Have seen it in 2D, have booked to see it again on Sunday in Imax 3D

    by 6000_little_griglets

    Can't wait. Box office be damned i'm making the most of this movie while it's in the cinema. Taste in movies is becoming more and more akin to taste in music these days... everybody is on different pages... i wouldn't go so far as to say critics are redundant, i still enjoy reading an insightful review, but opinions definitely are like arseholes.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    Ebert's Review: He doesn't hate it but...

    by ChaunceyGardiner

    it just isn't his thing. Ebert's big theory for writeing a film review is simple: write a review which allows a reader to have a degree of certainty about whether or not a film will interest them. I've been reading Ebert from somewhere between the age of 8 and 10. Even when I was a child I could tell by one of his reviews whether or not a film was up my alley - in my opinion, that is a pretty profound gift for a reviewer. Because I am a good reader at that age, and despite my unadvanced age and pretty great deficiency in what films I had and had not seen, Ebert was able to speak to my interests and intellect to build curiousity or to speak in such a way in which I knew how disinterested I would be in the film he was reviewing. I have tracked down films YEARS after haveing reading an Ebert review, either because I couldn't drive myself to the theatre, couldn't have gotten an adult to supervise me, watch it with me, or it just wasn't the type of film playing in my town at that time. And this said, just because Ebert likes or dislikes something doesn't mean that I'll have the same reaction. I have actually gone to movies because Ebert gave it a negative review - but I had known by the reading of that review whether I was interested or not. For me, almost always have Ebert's reviews fit his criteria for a good review. He is often very honest about his personal tastes - and his "John Carter" review is evidence of this. He describes the film well - what he didn't like can easily be summarized by a failure on his part of a suspension of disbelief. He outlines this clearly. He doesn't think it is bad, just not a film made for him. And when he described John Carter's superhuman leaps as things that detracted from his interests, I knew I would love it because the artful filming of those sequences have been one of the elements of the trailers that most delighted the inner-child in me. People feel that the point of reviewers is to agree or disagree with them. It is not. It is, in fact, much like haveing a conversation with a friend about a movie that was seen - because of your closeness and your knowledge of your friend's whims, tastes, and interests and strange little list of quirtks, you can have a good idea of the film that was seen. It is the joy of talking to someone about film, how you may or may not see eye to eye on things but how you both experienced it differently. It isn't you both likeing the movie. (Though, that is nice when it does happen.) And you choose movies to see with certain people not merely because they WILL like the movie, but because there is a possibility of that or that it will at the least bit be interesting to them. Good reading of Ebert helps with all that. I've always found that Ebert is a good comanion when it comes to the movies.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    Kitsch looks like a girl

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    John Carter my ass.

  • March 9, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    adexsi

    by D.Vader

    I guess you don't know the source material, huh.

  • Still, I enjoyed it a lot.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn...Funny you should say that...

    by conspiracy

    one of my wifes comments was..."Why does the Princess look like she could kick the hero's ass...he's skinny.." And I will add that she can act circles around him as well.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:07 p.m. CST

    shermdawg..Yes, one of the biggest problems with JOhn Carter...

    by conspiracy

    is John Carter.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:09 p.m. CST

    conspiracy, you have something special here.

    by Robert Evans

    This has a good chance to be the greatest FPF entry of all time.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    I'm being unfair

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    He doesn't look like a girl, but he's too fair featured to be John Carter in my opinion. Looks too modern and "civilized" if you know what I mean

  • March 9, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    I'm working on it between Customers and phone calls Chop..

    by conspiracy

    I know where I want it to go...I just hope I get time. Clooney is one sick fuck...let me tell you that much.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:16 p.m. CST

    Take all the time you need, con.

    by Robert Evans

  • March 9, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST

    Harry... you need to see this!

    by DustoMan

    Andrew Stanton visited a Google and did one of their @Google interviews there. During the audience Q&A near the end someone asks, "Why is it called John Carter?" Andrew gave an answer that I figured, that it was because of the marketing. But he was actually the one that made the decision and he made a deal with Disney that if the 2nd and 3rd movies get made, they will have "...of Mars" in the title. He eliaborates more, but you can see his entire talk here: http://youtu.be/AtP33OuPzgc It's actually pretty good and you can see how much of a fan of the books he is like you are.

  • March 9, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Chaunceygardiner. Totally agree with you about Ebert.

    by WONKABAR

    Had I not already seen JC his review actually would have made me want to see it more. There's been a lot of his reviews where he outlines what he doesn't like about a movie and I'm like, "I'm SO seeing it!". This is often the case with his reviews of horror films or comedies. Like, he didn't like Fast Times because he thought it was too "raunchy"...at least his old review of it. I wonder if he's since revised it. I read it in one of his old books long after it had become a classic.

  • You'd think people would avoid somebody they don't like.

  • March 9, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    @zombot: I was asking questions with no answer?

    by justmyluck

    *justmyluck @ Mar 09, 2012 7:05:04 AM CST So, zombot, when you see a film at a public event, sponsored festival or on television for free, any critical opinion you have on it is not to be trusted?* *zombot @ Mar 09, 2012 7:07:08 AM CST if it was free for everyone, as for me, then yeah. but I'm talking about people who are paid and treated to go see movies, and are paid to express their opinions on them. * DAMN THAT WAS ONE HELL OF A COINCIDENCE. I'll skip the @zombot dialog next time to avoid further confusion!

  • March 9, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    Harry is Woola. Or Woola is Harry. I get confused.

    by UltraTron

  • March 9, 2012, 5:42 p.m. CST

    Saw it. Dug it.

    by Logan_1973

    Some pacing issues, but still a worthwhile ticket. Far from a disaster.

  • March 9, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST

    by conspiracy

    Stacy opened the door to the sporty sedan and hesitantly walked up the hand hewn granite steps of the Villa, the light growing dimmer as afternoon faded into evening. She marvelled at the size and expense of the mansion, the click of her high heels echoing from the solid rock walls as she passed through a massive iron gate, "Domus debent homicidae: coitus erit te liberum" the Iron archway read...Stacy wondered what it meant, probably a tribute to acting she thought. "Stacy Keibler..." a Russian tinged voice rang out, Stacy turned to see a youngish blonde girl walking towards her, clad all in white, immaculate and stylish, the tops of her lace garters just peeking out from under her skirt...she approached hand extended, "...I'm Yulia, Mr. Clooney's personal valet, would you follow me please, Fabrizio will bring your belongings shortly." Stacy shook the girls hand, admiring the flawless alabaster skin. "Nice too meet you...where is Geor..."; "Mr. Clooney is waiting your arrival in the Arena, we will meet him, there soon, but he would first like to see your needs attended too...please, this way" Yulia replied hurriedly, gesturing towards a stairway leading under the main house. "Odd way to enter a house..." Stacy thought to herself, but being a guest, and still in awe of the palace like surroundings, happily followed the stunning Slav into the Bowls of Clooney's abode without a thought or care. Down the stairs, and through a long passageway they walked until finally Yulia opened a large metal door and led Stacy into a large room, in the center of which was a large free standing tub filled with water and rose pedals. "Mr. Clooney requests you prepare yourself here before we present ourselves. Your clothes please." Stacy was taken aback, she had heard rumors of Georges germ phobia, his neat freak tendencies, and his odd demands of women...but had chalked them up to gossip or overblown hyperbole, but now she stood confronted by the strangest request since Vince McMahon asked her for to provide an on the spot Urine sample into a glass filled with ice cubes; of course Stacy complied then...and being this close to the man who could rekindle public interest in her, she had no intentions of backing out..no matter his eccentricities. Stacy Quickly stripped out of her miniscule clothes, handed them to Yulia...who proceeded to put them all, save for her panties which were placed in a box, into a recessed wall closet, Stacy noticed there were clothes already present there, recognizing the Valentino dress circa 2009 hanging there. "We will have your things cleaned and they will be ready for you when you leave..be it two days, or two years.." Yulia said with a smirk, her eyes running the length of Stacys 6ft frame, she chewed on her lower lip and moistened them with her tongue, "And now..Ms. Keibler...the bath." Stacy walked over, lowering herself into the warm fragrant copper tub, admitting to herself it did feel wonderful after the hours of travel, she closed her eyes to relax. A few minutes passed, how long she wasn't sure, when suddenly Stacy felt the delicate touch of a womans hand caressing her shoulders, snapping her eyes open. Yulia stepped from behind the tub, her fitted jacket and skirt now removed, and clad only in her white lace garter, stockings and pumps. "My Appologies Ms. Keibler...I thought a massage would help relax you, and prepare you for the event.." Stacy was stunned, and her nerves went on edge..."oh...ok...su sure Yulia..sure" She looked at the stunning Slav before her, the pouty red lips, and hard 50cent piece sized bright pink nipples on perfectly sculpted breasts told her that Clooney demanded perfection even in his house staff, "and you..you do this naked?" Stacy muttered, slightly aroused but confused. "So my clothes don't get wet Ms. Keibler..that is all". Stacy nodded, and closed her eyes once more...still unsure, "... if this was the way to bask in Clooneys aura so be it..." She thought. Yulia walked behind the statuesque ex-wrestler and again began her minstrations...in time Stacy was on the edge of sleep, her long body languidly stirring in the warm pool, Yulia removed one hand from Stacys shoulders, moving to her own ripped abs, pressing her own nails into her tight milky flesh, she closed her own eyes without letting up the pressure on her guests shoulders or her own torso, slowly moving her hand farther down her own body until finally pressing it between her tight firm thighs and into her own throbbing blossom, she imagined Stacys long muscled legs splaying before her as thoughts of pressing her mouth into Keiblers moist cream cookie took her away, "I Hope Mr. Clooney keeps her,..." Yulia Though as she buried a finger into her freshly waxed love tunnel, her other hand still massaging her guests shoulder, "...maybe I'll get to play with her when he has had enough...just like with all the rest." A Red Light flashed in the room...went on in the Room. "Ms. Keibler...Mr. Clooney is ready to see you, you must get dressed." Yulia commanded. Stacy fluttered her eyes open, lifting one obscenely long leg after the next out of the tub and stretching them. Yulia walked over to a small bed, and motioned towards it. Stacy walked towards the bed and saw there a miniscule white thong, White peek toe Stilettos, White stockings...and nothing else. "Where is the rest of it?..." Stacy asked, curious and nervous, "...this is all that you will require Ms. Keibler; Mr. Clooney is a man of simple tastes" Stacy felt her stomach knot as the surreal situation grew wilder by the minute, a look of concern showed on her face. "Don't be concerned...Stacy..." Yulia said as she placed her hand in Keiblers, "...Mr. Clooney is a naturalist don't worry my dear, it's how we all dress for special events." Stacys nerves calmed somewhat as she consigned herself to the situation and dressed herself, she had always been comfortable in her own skin, but it was usually in situations where she had control, still...she did have a questions. "You...you keep saying 'Event' Yulia...what...what 'event' is happening?" Yulia turned to Stacy, taking both her hands into her own..."you will see Ms. Keibler...I can't tell you more, just know this..." the slavic sex pot said as she moved close, their bodies almost touching, " ...I am in your corner, tonight I am your biggest fan" she whispered before planting a small kiss on Stacys stunned lips. Then...a small metal door on the far end of the room slid open, and Yulia led a still confused Stacy Keibler through the door and out into a small circular arena. Torches danced on the perimeter of the small outdoor space, the ground a hard rubberized mat. Stacy looked around, stunned and somewhat shaken...it resembled a small bull ring, facing her a raised gilded chair, and seated upon it looking down glared the man whose meat had known no equal, who had split the gashes of young and the old alike. George rose..."Welcome Stacy...you're more beautiful in person than on Dancing with the Stars..you know that? I never missed an episode of you...when I saw you, I knew, in my heart, that I must meet you and see if you were worthy." Stacy looked up at the worlds most eligible bachelor, he was clad only in a black batman-esque cape, and a belt, off of which hung various objects; two naked women knelt at either side of him, one a girl of 15 or 16 holding a bottle of Glenfiddich, the other older, held a glass, they were clearly related, perhaps mother and daughter. "Tonight...my dear Stacy...if you pass the challenge...you will take your place at my right hand, if not...you will be sent back to a world of WWE conventions, C-list boyfriends, and waiting in line for table service" On the wall below Clooney a small door slid open...and out walked a stunning, nearly perfect brunette woman...her eyes aflame, Stacy recognized her...Elisabetta, Clooneys current cock warmer. "I will not be deposed by a sweaty c-list wrestler" Elisabetta cried out, "I will prove my worth to you George!" George gazed down at the two stunning white lingerie clad 10's, "Win Win situation for the Cloonster..." he though, "...as always, nothing but fucking Cherries". George reached down and behind his back, uncoupling two devices which he held in his hands. "If you be worthy of my spotlight and seed...prove your worth Now!" he bellowed throwing the two objects into the ring. The large black rubber dildos bounced hard on the rubber matting, as George took his seat, the older woman placing the glass between her sizanle breasts, while the younger poured the Scotch between the woman's cleavage which funneled the liquid into the glass, "Body Temp...just the way Scot should be served" Clooney mused at his own idea. "Begin..." Clooney yelled...as Elisabetta scambled in her Stilettos for the dildo closest her, Stacy was terrififed, confused, stunned and shocked...what was she supposed to do, she thought.

  • March 9, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Harry

    by t_allen

    I have been coming here for years and genuinely like your reviews but, I am glad we didn't get to see the geek's version of John Carter. Sorry man... But based on your review I think this will be fun tomorrow when I go see it with my friend and his kid. Mysterious Island last month in 3d was my first since Creature form the Black Lagoon was actually aired in 3d on the television. In the 70's. You had to get the glasses from 7-11 or something, I was just a kid so had them from all those issues of 'Dynamite' magazine and all the 3d posters they always included anyway. Keep being a geek, it motivates a lot of us! Rock on, brother!

  • March 9, 2012, 6:01 p.m. CST

    Was the review written before or after the check cleared?

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    Just saying.

  • Man...many people think Harry is bought and paid for. :(

  • March 9, 2012, 6:26 p.m. CST

    This movie is crap, bring the FIRST REAL Spidey movie!

    by ShakaLaka Lambo

  • Stay tuned for the exciting duel between Stacy Keibler and Elisabetta for the right to be Clooneys public Cock Maul... how will it play out, will anal really decide it?! What deviant tricks, twists and turns await our heroine? This and more in the Exciting final answer to Fudgepack Fridays question...coming soon.

  • March 9, 2012, 6:53 p.m. CST

    Amazing spidey will wipe the Raimi crap away for good!

    by ShakaLaka Lambo

  • We got like five more in the pipeline.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:22 p.m. CST

    $10 friday...$30 million weekend domestic

    by Billy_D_Williams

    but the film is actually tracking very well overseas. it had the highest opening day of all time in Russia, which is a big deal. The international take is more important than domestic nowdays anyway...it will probably keep JC from tanking completely.

  • March 9, 2012, 7:23 p.m. CST

    and who is the newest troll called lisab?

    by Billy_D_Williams

    you're incorrect honey, it's $10 for Friday, not the entire weekend. JC is fucked, but let's not pile lies on the corpse.

  • You CANNOT love movies and not like John Carter. I saw it this afternoon and it was the most pure action/adventure/romance/spectacle that I have seen in decades. I wish it was an hour longer, because it would be a perfect movie if it were about an hour longer. As it is, it's an A movie and already one of my favorite all time!!

  • March 9, 2012, 7:33 p.m. CST

    lisab

    by Billy_D_Williams

    =Average, everyday people stood up to mass media hype and said NO!!! to JOHN CARTER. No to sci-fi. No to A&F model heroes. No to pointless CGI! No to Mars! No to overstuffed megamovies with nothing to say! = JC seems to be an actual good film...more than half the reviews are positive (50% on rottentomatoes from the elitist critics, BUT 72% audience rating, which is the only rating that matters), with even the negative reviews admitting the movie isn't terrible. A pretty good sci-fi action movie comes along and gets buried while shitfests like Transformers 2 continue to rake in huge bucks...so how exactly is this a victory for everyday people??? What's going to happen now is, since people didn't show up for a good sci-fi, they'll start making found footage shitfests...so congrats America, you ruined it all.

  • Lies are her specialty. She is a habitual liar. And pretty pathetic too. I have to laugh at someone whose pleasure is derived from a movie failing, as if she represents the lone "normal" person amongst the rest of us movie geeks.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    LisaB - take a powder. Chill the fuck out.

    by john

    We're all friends here.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:08 p.m. CST

    I really liked "John Carter". It was a surprise.

    by Ringwearer9

    I didn't want to see John Carter. I didn't want to see (or pay for it) in IMAX 3D. I ended up doing all three. And I enjoyed it. It made the horrible expense seem worth it. It's a movie with an actual PLOT, an actual STORY. I don't think I've seen CGI aliens that actually convinced me that they were physical characters outside of Avatar, but this film managed to make me forget they were CGI. It was indeed a romance ... this is a date movie. Guys, if you have a girl, she will love the romance and also that the Princess of Mars kicks ass (it should have been the title of the movie). I can't believe this movie is rumored to be bombing. I liked it a lot. There was only one phantom menace-esque "pod racing" sequence near the end, where John Carter loses control of an air-cycle thingy, but other than that, most of the action was clear, exciting, and not too fast for the eye to follow. I even tolerated the 3D pretty well for most of the movie. My stupid friend started asking me to have some twizzlers at the end, when John Carter was getting out of bed with the Princess, and I had to shut him up so I could watch, because I knew the movie wasn't over yet. Seriously, this movie felt like it packed the entire novel into it. It wasn't your usual empty headed plot-lite blockbuster. It did feel like Star Wars to me quite a bit.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:27 p.m. CST

    LisaB-the modern day Cassandra

    by Robert Evans

    Every genre flick that opens and she denounces it as an unnecessary film that the People don't want. Yet people go to the films and studios keep making them. She's wrong all the time..so much that she was laughed out of the TBs and had to change her name. Id really hate to live in the apartment underneath her, with her vag super moist and gushing this weekend because a film FINALLY underperforms. Her vibrator is gonna get some good lovin tonight. 'we did it!'--now you sound like the fanboys when MJ and OJ were found NOT GUILTY..

  • March 9, 2012, 8:32 p.m. CST

    "smoke a cigar" a Lisab Euphemism for paying to suck a strap-on.

    by conspiracy

    really...pay for play is the only way I can picture such a human getting any.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:34 p.m. CST

    Home...still pondering JC...still am firm in my opinion of it.

    by conspiracy

    That said I will be working on Pt. 3 of "An Anus will decide it..." Later tonight...look for it on a Talkback near you.

  • March 9, 2012, 8:37 p.m. CST

    My sphincter is puckered on anticipation Con

    by Robert Evans

  • March 9, 2012, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Holy S##t!!! Now THATS a Straight Fantasy Film!!!!

    by even9

    WOW!! WOWSA!!!! What a psychedelic trip!!! Far flung out man, that was so good it's funny trip to Mars!!!! I LOVE straight fantasy, that's my film Genre, & god strewth, that's a freakin wacked out oh my god this is so fun take no prisoners fantasy masterpiece of 3d adventuring oblivion!!!! I was soooo on the edge of my seat when the fern what ever the heck that is you are all insignificent lab rats to reality doud took John Carter prisoner, man that was golly gosh heaven!!!!! Giddy as a lump of red jello watching itself being put into a fantasy film blender turned up to 11 watching that man!!! Good grief, i knew was going to enjoy the film but have to say, eclipses some of my fav. ever fantasy films which have sporadically shown up over last few years (even if meet with some befuddlement elsewhere), this is just so much more balls to the wall all the way, even if not sure some of the subtle stuff makes complete sense in the cut of the movie, it doesn't matter cause this is an overall prize fighting beast of straight fantasy narrative GLORY!

  • March 9, 2012, 8:46 p.m. CST

    In the series: "LisaBitch was wrong again!"

    by Franck

    LisaBitch is wrong again!

  • March 9, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    LisaBitch was wrong again!

    by Franck

    LisaBitch was wrong again!

  • March 9, 2012, 8:55 p.m. CST

    LisaBitch was wrong again!

    by Franck

    After predicting that X-Men First Class was the last one, she said that JC may not reach the two digits figures on opening week-end. Of course she'll argue that the movie is still a flop and will probably also ignore the foreign box-office results. Next she'll start targeting Prometheus as a giant failure...but you will see that in a new episode of: LisaBitch was wrong again!

  • March 9, 2012, 9:39 p.m. CST

    Saw it tonight

    by apewithchain

    I agree about the beginning: it was a bit clunky, and I'm still not clear, when all is said and done, how Zodanga was the cause of Mars' decline. Did it ruin all the topsoil with its wanderings? Otherwise, it was a charming movie, with some witty solutions to the books' challenges. I loved the Tharks, and the detailed roman imperial gaudiness of the human citizens and soldiery struck the right note from the books. There's a major plot point left out, but they can bring it up in the sequels, which I hope we'll have. Bring on Ras Thavas!

  • #10. "I know JC is a good film and fuck the naysayers with a crow bar." #9. "I read A Princess of Mars when I was __ years old." #8. "Just see the fucking movie and shut the fuck up." #7. "Sometimes I don't want to have to think too hard about a movie." #6. "Rotten Tomatoes are nothing but a bunch of hipster douchebags." #5. "My family will really enjoy this family film which is directed specifically with families in mind ...family." #4. "That Guardian review is stupid as fuck." #3. "I have a feeling kids are going to love this like *enter movie title here*" #2. "I hear this movie is directed by the director of 3 of the greatest movies ever made. That should have been the ads. From the director of 3 of the highest grossing Pixar movies ever made. Done." #1. "You will believe a man can jump."

  • March 9, 2012, 10:11 p.m. CST

    Never read any of the Burrough's Mars books?

    by MooseMalloy

    Get the fuck outta here!

  • March 9, 2012, 10:16 p.m. CST

    Jimmy Carter of Mars directed by Bill Clinton.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    With a cameo from JFK's ghost. Now that, I'll see.

  • March 9, 2012, 10:20 p.m. CST

    Loved The Movie!!

    by achapin14

    Had humor, action, great acting and Awesome story!!! Planning on seeing it again soon!!!

  • March 9, 2012, 10:24 p.m. CST

    Gabe Kotter of Mars.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

  • March 9, 2012, 10:54 p.m. CST

    ONE OF THE BEST EVENT MOVIES OF THE YEAR.GO WATCH IT.

    by KilliK

  • March 9, 2012, 11:11 p.m. CST

    ...had engage me to make a few films for them

    by ReportAbuse

    Good god, in what (dare I ask) capacity? Don't tell me you're a screenwriter. That film would've been something to see.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:12 p.m. CST

    I rarely agree with Harry

    by dukeroberts

    But I really liked it. It was a fun, pulpy adventure film. I think I may go see it again.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Send the naysayers into the arena

    by Composite_Beppo

    And may Isis abandon them... You go, Harry - this movie fucking rules.

  • March 9, 2012, 11:32 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed 'John Carter'

    by micbenxyy

    The movie was visually rich, and I will see it again to take in what passed before my eyes. In regards 'Meta Critic' and 'Rotten Tomatoes' - I scanned through the names of the critics and only saw one that I recognized - Roger Ebert. I have no time to waste on the opinions of people who have not earned my respect. That Roger Ebert did not like it is a pity, but not enough to make me avoid a movie I have waited forty years to see.

  • March 10, 2012, 12:21 a.m. CST

    !!!Fuck John Carter!!!

    by nobbythehappyelf

    John Carter of Greece

  • http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/frontrow/frontrow_20120305-1801a.mp3 You can just skip to 9:15 where he compares his artistic approach to The Beatles or Picasso.

  • March 10, 2012, 1:43 a.m. CST

    Avengers traler was great!!

    by The Founder

  • March 10, 2012, 1:44 a.m. CST

    oops I meant trailer

    by The Founder

  • March 10, 2012, 5:19 a.m. CST

    Another Useless Review by Sycophant Harry

    by jamesonian

    Are your knees still sore from your interview with Stanton?

  • March 10, 2012, 5:49 a.m. CST

    justmyluck

    by aceldama

    "BOMB CARTER"? What the hell does that even mean? I mean, I understand that you are trying to be cutesy and change the name of the film to reflect that it will be a bomb, but the way you did it, it has no rational reasoning. In my opinion, bomb and John don't sound close enough for it to make sense. Usually there is some creative use or reason for someone to do that, but you failed in a big way. Seriously, if you want to try to change names to reflect your opinion because you think you're clever (you're not), at least make sense.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:08 a.m. CST

    RIP MOEBIUS :(

    by KilliK

  • March 10, 2012, 6:45 a.m. CST

    Oh, damn. Jean Giraud gone, after Ralph McQuarrie.

    by justmyluck

  • March 10, 2012, 6:52 a.m. CST

    LORAX does not exist in this dojo

    by Cobra--Kai

    * Box Office: "The Lorax" Set to Defeat Dismal "John Carter" * Opening weekend misery for JC... Hey Harry - where's your review or your aicn articles about THE LORAX? 100 articles about JOHN CARTER, why none for THE LORAX? It's in its 2nd week now and still more people want to see it than JC. You backed the wrong horse. I need LORAX coverage and I NEED IT NOW!

