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

Mr. Beaks Takes Issue With The Coverage Of JOHN CARTER!

 

"You could see Disney's JOHN CARTER shaping up as a misfire from a long way off. No studio has projected 'disaster' so loudly since Sony's misbegotten remake of GODZILLA in 1998. For a $250 million movie to be tracking near a $25 million opening is shocking."

The autopsy began before the corpse was even on the slab. In fact, with less than one week in the books and over $100 million in worldwide grosses, it's yet to be determined whether JOHN CARTER is actually dead. But that didn't stop reasonable folks like Anne Thompson, quoted above, from declaring the movie DOA before ticket buyers had their say. Here it was: another stumble for Disney's feature division (following the failed franchising of TRON LEGACY) and, perhaps most importantly, the first critical/commercial disaster for a key member of the Pixar brain trust. Finally, a chance to lambaste one of those guys.

Andrew Stanton called this pack-mentality drubbing "schadenfreude" on Twitter, and he's correct up to a point. Success breeds contempt in Hollywood; the longer you're on a roll, the more folks want to see you drive into a ditch going 100 mph with no seat belt. They want to know that you're human, and they want you to suffer for their inability to make a film 1/10th as inspired as the fiasco they're tearing apart*. Stanton was already on the clock after the largely-dialogue-free WALL-E; now that he was branching out into live action (and admittedly learning on the job) with a semi-obscure property that's long thrown a scare into studio marketing departments, the opportunity to yank the leash was there.

At a reported cost of $250 million (which does not factor in Disney's aggressive marketing campaign, which would certainly knock the price tag over $300 million), it seems unlikely that Stanton's JOHN CARTER will rake in the $600 million required to justify a second installment. Obviously, it's worth keeping an eye on the international gross, which is poised to more than double the film's domestic take, but with the market soon to be flooded with other blockbuster product (namely THE HUNGER GAMES), screens will be at a premium; by the time WRATH OF THE TITANS steals most of the 3D houses on March 30th (THE LORAX stands a better chance of holding onto a sliver of its 3D screens due to an absence of legitimate family film competition), JOHN CARTER will be finished in the U.S. with a best-case projected gross of $90 million. 

I didn't see JOHN CARTER until the Wednesday before opening at an AICN-hosted screening in Los Angeles (held in conjunction with Disney, who paid for me to visit the set of FRIGHT NIGHT, which I reviewed thusly). By this time, the stink was on the film; most critics were reviewing the budget as much as the movie, and comparing the four-armed Tharks to Jar Jar Binks. While I go into every film hoping to fall in love, I couldn't help but feel a sense of dread - especially after one of my most trusted colleagues told me the night before that he absolutely hated the movie (I'd also chronicled the bungled D23 panel). But from Stanton's odd decision to open the movie by thrusting us, sans exposition, into a battle between two factions of indeterminate origin (unless you're acquainted with Burroughs's universe), I was giddy. It'd been since Michael Mann's brilliant theatrical cut of MIAMI VICE that a massive studio film had caught me by surprise like this. Granted, the sudden shift to the 19th Century and subsequent establishment of John Carter's backstory felt all the more deliberate in comparison, but I enjoy misshapen narratives when I know I'm in the hands of an expert storyteller. And the mess of JOHN CARTER is a byproduct of cramming in story from future books to give the film a bit more heft.

But Stanton gets away with it because he's a born filmmaker, a world builder who knows how to pack a widescreen frame. Though I take issue with his sere vision of Barsoom (a drab-and-dusty, HEAVEN'S GATE-ish** comedown from the brightly-colored worlds of FINDING NEMO and WALL-E), the canny combination of location photography and CG-sculpted civilizations pays lush, jaw-dropping dividends. I never once felt like I was watching a soundstage-bound, green-screen-enveloped faux-spectacle. I was on Barsoom. It was just a little uglier than I imagined when I read Burroughs's books (and the Marv Wolfman/Gil Kane comics) as a kid.

JOHN CARTER has myriad issues, but it is transporting and cinematic and the kind of go-for-broke epic that's likely to inspire some eight-year-old dreamer to pick up a camera. It just bums me out that, at some point, that kid is going to run up against the vision-limiting tyranny of studio executives - who'd rather blow a fortune on carefully-calibrated product that will open big and please no one. And this is the problem with savaging a film like JOHN CARTER: yes, it's ungainly and clearly flawed in ways that no Andrew Stanton film has been before, but it's at least the work of a visionary who loves pulp entertainment. It's not a by-committee cash-grab like PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN: ON STRANGER TIDES.

That Jerry Bruckheimer and Rob Marshall can get away with phoning in a $300 million piece of shit while Stanton gets killed for taking a well-earned risk underscores everything that's wrong with this industry - and, in particular, the way in which it's covered by entertainment journalists. Consider Brooks Barnes's poorly researched postmortem, which leads by perpetuating the myth that ISHTAR tanked due to its stars' run-amok egos (in actuality, the damage was done by then Columbia head David Puttnam, who disparaged the film in a pre-release interview - not available online, but quoted here - with the L.A. Times' Roderick Mann): JOHN CARTER may have been a questionable greenlight on a marketing level, but Stanton's track record was unimpeachable. And it's not like he was rushing into production with rank amateurs; his DP, Dan Mindel, is exactly the kind of cameraman you'd want advising you on your first live-action film. Stanton and company were proceeding in good faith, but they failed to make a four-quadrant connection with audiences.