  • March 10, 2012, 6:55 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    No one knows what a LORAX is and still - more people are prepared to see a movie about it than JOHN CARTER (not of Mars). Who or what is a LORAX? A brand of condom? I dunno let's a buy a ticket and find out.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:58 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Harry you were originally going to be making a movie of JOHN CARTER? Bet you're pleased that one fell through. Fuck me. Talk about dodging a bullet.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:14 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night - a great fun romp of a movie

    by Kizeesh

    The Guardian review is a load of ass. John Carter is probably the first proper rollickingly good fun action adventure yarn I've seen since The Mummy. It's good fun, lots of laughs and doesn't fill the movie with stupid gags, idiocy and actually expects the audience to be paying attention. I think the problem is that people a GI Joe style idiot boom-fest and not a decent film. It's great and if I was a 12 year old right now it'd probably be my favourite film.

  • For anyone watching on tv in the future who never saw an ad or poster- this movie will be called John Carter or Mars. Only the posters and ads truncate the title.

  • It would be funny if someone didn't agree with that since it can be proven mathematically.

  • 3 more Cameron movies in less than 20 years. You would jam that cock in your mouth faster than you can say mmmrrpph.

  • But better? that's a whole diferent subject right there.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:22 a.m. CST

    If i was a cynical soul, i would say that...

    by AsimovLives

    ... the geekry is loving JOHN CARTER on principle. It's their damsel in distress and they will fight for it, it's their Camelot and they are not going to let it go down without a fight. The love for a movie as a political statement.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:33 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *they are not going to let it go down without a fight.* Asi, unfortunately if the weekend box office is any indicator then JOHN CARTER has already gone down. If JOHN CARTER were a boxer he'd have a glass jaw. Stanton so overspent that the movie had to take AVATAR money to make bank. You could compare JOHN CARTER to Titanic. No not the film. The boat.

  • Then I wasted my time watching the whole ten minute JC preview which cemented the deal. You don't *stunt* the hero. You don't open with him/her taking a piss, flying out of windows and getting knocked out every minute. Even with *hero's journey* padding, it starts with IDEALS or IDEALISM, not gags at the protagonist's expense. That's BAD DIRECTION, in other words. I wouldn't be a prick about JC now if I wasn't flooded with it here, either. I'm not even tempted to see this thing just to say, *You just can't market something wacky-looking as grand entertainment*.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:49 a.m. CST

    =But better?=

    by KilliK

    YEAH BETTER.TRIPLE FACT.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST

    =But better?=

    by KilliK

    YEAH BETTER.THE BEST.TRIPLE FACT.!!!!

  • March 10, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    This 'Daily Mail' review is typical trash review by Chris Tookey:

    by the_shitweasel_with_a_quizzical_brow

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2112402/John-Carter-film-review-Lame-heroes-ghastly-script-albino-space-wombats.html

  • March 10, 2012, 9:33 a.m. CST

    Biblical Spectacle

    by angelopoulos

    I really enjoyed the film. It was definitely a swords and sandals / western with fantasy elements. I agree with the review above on this one. My 10 year old daughter loved it. Why can't we as a geek community get behind the types of movies we love and support them? When did all this stupid negativity toward cinema come about? There is a place somewhere between terrible and fantastic called mediocre, but this movie is far better than mediocre, not quite fantastic, but I think the other books would be fun to see.

  • March 10, 2012, 9:41 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    You agree with the review above?? And I quote: *A monstrous flop: lame heroes, a ghastly script.. and albino space wombats. Welcome to 2012's first mega-disaster*

  • Disasters sell better than successes.And the Media knows that and loves it when a huge investment like JC turns into a commercial failure.People will talk more about JC being a mega-flop than how a great movie it was and this is what the Media's movie critics are going to offer to the people. The same thing,almost happened twice in James Cameron's case.Again the movie critics and the more dedicated movie lovers had heard about the various problems surrounding the production of the Titanic,the over-budget and the clash that Jim had with the studio.They knew that a failure of the movie would mean the end of the career for a lot of people,among them Jim's. So the critics and the cinephils sharpened their knives and like vultures,they were waiting to cannibalize Jim's corpse since they were expecting that the movie would flop after its premiere. OFC BIG MOTHERFUCKER JIM PROVED THEM WRONG.One decade later and the exact same story is repeated.Only this time the obnoxious critics and the cinephil haters were determined not to let Jim escape their wratch for a second time.Especially not after he did the "blapsemy" to announce himself as the King of the world. This time things were in favor of the crictics and the haters.Jim's new project was even more abitious and risky.A scifi movie? with blue alien cats? set on another planet? real actors and cgi characters acting in the same cgi enviroment? 3D? a not that original story? it cost over 200m dollars? No,this Jim had gone too far and there was no way that the audience would like his new movie.Jim fell victim of his own arrogance for good.The movie critics and the haters once again sharped their knives and they waiting to finally rape and eat Jim's destroyed career.Vengeance was theirs this time. And it showed.The first teaser and the 10m screen preview was followed by a very negative reaction by both film critics and film fans.The cgi was cartoony,the story was derivative,the 3d was mediocre.Almost everyone was proclaiming that Avatar was going to become the biggest movie disaster in film history.Jim was done for good. And then the greatest scifi/action director in the world proved them wrong one more time.He even broked his own BO record that he had achieved with his Titanic masterpiece.Cameron escaped the wratch of the critics and the haters once more time,he was once more time THE KING OF THE WORLD. Still the critics and the haters were bashing the movie,even today they beat down the movie despite the fact that it revolutinized the filmmaking of cinema,it grossed 2.7b dollars and became a pop culture phenomenon in the same level of SW,LOTR and HP. Unfortunately for Stanton,he is not Cameron.And even more worse,he didnt manage to make a great movie.So this time,the critics and the cynical bastards who call themselves movie lovers,will get their wish fullfiled: A very expensive movie made by a succesful artist and produced by a despicable by some studio,which is going to become one of the biggest commercial disasters in the movie history. I feel sorry for Stanton and all those people who worked in this project.And i feel sorry for the future of the entertainment cinema because afte r ths flop,we will be doomed to more atrocious Transformers,Battleship and NuTrek garbage. The future looks bleak for Hollywood.

  • March 10, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    Asimov, I'm 'hating' it on principle, if you want another PoM fan POV.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Not really hate, but... I absolutely love the books, but some of the choices they've made with casting, story alterations and visual design turn me right off. I don't know why they bother me so much in this film, as I loved the LotR films and they had tons of deviations. These guys think they creative enough to ignore decades of illustration, and even the text itself. That's why we have unnecessary wife and child motivatoin, white apes that look nothing like ERB described in the books and not like apes at all, baby faced hippy instead of believable man's man war vet, bland depiction of Barsoom, skinny non-threatening Tharks. Look, there are two characters in fiction that I absolutely need to see done right, and they are Conan and John Carter. The writings of Robert Howard and ERB are wholly cinematic , the illustrations of guys like Frazetta, Whelan, Gil Kane, Carmen Infantino -even Vallejo, who I despise- are definitive. But these Hollywood hacks keep thinking they know better than these legends. Like the saying goes, great artists steal. Well, they needed to do just that to get my ass in the theater, instead of insisting on their inferior vision.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST

    But what do I know

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Maybe I'm being fickle and they captured the bigger picture of what Princess of Mars is about, which is VIOLENT SWASHBUCKLING EARNEST ROMANCE GREATEST SWORDSMAN ON TWO WORLDS CIVILIZED CONAN IN SPACE Maybe I will go give it a chance. I'll just pretend that It's a 30 year old Hugh Jackman playing JC, and I'll mentally edit out that wife-and-child bullshit.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:15 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    *I feel sorry for Stanton and all those people who worked in this project.And i feel sorry for the future of the entertainment cinema because afte r ths flop,we will be doomed to more atrocious Transformers,Battleship and NuTrek garbage.* You feel sorry for these multi-millionaire? Why? They all got paid. It's just the execs at Disney Corp who won't be able to afford their gold plated toilets who you should be feeling sorry for. JOHN CARTER was not a labor of love. If it was it would have been greenlit years ago, when one of the many earlier iterations was in pre-production. JOHN CARTER was a cynical studio cash-in - greenlit to capitalise on AVATAR. After this flop we are indeed doomed to... PROMETHEUS... THE HOBBIT... THE DARK KNIGHT RISES... SKYFALL... AVENGERS... yep. Don't you worry about genre cinema. The cream will rise to the top and the shit will sink.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:16 a.m. CST

    CHOOOKE ON THEEEM

    by KilliK

    They should have JC fighting alien zombies on Mars.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

    @angelopoulos

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Why should a person get behind a vision they don't agree with? Why should I support people who take liberties with source material (for the worse) instead of getting it right so I don't have to wait 20 years for a Princess of Mars reboot? Sorry, I don't want more shitty concept artists and shitty writers giving me their inferior takes on stuff I love.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:17 a.m. CST

    @cobra--kai Do you think that Stanton will keep making

    by KilliK

    movie after this disaster? he will be part of the process but he is not going to be the one calling the shots.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:24 a.m. CST

    Andrew "we are not going to do Frazetta" Stanton

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Yeah, I want him making more John Carter movies. Wall E was great though. Before it devolved into standard Pixar chase.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:25 a.m. CST

    by DrMorbius

    THE ONLY THING MISSING IS A MAN BEING FUCKED BY A GOAT, OTHERWISE A MUST SEE! by killik

  • March 10, 2012, 10:25 a.m. CST

    =After this flop we are indeed doomed to... =

    by KilliK

    =PROMETHEUS... = PREQUEL OF A 6-MOVIE MOVIE SERIES. =THE HOBBIT...= PREQUEL OF A TRILOGY MOVIE = THE DARK KNIGHT RISES= 2ND SEQUEL OF A REBOOTED SUPER-HERO COMIC MOVIE. =... SKYFALL... = THE 22ND SEQUEL OF A 50Y EARS OLD MOVIE SERIES. =AVENGERS= ONE MORE SUPER-HERO COMIC MOVIE WITH CHARACTERS FROM OTHER SUPER-HERO COMIC MOVIES. I dont know about you Cobra but i am not THAT excited for these, done to the death, movie series.Not that i wont see them but i would prefer something,well,more ORIGINAL. At least if JC was a hit,it would have opened the door for all the studios to invest on and adapt into movies,more scifi/fantasy stories from the various mediums.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:42 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    killik, i'm sure Stanton is sobbing into his champagne. And i'm also sure he'll still be making movies after this one. Maybe his agent will only be able to secure $1.5 million for his fee instead of 2. I'm gutted for him.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:43 a.m. CST

    ok then.

    by KilliK

  • March 10, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    cobra--kai

    by AsimovLives

    i was talking about the geekry, and the fact the majority of the geeks in here have a positive opinion about the movie (contrary to what they think, the supporters far outnumber the neysayers).

  • The so-called hating is nothing but a reaction to the bad type of movies that studios so like to make, this souless movies made by comitee. many are not amused.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Asi, yes but the geeks are fickle. How many times have we seen the aicn reviewers go hyperbolic like a volcano about a movie. Shouting from the highest heights like it's the greatest thing ever... And then in december when it's time to post their top ten of the year, their lists look like all the other critics lists. Their geekgasm load has been shot, mopped up with tissues, binned and forgotten about. If JOHN CARTER makes any top ten of 2012 lists I'll be suprised. It just looks wholly mediocre.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:54 a.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    I understand your point very well. and your post pratically reads like a laundry list of my fears in regard to this movie.

  • I support good, entertaining film...period. If I do not care for a film...I will not sugar coat my opinion of it. Want my Support..make a better film. I am not a lemming.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    CINEMATIC SENSATION.DONT MISS IT.

    by KilliK

  • March 10, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by AsimovLives

    Word! You put into words my thoughs exactly about all this busines sof turning JOHN CARTER into a political manifesto. Give me a good movie and i'll support it to kingdom come. I'm in here to watch movies, not to be a studio stooge.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    conspiracy - true. I don't give a fuck if JOHN CARTER costs Disney $100 million in losses. And I certainly don't see it as my duty to to fucking fill their pockets just because they made an AVATAR cash-in sci fi movie* *then pussied out by removing the words OF MARS out of the title because a focus group told them to.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:05 a.m. CST

    cobra-kai have you seen the movie?

    by KilliK

  • Same music, design, script... I'm positive of that.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    John Carter

    by funky buzz

    John Carter Rules and the negative critics can go to hell!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • March 10, 2012, 11:10 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    killik, no it looks too weak to get me out to the cinema. I will definitely rent it though and will be quite excited to watch it at home. I have seen the trailers and the fairly lengthy sections that have been posted online, including the arena sequence (which I also thought was limp). It's worrying that several reviewers have named that the standout sequence in the whole film!

  • March 10, 2012, 11:16 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    d.vader definitely agree. It would have seemed much more unique as an animation, rather than another production line clone. It would also have focused the marketing as more of a family friendly flick to take your sons too.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    =It would have seemed much more unique as an animation=

    by KilliK

    i agree.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Re : lisab

    by Real Deal

    " No to Scifi " Well most of what they talk about here is SciFi. So what the fuck are you doing here? You are just a troll and not to be taken seriously at all. It must really sting when you hear positive reviews for any SF film. Sorry, you did nothing. My take is that ( like Rotten Tomatoes ) the division is about 50 % on this movie. You did nothing except show us how patheticly sad you are to get your jollys from trying to make other people feel bad. And you know what? Everyone here knows it.

  • And that made me think that maybe animation might had been a better solution for making a Barsoon movie. The same way i always though that the Tranformers movies should had been Brad Bird type animation movies, and not live action michael bay actionshitfiest they turned out to be.

  • Anyone who saw barbarella and could put Carrie Fisher in a movie after that is mentally un-sound. Look at Fonda in those thong outfits in that Italian movie. You don't think Lucas was aware of that movie? Aware of other women much finer? Jesus she had a pornstar body. No way every man on earth wasn't jerkin to that shit at the time. Total spinner. Then Lucas comes along. I mean what the fuck was he jerking too? Carrie Fisher reminds you of your aunt- not a sex symbol. Fuck he is a freak.

  • In animation, stylization is not just a given, it's inevitable. even an atempt at naturalism ends up as a stylization. One less worry for the filmmakers, if you ask me.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:32 a.m. CST

    film at 11

    by UltraTron

  • In fact, that is a pretty foolish thing to say. You have no great films in your years of movie viewing that didn't pop out at you until second, third, or even fourth viewings - sometimes with years dispersed in between? And while I know people are different and have different ways of collecting input from thigns read, seen, and heard, still to put a monument cap on a film and call it dead because it took a second viewing for it to sink is extremely callow. That is the type of thinking that results in an idiotic talkback such as this one in which men and women of varying ages and backgrounds completely take apart a movie, in some cases without even seeing it, just so that they can dine on the prospect of someone else's failure. The great quality of films is their endureing success, their ability to impress upon us their virtues decades after their release, years after their creators have died and been replaced by new minds. No - you are outlining a financial statement, not a human one. You are banking an overall view of a film on the tricky instance of the moment. Good grief where would I be if I never changed my mind, admitted my flaws and weakness and the faultiness of my own opinions. Films can speak to what is best in us. Box office predictions on the otherhand are the wagging hands of dogtrack junkies whose wisdom on defeat is entirely reliant upon the fickleness of a wound down clock mindlessly clicking away. As we change, the films change. It is what makes it great art.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:34 a.m. CST

    Re : flynn-lives

    by Real Deal

    lisab has already begun targeting Prometheus. She doesn't like SF. Or at least she gets her fun from putting down SF and the people who do like it. What a troll she ( she? It is the internet after all ) is.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    ultratron

    by AsimovLives

    Now you understand why it's so easy for me to make JJ Abrams' STOOL TREK references in any movie subject. It's all about connections and references . Easiest thing to do when the subject is moves because everything is connected.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:39 a.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    you really don't know what a troll is, do you? such a poor understanding of the concept you have.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    Great post Fluffy

    by 900LBGorilla

    I scanned back to see who wrote it. I had not seen one of your posts in ages....always good stuff.

  • March 10, 2012, 11:42 a.m. CST

    asimovlives: you are 100% correct about jar jar's shit trek.

    by UltraTron

    I love calling him jar jar because he directs like jar jar would. Mesa think itsa good idea to film Budweiser factory thata UltraTron jus happen to visit before seein da moovie insurin datuh he can neva suspenda disbeleefa

  • March 10, 2012, 11:44 a.m. CST

    The best trek is the motion picture. There is no substitute.

    by UltraTron

    As the tagline read. And the shows. The shows have the best stories. Hey did they ever return to the nanite civilization that Wesley created?

  • March 10, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Anyone who doesn't like the subject matter that's being discussed and has to say it again and again mindlessly is a troll. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) " In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[4] The noun troll may refer to the provocative message itself, as in: "That was an excellent troll you posted". While the word troll and its associated verb trolling are associated with Internet discourse, media attention in recent years has made such labels subjective, with trolling describing intentionally provocative actions and harassment outside of an online context. For example, mass media has used troll to describe "a person who defaces Internet tribute sites with the aim of causing grief to families."[5][6] " Such as bringing up your hate for anything JJ even if he's not the topic.

  • You could paint kitsch even whiter-no tanning on mars? And have him play Elric. Ya know? If he didn't suck and had an English accent. You could get what's his face for Yarkoon. What's his face is always good.

  • March 10, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    i downloaded this movie

    by animas

    might just delete it though since I can't even get motivated to start watching it because of what everyone says how mediocre it is.

  • March 10, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    Asi, you're completely missing my point re: an animated JC

    by D.Vader

    I said if this movie had been animated and everything was the same, it'd get higher praise from those who are slamming it. No doubt an animated movie means they can do more than they could in live action, but I'm not discussing that. I'm saying keep everything the same, and I believe people would be more accepting.

  • March 10, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    Can we have an obit about Moebius? well Harry?

    by KilliK

  • March 10, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Sounds like Stanton had his head up his ass...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    overspending and not being financially responsible. He's about to pay for it. I'm sure he'll make another movie, but he wont be given carte blanche and probably wont be given anything near $250 million.

  • March 10, 2012, 1:32 p.m. CST

    @asimovlives & real deal

    by Franck

    If you look up "troll" on wikipedia, does it make any reference to LisaB, or does she fit another definition all together?

  • March 10, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Hopefully Disney won't totally put this property on ice.

    by Shermdawg

    I imagine it will find a wider audience once it goes through the home video market and whatnot, maybe that would be enough to warrant a tv series of some type. If that somehow did happen, Brian Henson is the man for the job.

  • March 10, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    Seen the She-Male James Killian Spratt version.

    by SigourneyWeavers3Dbeaver

    Why bother with Disney's? http://www.comicsbeat.com/2012/03/08/the-wild-all-naked-john-carter-comic-disney-does-not-want-you-to-see-nsfw/

  • ....they should do the same for Carter given it's more their fault the film underperformed than the film itself.

  • March 10, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    No d.vader

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I would still not like some of the shitty designs, weak hero, pointless story alterations, generic Hollywood sweep, generic score, un-Barsoomian environs That said, I just saw it for myself and it was ok. Not bad, not instant classic. The Thark design stopped bothering me after a while, Woola was spot on, Dejah made Carter look like a bitch, the coda got me pumped a little bit. As usual with book adaptations, all the events felt rushed, but that's always a draw back of the feature format. That's probably my biggest complaint, more so than girly man Carter, mole-rancor-apes, and Wife-and-Child flashbacks Someone made comparisons to The Mummy, and it's just about that level on the scale of blockbusters. Not Raiders, but way above Phantom Menace. A breezy diversion. The only way TPM can even be even be considered to be on the same level is because it benefits from the baggage of the other good Star Wars stuff. People already give it the benefit of the doubt before they even sit down to watch it. The previous films echo throughout TPM, making it more palatable than if it were a new property. By the way, this is not the death knell of sci-fi, because there is no sci to be found. Airships and Mars are not science, they're story props. I don't think the general public is quite THAT ignorant that they don't know the difference between sci-fi and fantasy. In fact, I'd say science fiction is more palatable to the general public as it is more relevant to modern man than fairy tales. Well made sci-fi has done pretty well in recent years. Avatar, D9, Moon, Source Code, none of these tanked, except maybe Moon, and that was because of lack of awareness/marketing and limited release. not because of disinterest in science fiction. People love gadgets, tech, awesome visuals, fx. There are reasons outside of genre that John Carter may or may not flop.

  • March 10, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST

    "Generic Hollywood sweep"

    by D.Vader

    Could you clarify that remark, biehn? I don't understand it.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:17 p.m. CST

    ultratron

    by AsimovLives

    you are a man of my own heart, compadre.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    a troll is a fucker who posts insulting bullshit with the SOLE PORPOSE

  • March 10, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    a troll is a fucker who posts insulting bullshit with the SOLE PORPOSE of disrupting the whole talkback. a troll is nnot soembody who disagrees with you on your prefered terrible movie you so hasppen to like. So, in this regard, not even Lisab fills the profile of a troll. and i even disagree with 98% of what she posts in here. people like you who call trolls to everybody who have a different opinion only show a terrible sense of insecurity. In all this posts that i have seen in this talkbacks, i haven't seen a real troll FOR MONTHS. Learn to deal with the fact that there's lots of people who do not liek the same shit movies you do. Learn the fact taht unliek you many people here are not robots who can only do direct basic connections. and stop acting like an ass. thank you for your time.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:28 p.m. CST

    Also, notenoughbiehn

    by D.Vader

    Its funny you'd say you thought they rushed the events too much while others say they thought the movie dragged and didn't have enough action. If anything, this proves there is no real consensus on this movie.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:30 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    i didn't missed your point, i just don't agree with you. i don't think people are more tolerant of flawys in animation movies. the criticsm would be the same, witb the exception of kitsch's acting, of course.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:33 p.m. CST

    flynn-lives

    by AsimovLives

    she doesn't. just having a strong opinion, be it contoretial and unpopular as hers is, is not enough to make one a troll that is just talk from weaklings with little capacity to understand that there are people with differences of opinions and who can be as much passionate or more then them. whenever i see somebody using the troll acusation with mindless abandon for the fleetest of excuses, i know i'm dealing with an intellectual weakling. suffice to say, i have not much respect for that.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:37 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    your post was great. smart and well presented.

  • March 10, 2012, 2:53 p.m. CST

    No, Asi, you did miss my point

    by D.Vader

    Because you started talking about how much better an animated version of a live-action movie (you haven't seen yet) would have been. And I was specifically pointing out how I think a lot of people are being hypocritical about it. Slap PIXAR's name on it and release it animated, and more critics would love it.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    Dear Guardian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-JPOoFkrh94

    by Arcadian Del Sol

  • March 10, 2012, 3:22 p.m. CST

    re: vader, "generic Hollywood sweep."

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    The way the music and imagery comes together. Orchestral music having to accompany every "moment." The flashbacks during a battle scene. The tone. Reminds me of the style of many Hollywood epic in the last few years. Studio style, which is to be expected and not a criticism specific to JC. That's as best as I can describe the feeling I got, YMMV.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    The movie had enough action.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    ERB didn't write scenes for the sake of having action. Like James Cameron, his action scenes flowed naturally and logically from the plot. He was the anti-Bay of adventure literature.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    no, i did not missed your point, i just don't agree with you.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:31 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    you are writing some very cool and clever posts. i hope you are for keeps in here.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:35 p.m. CST

    Asi, you can't agree or disagree on this point...

    by D.Vader

    Until you actually see the movie. Sorry friendo.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Biehn, interesting remark on Burroughs

    by D.Vader

    Because from everything I've read about his stories, they just seem to go from adventure to adventure without any real sense of connectivity; just serial adventure after serial adventure.

  • March 10, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    As for your "generic Hollywood sweep" opinion, Biehn

    by D.Vader

    I don't fully agree with it (at least, as a criticism). What you wrote doesn't sound like a bad thing, and how it works in the movie works great, specifically the tone and the flashbacks.

  • March 10, 2012, 4:06 p.m. CST

    Burrough wrote actual stories

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Yes, simple adventure stories. But unlike bad adventure stories or action movies, he didn't pull set pieces out of his ass just because it was time to stop the kids from being bored. We've all read books or seen movies that just reveled in money shot scenes to get cool credits. It's like comparing Raiders to Firewalker

  • March 10, 2012, 4:18 p.m. CST

    Okay Biehn

    by D.Vader

    But what does that discussion have to do with the movie?