JOHN CARTER is not a debacle; it's an earnest attempt to evoke wonder, and it largely succeeds despite its narrative missteps. Maybe you don't agree. That's fine. But choose your fucking battles, people. Having it out for a film like JOHN CARTER hurts the art form; it makes it harder for our best directors to follow through on their dreams. For a long time, BLADE RUNNER was considered a horrendous flop; now, it's one of the most influential films of my lifetime. No one at Fox was proud of THE ABYSS, but I'm pretty sure at some point it'll be considered Cameron's masterpiece. In any event, register your disappointment and move on, and save your vitriol for the films that deserve it.

Faithfully submitted,

Mr. Beaks

 

 

*I've long believed "good" films tend to win Best Picture because most Academy members want to think they're capable of producing an Oscar winner; the minute you start rewarding the truly exceptional is the day their dream dies.
**And I like HEAVEN'S GATE.
Readers Talkback
comments powered by Disqus
    + Expand All
  • March 14, 2012, 3:24 a.m. CST

    !!!Fuck John Carter!!!

    by nobbythehappyelf

    And stop interfering with it's raped corpse AICN!!

  • March 14, 2012, 3:25 a.m. CST

    YAWN CARTER

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

  • March 14, 2012, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Wow

    by Can

  • March 14, 2012, 3:28 a.m. CST

    Didn´t Tron 2 made more cash than Abram's Trek?

    by Ditko

    So much for a failure...

  • March 14, 2012, 3:29 a.m. CST

    I really want to see John Carter.

    by Hat Man

  • March 14, 2012, 3:29 a.m. CST

    I really want to see John Carter.

    by Hat Man

  • March 14, 2012, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Why bring up Tron?

    by Series7

    I think Prince of Persia, Sorcerers Apprentice and Mars Needs Moms better suit your argument. Also sort of proves that Disney doesn't give a fuck, as long as they got their Pirates money coming in. So its kind of funny to throw Pirates under the bus when its probably the main reason this got made.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:33 a.m. CST

    Dammit dunno what happened there...

    by Hat Man

    Oh well, the sentiment stands! Why didn't On Stranger Tides generate this much hater hatred? Now THAT was an unflushable turd. At least this film seems to be trying to do right by the source material. POC4 took the title of an awesome novel by Tim Powers and wiped its arse with it and barely anyone noticed. Maybe haters can't read.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:34 a.m. CST

    Actuall wouldn't mind seeing it either

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    but it'll have to wait until this thing makes it to the dollar cinema. Which, by the looks and sounds of it, will be sooner rather than later. There's probably not a better place to watch some pulp epic than at a discount theater anyway. So, there's that.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    I stopped reading your article...

    by bohdi71

    Because you were giving a description of the opening of the movie...can't you guys do a review without giving away plot points!!!!

  • March 14, 2012, 3:37 a.m. CST

    Discount Cinemas?

    by nobbythehappyelf

    Really? Wow that's an interesting concept.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:38 a.m. CST

    Terminator 1 is cameron's masterpiece

    by awepittance

  • March 14, 2012, 3:42 a.m. CST

    Couldn't have said it better Beaks!!!

    by MrH

  • Blade Runner and The Abyss were made by artists with the technical craftsmanship and passion required to produce those kinds of movies. There is no directorial 'fingerprint' on John Carter. I can't imagine it being much different if Brett Ratner had made it- it's just that bland and middle of the road safe. Yes, Stanton has his name on some of Pixar's finest but that's a completely different creative world than live action film. Much of that is 'okaying' the work of others. How else do you explain the fact that a cockroach and a voiceless cleaning machine in Wall.E generate more emotional engagement than a whole cast of real actors in John Carter? Stop making excuses for this because it's a 'geek' property. It's a mediocre movie across the board. Let.It.Die.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:42 a.m. CST

    @series7, Mars needs moms is literally on TV right now

    by awepittance

  • March 14, 2012, 3:43 a.m. CST

    MERCI BEAUCOUP

    by juledup

    Thank you for this EXCELLENT article Mr. Beaks. Somebody had to say this. John Carter isn't a perfect film, but it will become a cult movie.

  • thanks

  • March 14, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Hat man

    by Hamish

    I guess nobody expected anything from the fourth film in the Pirates franchise, especially when the only thing holding 2 and 3 together was the cast.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:45 a.m. CST

    Piranha 2 is Cameron's magnum opus...

    by nobbythehappyelf

    Disney's John Carter's cold pallid corpse lays in the shadow of the Traci Lords version... Just remember folks AICN says blow your hard earned cash on this turkey at the multiplex otherwise you'll never see another SciFi movie made again, ever. (And it will be your own fault, so there...)