  • March 10, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    Are you saying it had too much action?

    by D.Vader

    You said the movie "had enough action." Were you refuting those who said there wasn't enough?

  • March 10, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    It has to do with me replying to you, vader.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I thought you were contesting my point about Burroughs not writing action for the sake of it. No? Yes the movie had enough action. The amount of action is not an issue at all, imo. Some people want money shots for 2 hours. I am not one of those people.

  • March 10, 2012, 4:31 p.m. CST

    Not sure Biehn

    by D.Vader

    I think we both got our wires crossed. I questioned your statement that Burroughs didn't write action for the sake of it, bc I thought I've read from critics who say his stories are a bit disjointed (he didn't have an overarching story in mind), so I assume that extended to the action. Anyway, I'm not sure why you brought up Burroughs and action to begin with, that's what I was questioning with the last one.

  • March 10, 2012, 4:37 p.m. CST

    Saw JC this morning

    by rogueleader66

    Loved it. Not perfect by any means, but just a good old fashioned adventure movie. most criticisms are unfounded. If you have your own brain, go see the movie. If you listen to critics or other TB'ers, then I feel sorry for you that you can't make your own choice, instead you let others make it for you. It's a good movie. Period.

  • March 10, 2012, 4:47 p.m. CST

    Someone brought up the complaint about action

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Burroughs' writing style is part of my reasoning why that complaint has no place regarding this particular movie/story. Like complaining a Vonnegut story doesn't have enough sci-fi gadgets and stuffs.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    Sounds like Tron. You either love it or hate it.

    by mistergreen

  • The movie is NOT constant action, and still, complaints. I'm starting to think the inhabitants of this site are only happy when they are bitching, moaning and whining. Go pick some flowers and go see your mom, be happy about something, PLEASE.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    i can do anything. including watching the movie at my own pleasure.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:16 p.m. CST

    It's no wonder I don't come here as often as I used to

    by rogueleader66

    Same old bullshit going on.

  • So, it's too early for the fans to despair, and too soon for the neysayers to rejoice. There's still a lot of money, earned or unearned, still unaccounted for. The international box office will make the difference. It's the international box office that will say if there will be a sequel or not, if this will become a franchise or a stand alone experiment. So, Disney, start kissing our foreign asses!

  • March 10, 2012, 5:18 p.m. CST

    canned dirty ape

    by rogueleader66

    I did see it, this morning with my children. Look a few posts up and you will see that.

  • that guy was no intellectual slouch.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:22 p.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by AsimovLives

    i come to realise that the inhabitants of this site are quite a different lot, and it's impossible to lump them all together in one single type. pretty cool, isn't it? diversity of opinions is badass.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    Okay Asi...

    by D.Vader

    That... means nothing to me or what I was talking about. But thanks for the info on Carl Sagan. I already knew that, but thanks anyway.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:23 p.m. CST

    And Asi, then watch the movie when you want

    by D.Vader

    Then you can agree with me or disagree with me on how it would have been accepted had it been animated instead.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST

    Gotcha Biehn

    by D.Vader

    Thanks for the clarification.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    Asi....

    by rogueleader66

    Diversity of opinions is badass, and CAN make for some great discussions. But not on here so much. It happens, occasionally, but not as often as it used to, and that is a shame. That said, heard you had surgery, hope all went well for you.

  • March 10, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST

    Thing is, there is plenty of action

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Another, and more important reason the complaint is silly. The movie begins with action, ends with action, and there are at least 3 pieces in between. The choreography could have been better, but that's another issue. I guess A New Hope didn't have enough action for some people either. (cue: "OMGhethinksitsasgoodasStarWarsrofl)

  • March 10, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    Just got out of John Carter

    by Tristan

    It was NOT bad, however it is not great. This is not the new Star Wars. If this was created, 10 to 15 years ago, I wouldve probably liked it more. I liked the special effects. They actually weren't too "CGish" to me. Sure you could still tell they were CG, but they weren't too out of place. The story was the biggest problem I had with the film. Its a little confusing in the beginning, but then it turns into something we have seen so many times. Again, the books mightve inspired all these classic, scifi novels and films, but that's why making the film now will make a lot of people roll their eyes. In a way, the film is boring, because of the things we have seen before in other stories. The scenes with John at the Tarks camp, near the beginning, were interesting. I enjoyed those WAY more than the human\Helium scenes. It was almost like watching two different movies. Dejah (Princess of Mars) is gorgeous. She's not a great actress, but she is very pleasing to eyes. And Woola is awesome! Best CG creature I've seen in a while. Anyway, John Carter is nothing groundbreaking. Nothing original. It suffers from a familiar plot. The 250 million budget shows, but it is too many years too late. The script\story is what hurt this film.

  • March 10, 2012, 6 p.m. CST

    Re : canned_dirty_ape

    by Real Deal

    If you had read any of my posts here you would have known I plan to see it next Tuesday with my family. However as you can see I may have been vocal about the movie I'm hardly the most or the biggest defender. Plenty of people here like the film and I don't buy the idea that AICN is being paid to defend it. If you had been a reader of SF all of your life I suppose then you might understand. But these books are special to us. And if the movie is so bad it doesn't live up to my expetations I will pick the latest thread on the subject and post my views. However there are even people on here who haven't read the books that like it. If you look at RT it's at 50%. That's my take half the people who've seen it by now like it the rest don't. Either way rest assured I'll voice my opinion.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:04 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    You read the definition. It's not for me or you to decide. According to that definition I see plenty of off topic trolls all of the time that bring up time and again what the others already know and in threads that have little or nothing to do with what they bring up. Sorry if you don't agree but I don't agree with what you are saying either.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:07 p.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by AsimovLives

    yes, the surgeries went well, thanks for asking. i recuperated so well and so fast (the surgeon seemed a bit suprised), i'm starting to think i'm Wolverine. where's my adamantium endoskelleton, dammit?

  • March 10, 2012, 6:08 p.m. CST

    Oh By The Way

    by Real Deal

    You brought up lisab who puts down directly genre fans here. It's not just her trying to say that " Hollywood doesn't want SciFi " It was one post in particular where she was trying to be " Funny " talking about the type of subjective references SF movies make. It's very clear she does it to get a rise out of people. This is called baiting. Another internet term connected to trolls. Now why do you think she'd want to do that?

  • March 10, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    that's cool. peace and have fun with the movie with your family. i hope it's everything you hope it to be.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    Re : canned_dirty_ape

    by Real Deal

    Thank you for the kind post. I'm glad that you have read SF most of your life. There seem to be less of us these days. If this movie's bad or doesn't live up to my expectations I'll be fine with it. It would hardly be the first time. I just have this gut feeling that I won't be so disapointed.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:21 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Thank you. Everyone has an opinon. Some fans of SF might not even like the pulp adventure style of Burroughs. As a young man I did. I'm guessing at some point you'll see the film as well and I like to hear what you have to say about it.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:25 p.m. CST

    Re : flynn-lives

    by Real Deal

    I'm only guessing at what you're trying to say but given the anonymous nature of the internet it's really difficult to say. I s she genuine in her comments? Some how I have my doubts.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    Re : canned_dirty_ape

    by Real Deal

    Just a couple of items. None of the other films you mention were a product of a book that is held dear to the hearts of SF fans who read them in their youth. That's something really different. I imagine AICN gets lots of invitations to sets and interviews. Not all of their reviews are positive.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:37 p.m. CST

    Re : canned_dirty_ape

    by Real Deal

    I forgot to mention I know how they feel about this. I totally understand the coverage.

  • March 10, 2012, 6:46 p.m. CST

    John Carter Warlord of Mars would have been a good title

    by Crimson Dynamo

  • March 10, 2012, 6:59 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    Read behind here with what lisab is posting. Can you see a pattern now?

  • March 10, 2012, 7:16 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    i stand by what i said about lisab. and i'll give you my thoughs about JOHN CARTER when i finally watch it. that's a deal.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:20 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by AsimovLives

    there was the case of Abrams Trek. Never AICN kissed so much ass in regard to a movie andf the hack that made it as with Abrams Trek.´the reverberations are still felt. SUCKER PUNCH was also another pornographic case. i'll never understand why AICN gives so much credence and support for this hack jobs! bloody weird.

  • Armageddon is not the name of the holiday but the name of a place. In aramaic it means "At Meggido", which was once a city in today's israel.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Re : lisab

    by Real Deal

    Sure. Uh huh.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    my title vor the mo ie would be John Carter and The Princess Of Mars.

    by AsimovLives

    i know, it's akward. but so is "pirates of the caribbean the curse of the black pearl"

  • March 10, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives / About lisab

    by Real Deal

    If you can't see what lisab is doing you're blind. Did you see the " Prometheus is Next " post? That person is simply here to get a rise out of people. Nothing more.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:26 p.m. CST

    my title for the movie, i mean to say

    by AsimovLives

  • March 10, 2012, 7:29 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    the truth of the matter, i don't care what she says. she makes no mark on me wahtsoever, except for a crass misunderstanding of her biblical concepts. which is a pet peeve of mine. she doesn't care for PROMETHEUS? good for her. more of it for me then.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:34 p.m. CST

    Re : asimovlives

    by Real Deal

    I'm glad she doesn't affect you. At least she's not getting what she wants then. However it's not just opinion she's voicing. She's the type of person I've been addressing here. It would be nice to have a forum here where it wa just discussing the movie pro or con. That's not what she's doing. I really don't think she cares about SF either way. She's just here to bully people who happen to like the genre. I felt like calling her on it because you ge a lot of that here. However it's probably best not to feed the trolls.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST

    Saw it Friday afternoon

    by Detective_Fingerling

    not a ton of people at the 12:40 screening I was in, but I could tell there were more than a few 50+ year old couples who were obvious fans of the series there. I enjoyed the movie but I've only read the first book and it felt like they must have combined at least a few of the books into this movie and it didn't make a lick of sense. I thought the idea of Carter not being able to kill Sab Than if he wanted to be with Deja was an awesome idea in the book and I don't understand why they didn't keep that. I dunno... so much of the plot felt so rushed. The first 40 minutes were very well paced though.

  • March 10, 2012, 7:53 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    or in this case, don't feed the bully. i do see she has a grudge against SF. she might think that SF is inherently dumb. her ignoracnce of the genre is her own problem then. maybe she resents the blockbuster type of cinema that dominates holyewood productions today, and of which SF is often the genre used for those flagship blocbusters. if so, i have to say, i do share a buit of her misguivings, if that's the case. modern day blockbusters have given off a wrong image of what is SF all about. and Sf is not just an excuse to have an action movie with exotic clothings. that very reason is part of why i detest ABRAMS TREK so much. in the end her reasons are her own. i do not care. i do chose my own battles and her is not worth the bother.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:03 p.m. CST

    The movie's too long.

    by Yelsaeb

    I wouldn't mind the length if most of it wasn't mind-numbing expostion. Some parts of the flick are pretty darn good, but most the time it just slows to a crawl. I really liked the western bits, though. And Mark Strong was awesome, as always.

  • March 10, 2012, 8:45 p.m. CST

    asimov, we need more "hard" sci-fi

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    And something that doesn't involve alien races, or starships, or space battles, or flying cars. No Red Matter bullshit or space opera. Realism. Detailed explanations ground in physics, mathematics, quantum mechanics. Fiction based on real world theories and possibilities, not made up shit to get cool points. Showing how the science impacts the character's lives, and the politics, economics, culture, etc. of the world the story takes place in. No pop culture sugar to make it go down easier.

  • March 10, 2012, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Do I HAVE To Read The Entire Thread To See If Harry Got Called On This?

    by www.valiens.com

    When the first scene began playing, I was in critic mode.

  • Taylor Kitsch is hardly a star, and certainly not enough to float a film like this. Had they cast a real draw, and had they cut the runtime a bit (film it all, ala LOTR, but release the "full" version on DVD after), I think the film would have had a chance. If Disney really did trust a movie like this to a guy that's never helmed a big picture, they deserve what they got. I'm not criticizing the film, which I haven't seen yet, but rather how Disney approached casting, the director, and the presentation. This film is simply not on peoples' radars, and never has been. ---- And as far as lisab goes, if the main guy on a film poster is running around in a skirt and leather suspenders, swinging a sword, the last thing it does is scream "Science Fiction." The genre will truly sink or swim based upon Prometheus, Lockdown, the upcoming Riddick movie, and others. (Of course, lisa's a troll, but at least he/she could try to understand the genres before trying to troll.)

  • March 10, 2012, 10:15 p.m. CST

    It is tough for a movie to flop with the Hollywood oligopoly

    by Rupee88

    Only a few companies control production and distribution and marketing, etc. And you can pretty much promote anything to be a financial success unless you REALLY REALLY make a bad movie that no one wants to see. Even then, look at that crappy Adam Sandler movie, Jack & Jill. It pulled in something like $80 million domestic. So you have to fuck up on a number of levels to have something from a major studio lose money. I don't know how they did it so totally with this, but it looks like it may not make a profit..even with international gross and dvd/blu-ray etc. You just have to laugh because the crooks may not have won in their rigged game this time around.

  • March 10, 2012, 10:23 p.m. CST

    if JC flops

    by rogueleader66

    itsDisneys fault, marketing fr this movie was atrocious

  • March 10, 2012, 10:23 p.m. CST

    pay no attention to the rogue behind the curtian

    by rogueleader66

    he is dunk

  • March 10, 2012, 11:50 p.m. CST

    Topher Grace edited SW prequels down to one 85-minute movie.

    by justmyluck

    http://www.slashfilm.com/topher-grace-edited-star-wars-prequels-85minute-movie/

  • March 10, 2012, 11:51 p.m. CST

    movies can and do flop

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    Mars Needs Moms Studio: Disney Release Date: March 11, 2011 Budget: $150 million Worldwide Gross: $39 million Conan the Barbarian Studio: Lionsgate Stars: Jason Momoa, Rose McGowan Release Date: Aug. 19 Budget: $90 million Wordwide Gross: $48.8 million The Thing Studio: Universal Stars: Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Joel Edgerton Release Date: Oct. 14, 2011 Budget: $38 million Worldwide Gross: $27.4 million The Big Year Studio: 20th Century Fox Stars: Steve Martin, Jack Black, Owen Wilson Release Date: Oct. 14, 2011 Budget: $41 million Worldwide Gross: $7.4 million The Rum Diary Studio: GK Films Stars: Johnny Depp, Aaron Eckhart Release Date: Oct. 28, 2011 Budget: $45 million Worldwide Gross: $21.6 million John Carter Studio: Disney Stars: None Budget: $300 million Worldwide Gross: $19 million and counting... Directed by Pixar Animation Studios veteran Andrew Stanton, "John Carter" will need to reach approximately $700 million in worldwide ticket sales just to break even, according to several people familiar with the film's economics who requested anonymity because of the confidentiality of the matter. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/entertainmentnewsbuzz/box_office/

  • Big difference between a movie of a nearly forgotten 100yr old story, without a star by a first time live action director; and the Ass Raping Spectacle Sir Ridley Scott is going to give us. Sir Ridley Scott....Look him up darlin...that man has made more art, money and fucked more minds that you have trolled boards. Trust me....Sir Ridley is gonna fuck you real good sugar tits

  • March 11, 2012, 12:03 a.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow

    by detinue

    got the John Carter treatment by AICN back in 2004, climaxing with Harry personally hosting a viewing in Austin complete with military flyover. Peter Jackson's King Kong got the treatment a year later. And the reigning champ mother-of-all AICN promoted films is still The Watchmen. There were no fewer than eleven articles about The Watchmen on AICN's homepage on the day the movie opened. (I'm kind of disappointed they didn't even try to make a run at that record with John Carter yesterday.)

  • March 11, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST

    I don't get the complaints of the movie dragging.

    by Shermdawg

    I found it to be quite the opposite, it moved at such a fast pace there was never any time to add a little emotional depth to some of the characters, their motives, or to flesh out the bad guys a little more. Sure there was exposition, but it's expected in any proposed franchise starter, and really wasn't much of a problem here. If anything, it needed to be longer.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:59 a.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER OF FLOP

    by KilliK

    apparently

  • There was also the expense of doing that right, like FORBIDDEN PLANET or 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, for an audience made niche by all the other craptastic productions. With the desktop computer having turned into a movie studio, the ability to give the post-STAR WARS generation *more of the same* has become a non-issue. So, if you're waiting for Sci-Fi to be re-legitimized in authorship (or made niche again) after decades of technical innovations which allow anyone to pop-out a spaceship or lightsaber effect — that's just not going to happen. Likewise, pre-slamming something like PROMETHEUS, which could have the potential to be edgy, is just kicking the shit bucket at geek-central and getting you flamed. But, you're smart enough to know that, aren't you? I can see your frustration in dealing with the many here who can't or won't step away from the *Disney bad marketing* meme and just admit that John Carter looks mediocre, and even silly. Harry having pushed JC relentlessly down our throats here as some geek litmus test has created two AICN camps: you're in or you're out. There's nothing you can do against something coming from the top down, HERE. Take one step away, and there's nothing AICN can do about mainstream audiences avoiding JOHN CARTER. This is why Disney played footsie with the easy lay geek bloggers — Dinsney knew EXACTLY what they had on their hands. It was not bad marketing at all. I'd recommend you have a listen to the recent BBC Interview with Andrew Stanton in which he was repeatedly dismissive to the interviewer, to the point of telling him he couldn't direct an animated movie. IMO, Stanton's knowledge of cutting edge CG imaging, which is technical and can ultimately be learned, has him believing his own hype — even comparing his *my way* working method to Picasso. That attitude pervades any team fast, and may explain why a major studio might not want him making appearances like those. http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/frontrow/frontrow_20120305-1801a.mp3 That jibes, since many Hollywood *do* believe *that this is somehow their time*, having grown up with the STAR WARS generation. I don't think this attitude is from the sci-fantasy fans, themselves. Fans just want quality entertainment, even if they can't put their finger on it. As we're seeing this weekend, there's nothing the studios or any *geek rallying cry* can do about it. You'll see a lot of positive word on JOHN CARTER at AICN because the herd has already been corralled. Again, that's a reflection of AICN's position having being persuasive. Don't take it out on the fans or, surprise, you'll get the flamethrower. 1+1=2.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:10 a.m. CST

    Asi, sorry

    by D.Vader

    Your defense of LisaB as an anti-troll is pathetic. I have to laugh. And weep. Sorry friend.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:35 a.m. CST

    This movie was a piece of shit.

    by PorkChopXpress

    Sorry Harry, I know it was your pet project and you wanted it to be good, but this film blew massive ass. MASSIVE. I was checking out early, but when fucking Julius Caesar and Marcus Anthony both showed up, and then the giant slobbering pug, I checked all the way out.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:57 a.m. CST

    And also...

    by PorkChopXpress

    It may as well have been converted 3D, this film had none of the depth of Hugo or even Avatar. And this is a ROMANCE? The romantic connection had all the weight and set-up of Natalie Portman and Thor. Awful. I just want my money and time back.

  • March 11, 2012, 3:32 a.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER is great. [spoilers]

    by blackwood

    I loved it so, so much, in so many ways. I loved how funny and heartfelt it was. There is a Pixar quality to it – the storytelling and spectacle site side by each and neither is sacrificed to the other. I’ve read some complaints about how long it was and to me, I could have gone another hour – because like very few modern blockbusters I came away giving a shit about the lives of these characters, their world and struggle. I got to know John Carter (and there were also cheers in my theatre when …of Mars crept up on the end titles), and Woola, and Tars Tharkas and his daughter… moo-something… and the princess – the core of the film was strongly defined, and I really liked that the villains were vague and backgrounded. I thought they were a credible threat, but the film wasn’t about them so much as it was ‘here are people; this is their adventure’. It felt huge and intimate – small lives intensely lived against two wars, and laced with tangible loss. I cried – surprising me, which means it was real. A sudden break that I hadn’t realized was swelling until the moment carried me through it – when John takes on the horde and rages through his grief as we’re show how he came to be who he was in the beginning of the film. There has been nothing like this is years. As much as I like AVATAR, it’s heart is carefully constructed – finely tuned to make you feel what it wants you to feel. And I can dig that, I can get swept away by it, but JOHN CARTER itself exists as a feeling thing – it lives, like JAWS lives, like every time you watch it, it will still have that breathless sense of energy, of wonder, a real spirit and soul. I think the people who love this film will love it fiercely and passionately, even if a larger audience would rather the self-congratulatory pablum of THE LORAX. Money-made does not determine the worth of a film. It determines whether or not a franchise can be built, and even then it’s not an absolute. I want more. I want this, again – and then I want the next story. I don’t know who this movie is supposed to be for, but it spoke to me, and loudly. And I think it’s that rare film that still respects the boy in me; now a man, but never not a boy. Like bikes and a warm summer night and the sound of crickets and the smell of wet grass – adventure and imagination. When I left the theatre I walked, but all the way home I wanted to jump.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:46 a.m. CST

    by notenoughbiehn: "asimov, we need more "hard" sci-fi"

    by AsimovLives

    I read ya. And I agree. I should, since i count 2001 A SPACE ODDYSSEY as one of my top 3 favorite movie. i said movie, not SF movie, if you know what imean. I'm not adversed to more fantastic type of SF, they ca nbefun as well. But that has been overwhlemingly represented in he latest SF movies made in Holywood, to the point that those less savvy on the SF genre would think that represents the whole of it. How often you find people sayingthey do not like SF because it's all about space ships? Sadly, Star Wars has cast a shadow so huge on the genre that for many SW is the begining and end of SF, and that is not just the average public saying, but even among the geekry as well. I love the writings of Philip K. Dick. He never wrote hard SF, but i love his stories, his style, what he had to say. I love all kinds of SF. But i'm also startting to ge tfed up by the fact that one subtype of SF seems to be taking over the whole of it. Fantasy action SF seems to be the only type of SF that sems to be made and little else. However, there is hope in the horizont. Alfonso Cuaron is about the release a movie called GRAVITY, which seems to be very realistic a very hard science SF, and he will also use his trademarked very long single takes to depict microgravity(zero-g) conditions on Earth's orbit. Can't wait to watch it.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:58 a.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    it was not a defense of lisab. she can do it fine on her own. reread my posts and try to understand wht my post is all about. here's a clue: you never see me calling somebody else a troll just because i disagree with him.

  • Harry doesn't realise that the meaning of romance has change since the days the novel was published to today. Back in 1912, to call a novel a romance is to mean it's a lenghty story. What we now call a novel was once called a romance. Romance doesn't mean that A PRINCESS OF MARSA as a focus on the love story, it means it's a lenght book story. Planetary romance, as the subgenre became known, means book lenght stories whose stories are about planetary adventures and exploration. One of the coolest things for me about reading such an old story like A PRINCESS OF MARS is that it's not just i'm reading a SF story, bit it's also a window to our past, to our great-grand ancestors form of entertaiment. I see that from novels like A PRINCESS OF MARS or silent movies of old. The fun is not just from the stories themselves, but the sort of historical/archeological attatchement it brings by the very act of reading/watchingthem. And for all those who are curious about history stuff, you will understand my meaning.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:09 a.m. CST

    FYI AVATAR IS HARD SCIENCE

    by KilliK

    with a few exceptions (flying mountains) almost everyting in the movie is based on real modern or futuristic science and technology.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:19 a.m. CST

    John Carter Feeble $29M Weekend Lags #1 The Lorax

    by KilliK

    http://www.deadline.com/2012/03/john-carter-weak-500k-midnight-shows/#comment-2325510 OUCH.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:49 a.m. CST

    you guys convinced me to avoid watching this movie in 3D.

    by AsimovLives

    not that i was planing to, but the common complains agaisnt the 3D, even from the people who likedthe movie, have finally put a final nail on the subject. i hate to sound like a luddite, but i'm really really fed up with all this pushing of 3D to us. it's just a gimmick to over-price movie tickets, it's what i say. advancement of the cinematic art my ass! if avoiding the 3D version means i'll get to watch a prettier visual presentation of the movie, then so be it. it's not even a choice.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:52 a.m. CST

    = it's just a gimmick=

    by KilliK

    no it isnt,regardless of how the studios use it to exploit the audience.Hugo,Avatar and probably Prometheus have proved that 3D is soemthing more than a gimmick.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:57 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    AVATAR is a good (and rare) example of the aplication of hard SF tropes to an interplanetary romance story. How much into the scale of hard SF it is truly is remains to be seen. But it sure helped made look that future world it build convincing and plausible. It's more sucessful to present a hard SF scenario in a story that is set in our solar system. pretty much all that is need to do spac traveling in it is already known, at least on a theoretical level which is relatively easy to extrapolate in a realistic presentation. Bjut interstellar space trave lis another matter. Frankly, i don 't think it's possible to do real hard SF in regard to interstellar space travel. that type of travel is not just going to the moon extrapolated to bigger distances. it might even be impossible.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:07 a.m. CST

    kilik

    by AsimovLives

    howeverm the studuos are uysing it as a gimmick, for higher ticket prices. those filmmakers are doing the best they can with the situation, but in the end, it's all just a commercial gimmick. and i fucking resent that. by the way, given the economy of today, i don't think your country will be of much help to secure the fortune of JOHN CARTER's box office, will it? Nor mine, came to think of it. Ol' CARTER will have to make do without us. See what i did? i gave you another reason to be angst about JOHN CARTER's box office. Sorry!