  • March 14, 2012, 3:47 a.m. CST

    It's because in America right now it's "trendy" to be negative...

    by Andrew Coleman

    It's the 24 hour news cycle where it's negative shit 24/7. I'd say that 90% of the TB's here are filled with negativity and just hating. Now I get it with young people. Teens have to act out and the internet allows them to bring their angst to light without personally getting bashed. Yet people almost in their 50's come on here and just bring bull shit to almost every topic. Look at every movie on here. "Avengers is going to suck!"... "Bane doesn't look right!"... Blah blah blah... John Carter was like blood in the water. We had guys posting on the TV TB's about John Carter's opening weekend. What does that have to do with anything? Why do you care so badly that a movie bombs or does well? You get nothing out of it. Good movies not doing well is bad for all of us. Retards go see shitty movies in droves. The good one's need to be supported.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:48 a.m. CST

    ditko

    by A_Banned_Apart

    While Tron did outgross Trek worldwide, I think a key difference is that there's a lot more people who'd prefer to see the Trek franchise continue, which of course leads to even more money.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:52 a.m. CST

    nobbythehappyelf

    by TheUmpireStrokesBach

    They don't have second-run/dollar theaters where you're from? Sad. There aren't as many as there used to be but luckily one opened up down the street that's easy as shit for me to just walk into without paying the $1.50 or so they're asking for and just sit my ass down. They also just installed all new digital projectors so it really is the best deal possible really to just wait a little while and see all the newish flicks all pristine and undamaged on the big screen. Those kids working concession gank SOOOOOOOOO much money too. I'm not exactly sure how it stays in business really.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:52 a.m. CST

    i agree with beaks' sentiments 100% and i aint seen the movie yet

    by JimmyJoe RedSky

    been too busy - but this week im going to see this and ill be entertained the way i was when i was 15 - lots of cool shit to see - space ships, aliens, big battles, cleavage, neato armor and swords etc - all in broad day light and bright color - no inky black blue filter fake neo noir hipster zeitgeist - im going to shovel popcorn covered with cheese powder into my face while i enjoy the hell out of this movie

  • March 14, 2012, 3:53 a.m. CST

    Also thanks Beaks...

    by Andrew Coleman

    Great article. Don't understand the hate for the movie at all. I get regular people not going to it a friend of mine that knows nothing about science fiction said simply "The trailers showed nothing..." that's pretty straight on. Trailers and ads were just a failure. My problem is nerds on here especially bashing this movie... How could you not support this project? It's like science fiction's grand father... Seriously what the fuck is wrong with some of you guys?

  • March 14, 2012, 3:54 a.m. CST

    Agreed. Well said indeed, Mr Beaks.

    by Darth Scourge

  • March 14, 2012, 3:54 a.m. CST

    a_banned_apart

    by Ditko

    Well, maybe you´re right or maybe don´t. Do you have any figures to back your assumption? I personally didn´t even watch the new Trek and would love to see a Tron 3. I must not be alone, right? lol Anyway, seems like everybody just likes to doom Tron 2 as a flop and well, it made its money back and then some more. If Disney wanted Avatar numbers then it´s a failure of course, but it ended up being a decent hit worldwide.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:54 a.m. CST

    awepittance

    by Series7

    Awesome, its a better Mars movie than Carter. It has what Carter is lacking most of, emotion.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:54 a.m. CST

    If you want to know why "John Carter" flopped...

    by dasheight

    ...just read the New Yorker's exhaustive article on Stanton's making the movie - the terrible screenings, re-cuts, re-shoots, re-writes - it was a mess from the word go.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:59 a.m. CST

    THE MEDIA AND THE AUDIENCE LOVES FAILURES NOT SUCCESSES

    by KilliK

    there is no suprise that the movie critics and journalists trashed the movie and proclaimed it a movie disaster almost immediately after its worldwide premiere. PEOPLE LOVE WATCHING OTHERS FAILING THAN SUCCEEDING.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:59 a.m. CST

    "Nobody knows anything"

    by Fortunesfool

    John Carter will make it's money back eventually. Hollywood will pause for a few months when thinking about sci-fi movies. Prometheus will make a fuck ton of money and then every 'original' sci-fi movie will get greenlit again. It will continue on like that, as it always has. Occasionally a Jim Cameron or a Ridley Scott will come along and knock a serious sci-fi blockbuster out the park. More often than not we'll have to suffer through a few disappointments like John Carter, but hang in there, nothing will change.

  • March 14, 2012, 4 a.m. CST

    And Quint well said man,i am with you.

    by KilliK

    =That Jerry Bruckheimer and Rob Marshall can get away with phoning in a $300 million piece of shit while Stanton gets killed for taking a well-earned risk underscores everything that's wrong with this industry= that sentence of yours said it all. :/

  • March 14, 2012, 4:01 a.m. CST

    = it was a mess from the word go.=

    by KilliK

    BUT garbage like the Transformer abominations is not a mess,uhuh?