  • March 11, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    asimov there are plenty of theories which describe

    by KilliK

    interstellar space travel while respecting the laws of nature.what we lack is the technology which would have achieved it if those FUCKTARDS in USA didnt stop all the space programs of NASA.

  • Anyone would think you were on Disney's payroll man! Really, no one wanted a fantastic JCoM film more than me but it's plainly obvious that the man who fluffed an endearing character like WALL-E (and let's face it, after the first twenty minutes it was hard-going) simply wasn't up to the task. Paul Verhoven would have been the man for this but The Suits run a fucking mile whenever they see his name for some insane reason. Harry. sorry but it's time to admit Stanton fucked up no matter how many times you have to go back to ty and convince yourself this is a great movie that you 'LOVED'.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:02 a.m. CST

    The CG characters were waaay better than the human ones.

    by david_boreanez_cunt_hairz

    I have a hard on for the alien dog. I want one!!

  • Like many here, he took to heart the notion that JOHN CARTER as a commercial sucessful movie would mean more SF epics produced by holywood. Because holywood only truly sees money, and measures the worthiness of a genre from the money it makes at the box office. it was geekdom as politics, you know? He was just showing his usual mediterranean passionate nature (he's greek) in regard to this subject. As a fellow mediterranean european myself (i'm portuguese), i relate to that passion. it's not just the italians, you know?

  • Wall-E was imensely sucessfulin making an artificial object, a robot, look positively adorable and relatable. one of the coolest robot ever prosented onscreen. and it was a CGI construct. it seems Stanton has a great ability to make CGI characters relatable and adorable. a skill to be admired.

  • ...things might have been different!

  • March 11, 2012, 7:43 a.m. CST

    Now, of course, Promethius will likewise tank...

    by mdk

    ...no more SF movies for awhile. Of ever because fucktard Americans only see movies about characters they've already heard of.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Killik

    by AsimovLives

    that tghe noptimistic theories in regard to plausible interstellar space travel do no take into consideration a lot of practical problems that would face such a travel. And as we discover more things about space and our galaxy, more and more obstacles poses to the plausability of pratical interstellar travel to the confines of todays and imediate future's technology. Most of the still positive notions in support of interstellar travel are still stuck to a past view of how interstellar space is, and fails to take into account so much of the more recent discoveries, of which the more notorious is the presence of unknown material spreade through our own Milky Way and which seems to make for 50% to 90% of it's mass. This still unaccounted objects they called the Black Matter because so far it has proved illusive to direct observation. We only know it's there due to it's gravitational influence. If Black Matter is manly made of MACHOS (Massive astrophysical compact halo object), like rogue planets or very dim brown stars, they would be like reefs presenting a terrible danger to any interstellar traveling, with little to no chance to avoiding due to the fast speed needed for such traveling. And since black matter seems to be so prevalent and ubiquous, well,myou can see where this is heading. It's like like trying to navigating on a straigh line route in a sea made of reefs. And it's not just the heavy big boys which are a problem. As the necessary high speed needed for interstellar travels, even small things like moleculles would cause a great collision danger to the ship. This is not just a problem for ships traveling at relativitisc speeds, but even slowed ones like the so-called generational ships. And then there's the matter of entrophy, a major bummer for all sub-light speed travels. One can only take the notion of interstellar travel with any seriousness if we ignore almost everything there is about space and physics. We are not closer to interstellar travelbecause the people at NASA are quitters. We aren't because it's very fucking hard. It's a million times harder then trying to cross the whole width of the Pacific on a rubber boat during a terrible storm. And that would be just in our solar system, outswide then you should multiply that to an other million.

  • March 11, 2012, 8 a.m. CST

    i have good hopes for the commercial sucess of PROMETHEUS

    by AsimovLives

    Despiste the filmmakers claim that it's not a direct ALIEN movie, the fact remains that the name recognition of the ALIEN franchise is plastered all over it. PROMETHEUS has that in it's favour, brand recognition. And the fact that all the trailers so far have all kicked ass!

  • March 11, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST

    It's not like Harry would have written the screenplay.

    by FluffyUnbound

    I think it's actually possible that a Harry project might have gone a different direction and been more successful. He might have geeked out and demanded a Franzetta look, which might have differentiated the movie visually and maybe mitigated the "we've seen all of this before" factor a little. And he probably would have pushed for an older / more masculine lead, again out of geek OCD about the source material. Those two changes alone would have given this thing more of a reason to exist and a better chance of success.

  • March 11, 2012, 10:44 a.m. CST

    Yeah, Avatar has hard sci fi

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    but then it also has blue cat people, kool action scenes, and a planet that doesn't exist. Not really relevant to where we are now or are probably going to be in the next 50 years. Or even more stuff like Primer would be nice. One far fetched conceit is enough. No martians, laser guns, UFOs, or hoverboards added to make it more appealing to ADD kiddies.

  • March 11, 2012, 10:47 a.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    So you are the other guy who saw PRIMER. I knew i wasn't alone!

  • March 11, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I had to see PRIMER

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I needed sci-fi boiled down to its basics. Was getting tired of explosions, alien make-up, and funny clothes.

  • March 11, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    I always joked that Tony Scott's DEJA VU is PRIMER for idiots.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:04 a.m. CST

    Antonio Sabato Jr. vs Taylor Kitsch?

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    Which John Carter is better?

  • March 11, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    If you expect from Hollywood to spend millions of dollars

    by KilliK

    on hard science movies which will only focus on modern problems of the humankind, without action sequences,without a good hero to relate to and the idea of good vs evil,then good luck with that. Big budget hard science movies are rare because they are risky business.The average audience doesnt give a shit about pure intellectual movies unless you can trick them to watch them,thus the need for action,romance,humor,etc.And that thing is a common fact for decades.Even in the golden age of scifi which was the 70s,a lot of the movies had action in them and a hero who was standing for something. Be glad that you got a 2001 and an Andromeda Strain big budget movies.I dont how Prometheus will perform and if its success will be enough to rise the interest of the studios for more scifi films,but for now low-budgeting or the DTV circuit is the only way to make those hard science films. Btw was Moon a hit? it grossed 10m as a total but what was its budget?

  • terrible.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    okay, I'll see it

    by taff

    I was not going to see the move, mainly because I think it's a dumb title and I've never read the books, and the trailers made the movie look so-so. But based on this review and this review alone, I'm going to see it and, hopefully, talk my son into seeing it with me.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:36 a.m. CST

    Moon is not hard science?

    by KilliK

    ROFL.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Thanks, canned_dirty_ape.

    by blackwood

    I'm going to put JOHN CARTER next to SPEED RACER as a modern cult masterpiece. This is the kind of film that, for the people it speaks to, will be vigorously championed every time it comes up from now until forever, and be discovered for all the things it is and not burdened by what it isn't. Also, I saw it in 2D.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:40 a.m. CST

    James Kakalios.ah yes the greek scientist

    by KilliK

    who did those mocumentaries during the promotion of the Watchmen.yeah,i forgot that he was the one who had written that book.

  • An entire book dedicated to proving that superhero powers are impossible? BWAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! LisaB, are you ten years old? By any chance do you have a book explaining in exhaustive detail that Santa isn't real?

  • would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    MOON's budget was less then 5 million dollars.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Not asking for big budget movies

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Just something without colorful alien races, starships, made up Red Matter bullshit, pseudo science, or hyper drives. It can still have a hero, conflict, good vs. evil, while still being relevant to what is now or will be possible in the next 50 years. Take the aliens out of The Abyss, and you have one example of what I'm talking about. The human drama and conflict were more interesting than water weenie anyway. Robocop is very close, if they went deeper into explaining how the technology of Robo and Ed 209 works in a plausible manner, played the rampant crime less over the top, played around with the ethics of turning man into machine, stuff like that. Don't get me wrong, I love Alien/Aliens, Wrath of Khan, District 9, Judge Dredd (the comic), Metroid as much as the next person, and Prometheus is THE movie I want to see this year.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

    MOON has time travel????? Did you actually watched the movie?

    by AsimovLives

  • March 11, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

    I'm a huge fan of the Barsoon series...

    by bobjustbob

    ... and I really, really wanted to love this movie. And there were moments were the movie truly excelled. But I keep coming back to one simple question: Why? Why change the story so much.... why introduce the Therns so early. And why are they TINO? And how will these New Therns impact what would of been GODS OF MARS. The result was a story that was more complicated than needed with exposition that was almost impossible to follow. I do want to see JC again, perhaps a second viewing will help.... but with heavy heart I must say this movie IMO deserves it's Rotten Tomato score.<p> I thought the cast was great. Set design and effects was overall very impressive. Woola was perfect and stole the show. It's the story that failed this movie. I understand that PRINCESS OF MARS (or any book) needs to be adapted to fit the time constrains and medium of film. But IMO this was fundamentally not faithful to PRINCESS OF MARS in ways that would be difficult to repair in any potential sequel(s). And what is worse is that the changes to the story didn't help with clarity and simply added complexity that did no good service the source material.<p> Even after say this, I do hope sequels are green-lighted. I would love to see this cast continue forward with better story telling and direction. However I see that as very unlikely.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    MOON HAS TIME TRAVEL????????!!!!!!!!!

    by KilliK

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • March 11, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    by KilliK

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA GOD

  • It was the other MOON movie, it seems. I must have mixed them up. Those sons of David Bowie, playing tricks on us! I was punk'd!

  • March 11, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST

    =Why?=

    by KilliK

    Because you dont spend $300+ on a movie,unless you make completely sure the movie is going to sell itself to the average popcorn eater joe. Stanton,like Peter Jackson,Michael Bay and other product makers, did his own voodoo magic to make a movie which will appeal to the masses but unfortunately for him,the studio and the fans,he FUCKED UP.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:57 a.m. CST

    @Asimov ROFL,you can say that again.

    by KilliK

  • March 11, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    bobjustbob

    by AsimovLives

    Oh boy! You see, i wish this movie is as great as the more positive reviews claim it to be. and yet, time and again, it's more temperate, slighly disapointed reviews like yours that do seem to hit me as more truthful. I hope i get more fun out of the movie then you did... but posts like yours make me wonder. As one felow poster once wrote, bracing for the wost, hoping for the best, resigned that i might just get something in between.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Asi

    by D.Vader

    And note I'm not calling LisaB a troll bc I disagree with her. You see that, right.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Poor, poor you, lisab.

    by blackwood

    It must be such a burden, having taste that evolved, where every product of pop culture is like offal in your mouth. You keep eating it, though, so there comes a point where one has to wonder if you enjoy being joyless -- if it is satisfying to you, in some way, that nothing measures up. And what a difficult thing it must be, to have to come here every day, after day, after day, and be subjected to so many opportunities to perform disdain. I'd love to hear about something you loved, lisab, and hear you speak of it in a genuine passion, not another heavy-footed self-aggrandizing wall of smog. I feel like the real, interesting you is in there -- the one who watches 13 GOING ON 30 once every few months and cries every time. You're not going anywhere, so I want to understand you more fully. What do you love? What ignites you in film?

  • March 11, 2012, 12:03 p.m. CST

    Also, Asi

    by D.Vader

    I was totally drunk last night. I don't even remember writing that.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    As far as science fiction film, yes Primer and Moon are "hard

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Even by the standards of some scholars and connoisseurs of sci-fi literature, they are hard. I'm asking for absolute accuracy and that's what I personally consider to be Hard, but that doesn't mean hard science fiction at large only deals in absolute accuracy, because it doesn't and never has.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    bobjustbob, I mourn with you

    by BEHEM Pascal

    Great review, and my impression reflected exactly.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:13 p.m. CST

    30.6M, n°2 at the b.o. Go, word of mouth, go!!

    by BEHEM Pascal

  • March 11, 2012, 12:16 p.m. CST

    Yeah,only positive word of mouth will save this movie.

    by KilliK

  • March 11, 2012, 12:20 p.m. CST

    Then don't spend 300 million

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    consider your market and adjust accordingly. Hollywood seems to think fantasy just gets to be huge blockbuster status by default. Maybe everything on screen does cost that much, but I doubt it. Maybe a smaller budget would have actually captured the spirit of the thing. These stories are, or can be depicted, smaller in scope than what Hollywood seems to consider epic.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    Nah,the problem is not with the budget but with

    by KilliK

    the vision and the talent involved. A simple example: Deserts in JC versus flying mountains in Avatar. which one do you think will impress more the average moviegoer?

  • March 11, 2012, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Re : lisab

    by Real Deal

    Your knowledge of modern theory about time travel is interesting. However I really believe you know very little on the subject. You could try watching the Science Channel sometime to pick up some of the basics if you have trouble with books. But time being an artificial construct is only partially true. Many physicists believe time is real. It just doesn't adhere to what our common sense perspective shows us. Time can flow backwards ( already observed ) so that effect follows cause. And then there's the time dilation effect ( already observed ) which shows the faster velocity the slower time flows for the traveler. There are many theories that time happens all at once and we only see it as past present and future. Another says that it does follow that path because of entropy. And that it that process we're perceiving as the course of time. Another modern theory that I prefer is that if you could travel backwards in time you would actually travel to a parallel universe similar to ours but including the aspect of a time traveler ( yourself ). This would be nature's way of avoiding any paradox becausew you would always travel to a universe that includes the changes you make including your arrival there. So as you can see we really don't know concretely yet what is the true nature of time. Also I recall no time travel in Duncan Jones' ( David Bowie's son ) Moon however I do recall it in his other movie Source Code. Perhaps that's what you're thinking of.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    @lisab you are a moron.

    by KilliK

    that is all.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:34 p.m. CST

    2001 isn't a hard sci-fi movie either

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    LMAO a black coffin from space triggering the evolution of mankind ROFL!

  • March 11, 2012, 12:34 p.m. CST

    Re : blackwood

    by Real Deal

    I'm sorry but I think the only thing lisab likes is going on internet forums and saying things in hopes of getting a raise out of the people there.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:34 p.m. CST

    WTF a hotel room in space BWAHAHAHA

    by NotEnoughBiehn

  • March 11, 2012, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Therez no sound in space FACT! why is Blue Danube playing? LOLOLOLOL

    by NotEnoughBiehn

  • March 11, 2012, 12:38 p.m. CST

    lisabender

    by Robert Evans

    I really don't know what to say.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:39 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by Robert Evans

    Just shut the fuck up.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:39 p.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    Dude, you got yourself drunk and you didn't invited me? I'm crossed! By the waym what was your spirits of choice for your happy party of yesterday? Recently, i discovered the pleasures of mead. It's great. As for our friend Lisab, she's no troll, she's just a silly girl, who, sometimes, can make some good insights and smart posts. As they say, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:42 p.m. CST

    Nevermind, notenoughbiehn

    by Robert Evans

    I thought you meant what you were saying. Apologies.

  • One of the NASA scientists asked Duncan Jones about why the moonbase in the movie looked like a bunker, and his reply was that he figured that for sake of economy, they would build the base using local materiasl, and would turn moon rock into some kind of ciment. Then said scientists said she was working on that very subject, working on moon ciment. The very basic premise of the movie is centered about the extraction and mining of Helium 3 from moondust. I know of the existence of Helium 3 for more then a decade and how it could be used as a catalist for sucessful nuclear fusion, but that's me a science geekhead, the average public might ignore the existence of it completly. The point is, MOON's own sory is based on pretty hard science stuff that some of it is evne obscure and not imediate and common knowledge by the public at large. So, it say a lot, doesn't it?

  • March 11, 2012, 12:46 p.m. CST

    lol choppah

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I thought it was because my humor sucks.

  • And yes, you have not seen the movie. You are not even thinking of the other possibility there might be of a person meeting another him without the resort of time travel.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    Re : blackwood

    by Real Deal

    I really liked your review of the movie. Really nice Bradbury type prose " Like bikes and a warm summer night and the sound of crickets and the smell of wet grass – adventure and imagination. When I left the theatre I walked, but all the way home I wanted to jump. ". That was really good and it enbodies the feel most of us have for those books and of the time we could still just sit back and dream. I really think I'm going to like this movie. If it doesn't do well financially I believe it'll have staying power. I keep reminding people here there were many films that flopped only to be come classics The Wizard of Oz, Blade Runner etc.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:53 p.m. CST

    LisaB, that's exactly the kind of shit I'm talking about

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Halo, Mass Effect. Good games, but not what passes for good, thoughtful science fiction in my eyes. Many in the gaming community have very low standards and/or emotional bias when it comes to their hobby, propping up average or pretty good storytelling as equal to great films, literature, and TV. To each their own though.

  • March 11, 2012, 12:54 p.m. CST

    Lisab if you want hard science,in the way that you define it,

    by KilliK

    read a fucking science book.There is no hard science story that involves only things that exist for real and now.Otherwise they wouldnt be called science fiction at all.they would be called science documentaries.

  • As for the aliens and their monoliths, they play on a concept created by Arthur C. Clarke himself, which is often quoted, and is even called Clarke's 3rd Law: Any sufficiently advanced technology would be undistinguished from magic.

  • love it how you are changing your initial definition now.what is it baby? cant support your opinion against our hard arguments?

  • March 11, 2012, 1 p.m. CST

    Re : lisab

    by Real Deal

    I really had to laugh when I read this one : " There are elements of science fiction, such as space stations that didn't exist when it was written but represent a very possible and achievable thing (a vehicle traveling into space with enough power/capacity to remain there and house a person for an extended period of time). " Excuse me but what the hell is Science Fiction but a literary form that predicts things that haven't happened yet? Some prefer the title of " Speculative Fiction ". What can happen based on what we know already. But as we also know knowledge isn't static ( it's always increasing ) that's where the speculative part comes in. There's no real limit to what's acheivable in scince given enough advancement. Any good author of the genre will tell you that and have ( Asimov, Clark, etc. ). You really have a strange notion of what SF is. Wrong but strange.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    I wish you luck selling that, LisaB

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    There is a degree of flexibility in how far from "real science" a story can stray before it leaves the realm of hard SF.[8] Some authors scrupulously avoid such technology as faster-than-light travel, while others accept such notions (sometimes referred to as "enabling devices", since they allow the story to take place[9]) but focus on realistically depicting the worlds that such a technology might make possible. In this view, a story's scientific "hardness" is less a matter of the absolute accuracy of the science content than of the rigor and consistency with which the various ideas and possibilities are worked out.[8]

  • March 11, 2012, 1:05 p.m. CST

    2001 is not hard science.

    by KilliK

    It has people eating sandwiches while traveling on the surface of the moon.what the fuck is with this shit?

  • March 11, 2012, 1:06 p.m. CST

    wtf. What I meant to post, LisaB

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I wish you luck selling that, 2001 not being hard sci fi, since it's widely considered THE hard sci fi film. The sci fi community may not agree that the requirements for sci fi being Hard are as stringent as you put forth. place wiki quote here -->

  • March 11, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    Wait a minute,what medium was David Jaffe reffering to?

    by KilliK

    the videogames?

  • March 11, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Hey Kubrick, Tapirs are forest dwelling mammals!LOLFAIL

    by NotEnoughBiehn

  • March 11, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    2001 A Space Oddyssey is religious allegory nonsense?

    by AsimovLives

    The atheists Stanley Kubrick and Arthur C. Clarke would be amused by that statement.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:20 p.m. CST

    lisab

    by Real Deal

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrocausality The idea that time can flow backwards doesn't go against Einstein's theorys. I couldn't find the reference I wanted right off the bat but there is this : " Arrow of time Main article: Arrow of time Time appears to have a direction – the past lies behind, fixed and immutable, while the future lies ahead and is not necessarily fixed. Yet for the most part the laws of physics do not specify an arrow of time, and allow any process to proceed both forward and in reverse. This is generally a consequence of time being modeled by a parameter in the system being analyzed, where there is no "proper time": the direction of the arrow of time is sometimes arbitrary. Examples of this include the Second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy must increase over time (see Entropy); the cosmological arrow of time, which points away from the Big Bang, CPT symmetry, and the radiative arrow of time, caused by light only traveling forwards in time (see light cone). In particle physics, the violation of CP symmetry implies that there should be a small counterbalancing time asymmetry to preserve CPT symmetry as stated above. The standard description of measurement in quantum mechanics is also time asymmetric (see Measurement in quantum mechanics). " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time#Arrow_of_time You really have to be careful these days when you try to say something " Can't " happen. I believe anything can happen given the proper circumstances. I'm almost 59 now and all of my life I've heard scientists proclaim something couldn't be done. Only to have it change later. The thing is it's all about what you don't know yet. There's always a way. But you are correct in that before it's concretely proven it must be referred to as theory. That's just good science. But to say it's can't happen is just short sighted and ignoring history. As for the backhanded insult do you really claim you haven't been doing a bit of that yourself? Really?

  • March 11, 2012, 1:20 p.m. CST

    @lisab do you have the link with that comment from Jaffe?

    by KilliK

  • March 11, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    =Which have never, ever had a truly good story.=

    by KilliK

    apparently you havent played old-school videogames.and probably neither Jaffe.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Excuse me that's " Eistein's Theories "

    by Real Deal

    My bad. A perfect speller and typist I'm not.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:22 p.m. CST

    Science-Fiction

    by Franck

    1- Science-Fiction writer Robert A. Heinlein: "A handy short definition of almost all science fiction might read: realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method." (Wikipedia) 2- Einstein's relativity theory prohibits traveling faster than light. (General Culture) 3- Science fiction stories refer to "hyperspace," as a region of spacetime "above" the spacetime we know. 4- Warp drive is a classic feature of Star Trek. 5-Research has actually been done in this direction, and it is at least theoretically possible. 1+2+3+4+5= Time travel IS Science-Fiction, as Aliens is very likely to be, the chances of us being the only creatures in the universe being zilch, while living cells have already been found on Mars (The oval head long neck alien is outdated, just ask Ridley Scott) 6 -"In the CERN experiment, neutrinos were produced in a large particle accelerator in Geneva, and then fired toward a detector located 450 miles away in Gran Sasso, Italy. The Italian detector seemed to be recording them 60 nanoseconds earlier than they would have arrived there had they been traveling at the speed of light" - Alan Hale, Professional astronomer (2012) Bottom line: Today's technology was completely unforeseeable a century ago, and future technological advancements are beyond our capacity to imagine them, but will still be consistent with the laws of physics that are established today. Today's fantasy may be tomorrow's science-fiction, it's all about how strong the writer knows and believes in science and research, and on the reader's suspension of disbelief.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    Einstein!

    by Real Deal

    Geez! I wish this forum had an edit function!

  • March 11, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    @creepythinmans-revenge i agree.

    by KilliK

    good science fiction is all about the human condition.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    wrong expectations

    by angelopoulos

    I think people are expecting Star Wars, but instead are getting something more like Conan(1982). I thought it was a great, well made movie. I did not think it was the next star wars. But it was a LOT of fun, and the characters are so much better than what the crappy advertisements show. The score was very good with some actual themes as well. Everyone has the right to like/dislike the movies without us turning it into some kind of personal attack, but for crying out loud, go see the movie before you judge it.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:24 p.m. CST

    so, aliens eating sandwishes on the moon is not hard SF, then?

    by AsimovLives

    i learn something new every day.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST

    angelopoulos

    by KilliK

    hmmmm

  • March 11, 2012, 1:27 p.m. CST

    Creepy, I agree on Contagion

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    It was believable, technical, and human. That's what I'm talking about. Not scientific explanations for the sake of it, a technical exercise, but to add to the plausibility of the situation, the stakes. I don't remember science having anything to do with V for Vendetta though, not in a way that it's more than just a prop or backdrop.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:28 p.m. CST

    Oh lisab

    by Real Deal

    Don't believe us! You can have your own idea of what SF is if you want but here's what most people in the know believe : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_science_fiction " Jump to: navigation, search Science fiction includes such a wide range of themes and subgenres that it is notoriously difficult to define.[1] This is a list of definitions that have been offered by authors, editors, critics and fans over the years since science fiction became clearly separate from other genres. Definitions of related terms such as "science fantasy", "speculative fiction", and "fabulation" are included where they are intended as definitions of aspects of science fiction or because they illuminate related definitions — see e.g. Robert Scholes's definitions of "fabulation" and "structural fabulation" below. Some definitions of sub-types of science fiction are included, too; for example see David Ketterer's definition of "philosophically oriented science fiction". In addition, some definitions are included that define, for example, a science fiction story, rather than science fiction itself, since these also illuminate an underlying definition of science fiction. The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction, edited by John Clute and Peter Nicholls, contains an extensive discussion of the problem of definition, under the heading "Definitions of SF". The authors regard Darko Suvin's definition as having been most useful in catalysing academic debate, though they consider disagreements to be inevitable as science fiction is not homogeneous. Suvin's cited definition, dating from 1972, is: "a literary genre whose necessary and sufficient conditions are the presence and interaction of estrangement and cognition, and whose main formal device is an imaginative framework alternative to the author's empirical environment."[2] The authors of the Encyclopedia article—Brian Stableford, Clute, and Nicholls—explain that, by "cognition", Suvin refers to the seeking of rational understanding, while his concept of estrangement is similar to the idea of alienation developed by Bertolt Brecht, that is, a means of making the subject matter recognizable while also seeming unfamiliar. The order of the quotations is chronological; quotations without definite dates are listed last. "

  • March 11, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    killik, go to Jaffe's blog

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I think he discusses Story vs. Mechanics there.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Re : flynn-lives

    by Real Deal

    Even warp drive is possible : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcubierre_drive " In 1994 Alcubierre proposed a way of changing the geometry of space by creating a wave which would cause the fabric of space ahead of a spacecraft to contract and the space behind it to expand.[1] The ship would then ride this wave inside a region of flat space known as a warp bubble, and would not move within this bubble, but instead be carried along as the region itself moves as a consequence of the actions of the drive. If this is so, conventional relativistic effects such as time dilation would not apply in the way they would in the case of a ship moving at a very great velocity through flat spacetime, relative to other objects. This method of propulsion would not involve objects in motion at speeds faster than light with respect to the contents of the warp-bubble; that is, a light beam within the warp-bubble would still always move faster than the ship. Thus the mathematical formulation of the Alcubierre metric does not contradict the conventional claim that the laws of relativity do not allow a slower-than-light object to accelerate to faster-than-light speeds. The Alcubierre drive, however, remains a hypothetical concept with seemingly insuperable problems: The amount of energy required is unobtainably large, there is no method to create a warp bubble in a region that does not already contain one, and there is no method to move from the warp-bubble once having arrived at a supposed destination. " When they say things like not attainable that should say " Yet ". At least they said " Seemingly ".

  • March 11, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    Hmm,i cant find Jaffe's comment about the use of

    by KilliK

    story in the videogames,in his blog.

  • I didn't think it was confusing, I just thought it was overstuffed with stuff. How many sub-plots and conflicts are running through this movie? Seriously, just sit back and think and it's up to almost, like, 2 dozen. Flick was better when it just became a visual exercise. And whenever Mark Strong was around. And, ye fucking Gawds, that princess of mars was insanely hot. which is fun because in Wolverine I thought she was just kinda eh but she looks goddamn amazing here. Arena fight scene was badass and the ending of it was fantastic. as was the Carter flashback / battling Tharks bit. Basically, there is great stuff in here but too goddamn much. Chillax and tell one story, not, like, 20.

  • March 11, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    lisab You Just Proved My Point!

    by Real Deal

    With this : " (Clarke is basically saying our concept of god comes from an alien intelligence in his story) but it doesn't mean he believes it. That's why it's called fiction. " That's why the genre is called " Science Fiction ". It's the Fiction part that's speculative. If it was just based on only " Known " science of the time and not things that might happen based on science known at the time ( things that haven't been invented yet or theories that have yet to be proven but might be ) it would simply be called " Science ".

  • And the part right at the beginning where Carter is being read his rap sheep and he keeps. goddamn. escaping. mid-sentence. That was a lot of fun. You can see little bits of genius here that seem to come from Andrew Stanton's vibe (think the part in Wall-E when EVA shoots the videoscreen) so it's not terrible, but the small bits and good scenes are overridden by "Ow, my brain hurts, they're lecturing again."

  • March 11, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    @LisaB your theory is wrong.

    by Franck

    Science-Fiction doesn't not have to be based on (that we know of) but on what today's science ,technology, and probabilities makes foreseeable in a not so distant future. And knowledge doesn't condition reality. It's not because you don't know of the existence of aliens that aliens don't exist, especially when the probability of their existence is very likely. And if you read my earlier post, Aliens do exist, just not in the "traditional" expectation. According to your theory, when was traveling to the moon fantasy and when did it become science-fiction before it became reality? Did Jules Vernes write a fantasy or a science fiction novel, what about twenty thousand leagues under the sea, provided that today both undersea travel and giant squids exist, back then, were giant squids fantasy or science-fiction?

  • March 11, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Re : flynn-lives

    by Real Deal

    Hell what about Asimov predicting that we'd have little boxes that did math for us ( and people would forget how to do basic math in our heads ) in 1958? http://kasmana.people.cofc.edu/MATHFICT/mfview.php?callnumber=mf4 That's what SF does it takes what we do know and projects what might happen based on that. It's not always right on but it's more right than not most of the time. I graduated High School in 1971 ( we still used slide rules ) if I'd walked into my chemistry class with a simple calculator from today I'd have scared them stiff! However that's the point. SF provides a way to speculate on what we don't know or have yet based on what we do know or have. I guess lisab doesn't get that.

  • March 11, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    John Carter Isn't Science Fiction

    by Real Deal

    It's old Science Fiction based on what we knew of in the day. Buroughs didn't have a good vehical to transport JC to Mars because of knowledge at the time so he fudged a bit. You could probably think of it as emeritus Science Fiction.

  • March 11, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    JC is pulp fiction.

    by KilliK

  • March 11, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    @kilik

    by angelopoulos

    lol... ok, well whatever, i still liked it darnit.

  • March 11, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    @kilik

    by angelopoulos

    but, I also love Flash Gordon, so...

  • Burroughs including such known scientific elements about Mars like lower gravity, the thin atmosphere, all elements he incorporated in the story and served as plot elements. Nobody before him has done so. Nobody who had made stories about Martians and humans vising mars before had incorporated known science. The only previous example where an author had incorporated real science to a story about Martians was H.G. Wells where he showed the martians having a hard time copping with Earth's higher gravity. And remember, many people, even astronomers, believed there was channels on mars and though highly plauslbe and even a ceretainty that there was an advanced civilization omn mars capable of large scale engineering. So, the reason the martian stuff looks so silly and fantasy today is not because Burroughs was just making shit up, he was actually using accepted scientific facts or accepted possibilities as believe back then about Mars. What he invented was the people and civilizations and beasts in mars, but the martian landscape itself he was using stuff accepted back then as real.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Carter

    by Party_Animal_IV

    I was prepared for this movie to be bad went I went to see it. I found it to be well beyond the quality of the standard Disney fare. It seemed clear when watching it that it was edited down from a longer cut. Many common criticisms might not apply to a three hour cut as is allowed in theaters for stuff like LOTR and Avatar style epic fantasies - which clearly there is a huge audience out there for. It was a mistake not to shoot in native 3D. I suspect internal studio politics are to blame for the poor marketing, as even if the film had been terrible they could have made more money. Stuff like Clash of the Titans and Cowboys and Aliens showed better numbers and they are nowhere near the level of quality of John Carter. If it ends up losing money, it won't be the fault of the filmmakers themselves.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:05 p.m. CST

    The WOW Factor & Great Characters

    by Mako

    When was the last movie you really saw that made you go "WOW"? JC felt pretty flat to me - for many reasons - but what if it had come out 30-40 years ago and made just as well as "Star Wars"? It's extremely difficult I think for movies to "WOW" us like they used to. When we saw worlds and experienced things like we never have for the first time. Think of when "The Wizard Of Oz" came out and people were mesmerized by the visuals and concepts back then on the big screen. "Star Wars" was the film that made me and most of my peers go "WOW" back when we were kids. I think "The Matrix" kinda did that too for it's time. The issue I have is that these list of classic movies not only dropped us into new worlds and ideas that we had never seen in that context before - but also gave us memorable characters that we enjoyed watching on screen. Having nice effects or interesting story can only take you so far. But it's the classics that often have characters we remember and love.

  • but the opposite has happened. Here is what I clearly remember of JC... 1. The Woola is a fun Creature. 2. The Tharks suppressed natives story has the potential to be 100x more interesting than the lead characters story. 3. Lynn Collins is a good actress once you get past her stunning looks. Not the typical Looks over Talent Starlet. Given that I remember her performance...especially towards the end of the film...despite clunky dialog...I'd say she did a fine job. 4. Pretty..3D underwhelming...but pretty.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    John Carter flop=Transformers part 13(starring Shia ledouche of course)

    by DanielnocharismaCraig

    Give Disney credit for trying something different instead of hitting the well over and over again like Michael Bay. This movies concept probably went over the head of the typical black and mexican type so they stayed away.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    LIsa B...

    by Hooded Justice

    You certainly are hardcore! I think you want the emphasis very much on the "science" rather than on the "fiction". But as the old saying goes: "Never let facts get in the way of a good story." If you seriously expect novelists and film-makers to restrict their stories for the sake of the facts, you are going to find novels and movies very frustrating indeed! Good storytellers generally prioritise the story (and characters) over historic/scientific authenticity. By this just for you, Lisa: I am Zarrrtherg of the Quoxxzenthian Constellation, sending you this message via telepathic-augmentation crystals broadcasting on all frequencies backwards from the 28th Century, some 53 quantum parsecs inside Dimension Eighty-Two B.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    JC has made $100 million so far...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    $30 million in the US... $70 million overseas. It wont be a hit, but not this massive, studio sinking catastrophe people were predicting. Plus Blu-ray, dvd, merchandise and TV deals will definitely add up. I suspect it will probably do much better on dvd and blu-ray because the stigma of the bad marketing will have worn off by then.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    About John Carter NOT lisab

    by Rob Jenson

    Seriously, why are people talking about her/him/it? To the subject at hand (ahem) . . . I just saw John Carter and I'm very conflicted about it. In some ways it was SO CLOSE to being a pretty damned good SF action movie, kind of a SW light -- not what the material deserved, mind: with Milius at the helm and Frazetta's designs to back him up, this could have been another SW or LOTR, but it is what it is -- but it was continually hamstrung by odd plotting, wretched CGI (why did John Carter leap at the speed of light?), weird exposition, etc. The CGI, especially all the blue shit, was just distracting and not in keeping with what should have been the tone. And Dejah, that woman of incomprehensible beauty, a paragon of feminity, was in this movie a super scientist, but even that wasn't enough to satiate our PC climate -- she had to be a daughter of Xena, too. (That said, the actress really elevated the material and in some ways was the best part of the movie, but the character sucked and was a betrayal to the source character). I could go on. It was a frustrating experience. It had talent and budget behind it, but sometimes that's just not enough.

  • . . . it is tanking undeservedly. TRANS kicked B.O. ass, and it was shit. John Carter was ALMOST pretty good, and it's sinking like a stone. Get out there and see this, people! Whether it's great or not, a strong B.O. will encourage more sci-fi epics in the future. This is EXACTLY the kind of thing we need to support.

  • March 11, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    I see lisab has the entire board wrapped around her finger

    by Billy_D_Williams

    one of the more clever tactics of a troll is to mix straight up lies with sensationalist, irrational posts (JC $10 million for the weekend, Moon and Primer are not hard sci-fi, etc)...then when everyone is up in arms, the troll then settles down and becomes more reasonable, even offering insightful commentary on different subjects...when the attention starts to fall of her, she goes right back into frothing at the mouth, keyboard mashing hysterics with blatant lies and hatred, baiting hapless board members into her attention whoring, vaginal ways... lisab is so transparent, i'm shocked some of the veterans of the board are falling for it. d. vader, killik, asimov, im looking at you...

  • March 11, 2012, 4:43 p.m. CST

    Studios wont stop making $200 million plus movies...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    JC tanked because the regime who greenlighted it (Dick Cook) got fired before the movie was finished...so the next regime had very little interest in JC, so they let it fail, perfectly safe in the fact that THEY didn't greenlight it...and the studio just writes it off. honestly the parent company has so many other money making ventures that rake in way more than movie studio, they couldn't care less about a failure like JC. Let's say you own Burger King, Walmart and a lemonade stand, with the lemonade stand being representative of the studio (the money is makes is about relative compared to Burger King and Walmart)...are you really going to lose sleep when the lemonade stand starts losing money??? The bottom line is huge, tentpole, action franchises usually work...the occasional failure means nothing, it's the nature of the business. and companies like Viacom own a movie studio as more of a vanity project than anything else. It makes very little money compared to their other ventures, and they get to mingle with movie stars...so they dont care about making good films, or even if the occasional one bombs. they're swimming in cash, whether they have the studio or not.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:09 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by AsimovLives

    Good point. John Carter's commercial sucess might lie on home video. It's generally known that home video audiences are more forgiven then theater audiences. There's a lot of money in home mvideo today, and John Cartar might find it's audience there that eluded it in the theatrical run.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:24 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by Mako

    $30 million domestic for the opening weekend is not good for a movie of this size. $70 million internationally is decent - but one thing you have to take into account is that international box office is much different than domestic in terms of what a studio profits from. Meaning: the returns are often less than domestic in terms of percentage. It's my experience that you normally cut internationally sales in 1/2 to help represent a domestic take for a studio. So if JC made $70m internationally - it is close to saying it really made $35m. I worked on a film last year that made a bit more both domestically and internationally than JC, and cost less than JC and it was still not seen as a hit. Home market sales keeps dropping year after year as studios are scrambling to figure out how to deal with it. It will be interesting to see what happens to JC in the next couple weekends in terms if drop off percentage. If it doesn't drop much - than word of mouth is saving it from having possibly having a sequel made.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST

    Well. Just saw it.

    by StarWarsRedux

    I'd say I hated it, but it bored me too much for me to really have that much emotional stakes in it.

  • March 11, 2012, 5:58 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by AsimovLives

    i don't count lisab's actions as that of a troll. but she sure loves to be the queen of the prom.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:14 p.m. CST

    Word count?

    by Hieronymous

    Enjoyed the review Harry but what's up with the 145,002 number in the title? There's nowhere near that many words in this piece.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:27 p.m. CST

    mako

    by Billy_D_Williams

    yes, i realize all that. i posted the international numbers to remind everyone that US box office is not the whole picture. And JC will probably eke out a tiny profit in the next several years. Disney's current regime doesn't care though, it's a write off, made under the previous regime, so it's not their problem.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:28 p.m. CST

    asimov

    by Billy_D_Williams

    if you dont think lisab is a troll, i'd like to know what you actually do define as a troll?

  • Harry's reviews get the most views out of any other, yet his talkback is filled with the most vitriolic hatred for the man.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:36 p.m. CST

    billy_d_williams

    by AsimovLives

    a destructive motherfucker.

  • but Dick Cook was fired, 2-3 months before JC even started production...Ross crime, as you pointed out...was simply not caring about a $250-350M production he didn't green light. However...Ross WAS responsible for this thing going FAR FAR over budget, for not keeping the Director in line, and for destroying Disney Studios marketing division with his hiring of a Marketing Head with NO film experience (she was canned in January). Part of me thinks that if this film had been ridden hard, and forced to cut the fat and stay on point...it wouldn't be the meandering, plodding, oft boring mess it is. A lean and efficient film is usually a good film...it forces talent to get it right and make every shot and word count. It worked for Star Wars Original Trilogy where the studio rode Lucas like a rented mule over every cent and a cadre of trusted talent, experienced producers and studio suits alike kept things lean. Here...Stanton was given a blank check and told to go make a movie. And Ross is to blame for that. Now...as a Disney Shareholder I can tell you that you are wrong about "Not Caring" about the Studio. Revenues last quarter were down 16% at the Studio....16% is a big number in finance, we who are funding these films want to see a Positive number...not negatives. A 250M write off in one division may offset record earnings elsewhere...and help reduce tax burdens...but ultimately we are in the business of MAKING MONEY...not loosing it. Avengers parade of Brinks trucks will soon erase this mess ( Avengers is presold..like Pepsi or Coke there is a built in demand...it can't fail)...but right now there are people calling for Rich Ross head on a stake for not either pulling the plug, or at the very least cracking the whip and making sure that the money was on the screen...which is was not in John Carter.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:56 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by AsimovLives

    you are a Disney shareholder? OUCH!!! small wonder you are so pissed off. i feel your pain, brother.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:58 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by Billy_D_Williams

    there's something to be said about keeping filmmakers in line, but often this has the opposite effect of micro-managing a film into mediocrity...put a strong producer in the mix, set a budget cap, plus 10% for contigencies and fire the director if he goes over, unless some other agreement is made. sounds like Stanton was in fact given a blank check. Hollywood is so paranoid, that they end up making "product" as inoffensive as possible, to the point where movies are just another distraction alongside ipods, video games and reality TV, with nothing to distinguish itself. Hollywood is so afraid of losing money, so every movie has to look the same and sound the same...they don't approach each movie as unique, they market test everything into oblivion and neuter what was probably a great script before the cameras even roll...so you end up with these bland, middle of the road, safe, pussified movies.

  • March 11, 2012, 6:58 p.m. CST

    Foreign Take counts...but isn't counted on.

    by conspiracy

    Given issues with exchange rates, liquidity, and even certain countries rules for profits made there leaving their shores...Studios don't usually look at Foreign take as "Counting" during initial release. It's success at the studio level will be judged, rightly or wrongly, on Domestic take alone. The only time a Studio will use Foreign Box Office Numbers is if they need a marketing tool...."Over $2,000,000,000.00 World Wide!"...to reinforce a films success and maybe get anotherweek or two at the Megaplex;...or to Whitewash the fact it was a bomb at home when pushing Domestic DVD sales What it makes in Russia may look good on paper...but Disney Accounting could give a good God Damn about those figures.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:02 p.m. CST

    Asi...Yes, I own a few shares....

    by conspiracy

    Fortunately Share prices shouldn't take too hard a hit as we are already looking past this to The Avengers (it is going to make huge $$$), and the huge numbers coming in from the parks. Still...at the end of the year...this is about $350M (counting marketing costs), that goes against the bottom line. Someone needs to answer for this...and for the generally poor, misguided performance of the Studio over the last year and a half...

  • March 11, 2012, 7:07 p.m. CST

    Billy D

    by D.Vader

    What are you talking about dude? I pegged LisaB as a troll from the very beginning. Did you see my post where I said she's a habitual liar? She does just as you said: mixes lies and misinformation to appear intelligent and knowledgeable. I don't fall for it.

  • The movie never felt plodding or boring - which where criticisms I had heard. It moved along at a decent clip and always kept us engaged. Taylor Kitsch did not register as a leading man - at all, which is a shame because this should have been a break out role for the right actor. There was no joy or sense of wonder from him or in his performance. Very perfunctory. Lynn Collins, on the other hand, was dynamic and beautiful, and I hope this is the beginning of great things from her. The marketing dept. of Disney should be ashamed of themselves. I do realize that marketing a 19th century confederate war hero who lives and breathes and fights on Mars and whose source material features the word Princess prominently in the title, is a tough task. However, the first thing that should have been done was to jettison the name. It should have been called Barsoom. John Carter is far to bland to excite anyone, be it hard core fans - of which no offense meant, there are too few to truly support a quarter of a billion dollar movie, or young kids - primarily boys, who would want to see it. Secondly, the trailers and commercials should have shown John Carter doing super human things -which is why he is a great warrior on Mars, as well as showing Dejah Thoris fighting with him side by side. Truly a terrible marketing campaign from a studio that did not know how to handle the property. I did not care for the 3D at all, nor did I think it contributed anything to the enjoyment of the motion picture. Still, my family and I enjoyed the movie and I would recommend it to anyone looking for a good action yarn.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by Robert Evans

    Did you ever get to part three of AN ANUS WILL DECIDE?

  • March 11, 2012, 7:18 p.m. CST

    Lmao....I actually started something...got pulled away...

    by conspiracy

    but this one time I actually saved it to Word....so I'll finish it and post it up later.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:19 p.m. CST

    Twat at me when you have it up, my friend.

    by Robert Evans

    By the way, talkbackers, feel free to hit me up on Twatter ... @iamchoppah

  • March 11, 2012, 7:21 p.m. CST

    tallandagwood...Excellent Idea!

    by conspiracy

    However...it would have pissed off the Fanboys...and Stanton would never have gone for it being a fanboy himself. And don't worry about the Marketing...that Head has been Chopped, and at least one more likely to follow unless things turn around by the end of Summer.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:36 p.m. CST

    conspiracy, it does not surprise me that Stanton is a fanboy

    by TallanDagwood

    You can tell that this movie was made with an almost slavish devotion to the source material -although not in a bad way such as with Watchmen. Still, because he was so close to the material someone in marketing - the person I assume you meant who has lost their job, should have stepped in. I have yet to see a 200 million dollar plus movie that has recouped its investment based upon the fanboys going to see it. Truly poor decision making all around. I just do not see kids getting excited by a movie named "John Carter" which is why I thought Barsoom would and should have been the natural selection.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:51 p.m. CST

    tallandagwood..I think Stanton needed a strong Producer and editor.

    by conspiracy

    From what I've been hearing Stanton is a perfectionist..and he evidently shot Hours and hours...some say there is two films worth of material and that is why it is so far over budget...to get it "Just Right" and try to please the JC fans and be true to his vision. What Stanton needed was someone like Gary Kurtz...Lucas old Producer from Am Graf-Empire...who was not so invested in the material he couldn't walk in and say "That doesn't work..., we can't do that...no", and had the power to make that "no" stick. When you give an artist total freedom...sometimes you get magic...but many times you get a product that is magical only to THEM and a very small number of equally invested folks; but all but incoherent or boring to the outsider.

  • March 11, 2012, 7:54 p.m. CST

    The movie could have used even more slavish devotion

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Instead of the additions, alterations, and miscalculations that Stanton and co. went with.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:08 p.m. CST

    I still don't get how earni9ng $125 Million in 3 days

    by Kizeesh

    Is a bad thing? Seriously, that's half of it's budget earned back in half a week. It'll probably run for a month or more in some cinemas and then will no doubt do well on Blu-ray & DVD. And yet, that's somehow indicative of it being a 'flop'. I enjoyed it, it was a silly fun adventure movie that the 12 year old me would have watched again and again. It's close enough to the book that it doesn't offend adaptively and it's got enough subtext to make me smirk as an adult. Is it just that talkbackers don't actually like ANYTHING?

  • Perhaps Disney gave him such freedom in hopes of duplicating the Peter Jackson model with LOTR -not the James Cameron one, which is a whole order of magnitude different. I think you are absolutely correct though that he needed a strong producer who could have stepped in to keep things at a lower budget. I enjoyed the movie though, and I have few quibbles - outside of Kitsch's performance and some pacing issues, with it. I think it is a shame that the movie is not connecting with audiences. Perhaps it will receive a positive word of mouth from those who saw it this weekend. Next week will be the telling.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:17 p.m. CST

    @notenoughbiehn

    by TallanDagwood

    I must confess to not being very familiar with the source material. And by 'not being very familiar' I mean I have not read one word from the books. I did know that Barsoom meant Mars though.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Slavish devotion to source material?

    by bobjustbob

    Hmmmm..... not even close. They made wildly radical changes to many elements of the story re: the source material. None of which IMO helped in making the story more coherent or entertaining. Simple cleaner story telling that honored the source material would of probably better served everyone involved.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:32 p.m. CST

    @dioxholsters_ghost

    by TallanDagwood

    That is precisely the failing that conspiracy and I have been speaking about. It is truly a shame that the ad's have not conveyed the true sense of the movie. It should have conveyed a sense of wonder - being on a different planet and having super human abilities and fighting strange looking creatures. Yet all we really saw was a man in a desert. with lots of rocks . The natural beauty of the locations was swallowed up by colorless palette used for the most part.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST

    @bobjustbob

    by TallanDagwood

    I enjoyed the movie for what it was. However since i have not read the source material I cannot say if i would have enjoyed it more or less if it had been more devoted to it.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:41 p.m. CST

    @bobjustbob

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Exactly. I was being sarcastic by the way. But a tighter, simpler telling would have hit closer to the mark in my estimation. Think the original Planet of the Apes: In the first few minutes you get all the back story about the main character you need, who is, by the way, played by an actor who radiates the machismo and swagger that is closer to the character of John Carter than this Kitsch fellow.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:42 p.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by DrMorbius

    where might I find the 3rd installment of your FPF story? Couldn't find it and the suspense is killing me!