  • March 14, 2012, 4:02 a.m. CST

    MEANWHILE IN MARIANA TRENCH...

    by KilliK

  • You're absolutely right. The film industry is fucked. They've always been fixated on money, but in the past you got the impression that the decision makers in Hollywood still loved movies. Nowadays not so much. It is all about money, prestige, and bullshit celebrity gossip and critic mind games and intrigue. If people don't believe me, then tell me why James Cameron waited so long to direct his follow up to Titanic? Sure Avatar was dependent on new tech developments, but you just know that Cameron was aware that whatever he made next would get torn to shreds because of his success with Titanic. Look at Inception. That was an original script that got made and became one if the biggest films of 2010. Hollywood was all pissed because it fucked with their reboot and remake mentality. They said that Inception was just lucky, that it didn't earn it's box office take and success with moviegoers. They can't admit that anything other than crass commercial products like reboots, remakes, prequels, superhero/comic book, and boardgame movies are supposed to connect with an audience. Then you have the majority of the critics, who have a corn cob up their ass, who love this fact so that they can continue to bitch and moan about how all movies are crappy now and they don't make 'em like they used to in the good old days. Us talkbackers do it to. Well, I'm sick of just looking back on the good old days of cinema. I want to eventually look back on this current era if films and still be able to say that it was a great time for a movie fan. And I also like Heaven's Gate.

  • but to lump him in with Brett Ratner is just fucking beyond wrong I can barely continue to type WITHOUT GETTING MAD AND RAGING.... ARGHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • March 14, 2012, 4:11 a.m. CST

    John Carter DESERVES vitriol

    by DeckardB26354

    Because it sucked. I loved WALL-E and Finding Nemo, but let's call a crappy movie for what is. John Carter is a boring piece of crap of a movie, and no, I shouldn't support a boring piece of crap movie, because then Disney etc. will just put out more of them. This idea that we as sci-fi fans should support John Carter is ridiculous, the genre isn't going to go away, there will always be sci-fi movies. Even though Disney will take somewhere around a $165 million hit from this, they will be fine, and will make more movies. It's no big deal that John Carter failed at the box office, it SHOULD fail at the box office. The world will keep spinning. It's no big deal.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:14 a.m. CST

    John Carter of Meh

    by noiretblanc

    It's not that it's bad. It's that it's not that interesting. The western stuff at the beginning was more entertaining than the mars stuff. The fact that Cranston was in that didn't hurt. About the only great thing about the movie was the princess' ass. Otherwise, It felt like a generic version of something it could have been had it at least not been a Disney movie. At least the Pirates movie have Sparrow, which I think is a character so perfectly cast and developed that it transcends the movie its in: like all iconic movie characters.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:26 a.m. CST

    Yes, Beaks, You Nailed It / Punks Don't Get It

    by THX1968

    The bad reviews were perplexing, almost as though they were written months before the film was released. People couldn't wait to kick the shit out of this movie. Yes, the marketing was absolutely lousy, but I really thought the film would stand on it's own, especially after I saw it and loved it. I was certain word of mouth would be instrumental in getting people to see it, but that hasn't happened. Really, none of you punks that have been shitting all over a movie you didn't see understands what the failure of a "John Carter" means for you and me. I want to see many more movies like this, particularly a sequel to JC, but that isn't likely. Transformers 2 was universally panned, but that shit pile made a ton of money 'cause all you little butt-rangers flocked to see the damn thing. Whoa, but John Carter, hey, fuck John Carter! Looks like a big Attack of the Clones rip off! Fuck that! If Avengers or Dark Knight Rises tanks (unlikely), then what are you little pukes gonna do without your super hero crap? Cause there ain't gonna be too much genre stuff left to enjoy without some serious movin' and shakin' on some intrepid filmmaker's part.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:28 a.m. CST

    Loved every goddamn second of it

    by Tom

    I walked in expecting it to suck, from all the reviews I read. Instead I was rewarded with one of the best epic science fiction action movies I've seen in YEARS. I'd say probably a decade. I thought it was masterfully done. It was a little exposition heavy in some scenes, but worth it. For example, one could say the long dialogue-heavy walk through Zodanga with the Thern was way too long and dragged on. But you know what it did for me in the background? It made me feel like Zodanga really was a moving, crawling CITY. Not just a ship, but a full on city with streets and avenues and tall buildings and bridges and neighborhoods, with the enormous legs churning endlessly in the distance. Don't even get me started on the incredible art direction. From the society of the Tharks to the Helium and Zodangan weaponry and armor to the fucking AWESOME lightships? Every scene just oozed attention to detail. I felt most of the film worked. A couple scenes, like the arena battle with the White Apes....eh, I could've done without that. That scene DID feel incredibly "Attack Of The Clones". It was the one scene that felt CGI-ish to me. The rest felt fairly organic, even the Tharks. For as much as this movie is getting shredded by the critics, every single person I've TALKED to has absolutely adored this movie. My friends, my coworkers, hell my 63 yr old mother loved it! I saw it on a sunday night, and still the whole theater applauded. So fuck the critics. Give this movie time. If it doesn't do well in theaters, I think it will find its audience eventually. Sadly it may take a while, as people start hearing good word-of-mouth. You might get a lot of "Really? You liked it? I never saw it because it got such terrible reviews...I'll check it out."