  • March 11, 2012, 8:44 p.m. CST

    Yeah

    by Evil Chicken

    Me too. I LOVED IT. I am looking forward to another trip to Barsoom in the future.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:50 p.m. CST

    lisab ... the ffc

    by DrMorbius

    Just finished reading todays comments and was wondering if you also thought Neil Armstrong was a 'time traveler?' That was, until you 'backpedalled' to say you conveniently stopped watching Moon at that point.

  • March 11, 2012, 8:52 p.m. CST

    @tallandagwood - the books are well worth your time

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    If you like pulp adventure like Tarzan, Conan, Flash Gordon. John Carter is one of the biggest badasses in fiction, Burrough's writing of action is some of the best in the genre, and these stories really stoke the visual imagination. There's also pretty interesting fantasy concepts in them too. And they're quick reads.

  • March 11, 2012, 9:53 p.m. CST

    Laughing at LisaB

    by D.Vader

    All that jibber-jabber of what real sci-fi is... And yet she continues to label John Carter as science fiction.

  • March 11, 2012, 10:25 p.m. CST

    Hey Mako About The Wizard Of Oz

    by Real Deal

    http://www.thegeektwins.com/2010/08/10-crazy-but-true-facts-about-wizard-of.html Movies are funny things. You never know how they'll be received : " 4. Oz Was a Flop - Though well reviewed, The Wizard of Oz was a failure in its original theatrical release. The movie cost $3 million ($46,990,384.62 adjusting for inflation) to produce, and only grossed $2.8 million ($43,857,692.31) in its initial release. It also didn't have much of an impact on pop culture at the time. The movie only became financially successful and a part of American culture when it began airing annually on network television. "

  • March 11, 2012, 11:10 p.m. CST

    Johyn Carter MEGA-BOMB? Gee...who could have possibly predicted THAT!?!

    by Jaster Mareel

    And you fucking dillweeds that kept trying to convince us that it was all just a local AICN thing where we just didn't like it because either we hate everything, or just to be contrary to the staff here. Well who's got jizz on their face now FUCKHOLE? Gee, I guess it was, you know, FUCKING EVERYONE who thought it looked like shit. Next time we say something looks like shit, remember this day. We've said it before, but you fuckers are exceedingly slow learners. We said it about Matrix Reloaded. We said it about Jackson's King Kong. We said it about Sky Captain. We said it about Serenity. We said it about Scott Pilgrim. Over and over and over again you ignorant fucking children are proven wrong. Maybe THIS TIME you will actually fucking learn.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:27 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by Mako

    Excellent point RD!! Thanks for sharing that info of The Wizard Of Oz. That also brings up a movie I love dearly "Blade Runner" which was a flop at the box office. But I think most people here recognize it is an important film that has influenced a lot of people since it came out in 1982.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:27 p.m. CST

    A SENSATIONAL MASTERPIECE.GO WATCH.

    by KilliK

    JOHN CARTER.AN EVENT MOVIE OF THIS YEAR.DONT MISS IT.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER made $100 million dollars globally this weekend.

    by blackwood

    It did $70 overseas and $30 here. So, apparent tastemakers, that's not a bomb, is it? But hey, I'm happy you're happy that something didn't do well. Totally proves your quality of character, man. Makes you a really interesting person, too. You and that bender girl should get together and just have a really long back patting session. It's clearly what you desperately, desperately want, so I say giver.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:38 p.m. CST

    blackwood

    by Mako

    It's safe to say we actually don't know if it's a bomb or not, yet. $30 million domestically is considered a dud in the industry when you compare the amount spent to the amount made on an opening weekend of a film of this magnitude. However... if the movie does crank out a ton of money internationally - it can be saved from flopping. But you also can't look at $70 million dollars overseas and assume it means the same amount in domestic numbers. Normally... it's about 1/2 of that due to various reasons. So at the end of the day if the movie makes $130 million domestically... and $300 million internationally... it equates to actually making $150 million domestically. Even with the idea of home video sales - studios do not make the kind of money they used to on it. So the reality is - it will take some time to see how JC really has done over the long haul (even though people want instant answers now if it did bad or not). Most of the industry will come out probably saying JC "flopped" because it's an instant story that only takes into account the opening weekend. And I hate to say it - that's the way the media and industry work these days. They've done it on other movies of this caliber.

  • March 11, 2012, 11:40 p.m. CST

    Sorry....

    by Mako

    My numbers above are confusing even to me.... what I meant is this below: $70 millions dollars internationally normally equates to $35 million domestically. So if the movie ends up making $300 million internationally - it is really only pulling in $150 from those markets.

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html

  • March 12, 2012, 12:14 a.m. CST

    you guys must be joking

    by WINONA_RYDERS_PUSSY_JUICE

    it's a mega-flop

  • March 12, 2012, 12:15 a.m. CST

    Viewed twice--hope to see it 3 more times

    by insightman

    A lot of people loved this flick. I sure did. We didn't love it because Harry and his colleagues told us to love it. We loved it because we thought it was a great film. I can understand why many critics didn't like it, but they aren't the audience Stanton was courting. He made John Carter for me. I hope the foreign box office buoys the receipts enough to get the two planned sequels made because I know they can be even better. Hating this film without seeing it just doesn't make sense to me.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:26 a.m. CST

    insightman

    by Mako

    I didn't "hate" the film. I just didn't care for it and thought it wasn't made as well as it could have been. I love "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E". But the NY Times article from above slams Stanton for something I've known for a while. Having been successful and protected by a studio can create an air of arrogance and smugness. A trait I've seen happening at Pixar. Some of this can carry over into a film such as JC - and also carries over to the fan boys (most of AICN) who idolize a man or source material that can do no wrong. My hope is that this will humble Stanton, and make him an even better film maker for decades to come. Sometimes failing - is a good thing for an artist. Disney would disagree with me for sure ;)

  • March 12, 2012, 1:50 a.m. CST

    What was wrong with John Carter

    by nietzschebot

    Remember how Marion could drink everyone under the table? Remember how Indy hates snakes? Remember how C3PO sounds like a gay English butler? Remember Darth Vader's ominous breathing? Now, after watching John Carter, do you remember ANYTHING distinctive about any character at all? Let's see . . . The Princess who was somehow a fighter and a scientist but who we never see anything about not related to the plot. John Carter, tortured soul who is somehow rebellious yet greedy but who we never see drink, play cards, make jokes, or have any fucking fun whatsoever. Ohhhhhh and those noble savages The Tharks . . . There's the good one and the bad one and the rebellious daughter-- and the bad guys, let's see, one kind of looks like a Roman and the other one is bald and we know nothing about him other than he's bad. Did I mention he was bald? Oh and Woola. It runs fast and is loyal but never buries Carter's clothes in the sand and poops on them or anything else distinctive. But it runs fast and its quite loyal and shows up at opportune moments. Andrew Stanton should be whipped for creating a 250 million dollar film without any distinctive characters. Whipped then whipped again. There is no excuse for not creating vulnerable, idiosyncratic characters that people can relate to, none at all. This isn't about "hating." It's about Close Encounters and ET and Jaws and Star Wars and every other good movie which has actual characters setting them standard for what a sci-fi/fantasy movie should be. If one character fails to have a personality, then it can be due to bad acting. If they all fail to be anything other than genre stereotypes, then that's the director. Even with a bad script, characters can be brought to life. Unfortunately, all Stanton knew was the death of digital animation. By the way, I enjoyed most of the action and special effects in the movie. I didn't hate it. But there can be no apologies for having no characters in a movie, nothing but formulaic ideas.

  • I think Kerry Conran could have made a better version, with or without Harry. Check out Conran's JC reel: http://www.comicsalliance.com/2012/02/24/john-carter-mars-kerry-conran-sky-captain-video-demo/ Robert Rodriguez probably would have nailed a Frazetta-like style and have been more hard-edged. I'd probably would have paid to see that, too.

  • Not that we have to worry about Disney — they'll just pop out a billion more dollars' worth of CARS merch.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:57 a.m. CST

    $30.6 million on the opening weekend...

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    Avatars opening was $77 million to give it some perspective. I really hope this flops. Hollywood has to learn to stop shoveling these souless pieces of shit.

  • March 12, 2012, 3 a.m. CST

    FUCK THIS SHIT !!!

    by KilliK

  • March 12, 2012, 4:45 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    The Dojo was right... sad to say but I saw the train wreck approaching. Can't believe there are some guys on this site even now who are claiming this is a hit??!!! *“John Carter,” which cost an estimated $350 million to make and market, and was directed by Mr. Stanton, took in about $30.6 million at the North American box office, according to Rentrak, which compiles box-office data. That result is so poor that analysts estimate that Disney will be forced to take a quarterly write-down of $100 million to $165 million. *

  • March 12, 2012, 5:02 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Please let's sweep this one under the rug now aicn. Harry and his hirelings did all they could, for whatever reason, to convince us that this film was a gourmet delight worthy of michelin stars, and it turned out to be a plain old ham sandwich. The public didnt bite. Don't worry though, 2012 looks to have a lot going on, and although i've successfully avoided JC I know that i'm going to be making more trips to the movies this year than I have for many a one. I was registering negative opinions on JOHN CARTER from the first trailer, and I wasnt the only one. If you think that makes me a troll or a hater then please think again. I take the negative stance if that's how I feel about a film, but I prefer to be a cheerleader - and you'll see that in the run up to the movies that I think look great (PROMETHEUS, THE HOBBIT, etc). I just like coming here for the same reason the rest of you do, to give an honest opinion and debate whats a hit and whats shit in the world of cinema!

  • March 12, 2012, 6:04 a.m. CST

    *Ishtar* Lands on Mars / $600 million return????

    by justmyluck

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html *Regardless, when push came to shove on JOHN CARTER, Mr. Stanton usually got his way. One area in which he exerted his influence was marketing, where he frequently rejected ideas from Ms. Carney and her team, according to people who worked on the film. He insisted, for instance, that a Led Zeppelin song be used in a trailer, rejecting concerns that a decades-old rock tune did not make the material feel current. Mr. Stanton also was behind the selection of billboard imagery that fell flat, and he controlled an important presentation of footage at a Disney fan convention that got a chilly reception. * *Because of its enormous cost and the way ticket sales are split with theaters, analysts say the film needs to take in more than $600 million globally to break even.*

  • Friend, i'm reaching the end of my teether about such silly statements like that. One day things will get ugly. Very fucking ugly.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:22 a.m. CST

    Saw it this weekend. Surprisingly good fluff. 8/10

    by V'Shael

    I'd liken it to Independence Day. Brainless, harmless entertaining fun. It'll never be a classic, but it's totally worth a look.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:27 a.m. CST

    Some here are saying the action was at least good but . . .

    by Rob Jenson

    . . . it really wasn't. For $250M we should have at least gotten some great action moments, right?, perhaps on the level of the big rig chase in Terminator 2, or the sub chase in The Abyss, or any action set piece from the OT. I mean, Stephen Sommers for a lot less delivered some really fun action scenes in The Mummy, and that was throwaway popcorn fair, which seems to be what this aspired to be. That's fine, I suppose, but . . . well, there wasn't even a climactic showdown worthy of the name with the "action villain" of the movie, the evil warlord guy. They exchanged like two blows and then there was some silly CGI shit. Then it moved to the showdown with the "tech villain" of the piece, the bald guy, where we have some more silly CGI shit. And it's not like there weren't a bunch of great acton pieces from the book that could have inspired them, because the book was chock-full of cool action moments, as well as memorable characters and a memorable love story. Is there any bigger than life love story greater than that of John Carter and Dejah Thoris? I remember . . . back in the day . . . when scripts mattered, and things like action in an action movie mattered. And character. And . . . sigh. Will those days come again? Or will they get steadily worse, punctuated only briefly by moments of greatness like LOTR, until we yearn for the glory of Transformers and Prince of Persia?

  • March 12, 2012, 6:50 a.m. CST

    Kerry Conran's demo reel

    by Rob Jenson

    Wow, with just that short demo, we got more heart and better action than Stanton's version, and truly beautiful, Frazetta-inspired sets. I hope Disney and the world doesn't take "JC"'s B.O. failure to mean sci-fi epics aren't wanted, and I would still encourage people to see this one so they don't get that impression (which they will, because they're idiots), but . . . ah, what could have been. However, I will say that Sky Captain was an opportunity to create a great pulp character in the vein of John Carter or Indy, and although I enjoyed the movie for what it was, the character of the Captain fell flat. I have hopes that this wouldn't have been the case for John Carter, though, because the demo really did have more heart than Stanton's version, so Conran seems to have learned from SC.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:23 a.m. CST

    Totally disagree, Bob

    by D.Vader

    The movie had plenty of heart. It felt like a movie that really did come from a place of love rather than the studio mentality (like say, Transformers). Conran's demo reel is just that- a demo reel set to music. Not much room for heart.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:24 a.m. CST

    Μeanwhile in Mariana Trench

    by KilliK

    THE KING is laughing his ass off with one more Avatar-wannabe failure.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:45 a.m. CST

    Movie was pretty damn good

    by RG

    I enjoyed it quite a bit. My wife that typically is lukewarm to all things sci-fi and fantasy actually liked it as well.

  • March 12, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    d. vader, I agree it had more heart than Transformers

    by Rob Jenson

    John Carter admittedly is on a different level of filmmaking and storytelling than anything by Bay or his ilk. Andrew Stanton not only has talent but actually gives a shit -- which just makes it more frustrating to me that he didn't quite nail it. As for Conran's demo real, I especially felt the heart from Tars Tarkas at the end wanting John Carter to return to Mars. As for the action, the one action scene in the demo with John versus a Thark was better than anything in the Stanton movie. There was actual fight choreography there, and it worked, and it showed the brutality of sword combat in a way the bloodless fighting of Stanton's movie wasn't willing to. Plus, and it can't be overstated enough, Conran's Frazetta-inspired designs were the way to go. I love the big ruined building in the Conran version. Also, the tigers (I forget Burroughs' name for them) and other things that weren't in the Stanton version were missed. And at no point in the Conran demo was Dejah carrying a sword. I truly wish his was the version we'd gotten.

  • March 12, 2012, 8:22 a.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape, we get it, you don't like Harry.

    by Rob Jenson

    Can we move on?

  • March 12, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    For everyone scrambling to say =WAAH! IT MADE $70M OVERSEAS!=

    by Jaster Mareel

    Go tell it to THE GOLDEN COMPASS! I'm sure it's sequel will be hitting theaters any fucking day now!

  • March 12, 2012, 8:52 a.m. CST

    I saw JOHN CARTER twice this weekend

    by Ye Not Guilty

    The first time I saw it was at the midnight screening. I was sleepy and couldn't get into it much. Then I saw it a second time with my family and really got into it. I liked the John Carter/Dejah Thoris relationship which is the heart of the story. Stanton was clearly aiming for those two to have a Indy/Marion or Han Solo/Princess Leia vibe. They pulled it off mostly, although Taylor Kitsch is not Harrison Ford. That's not a dig at Kitsch by the way - few actors could hold up to Harrison Ford in his prime. I dug all the homages to other pulp or serial inspired movies. There was a scene that was lifted straight out of Raiders of the Lost Ark. There were also tributes to Flash Gordon and several that seemed inspired by various Star Wars films. My main criticism would be that at 2 hours and 20 minutes, the film is long and it drags a little bit in a few spots. Also, there is a lot of Barsoom jargon. It helps if you know the jargon ahead of time. In fact, I think the failure of the marketing campaign was that it failed to educate the target audience. Look at what AVATAR did - it gave audiences extra-long trailers that set up the film. I believe that the first 10 minutes of AVATAR were also released online before the film was released, and some people saw 30 minutes of the film before it was released, which helped word of mouth spread. I saw a lot of ads for JOHN CARTER that didn't tell me much about the story. I didn't know anything about Sab Than until I saw the film. Tars Tarkus was hardly in the marketing at all, and he was a wonderful character that would have really helped sell the movie. You have to hand it to the folks who did the marketing for AVATAR - they really educated the audience ahead of time so folks knew what to expect going in. It helped to sell an otherwise unknown property. I never expected JOHN CARTER to do a billion dollars worth of business, but it could have done 500 million worldwide. Next time, educate the audience ahead of time!

  • March 12, 2012, 8:53 a.m. CST

    Foreigners hate us but they love our big budget shit movies.

    by knowthyself

    They eat that shit up for sure. Pirates 4...Golden Compass...

  • March 12, 2012, 8:58 a.m. CST

    Until now, I always thought Stanton was fantastic

    by Jaster Mareel

    Now combine this result with his recent TED talk telling us all how to write good stories: http://www.ted.com/talks/andrew_stanton_the_clues_to_a_great_story.html To quote Rick Santorum, =WHAT A SNOB!=

  • March 12, 2012, 9:16 a.m. CST

    @wrath_of_fett: Add that to Stanton's BBC interview last week —

    by justmyluck

    — where he compared his *my way* working method to Picasso and The Beatles. And telling the interviewer that he wouldn't know how to direct an animated film: http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/frontrow/frontrow_20120305-1801a.mp3 And the New York Times write-up today which stated that STANTON was behind JC marketing decisions: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html AICN's TEAM CARTER might want THAT news buried, and fast.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by Rob Jenson

    Very well, then. Carry on.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:26 a.m. CST

    The movie was really good! Saw it yesterday

    by MariusXe

    Liked it a lot, actually. Hated every bit I saw from it before going to the theatre, but I read a few good reviews and love SciFi so I went. I am really glad I did. Sure its no Moon or anything, but a huge entertaining movie! Its like Star Wars meets Dr.Who meets Conan. I didn't even hated Kitsch's performance! He was really good as a lead actor. Wouldn't have dreamt that in a thousand years, but its true! Can't wait for the BluRay and some sequels! JOHN CARTER OF BARSOOM!

  • http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/movies/la-fi-ct-disney-carter-20120310,0,2000583.story It begs the question whether or not this site has any credibility at all. I can't imagine a movie as poor as this one being hyped so much where money wasn't involved. Such is life, I suppose. There are ideals, then there is the reality of business. Money truly does talk. Its just a shame that it is so hard to find an honest review anymore. In all honesty, I don't know that I would have done any different if money was thrown my way. Disney: "We have this great new film we would like you to promote." Me: "Really... What's is it?" Disney: "Doesn't matter, here's 500K, we would like as much positive exposure as possible." Me: "Yes, sir!" I guess my hypocrisy knows no bounds. I still love all of the inside scoops this site provides, but as far as reviews go, take them with a grain of salt.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:44 a.m. CST

    vorlonkosh

    by Rob Jenson

    The Kidd's review seemed fairly on-point. As far as Harry, I don't think he actually took money for this, he's just excitable. If you look at other sites' reviews, from Baddass to Hitfix, you'll see they also gave Carter favorable reviews. Of course, that might beg their honesty into question, too, who knows.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Couldn't follow the intricacies of the plot.

    by Just

    Seriously, why was it so needlessly hard to follow?

  • March 12, 2012, 9:55 a.m. CST

    Reason John Carter didn't do well.... It's on Mars!

    by CinematicFusion

    Main reason is the story is on Mars. Mars was a huge deal back in 1910. Today we know nothing is on Mars and it makes the story less believable. Mars doesn't engage our (mass audience) imaginations. Lucas sets his story in a Galaxy far far away. Cameron sets his story in some new solar system yet to be discovered. The audience can buy into these. Our imaginations go wild with possibilities. The undiscovered areas of the universe. Everyone knows what's on Mars....red dirt, that's it! This is coming from someone who never read the books and knows nothing about the story. I'm basing this on the advertising campaign. It looked like Attack of the clones on Mars with a guy who can jump. Marketers dropped the ball big time on this one. Story tellers as well, needed to bring this story up to date. By up to date I mean, not on Mars. Mars isn't relevant into today's world. Unless we are looking for ice or maybe a microbe in a rock.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:03 a.m. CST

    joetp1972

    by Rob Jenson

    If the movie had been done better (and marketed better) it could have ENGAGED people's imaginations re:Mars. That's why ditching the Frank Frazetta imagery is such a loss -- those paintings alone have inspired many, and sets based on them could and should have gone on to inspire more. I say give this to Milius and have him reboot the series for a quarter of the budget.

  • http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html

  • March 12, 2012, 10:28 a.m. CST

    How to get around the =Mars problem=

    by Jaster Mareel

    Agree that basing all the action on a planet we know to be desolate is kinda screwy. You do it the same way Cameron got us invested in Titanic. An astronaut exploring comes something strange sticking out from a cliff on Mars. As he brushes it off he can see it's some sort of constructed architecture. He begins to dig and a doorway caves in, giving way to his footing and he falls into ancient Martian ruins. There he discovers some sort of glowing artifact and when he touches it, he is absorbed into a green, flashing light. He is freaked out and in his scrampble to get back to the surface his helmet is cracked and all his air escapes. He removes his helmet and is guffawed to discover he can breath normally. As he emerges from the ruins, he sees an active alien landscape with a massive city on the horizon. HOW FUCKING HARD IS THAT STANTON?

  • March 12, 2012, 10:28 a.m. CST

    Pleasantly Surprised by John Carter

    by Dranem

    I had no background on the source material going in and did not have a hard time following it all. Neat visuals, bad science, but a good time. The only part I didn't care for was the White Ape fight. I know John Carter was before Star Wars, but it mirrored the AOTC fight almost beat for beat. They entered the arena to a horde of aliens cheering their demise in almost a blinding light, the hero has to escape his chains, and there was even a spear thrown into a shoulder. I half expected Mace Windu to step in and say the party was over. Other than that it was great.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST

    The problem is the script

    by IronSkillet

    I really wanted to like this, because I read the books as a kid. Harry's right in saying it's a wrong decision to start the movie with background of what's going on on Mars. It's wrong not just for his reasons, though, but because IT DOESN'T MATTER. This misconception that it matters which Martian groups may be fighting each other continues throughout the film. I read many reviews in which critics expressed confusion about the Martian politics, which was frustrating inasmuch as there was no reason to include any politics. There weren't any in the initial story, other than the "give me Dejah Thoris and we'll call a truce" element, but this wasn't politics, it was war. That's the whole point. Mars was a planet based on war--not for any political reasons, but because a) there were too few resources to go around, and b) generally all Martians would live for over 1,000 years if they didn't die from some sort of trauma first (or take the pilgrimage down the River Iss at 1,000 years old, which was poorly depicted and unexplained in the film). It was considered glorious to die in battle. The herd also needed to be thinned or everyone would starve or dehydrate to death. So they fought. It didn't matter whether they were Zodangans or Heliumites or whoever, they fought each other. So there didn't need to be any political exposition or explanation, nor did the Zodangans need to be any different from the Heliumites as a rooting interest. They were the SAME. Had John Carter encountered a hot Zodangan princess who needed saving first, he would've been on their side. Had this been simply explained, there would've been no need for anyone to have been confused by politics and allegiances. SECONDLY--it wasn't just an unneeded decision to give Carter some flashback backstory--it fundamentally CHANGED the character. He'd never been involved with a woman before, much less married. That's what made Dejah Thoris special. She was the first woman he'd found worthy of loyalty. THIRD--she wasn't a scientist or swordswoman. This was written in 1912. If you're going pulp, go all the way. She was incredibly hot, and, while intelligent, needed saving. LASTLY--and this is a huge point--the Therns weren't some race of planet-hoppers from beyond our solar system. They were just another kind of person on Mars who'd figured out a way to use religion to gain power. The entire premise of the second book was that there were several various "races" on Mars that all considered themselves superior in some way, but that they were all just mortal people who had either hoodwinked others (or themselves) into believing lies. Carter's crusade, while rescuing damsels and killing hundreds or even thousands along the way, was ultimately one about debunking myths that allowed some races to cruelly subjugate others. It was the SCRIPT. Bad. Unneeded changes. And so while I hear and understand all the whining about Kitsch being a wooden leading man, it really comes back at the feet of the writers who set up the film as they did. Carter was more a soldier of fortune than anyone who took sides. He only took Helium's side because he wanted to save the hot chick. That was it. He did other things along the way, but that and the fact that, deep down, he loved fighting, were his only real motivations other than his personal military and moral code. And so, because they screwed up the basic elements of the story, we won't get a "Gods of Mars," or the next story, and really, it's just as well. This wasn't the Burroughs Mars from those books, anyway.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:32 a.m. CST

    i'll check this out on netflix..........