  • March 14, 2012, 4:33 a.m. CST

    It kind of felt like Narnia more than anything.

    by noiretblanc

    Not bad, but still kind of uninteresting.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:37 a.m. CST

    Its Scott Pilgrim all over again...

    by BookhouseBoy

    Not really but it does kinda remind me of the aftermath. I wonder what ScottPilgrimfan is doing now.......

  • March 14, 2012, 4:42 a.m. CST

    Schadenfreude my ass.

    by justmyluck

    *To him (Stanton), it was the most important sci-fi movie of all time,* recounts one Disney marketing insider present for the pitched battles. *He could see no idea in which someone didn’t know who John Carter of Mars was.* http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html *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* http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html

  • Next ... come on Prince of Persia, you're next.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:45 a.m. CST

    wtf. the post got cut off.

    by noiretblanc

    Anyway, I meant: more reverence than Lord of the Rings.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:47 a.m. CST

    (morever)

    by noiretblanc

    It wasn't. It was treated like it was just next in line at the Disney factory after High School Musical 10.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:53 a.m. CST

    Disney Is Hiding Pixar's Association With The Film...

    by Media Messiah

    ...that says it all. Pixar was to proudly take the lead on this film, as this was their first live-action production, but obviously they and the Disney suits don't like the film, behind closed doors, as this is the only thing that can explain Pixar's name and logo not being proudly displayed as the lead on the poster art and commercials/trailers for the film. Remember, they are calling this John Carter a Disney film, not John Carter a Pixar film...in association with Disney. All this can only mean, that they quietly dislike the film, and wish to protect their own name brand by not associating too closely with it, openly/publicly, and again, that says it all. It is not a bad film, but not a great film, it feels more like Masters of The Universe, rather than Star Wars/Empire, or Avatar. The grandness is not there, the epic scale that was promised...or should be there, and there is not the sense that the film has a soul. I experienced no sense of fun while watching the film, it always seemed like it was gearing-up to give us great humor, fun, romance, and really cool sequences that would demand that you hold onto you seat, cheer, laugh, etc., but those moments never came? Also there was no sense of jeopardy for the lead characters? This is what I would have done as a writer, to make that, the latter, happen, as the fore is very easy, Pixar/Disney just failed to offer these things, and reshoots should have been on order to include them. I would have written in a few characters that were close to John Carter and the Princess, and made you, the audience, not only like them, but love them, and then, I would have tortured, or killed them off, giving you the feeling that John and the Princess are also at great risk--but none of that happened, all of our leads were safe and secure, and we knew that they would be, despite the battles involving them, and surrounding them, so that served to limited the power of the unfolding drama and emotion. Elsewhere, we puzzled at the villains and their actions, but were never made to hate them? No, they were just a mild curiousity to us, but we didn't feel the need to root against them at any time, as they weren't established as the presence of true evil, as was Darth Vader within the first few minutes of Star Wars and Empire. When you saw Vader, and watched his actions, you knew he was a badass, and you loved to hate him...and looked forward to him getting his just desserts. Additionally, John Carter and the Princess were never given the key scenes they needed to really establish the proper love story and emotional bond, or sexual tension, between them, and that hurt the film, the plot, and the story overall. Look at how the romantic leads in Empire, Raiders, and Avatar, were positioned to find each other sexually...and via love. The care was taken to make them earn it, and we in the audience were falling in love, as they were falling in love. We were rooting for them to find each other and give in to their hearts, and the situation before them, and embrace true love, or at least that influenced by desperation in the face of hopelessness. It would have only taken 20 minutes of screen-time, or 20 pages, to add these needed things in the script for John Carter, while other less important things, could have, and should have, been cut-out of the film. Pixar missed the boat on this one, the reason why Disney is trying to hide their, Pixar's, association with the film to protect them as a brand.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:54 a.m. CST

    You the man, Beaks.

    by DocPazuzu

    Excellent article and a complete bullseye. The gleeful anticipation of the floptrolls was on display here in talkback at the outset, long before the so-called pimping of the film began in earnest on this site. I myself was one of the people who expressed misgivings after the first pics and teaser were released. After seeing the film the other day I was gladly proven wrong. John Carter suffers from highly visible flaws but is on the whole a success in terms of vision, set design, world-building and sheer, pulpy thrills. What I find as hilarious as it is distressing is the floptrolls' belief that they're actually rebelling against the studio system by rooting for John Carter's failure when in fact they're basically running the errands of the studio execs who routinely champion creatively bankrupt shit like Transformers and POTC. John Carter will find its legs and will be redeemed in the future, no question. I'll be buying the biggest, fattest Blu-ray set of John Carter the first day it's out.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:57 a.m. CST

    "Disney's aggressive marketing campaign"???

    by Johnny Wishbone

    What campaign would that be? Here in the UK (and I work in a film post-production company) I've seen next to no marketing or advertising for this film whatsoever. Disney's marketing division need to take a good, long, hard look at the competition and start getting a bit of "buzz" about their films out at least a year and a half before trailers start to air. I'd venture that at least 90% of this film's box office problems are down to Disney "suits" and no one else.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:08 a.m. CST

    media messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    You're also the guy who actually believes venus is covered with jungles, that there's breathable air on the moon and that it's covered with foliage and have gone on record in talkback calling -- without a hint of jest -- the Jet Propulsion Laboratory a satanic sex cult. I'm guessing you found Barsoom disappointingly less lush and verdant than you know it to be in real life.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:15 a.m. CST

    Fanboys just can't understand why no one loves this film! Shocker...

    by jamesonian

  • March 14, 2012, 5:19 a.m. CST

    @Johnny Wishbone: I Saw Plenty Of Commercials, But...

    by Media Messiah

    ...how do you easily market a science fiction blockbuster as simply the name "John Carter", as it means nothing to the public and says nothing of what they can expect from, or of, the film itself? It should have been called "Princess Of Mars"...or "John Carter And The Princess Of Mar". If you see that title on a billboard or in a newpaper ad, you know what to expect automatically, and you respond if interested in the theme of genre, but the public and media was not offered that chance, as some exec at Disney was influenced by some movie marketing company that told them that the name Mars and the name Princess would not attract the key demographic, all based upon speculation, and no real facts, and that killed it, before it had a chance. You have to trust in the source material, and the fan boys...will get your message out there to the general public, through word of mouth, but you have to give them a product with a title that will grab their attention at the watercooler, and stay in their heads, but the name John Carter, says nothing about the film or its scale, nor does it raise interest to find-out further information about it. I suspect that this same issue hurt Chronicle? Sometimes, success, is all in a name, and a title, or at least, much of it.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:22 a.m. CST

    Any objective film lover could see this bomb coming a mile away.

    by jamesonian

  • March 14, 2012, 5:27 a.m. CST

    Docpazuzu: Actually, The Head Of JPL...

    by Media Messiah

    ..., the man who created JPL, was in a sex cult with L. Ron Hubbard who later created Scientology, that is a fact, and Scientologist openly acknowledge it, but say that Hubbard was attempting to expose the cult by joining it. You can look it all up, if you doubt me. As per Venus, the Russians sent a satellite there and shot photos of the surface, which was a dry landscape, however, the probe, according to physics, should not have survived entry into the atmosphere, so...considering that fact, all becomes curious? With that in mind, I used that to question other reports about Venus, and claims, that all is not as it seems.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:28 a.m. CST

    Only decent review of the film on aicn. (*SPOILERS*)

    by veteran_of_mu

    Well done Mr Beaks. I saw the film a week ago. I enjoyed it very much but came away thinking of what it could have been with just a couple of tweaks. Now I feel that what I saw was not complete. I think that what Stanton must have produced as a working cut was beautiful but fat and flabby. And that someone - some committee - has been at it. And that while cutting the flab they've also cut the complexity, leaving a hollow feeling to the film. The key indications of this are the unfortunate, unnecessary and insecure Mars prologue - a prologue to a prologue. And the failure to capitalise on the Inter Mundos device - surely a setup for a wistful "All the time in the world" style ending. What's left is gorgeous. But what it could have been - and might still be if Stanton is allowed to make a DC and a sequel - is so much more. Also - I took 2 12-year olds to the cinema with me. One an Avatar geek, the other a Whovian. Both very heavily versed in Star Wars too. Both loved it and want more. So there.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    It's a good flick

    by barnaby jones

    Not earth shattering, but a very entertaining watch.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:33 a.m. CST

    Don't sell yourself short, media messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    You claimed that JPL the organization was a satanic sex cult. And that the porn industry is run by satanists. You also posted links to photos supposedly showing vegetation on the moon. You and that other moron, GingerTwit, even talked about a Venusian ambassador who spoke at the UN. You're a bona fide nutcase.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:37 a.m. CST

    jamesonian

    by DocPazuzu

    Unfortunately, that's part of the problem. There's no currency online more valuable than being ahead of the curve. If a movie's going to fail, talkbackers want to be the first to call it and the most ferocious in tearing it apart once it arrives -- often sight unseen. It's reached a level now where actual hatred for a movie brings talkbackers more joy (and supposed web cred) than seeing a really good movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:46 a.m. CST

    Thanks for stepping up, Mr. Beaks

    by sapno_krei

    Finally, a voice of reason in the madness. I knew I couldnt be the only one stewing angrily about the negative press about the business of this movie, while the fact that the movie has been well-received by moviegoers (unlike, say GREEN LANTERN) has been largely ignored. (I gave the movie 4 out of 5) I really hope that others in the mainstream press have the balls to follow your lead, and maybe turn around the bad narrative that's been unfairly hung on JOHN CARTER. Who else is willing to step up?