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    as will the rest of the movie-going public apparently.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST

    The Main Reasons People Didn't Go:

    by Jaster Mareel

    Full disclosure: I haven't seen it. I'm basing this list on what I've seen in the trailers. For all I know there was a comletely different marketing campaign for the rest of the world that got people excited, but it sure didn't happen here. Well a bit at the end, but too little, too late. 1) Mars is fucking RED ASSHOOOOOOLE!! Jesus Christ, of all the things to fuck up! 2) The first trailer is just fucking bewildering. No fucking clue what the hell the movie was about from that trailer. Just weird, emo music and a juxtaposition of images that made no sense. Unfortunately even though the trailers changed over time, they stayed very weird and didn't explain what the film was about or why anyone should care. Other than a couple of quick distant master shots, the trailers didn't even show any architecture! 3) The production design is just fucking BULLSHIT! Compare the look of John Carter to the look of Avatar. Is it any wonder people couldn't get to the theater fast enough for Avatar but let out a collective =meh= for John Carter? Dull, desolate plains and a bunch of creatures with the same fugly gray elephant skin. GOOD JOB FUCKOS! 4) FLEA JUMPING! Yeah that shit sure packed them into HULK! Not only does it make no goddamn sense at all, it looks retarded! 5) Every clip they put online was ridiculous. The physics were completely fucked and the humor was juvenile at best.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:41 a.m. CST

    bob1000......Reason John Carter didn't do well

    by CinematicFusion

    You know more about the story then I do. They should have used someone with your knowledge and love of the story to craft a solid screen play. Like I said, I can just comment on the marketing of the film. It didn't do enough for me to see it in the theater. I'll rent it on Netflix.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:53 a.m. CST

    just adding a POST

    by Micah fendley

    750

  • ... just take a step back and think about the sourcing. Stanton declined to comment, but the story is full of anonymous sources putting the blame all on Stanton. That reeks of Disney throwing him under the bus, especially since it's out the morning after the disastrous box office weekend. I simply can't believe that Disney let Stanton walk all over them like the article suggests. The guy's a pretty successful writer-director, but he's not a household name or industry power icon like Spielberg, Jackson, Cameron or Sir Ridley. If Disney disagreed with his marketing suggestions, why would they give in so easily if they had invested $250 million? I call bullshit. I'm sure Stanton had input, but for them to blame it all on him, especially since we know he pulled *OF MARS* from the title at their behest, is low. Now, I'm not going to weep for Stanton. He still has Pixar, and Lassiter will probably keep him gainfully employed in making good films. He has too good of a track record there.

  • It does not add up.

  • March 12, 2012, 11:22 a.m. CST

    Well, I agree with Stanton

    by D.Vader

    Interviewers usually don't know how to direct animated films...

  • March 12, 2012, 11:23 a.m. CST

    Asimov, I love mead

    by D.Vader

    I drink it every chance I get at the Renaissance Festivals. But I was throwing a surprised birthday party for my girlfriend. Ended up drinking rum and cokes and beer for the evening. A wee bit too much actually. I should have kept a running total. Talkbacking drunk is not always a good idea.

  • March 12, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    wildcard_comics

    by AsimovLives

    I read that article you posted the link (thank you, by the way), and the best description i can think of all that business is to call it a comedy of errors. It really is hillarious.

  • March 12, 2012, 11:31 a.m. CST

    joetp1972

    by Rob Jenson

    All too true. The problem with most Hollywood disasters is they didn't ask me. Alas . . . And, of course, like (I'm sure) many here, I am an aspiring screenwriter, so seeing poorly written movies is doubly painful.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:02 p.m. CST

    Box Office

    by Andrew

    John Carter barely made 30 million this weekend, which is crazy, considering it cost 350$ MILLION TO MAKE. It came in second to The Lorax, which is in its second week. Also, JC has a 49% on Rotten Tomatoes right now. Can we please stop saying how great this is? Thanks.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST

    @ironskillet

    by bobjustbob

    Well said.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    winteriscoming: Love your handle, hate your logic.

    by Robert Evans

    If someone sees a movie and finds it to be good, then so be it. JOHN CARTER has elicited some pretty wide-ranging reactions, from snarky put-downs to shrugs to *not bads* to out and out love. That's a hard thing to quantify. Don't go flashing statistics in my face as proof of a movie's quality or lack thereof. The numbers game is an important part of the process from the BUSINESS aspect. But we should judge art (whether it's TRANSFORMERS or BLUE VELVET or JOHN CARTER or BARRY LYNDON) on its own terms, not how the fucking numbers add up.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:23 p.m. CST

    Stanton has nothing to worry about

    by Joe Plumber

    Just look at how many duds M. Night Sham has made and people are still giving him money to make movies.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Disney just needs to start making found footage films

    by Joe Plumber

    to make their money back.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:26 p.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER OF SHIT

    by KilliK

  • March 12, 2012, 12:30 p.m. CST

    Yes, winteriscoming needs a better argument

    by D.Vader

    No logic to be found there.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    ARE doubly painful

    by Rob Jenson

    cough cough (looks away)

  • March 12, 2012, 12:46 p.m. CST

    No, I was right the first time. Need to stop drinking.

    by Rob Jenson

    I wish that was a valid excuse.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:47 p.m. CST

    The JC sequel should be a found footage movie

    by Joe Plumber

    shot by George Melies that Edgar finds and watches.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:51 p.m. CST

    Sword fights on barges and speeder bike chases COULD have been awesome

    by Rob Jenson

    Even if we'd seen them before. Sure, they wouldn't have been fresh, but I've seen a lot of fist fights and car chases that were engaging and memorable, and I've seen a few of those before. It's all a matter of storyboarding, fight choreography and directing. And I could think of worse fates than watching more heroes fight giant monsters in arenas, but the fights need to be done better. I hate to say it, but the arena scene in Clones was far better. Must wash mouth now.

  • March 12, 2012, 12:58 p.m. CST

    Geek Hate - the wilful anti-hyping of a project before release

    by marineboy

    If I were a production company or distributor - I'd ignore engaging any of these shit sites in my marketing ever again. The general public love the film. The 13 year old masterbators should just keep on w@nking.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:01 p.m. CST

    Yeah, John Carter is no masterpiece.

    by Rob Jenson

    That's insane. I mean . . . really, and I shudder to say this . . . JC makes the Prequels look good. Some compelling action, a few memorable locales and some neat monters . . . real drama, even if poorly conceived . . . Padme could hold her own but was no warrior babe with a microscope . . . Any more and I'll have to take a shower.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    Choppah, D.Vader, canned_dirty_ape

    by Andrew

    Fair enough. I'll concede that numbers don't always mean a movie is bad. Plus, I'll admit I haven't seen it yet. I'll reserve final judgments until that happens. It just seems that it was a commercial and a critical failure. What I was trying to say is that maybe, this wildly positive review is all hyperbole. I just don't trust it. Also, Choppah, thanks for the props on the handle. I'm a huge GOT fan.

  • or maybe it was just wishful thinking on my part that a Lynn Collins nude scene was due up any minute.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:08 p.m. CST

    The movie JC most reminded me of was Flash Gordon (1980)

    by Joe Plumber

    Anyone else get that?

  • March 12, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    winteriscoming

    by Robert Evans

    Same here. Love, love, love the books, and I hope HBO has the will and cash to keep the TV series going till its end. It would be fantastic to see bigger, more ambitious *genre* entertainment for adults, and since we rarely get it on the big screen, TV may just be the way to go from now on. I mean, imagine a DUNE TV series with the right kind of people behind it.

  • No major release this week besides 21 Jump Street and skinny Jonah Hill has proven hew is no B.O. draw with The Shitter.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    BTW, the 3D in the Titans trailer looked AMAZING!

    by Joe Plumber

    Like they were actually trying to do something cool with the 3D effect. Now, that may only be true of the trailer and not translate into the film, but DAMN that shit looked cool.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:23 p.m. CST

    marineboy, really? The general public loves teh film?

    by Jaster Mareel

    Is that why it debuted to less than BATTLE LOS ANGELES!?!?

  • As for the people who enjoyed JOHN CARTER via AICN, **YOU ALREADY WENT**. Let the B.O. drop-off commence.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:49 p.m. CST

    Stanton in no comment mode could mean many things.

    by Robert Evans

    -He's pissed off at the way the film performed at the BO, along with all the schadenfreude in the press. -The NYT may have asked for his comment specifically on what they had gotten from their studio sources, and he didn't want to get into a war of words with people who he might have to work for again. And how is it illogical to think that a studio can give a director a lot of control over a project while they handle the marketing? Surely this is not a new concept, is it?

  • March 12, 2012, 1:51 p.m. CST

    wrath_of_fett

    by marineboy

    $30m domestic is a solid start, $100m WORLDWIDE is amazing. This movie will make it's money back (just). And yes, looking at most non-geek friendly sites, joe public seems to really like the movie.

  • March 12, 2012, 1:52 p.m. CST

    Worlds 2nd biggest IMAX opens to massive business with JC

    by marineboy

    http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/the-imax-factor-john-carter-film-goers-give-imax-3d-verdict-at-cineworld-sheffield-video-1-4334523

  • March 12, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    That's $100m....DIVIDED BETWEEN LIKE 42 COUNTRIES!

    by Jaster Mareel

    THAT'S =amazing=? No, what's =amazing= is the lengths some people will go to convince themselves that the thing they love doesn't actually suck, despite all evidence to the contrary.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    Well, the crowd I saw it with on Saturday seemed to enjoy it

    by Joe Plumber

    And I overheard the middle-aged man behind me claim un-sarcastically that it was, "Spectacular!" I also heard some sighs from the audience at times, but couldn't discern whether they were in awe or out of boredom.

  • @canned_dirty_ape: I never said *with final say on every single aspect of the movie from the moment they are hired right up to the time the first print hits*. You know that, of course, but you must try to CREATE AN EXTREMISM to push this off topic into a new tangent, away from Stanton's self-stated JOHN CARTER Picasso-esque auteurism. GONG. I said Stantson had CARTE BLANCHE. That means what it means — STANTON WAS NUMERO UNO regarding everything JOHN CARTER. No one has said differently in anything I have read to date. *You asked for logic, I'm giving you fact* GONG. Your *fact* would presume STANTON, being numero uno with overwhelming creative control, had deliberately made JOHN CARTER mediocre (and that's being FAIR) to become a *sacrificial lamb* for some masochistic goal, while stating — himself — the studio gave him total control! Time to snap out of it. @choppah: A major newspaper is now on the line saying Stanton did make marketing decisions. If you can prove Stanton did NOT have serious input in the marketing of JOHN CARTER, then TELL US WHY the journalist's research is incorrect. Just being FAIR, here. If you have nothing, feel free to *chop* at any time!

  • March 12, 2012, 2:09 p.m. CST

    Gary Kurtz? LOL

    by darthvedder81

    What Andrew Stanton needed was "a Gary Kurtz"? Yes, what he needed was a guy hasn't produced anything of consequence in 25 years and hasn't produced a hit in more than 30. The bizarre worship of Gary friggin' Kurtz on AICN continues...

  • March 12, 2012, 2:14 p.m. CST

    Joe Public likes Transformers, so I don't think I'll take . . .

    by Rob Jenson

    . . . Joe's opinions very seriously. That said, the sad part is the B.O. does take his opinion pretty seriously. Time will tell if JC makes money, but it doesn't look like it'll be much, anyway. I think Joe has shrugged. If so, he and I concur re:JC. But I'll never forgive him for Transformers, so ah well.

  • If their reporters and editors aren't above uncritically hyping the case for a bullshit war that cost thousands of lives and trillions of dollars, who's to say one of their entertainment reporters isn't getting some favorable access from studio bigwigs in exchange for positive spin? This shit happens all the time at the highest levels of media. Don't be naive.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    Brad Pitt was right.

    by justmyluck

    My WAR OF THE GARGANTUAS DVD arrived today from Amazon and THAT SHIT IS RAD.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:16 p.m. CST

    what hurt its opening is the lifeless title and the lame release date

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    this is a may/june/july movie if ever there was one - or christmas

  • March 12, 2012, 2:19 p.m. CST

    darthvedder81, he said "a gary kurtz" not "the" gary kurtz

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    he meant he needed a producer with a vision and drive like kurtz had way back then

  • David Poland ‏ @DavidPoland I remember reading the NY Times for deeper reporting, not reductive Ishtar jokes. Here's Disney's spin on John Carter nyti.ms/wcGV38 There's no denying that JOHN CARTER was a big box office disappointment in its opening weekend, but do you seriously think the Walt Disney Co., one of the biggest corporations on the planet, would give a guy like Andrew Stanton, who's not even the No. 1 guy at Pixar, complete control over ALL aspects of this production, including marketing? If that did happen, I'd prefer to see it reported with much more depth and sourcing than this Time article has.

  • Okay, you have nothing to contest the journalist's work and you're shilling, now. The NY Times won't be the only one doing interviews on JOHN CARTER, trust. Still NYT = 1. 'Nuff said. Chop time.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:22 p.m. CST

    Speaking of Avatar

    by Ye Not Guilty

    While I somewhat agree with the criticism that John Carter lacked memorable dialogue (although there was the bit about -Get behind me! - No you get behind me!) , Avatar didn't exactly have a lot of memorable dialogue either. I was just reviewing the Memorable Quotes section for Avatar on IMDB, and the quotes were pretty lacking. I don't think the dialogue was responsible for the film's performance.

  • That was about a NEW IMAX OPENING! And how people were excited to get it. Nobody said jack shit about John Carter except one guy said =Duh...it was cool when duh green guys ran at duh screen!=

  • Everyone's avoiding Stanton's self-professed Picasso/Beatles *my way* production method now, and pushing journalism regarding a YET UNKNOWN to the fringes. Certain people only hear what they want, it seems. I was 100% Stanton, even during the onset of the AICN JOHN CARTER DELUGE. I do not hate Stanton, I do NOT want to see him crushed, etc. However, I AM WILLING TO ACCEPT criticism of his handling JC considering its lameness.

  • Are you people fucking retarded? You're probably the same assholes that took glee in sinking movies like Blade Runner, Tron, & Dune upon their release (If you were even born yet) John Carter is not a milestone of cinema, but it was a damn fun fantasy that deserves a heck of a lot more respect than it's currently getting. I wholeheartedly believe that it will find a bigger audience over the next year. It may not be a big enough audience to make it a box office hit, but it's an audience with enthusiasm. And that's the big difference. Read and quote all the negative reviews you want. But read the really positives, and you will see a passion and enthusiasm for this film that you won't find in the average blockbuster. I get why people don't like it. The same way I get why people don't like Tron or Millius' Conan. It's simply not for them. And I'm sure I'll be saying the same thing when a proper Doc Savage movie finally gets made. I applaud Andrew Stanton for not dumbing the original story down. Instead of catering to the uninformed, he rewarded the actual fans. And given that the books are currently #19 on Amazon, I'd say the movie has done it's job. I can't imagine how any ERB fan could be unhappy with this situation. PS. Notice how I said all this without referencing JCs budget and box office?

  • March 12, 2012, 2:35 p.m. CST

    justmyluck, I'm beginning to see that arguing with you is pointless.

    by Robert Evans

    I haven't even seen the movie yet, so how can I be a shill? It may well fucking blow (even though I'm hearing far more positive things about it than negative, and I don't really count the talkbacks are a hive of negativity). I just happen to think that slavishly citing an anonymously sourced article that sheds a somewhat favorable light on studio executives who invested $250 million in a box office disappointment is dubious argumentation. If anything, you come across as shilling for the side that'd rather shit on Stanton and the movie. You play semantics games like Helen Keller played I Spy.

  • March 12, 2012, 2:37 p.m. CST

    I don't why I wrote the PS...

    by Jay

    Since I totally referenced JCs box office. Oh well...

  • March 12, 2012, 2:40 p.m. CST

    Thank you, bantuwind.

    by Robert Evans

    Thank you. Imagine AICN talkbacks in 1982. *How defuck could John Carpenter even think of remaking THE THING? Fuck this movie.* *BLADE RUNNER? More like BORE RUNNER. Ridley Scott really is a hack, after all. Even ALIEN is overrated.* *How dare Milus shit all over Robert E. Howard like this?!?!?!*

  • March 12, 2012, 2:46 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by Robert Evans

    You have my permission to use *CHOPPED* after that last post.

  • and selected the imagery for the billboards. But my question is who in marketing (or the executive suites) decided their sci-fi, action-adventure, $250 million movie be titled simply "John Carter"? I hear a movie title that's a character name, it makes me think of movies like Michael Clayton, Harry Brown, Mildred Pierce, Annie Hall, Billie Elliott, Erin Brokovich, Veronica Guerin. It's the wrong kind of title for this kind of movie. Disney was afraid of marketing a movie with words like "princess" and/or "mars" in the title, so they went with a title that does nothing to describe said movie or, really, that would elicit any excitement in moviegoers upon seeing or hearing the title. So, in order to appease a certain segment of moviegoers, who the "marketing gurus" said any sci-fi or fantasy references in the title would turn off, they decided to turn off everyone with a dull and uninteresting and un-engaging title. No, I don't think the title is solely responsible for audiences staying away; I do think whatever losses in audience they assumed would come from a title that had "princess" and/or "mars" in it were nothing compared to the reality of audiences being unimpressed with the unimaginative title "John Carter". Also, whose idea was it to, as far as I saw, make no reference to the source-material in the advertising? Why wasn't Edgar Rice Burroughs' name all over the advertising? Sure, we got ads that said "before Star Wars, before Avatar, there was John Carter" but they fail to clarify to the average, ignorant movie-goer what that means. Studios should embrace the source material. It's a red-flag to me when I see a movie adaptation that seems to be embarrassed by it's source. If the studio seems unwilling to fully embrace the source material, as Disney seems to have done with this (based solely on the marketing and the title), it comes across as disingenuous. It's like they are trying to trick you. As dumb as the general public can be, I think they are smarter than that.

  • Maybe you should keep blathering, this is getting good.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:20 p.m. CST

    Canned..

    by Robert Evans

    nice.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    Do you really not understand what I said, justmyluck?

    by Jay

    Or are you just trolling? It's not about accepting anyone's opinion as fact, be it negative or positive. It's about understanding the opinion. For example, the reason I still read someone like Roger Ebert is because I know where he's coming from. I don't agree with him 100% of the time. Quite the contrary in fact. But I understand why he likes/dislikes certain films. You can't measure that because it's his opinion. And having more than one opinion doesn't make it quantifiable all of a sudden (The main flaw with RT.com) Unless you're a pessimistic douche, you have to look at both ends and contrast. The positives are written with excitement and passion towards a great story and universe. The negatives (most of them) boil down to "it was unrealistic and silly." If you can't understand that difference, than all I can say is good luck with life.

  • NYT=1, TB=0. STANTON is in *no comment* mode after his self-professed *Picasso/Beatles* mode. NOTHING has changed. See? That's three. Want four?

  • March 12, 2012, 3:32 p.m. CST

    Here's how I would have marketed the movie

    by Hesiod2k7

    1. Use "Edgard Rice Burroughs" in the title. People know that name, and while they may not know of the Barsoom series, they certainly know tarzan and recognize it as something with a heritage. 2. Play up the fact that this is a movie that Hollywood has wanted to make for 80 years -- FINALLY COMING TO THE BIG SCREEN! 3. Start EARLY with associating it as the source material for Star Wars and Avatar, etc. If you can, get actual on camera promotional quotes from George Lucas and James Cameron praising Edgard Rice Burroughs. (I know it may have been hard with competition, but I think those guys have enough historical perspective and respect for the material to maybe contribute a quote). 4. Don't shy away from the Mars stuff. I mean, the fucking trailers had aliens and a giant fucking ape, with flying ship battles and a dude leaping high in the air. It's obviously Sci Fi fantasy, so why in the hell are you not at least using that in the title? 5. The big problem was selling this movie to women, right? What if they called it "John Carter and the princess of Mars? Or the original title "A Princess of Mars" and then put out trailers with the very well done Dejah Thoris character. Pixar is marketing a female warrior movie called "Brave" that takes a similar tack. 6. Cast at least one big name star in the movie. Possibly as the main Villain. You have to have a big name as a hook to market the movie. Pirates of the Carribean had Johnny Depp. 7. make sure Mars looks like fucking Mars and not the American Southwest. Dejah Thoris should be red, not slightly sunburned. The landscape should obviously be alien and redder. See the Mars rover images: http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Spirit_rover_tracks.jpg

  • March 12, 2012, 3:33 p.m. CST

    So bad box office and bad reviews equals =unquantifiable=?

    by Jaster Mareel

    Ummmmmm.......no it doesn't. The jury is in. You can't stand up and say =Yeah jury, but that's just your opinion. His guilt or innocence is unquantifiable=.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    I can only imagine this talkback's finger-pointing

    by Chief Joseph

    is a microcosm of what is going on at Disney HQ right now.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    The scenes they highlighted in the trailers were the worst ones.

    by Hesiod2k7

    That whole giant ape in the arena fight was the dumbest part of the whole movie, IMHO. If you want to entice people -- use the scene where carter rescues Dejah and then leaps from airship to airship kicking ass. That was visually stunning, and also UNIQUE about this particular story. It would have intrigued people. Also, you needed more humor in the trailers. Sadly, there wasn't enough of it in the movie except for the great scene with Bryan Cranston.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:39 p.m. CST

    johnny depp wasnt *really* a big name before PIRATES

    by Robert Evans

    yes he was a formidable actor who took on some great chancy roles, but up to PIRATES, his 'big' hit was EDWARDS SCISSORHANDS..

  • March 12, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    ^5 @ chief joseph

    by justmyluck

  • But he had decades of proven star quality and diversity. Not like Kitsch.

  • March 12, 2012, 3:57 p.m. CST

    Oh, and BTW -- Humans'd still tan on Mars

    by Hesiod2k7

    John Carter would get tan walking around in the desert on Mars.

  • March 12, 2012, 4:01 p.m. CST

    @ choppah, you forget about Sleepy Hollow

    by jim

    arguably a bigger hit, and 9 years later (only 4 years before POTC). Not to mention his popularity being sustained, and even expanded when women everywhere fell in love with him after Chocolat (it really is a delightful film).

  • March 12, 2012, 4:02 p.m. CST

    Kitsch was a serviceable, but bland Carter

    by Joe Plumber

    Lynn Collins was much more compelling as Dejah. The main focus of the story should have been John Carter finding his purpose through falling in love with the Princess of Mars. There was no need for the backstory tragedy, which felt tacked on anyway. It should have been called The Princess of Mars. Doubt that name would have turned off too many 30 year old male geeks, but it sure would have helped bring in the female demographic along with the focus on the love story.

  • THE VALUE OF THE DOLLAR HAS DEPRECIATED THAT MUCH IN LESS THAN 10 YEARS?! WE'RE SO FUKKED!!!

  • March 12, 2012, 4:13 p.m. CST

    Just found out that Lynn Collins is a cougar

    by Joe Plumber

    she's 9 years older than her husband. You go girl!

  • March 12, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    WOW! That review.....

    by ZodNotGod

    If I had turned in something like this into any of my college classes, far less people would have seen it then here mind you, I'd have been mocked. Rightly so. What's what all the dangling participles and ending in prepositions? I'm no expert wordsmith, but damn nigga, use Office spell check and work the bugs out.

  • As for big names, they had some (maybe no 2003 Johnny Depp, but names nonetheless): Willem Dafoe, Thomas Haden Church, Samantha Morton, Ciaran Hinds, Mark Strong, James Purefoy, Polly Walker, Bryan Cranston. Granted, some are doing voices only for CG characters. But they are still attached to the movie. No advertising I saw made any mention of any of these people being in the movie, of which 3 have perviously been nominated for an Academy Award (at least once). How is it that all the advertising for this movie failed to touch on who was in the movie (other than the lead, who I'm not 100% certain was mentioned either).

  • The Scorpion & The Frog Tale applies to Trolls too.

  • March 12, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    Stop being robots! If you want to see it, SEE IT!

    by ZodNotGod

    WHO CARES WHAT THE NERDS SAY!

  • March 12, 2012, 4:25 p.m. CST

    lisab, aka genderbender, is a charlatan troll.

    by Robert Evans

    I believe I read somewhere on one of these TBs that *she* was actually exposed as another talkbacker who was doing some poor asimovlives parody. She/he/it posted a genderbender post under the other handle or something to that effect. *Her* sockpuppetry may be somewhat sophisticated, but *her* arguments are smoke and mirrors, mostly.

  • March 12, 2012, 4:28 p.m. CST

    Andrew Stanton did not have sole charge of the marketing.

    by Rob Jenson

    That doesn't even make sense. He may have had disproportionate imput, or not, we don't know because we weren't there, but one thing is certain: he was not the marketing team or in charge of advertising. No, this smacks of Disney covering its ass.

  • March 12, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    re: "perviously been nominated"

    by jim

    should be "previously". Unless one thought their nominations were suspect and the arguments they were deserving didn't hold water. Or, if when they were nominated it was done using a double-entendre, perhaps you could say they were perviously nominated

  • March 12, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    larsson

    by Robert Evans

    I'm still waiting on Conspiracy's third part to An Anus Will Decide It, aka the Stacy Keibler story. I have no doubt he'll come through with a dazzling finale, but I hope he's done before Friday!