  • March 14, 2012, 5:47 a.m. CST

    Ain't It Carter News.

    by UMAGA

    So sick of this shit. I bet we have to go through it again when the god damn Blu Ray comes out. No one gave a shit about this movie. I don't care if Harry jerked off to the book when he was a kid, let it go. Oh, and TRON Legacy was hardly a failure. It dig up a dead franchise and reinvented it for today's generation. Looking forward to the animated series and sequel.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:50 a.m. CST

    there is only one reason the movie flops: it's dull....

    by cameron

    Transformers movies have no comprehensible plot but at least they blow everything up for to keep the geeks that like SFX porn interested. The Kings Speech, not many 'splosions in that, but it did have a good story that people were interested in. 'Interest' is the big word here, if you make a dull sci-fi movie for 250 million dollars where aliens stand around babbling on about bollox you fall on your ass. You don't need to be a big time Hollywood director to know that.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:52 a.m. CST

    umaga

    by DocPazuzu

    I guess frenzied masturbating as a child is bad when it comes to Barsoomian women but okay when it comes to Bruce Boxleitner in neon tights. Whatever floats your boat, chief.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:53 a.m. CST

    If Inception had bombed and the people cheered it's failure

    by Nerd Rage

    you could reasonably claim the hate toward that film was destroying artistic integrity in Hollywood but you're going to make that argument using John Carter as the example? You think John Carter is some brave, artistic masterpiece that buck all the current trends of Hollywood studios? Really? I think you're the one who needs to choose their battles more wisely.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:54 a.m. CST

    Docpazuzu: JPL--Led To The Creation Of NASA

    by Media Messiah

    Do you know what the first U.S. astronauts did when they arrived on the moon, in ceremony? They did what is typical of a blood sacrifice, using wine in place of blood, and the name Isis was invoked, this is a fact--a blood sacrifice ritual was performed. Now, let us go back to the JPL sex cult, they were doing sex rituals that were dedicated to Horus...god of the underworld. Check your history, that is the son of Isis, and the resurrected, Osiris, Isis' husband/brother. Free Masons worship these deities. The Free Mason beliefs come from the gods of ancient Egypt, this is a fact. Check the Bible. Who was the God of Moses at war with? Right, the gods of Egypt, that is who. The gods of Egypt, these same gods are described as fallen angels, Lucifer/Satan being their leader. Now, all of the moon missions were given Greek names or that of Italian. You see, the Italians got their gods from the Greeks, who got their gods from the Egyptians, each renamed by the adopting societies, but they are the same gods, and again, the Egyptian gods are the gods in the Bible--lower case g, who were at war with the singular God...higher case G, who called them fallen angels. Anyone who worships them in ceremony or otherwise, these fallen angels or gods, is a satanist. Now ask yourself, what were astronauts of a Christian nation, the U.S., doing performing a blood ritual to the high goddess of the Egyptians for, and under the orders of our military and government? Aren't we suppose to be anti paganism, and against satanism?

  • ...they were just sick of the blatant promotion of it on this site. I'm def gonna catch the flick on blu ray and hope its good, but seeing every other article had John Carter in the description did my fucking head in.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:57 a.m. CST

    Audiences can accept movies with stuff they've seen before...

    by sapno_krei

    ...but only if they know the movie is based on something old. People are willing and able to turn off their expectation of something new and original when literary history is involved. (See LOTR, SHERLOCK HOLMES) There are STILL people who have no idea that JOHN CARTER is a 100yr old story. Invoking ER Burroughs name in the trailers would have done so much to telegraph JC's importance in sci-fi history. It would have got people READING. And places like Twitter would have far fewer cries of "AVATAR / Star Wars rip-off!"

  • March 14, 2012, 5:59 a.m. CST

    The trailer makes me tired before I`ve even seen it.

    by higgledyhiggles

    Just so much blah. It looks like a `cut and shut` to me made of other movies i don`t hold in much regard. Plus all the same beats from more recent properties like rousing army speeches from the Immortals, Braveheart and so on etc. It`s like there`s a hollywood script generator on the net that produces all this creatively dull stuff by having the exact same emotional beats to every big movie. It makes me sad for movies. New CGI on re-usable scripts should not be a tentpole. The story should.

  • They were rooting against the movie because many decisions from title changes, to casting, to alien/setting design seemed misguided and cheap. People wanted a Frazetta painting come to life, not something that, on the surface, reminded them of Attack of the Clones. Admit it, Stanton blew it.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:01 a.m. CST

    the great thing about you, media messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    is that you do all the heavy lifting for me. Why would I bother to post links to your insane drivel when it's so easy to set you off on another torrent of imbecilic drooling just by mentioning it? God bless ya, you nutty bastard. But please, for old times' sake, couldn't you repost the links to the photos with the lunar foliage? The world demands it!