  • March 12, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    @choppah

    by Franck

    Once her arguments are crushed, she either backpedals or stop answering (jut read this talkback from the start) Her next cry for attention will focus on Prometheus, she knows how geeks love Scott and she'll trash it every way from Sunday to get some reactions. She must be very lonely. Poor thing. By the way, loved the: "Not yet", it gets me every time.

  • March 12, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    It should have been called: Barsoom.

    by TallanDagwood

    The average movie goer does not know who or what John Carter or John Carter of mars is. Therefore using the most bland name possible to market a sci-fi adventure movie was a non starter. Using John Carter: A Princess of Mars, would have been even more laughable. It implies that John Carter is a Princess of Mars. Dropping the name John Carter for just Princess of Mars, would have been a bold stroke. But unless you truly believe that your target audience - which would be mostly preteen to late teen boys -the ones who flock the most to action adventure movies, would support a movie with Princess in the title, then you need to look elsewhere. It should have played up Dejah Thoris, but it should have also played up the super human aspect of an earthling on mars who is able to leap and fight like no normal human can. This movie had to overcome huge obstacles. A 19th century confederate war hero A bland washed out desert setting. A viewing public mostly unfamiliar with the source material. It should not have had to fight its own marketing department as well. Whomever had the carte blanche - and I do not think this was a James Cameron scenario because Stanton is not that big, deserves the derision. The movie is enjoyable and it deserved better.

  • How do you know it was him, and him alone? How do you know he didn't propose that title, to get shot down by Disney execs? How do you know the title was his decision? Is there an interview where he says this?

  • it's a compromise between using the title it's best known by, and the bland title they went with while still allowing for a franchise-able title scheme (movies to follow "John Carter of Mars", "John Carter: Warlord of Mars", etc). Or how about the original title of the serialized story "Under the Moons of Mars"? Could have gone with that, or "John Carter Under the Moons of Mars".

  • March 12, 2012, 4:55 p.m. CST

    Oh well, at least you have THAT going for you.

    by justmyluck

    Are we at six or seven? I might need an abacus.

  • March 12, 2012, 5:07 p.m. CST

    @big jim

    by TallanDagwood

    I admit my unfamiliarity with John Carter series, in fact all I really knew about it was that it was set on mars and mars was called Barsoom. To me, Barsoom, is a far more interesting word/potential title than anything with the name John Carter or Princess in it. I think younger audiences who would be expected to drive the box office for this type of movie, would also be drawn to such a name. But that is simply a guess on my part. As for under the moons of mars, I like that but it sounds a bit romantic.

  • March 12, 2012, 5:15 p.m. CST

    Listen to Kermode's JC review here:

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LQkZKYsaY

  • March 12, 2012, 5:17 p.m. CST

    @canned_dirty_ape

    by TallanDagwood

    If that is truly the case, I wonder what could have put them off using it. It has power and evokes an alien feeling -which a movie based on mars should have been.

  • I think we're there, and its time to let more JOHN CARTER reporting surface for further commentary. LATER.

  • March 12, 2012, 5:44 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by Rob Jenson

    Gotcha. Yeah, that Andy Stanton fellow's a talented guy. I hear he did the music for it too. Not only did he WRITE it, he played EVERY INSTRUMENT. AT ONCE.

  • March 12, 2012, 5:46 p.m. CST

    @canned_dirty_ape

    by TallanDagwood

    I would not be surprised if it was panic driven, I wonder if it was focus group driven or 3 AM panicked exec waking up in a cold sweat driven because he did not know what a 'barsoom' is? Perhaps they should have sent out questionnaires to preteens asking if they thought John Carter or Barsoom would make a better title for an action movie set on a different planet. Or perhaps they did - but it went to the wrong school.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST

    I'm going to take back everything I said

    by Hooded Justice

    This is a first for me - and absolutely a first for some one posting on AICN!!! Since seeing John Carter, I've written several posts expressing my disappointment with the movie and analysing where it went wrong. But I've realised something: I'm the one who's wrong. Because this movie is NOT made for me. It's made for kids. I'm almost forty years old. Of course I was bored! But if I were aged between 7 and 12 (the age at which I saw and loved the original Star Wars movies) I would have been completely bowled over by John Carter and would have wanted to see it again. There's actually nothing wrong with the movie. The problem is that the studios are trying to market it to adults and adults are fooling themselves into thinking it's not a kids' movie.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:18 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by AsimovLives

    What is an asimovlives parody? I hadn't realised that i had become a meme or a trope, so i'm confused.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:20 p.m. CST

    bob1000

    by AsimovLives

    what, Andrew Stanton is Vangelis?

  • March 12, 2012, 6:40 p.m. CST

    Winteriscoming

    by AsimovLives

    that's a badass nick you got there,l friend. i see you are a fan of GAME OF THRONES, and anybody who's that is my friend. welcome here, friend.

  • Not a real carte blache, but more like circunstances let him to have one de facto but not by contract. The peculiar circunstances that happened at Disney at the time JOH CARTER was being made made it that a bunch of unexperience people took the reigns of the film department at Disney. All people with little to no experience in making movies, specially big budgeted ones. They were on unfamiliar territory and felt insecure. So,they turned to the guy they though was in control and knew what he was doing: Stanton. Stanton then found himself in a position where he could have his way easily playing on the insecurities and ignorance of the peoplein charge. This is why he must had so much control and say so even on the marketing departement, an area even many of the more sucessful and powerful filmmakers have little control and say so over. Stanton had no officially given carte blache, but he found himself in a particular position where he could strongarm his will on the higher ups, and he took advantage of it, as he would. He believed he could make a good movie, and that he could make a very sucessful one, so much so he designed the movie to be like a pilot for a future-to-be multi-film franchise. And he took advantage of the particular situation at Disney and used it to his advantage. How does that make him any different form other directors? anybody else would do the same thing in his position.

  • March 12, 2012, 6:55 p.m. CST

    hooded justice

    by AsimovLives

    but you ar enot a child anymore, so watching it withthe eyes of ana dult is a legit way to judge a movie, evne one that could had been designed for a more juvenile audience. Good movies can also please adults even if made for a younger audience, and you have no better example of that then the very SW movies. a juvenile that appeals to adults is a mark of quality. the inverse is not.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:06 p.m. CST

    So THAT'S why I got a Sprite instead of a . . .

    by Rob Jenson

    . . . (sponsor delated).

  • And if you leave out such an author as Philip K. Dick out of the SF genre, then you have to be wrong, because he not only is one of it's most important figures, but he help brough legitimacy to the genre thanks to his excelent writingand intelligent use of the SF tropes to explore deep concepts of identity and man's place in the universe. Philip K. Dick was so good, his work was the first to be studied by academia on a serious manner. Any argument you might have about what is Sf that leaves out Philip K. Dick is faulty by default.

  • ... so that i can post my thoughs and my opinion of it, review style. I'm counting on you guys.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Asimov...

    by Hooded Justice

    I know what you mean. Some very good children's movies can appeal to adults also (same goes for childrens' book). But they don't have to. And it's perhaps asking too much for all kids' movies to also work for adults. There's nothing at all wrong with making a movie that will only appeal to kids. Personally I know that I would have loved John Carter if I'd seen it when I was aged 7 - 12. Absolutely no questions asked. However, I'm not sure I agree with you about Star Wars. I was the right age to see the Old Trilogy. In other words, I saw no special effects, acting, writing, camerawork etc. I knew nothing about all that. I simply experienced a mind-blowing adventure in Outer Space that completely sucked me in and made me its prisoner. If I saw SW for the first time as an adult, I would appreciate its cleverness in what it's doing - but I definitely wouldn't be blown away by it. The prequels, however, I find to be a complete load of unredeemable garbage. As bored as I was by John Carter, I enjoyed it way more than the Star Wars prequels. But again, I guess they're not meant for me.

  • March 12, 2012, 7:41 p.m. CST

    lisab

    by Real Deal

    You just don't understand what you're talking about. Either that or you don't want to understand. " Dick's use of technology was to take pre-existing things and augment them " All SF does that. If you come up with some nonexistant ray or time travel there's already a precedent to support it these days. Now you could talk about the events leading up to those items and use bad science about things we already know but otherwise it's an extrapolation.

  • March 12, 2012, 8:12 p.m. CST

    Wow, the Lorax. Just wow.

    by HornyForHarry

  • March 12, 2012, 8:28 p.m. CST

    Best part about John Carter:

    by Yelsaeb

    The Prometheus trailer that ran before it. Holy crap, that movie's gonna be something.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:37 p.m. CST

    Should've called it, From the creator of Tarzan,

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    Edgar Rice Burroughs's John Carter Yet another Foreign White Guy Better than the Locals at Doing Their Stuff. ~teasing~

  • March 12, 2012, 9:46 p.m. CST

    Funny a lot of you mention DUNE...

    by MCVamp

    ...because one random thought that pops into my head as I watch this movie gets buried is "This kills any chances we had of seeing a well-made and faithful DUNE film adaptation for at least the next 10 years." And in this shitty A.D.D., reboot til you puke climate, it's probably the right thing.

  • March 12, 2012, 9:46 p.m. CST

    lisab You Still Don't Get It!

    by Real Deal

    Or don't want to. Half the stuff we have in our everyday world was predicted by SF but at some point they didn't exist yet. Now when they wrote their prediction say Jules Verne And From Earth To The Moon. Now Verne had no idea how we'd get to the moon so he did it with a cannon. A little over a century later we did it with a rocket. Now there was no travel to the moon in Vernes day. He didn't even know how we'd get there so he speculated ( you know what SF authors do ). And he was totally correct. But he was writting about something that hadn't happened yet. Back then there was no space travel and yet he predicted something that hadn't happened yet. Or how about my example I used with Asimov predicting calculators? There were no calculators in 1958 when he wrote the story and yet he was right also. In short all SF does extrapolate from what we know. But the things they predict may not be exactly the same as the real item but it's close enough that it could be considered the same. A lot of things in SF don't exist yet. All of these things start out as theories before they become fact. First you get the idea ( or the dream ) and then someone invents it. Get it? By the way other ( or parallel ) universes are a big part of modern string theory. And there you are another theory.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:01 p.m. CST

    Hey lisab!

    by Real Deal

    At one point ( about a year before I was born ) there was no such thing as a " Laser ". However there were stories about people in the future using beams ( or rays ) that cut through things for years before that ( War of The Worlds comes to mind ). Einstein came up with the basics for this in 1917 but it wasn't realized until 1952! Now do you get it? War of The Worlds was written in 1898 years before that. Someone imagined it and many years later someone else realized it. That's how SF works.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    Hoping for a sequel

    by D.Vader

    It's not doing great, but it won't be a flop (though certainly an underperformer). Here's to hoping its enough to green light another pulpy adventure in Barsoom.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:03 p.m. CST

    LisaB is a troll, guys

    by D.Vader

    Move along... Move along...

  • March 12, 2012, 10:12 p.m. CST

    Re : d.vader

    by Real Deal

    I already know that and have stated so. She says things to get a rise out of people. Things that can easily be disproven. But since she's so rude about it I just like rubbing her nose in it a bit.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:19 p.m. CST

    We are all made of trolls

    by MCVamp

    We are all made of trolls We snark, we bitch, we whine We complain and contradict We tear and rip and snarl We laugh at your pain We hold up what is dear to us But never too dearly For we know you come for us As we come for you Killing, dying, respawning our bile Chatrooms, tweets and message boards No arena too sacred No knife too dull No blow too low And when we are done we turn away And are satisfied with hatred We could not reveal to flesh and blood

  • March 12, 2012, 10:23 p.m. CST

    Harry, I....

    by fxmulder35

    loved it. Of course, I've heard of the stories, but have never read them. I knew of the multiple attempts to bring the stories to the screen. Last night, I even watched a couple minutes of the SyFy travesty from 2009. Born in the early 60's, I've been a SF fan forever. As long as I can remember. I was 13 when I saw Star Wars, and can remember that summer as a blur of everything right. I was forever gone. Now, all these years later, having raised two boys, I'm still gone for SF. I'm a collector and reader and the "family business" caught with my youngest, now in his final year of college. Home for spring break, we took in the movie tonight. Every trailer I saw, told me nothing. Nothing I wanted to see. It just didn't look good. But, I decided that with an open mind, we might as well give it a try. And I was GONE again. I loved the movie. I felt you could see every dollar up there on the screen. Everything impressed me. There were a couple of effects shots that were not QUITE where I thought they should be, but they sorta reminded me of the "pulp" aspect of the story, and made me smile anyway. Having come to the story fairly COLD, I thought the opening and extra exposition to be wonderful. I'm a sucker for that type of stuff though. I loved the framing of the story and the ending...when we finally see JOHN CARTER...OF MARS, I felt like a kid again. I was looking forward to more adventures, then realized, that the critics were not going to allow it. In all likelihood, this will be it. But oh...it was IT. I am now going to read the books, and I will be seeing it again this week. Now, I will be taking the wife. She pretty much tolerates my SF tendencies, and I think she'll enjoy it. Because it IS a love story, with action involved. I bought it all, as did my son. What HE is disappointed in, is the lack of merchandise. He's an avid collector, just like his Dad, and he'd be ALL over this one. LOL And truthfully, so would I. I have been a fan of Harry and Aint-it-Cool for many years, and I've followed the CARTER history, and am pleased the movie is here. And it's good. Better than good. I am in love again. Thanks Harry for your insights and for keeping it all real.

  • March 12, 2012, 10:26 p.m. CST

    I hear that real deal

    by D.Vader

  • Here's why: Asteroids are real. The possibility of a large planet-killer asteroid colliding with the Earth is real. (And may have already happened back in the dinosaur era.) Space shuttles, space stations, space suits, nuclear warheads, and oil drilling technology are real. Slingshotting an object around the moon to utilize its gravity has been done and is real. The top speed the space shuttles ever achieve in the film is 22,500 miles per hour, which is reasonably achievable. And the possibility of humans attempting a near-Earth landing on an asteroid is more than plausible. (NASA has even talked of mounting such a mission in the future to land on and explore passing asteroids.) Thus.....Armageddon is hard sci fi! At least according to lisab's definition.

  • March 12, 2012, 11:39 p.m. CST

    I saw JC on Sat. night in IMAX 3-d

    by MrLongbaugh

    I loved the movie. Greatest ever? Certainly not, but I don't regret making the decision to go see it. The IMAX 3-D experience does wonders for just about any movie. L=Light A=Amplified by the S=Stimulated E=Emission of R=Radiation

  • March 13, 2012, 12:53 a.m. CST

    Peter Jackson knew the material enough to hire

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    artists whose vision of LOTR was considered definitive, Howe and Lee. Now, Frazetta passed in 2010, but at the very least the designers of JC should've taken inspiration from him, and other classic scifi/fantasy artists.

  • March 13, 2012, 1:06 a.m. CST

    An Anus Will Decide..pt.3

    by conspiracy

    All doubt as to the purpose was erased from Keiblers mind as Elisibetta, taking the dildo and holding it aloft for a second in a formal salute Clooney , turned her head skyward and proceeded to thread the rubber tool down her thin gullet. Stacy watched as the Italian actress effortlessly throated the piece like a boa constrictor swallowing a dachshund until the large rubber balls rested firmly on her chin. “Well Played…”, Screamed Brad Pitts man crush as he sipped on his Scotch, beside him the girls stood and shook furiously devices on which were strung small bells; “…you going to let her get the better of you Keibler?” George yelled. Stacy’s head swirled…, should I, could I, and then she remembered the previous Saturday…and the hour long wait for a table at Maestros while celebrities higher on the food chain were seated in front of her...Incense wafted through the air, the torch light danced shadows on the walls. “Get your game face on Stacy…”the legs that ruptured a dozen condoms thought, “…it’s ShowTime.” Stacy snatched the large rubber dong from the floor, and throwing herself on her back, slowly extending her perfect stems, lifting them high and wide to maximize their impact; George leaned forward in his throne, he eyes affixed to the former Wrestling starlet, watching her every move, the girls rand the bells louder, the ringing becoming frenzied in the incense rich air. In one motion Stacy pulled a leg behind her head and simultaneously pounded the faux phallus deep into her perpetually tanned and waxed cock cave; she let out a gasp before muffling it by forcing her own fist into her mouth. It was an unnecessary flourish, but she wanted to impress and end the test quickly. “Oh….she is going for the kill right outta the gates!” Screamed the man who once laughed in the face of Megan Fox as she offered up her Incubator for his pleasure. “Elisabetta…you’re getting beat on points.” The bronzed goddess watched in grudging admiration as Keiber writhed in front of her, her long torso arched in ecstasy and strain… realizing she was losing to a former WWE valet, Elisibetta came to a decision, to stay in the game she had to go nuclear, she had to go anal. Taking the dong she also laid on her back…her also perfect legs splayed in the air, Stacy now out of her effort watched in amusement at the struggles of her opponent; as Elisabetta put not one, but both legs behind her head. Yulia screamed at this turn of events, and was restrained by one of the women next to Clooney…”No one may interfere…this fight is to the Deeath!” Clooney clucked, as his other server girl rang the bells harder. “At least let me make it a fair fight…” Yulia screamed; “…what can you do to help…the air is the air, the pussy is the pussy” George said as his current girlfriend began to work the thick black rubber hotrod down her arrow straight Hersey Highway. “I invoke the right to the Strap-On Challenge!” Yulia cooed. “Hold…!” George yelled at the two writhing goddesses on the floor of the arena; “…Yulia has invoked the Strap On Challenge!” Elisibetta and Stacy both stopped, their ministrations, sweat glistening from their toned, tanned bodies, they lay gasping on the floor…each trying to catch their breath. Clooney’s girls rang the bells harder as through the door of the Arena two teenaged Italian house girls strode; each carrying a Lexington Steel “Bone Cracker” model Strap-on. The two exhausted combatants eyes widened at the mammoth devices…as they teenagers began the process of helping them strap them on. Clooney Rose from his chair, throwing crackling sparking incense onto the incense burning fire…”Let the contest Resume!” he commanded and taking another swig of his Scotch, again took his seat. Stacy and Elisibetta circled each other, Keiber was now in her element, Yulia had wanted her to win and now gave her the chance…she rushed the Italian model, and landed a drop kick that sent the toned yet frail Roman beauty sailing onto her Stomach. Elisibetta landed with the moan, but before she could react Keibler was on her…Pinning her to the floor in a choke hold while deftly positioning her strap-on tight against Elisibetta’s clenched back door, the air, and fight, knocked from her, the Gorgeous Guidette lay under and at the mercy of the mile long blonde; “Good...Good...” George screamed as he leaping to his feet, holding out his hand…his thumb sideways. Stacy looked up at the Hollywood God, her mind was dizzy, this was all a dream surely…yet there he was, and here she lay astride his sweating, heaving now crying girlfriend…she’d seen Gladiator in the theater while giving The Undertaker a hummer…she remembered the scene and knew what to do. Stacy grabbed a handful of her competitions hair and yanked her head back, as Elisibetta let out a shriek. Stacy looked up at Clooney…waiting, the sound of the girls shaking their bells drowning out the thoughts in her head; could she do it and take her place basking in Clooney’s Glow. George stared down, savoring the moment, and flashing his million dollar smirk, turned his thumb down. Stacy hesitated, second thoughts clouded her head; "release your desires and take her place at my side! George boomed; Stacy inhaled deeply, ”sorry baby…survival of the fittest”, She hissed at the prone provolone pussy and summoning up her courage and strength, sank the rubber representation of one of Porn’s most massive imp impaler’s deep into the rubbish ravine of the unprepared Euro-Gash… Stacy grunted as the massive tool sank deep indie Elisibetta’s colon candy dispenser, taking perverse pleasure in the brunettes shrieks, But Stacy didn’t feel victorious, “…give um a show Sister” was what Hulk Hogan once told her, and grasping one of the discarded dildo’s laying close by…reached around herself…and began to shove it up her own shit shoot as Elisibetta own succulent sphincter gave way allowing Stacy to plow in the last inch, both women writhed in pleasure and pain as George snapped his fingers and the older of his women reached down and began to stroke his turgid prick. “An Anus has decided it…” Screamed the daydream of a million couch cows, “…we have a new Adornment!” Yulia rushed onto the arena floor…helping Stacy from Elisibetta ‘s ass…”Go…be consecrated into our house!” the excited Slav beamed, Pointing Stacy to a raised dais below Clooney’s throne. Stacy wobbled over, the dildo still shoved deep in her own ass, the soiled strap-ons 12 inches swaying to and fro. Stacy, drenched in sweat looked up at Clooney, his Scotch still in his hand as his “girl” Furiously stoked his meat…a small groan came from the only man who had fucked his way through every issue of Maxim, as stream of hot seed flew from his manhood, the hot seed landing squarely upon Keiblers perfect face…she lapped ravenously at the reward, knowing that SHE was now at least a B-list celebrity again with Georges Sticky annointing, and would not wait on line so long as she could fight off the competition. George, sighed, sipped on his drink..."ok...whats for fucking Dinner people?" he said as he stepped away from the scene and into the warm Italian night Elisibetta, beaten, exhausted, sore and degraded strode up to Keibler, as Yulia approached with the very dress she had worn to Clooney’s Villa 18 months before. She spun the statuesque Blonde around, seeing Georges spunk still dripping from her chin, the mantle of the victor. “Stacy…George is yours…After a time, you may find that having is not so pleasing a thing, after all, as wanting. “ , and with those parting words, the girl who had had it all turned and walked out of the arena, and into a life of D-list dating. Keibler had no time for such thoughts though, she had won…and for now…her Anus had secured her a ticket to renewed fame and fortune.

  • Harry dodged a bullet. He should be thanking Andrew Stanton for deflecting the shame that would have heaped on him. Great heaping piles o shame.

  • March 13, 2012, 1:18 a.m. CST

    Lisab: you mistakenly label sci-fi with the wrong examples-

    by UltraTron

    Alternate universes do exist if string theory is correct. I think it is given the numbers this universe seems to be working with. Basically everything is possible because reality is so huge that every card in the deck eventually comes up in every playable hand. So you exist on another planet somewhere only you are wearing different shoes and love just the red pogs you collected

  • March 13, 2012, 1:49 a.m. CST

    MEANWHILE IN MARIANA TRENCH

    by KilliK

    someone is still laughing..

  • March 13, 2012, 2:17 a.m. CST

    Should've called it Taco Carter and Princess Chalupa

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • March 13, 2012, 3:52 a.m. CST

    Saw it last night.

    by DocPazuzu

    I'm a lifelong John Carter fan. I've read all the books numerous times, I have almost all of the Marvel comics from the 1970s and am currently devouring Dynamite's new Barsoom comics which are awesome. Almost as dispiriting as the pre-viewing hatred and gleeful anticipation of failure on these boards has been the feeble marketing of the movie. Add to that the aesthetic choices on display in the trailers and I was ready to hate the movie. Just before seeing it, I watched Kerry Conran's John Carter demo and was further demoralized. Surprisingly, I actually ended up loving the movie. There are still things I would have done differently, but all in all, it's a more than decent "world-building" film. I found myself very much caught up in the story and I loved how they managed to capture the "pulpy" feel of the stories written during that time. I would have preferred a less bleak color palette and better edited action scenes (especially the larger battles), but Stanton's movie succeeded by and large. It's definitely a diamond in the (very) rough, but is in no way deserving of the fanatical hatred and venom it's drawing at the moment. I think a new low point in talkback history has been plumbed, which is really saying something if you've been coming here as long as I have. Happily, it's doing rather well in the rest of the world and with a bit of luck we'll be seeing John Carter and the Gods of Mars eventually. Yeah, I went there. Suck it.

  • March 13, 2012, 4:34 a.m. CST

    Agree with the positive reviews - I enjoyed it

    by DadTimesTwo

  • March 13, 2012, 5:27 a.m. CST

    !!!Fuck John Carter!!!

    by nobbythehappyelf

    Sadly the only thing 'red' about this film is Disney's bank balance... In fact JC is up there with certain Eurozone countries as a poster child of fiscal failure - so how about renaming it John Carter of Greece That might keep propaganda toad Killik happy too... I never really wanted this movie to fail - I enjoy fun SciFi/Fantasy as much as the next person. However I felt offended by the pathetic attempts of the staff on here to brainwash us into wanting to see it. I had NEVER heard of the books and they hadn't shaped my childhood. The staff on here shoved this movie down our throats up to four times a day - most likely at the behest of Disney who misguidedly thought that Harry can still mobilize a 'Geek Army.' That is why I boycotted this movie, as did other SciFi / Fantasy fans on this site. If I ever really feel the desire to learn more of the adventures of JC I'll pick up a book

  • SW is more scientific accurate then Armageddon.