  • March 14, 2012, 6:09 a.m. CST

    nerd rage

    by DocPazuzu

    The Inception comparison is apt, but they're not mutually exclusive. I'm the first person to admit John Carter's flaws, but there was still enough original vision and sheer heart in the film that it should have gone a long way to giving the film a more levelheaded reception. People just aren't interested in calling a film so-so or blah, they either want to love it or hate it. Sadly, these days they'd rather share in the feeding frenzy of a noble yet flawed effort than give something a middling or halfway decent review. Like another talkbacker noted: there were talkbackers in fucking coaxial talkbacks shrieking about John Carter's opening numbers. It's sheer, unadulterated glee at watching something fail without having seen it themselves.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:09 a.m. CST

    This film failed because...

    by T0KY0SEXWHALE

    it was designed by committee. This film existing hurts the art form.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:10 a.m. CST

    Really, Umaga?

    by sapno_krei

    You bash coverage of one perceived flop, then defend another perceived flop (TRON LEGACY)? I loved JC and TL. Neither deserved to be judged by their large budgets over their stories.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:14 a.m. CST

    Docpazuzu: No, You Did The Heavy Lifting For Me

    by Media Messiah

    Anyone with a computer can look up the facts that I have mentioned, including the blood ritual which NASA has yet to explain, but has been admitted to openly. Now, as it is said, the devil's greatest success is in convincing people like you, that he does not exist. But for those who think as you do, I ask only that they look at the world around them, at the ugliness, the greed, the wars, the crime. True evil is real, now, whether it is created by an actual devil or not, or whether our species is just insane and evil of its own will, is up for the debate of everyone, but I find it interesting that those in high government, in the two examples that I gave, were practicing satanic rituals. These are not stupid people, not nutty bastards, not imbeciles, but for some reason, they believed, and believe, in rituals and deities, that are counter intuitive to how you would imagine them conducting themselves. What is it that they know, that you and I don't? Maybe the stuff of the Bible is correct, and if it is, it is not me who needs God's blessings alone, it is all of us, especially the gleefully uninformed like you.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    Well said, I've been saying this for some time...

    by u.k. star

    I didn't rate the movie too highly, but the joy people have been taking in hoping this would fail / in helping to make it fail it seems (it feels like) is saddening. I called it schadenfreude last week and before then too. Almost all of this was long before anyone had even the slightest idea as to the quality, or lack thereof, of the film itself.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:23 a.m. CST

    @U.K. Star: Filmmaking Wise, The Film Is Technically Right...

    by Media Messiah

    ...but this film could have used Brad Bird as its director/writer to give it a sense of purpose, humanity and warmth. John Carter feels like a techically accurate labor, but it does not feel like a labor of love, and that is the problem with it.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:26 a.m. CST

    Tron: Legacy was not a box office success, it isn't a secret...

    by u.k. star

    That doesn't mean it didn't take a fair amount f money, nor that it didn't make a profit, given DVd / BluRay, TV and licensing (similar to Star Trek). That's why it lead to Tron 3; that and the sense that enough people liked it enough to want more. But again it is hardly a secret that Star Trek received a much higher level of critical and audience appreciation. Also Trek made about $14m less, but also cost $25m less.) Tron: Legacy cost a total $240m to produce & release, but its theatrical return to Disney (what comes back from the exhibitors, not even thinking about tax) was at the very most optimistic $238m (more likely $199m - $219m, again ignoring tax) so that's a theatrical loss. In the long game that doesn't have to matter, although you'd always rather make a profit at door one, but he's right the film wasn't a "hit" at the cinema and it certainly wasn't "the 3D event of the year" Disney were selling either.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:28 a.m. CST

    Keep it coming, media messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    I've missed your particular brand of madness for so long. Please please please post the pic links. Pretty please with powdered thorazine on top?

  • I forgot what website I was at.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:30 a.m. CST

    Disney could go the Star Trek II route

    by DocPazuzu

    and produce a cheap sequel which does everything right and might recoup the losses the first movie suffered from.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:31 a.m. CST

    Problem with John Carter is...

    by JIMBOCOP

    It's arriving in cinemas about 70 years too late. It's like when FLASH GORDON came out in 1980 and kids thought, "Star Wars rip off". FLASH got away with it because Mike Hodges laced the SF action with seaside innuendo and outrageous S&M inspired costumes for the grownups. As Beaks points out, Pixar (for it is they) have taken the 'epic fantasy' out of the story, leaving it as a "people in loincloths jumping about" movie with no-name cast. How so you market "people in loincloths jumping about" movie with no-name cast? Who wants to see a "people in loincloths jumping about" movie with no-name cast when you're saving your $$$/£££ for Avengers/Hunger Games/DKR? This movie needed a star to topline it and get bums on seats or, how about this for an idea Disney - capitalise on the "Princess" angle. Who doesn't like princesses? Disney has an empire built on kids wanting to be princesses FFS! The Princess should have been the lead with JC as her Prince Charming hero. Open goal. Job done. Disney have another herione on the roster to slap on a lunchbox and sell dress-up clobber in the Disney Store at Xmas with a SF spin to distinguish her from Cinderella, Jasmine, Snow White, etc. Should have been 100% CG too. Call TRON a failure if you like, but I can't see this selling toys and games or getting an animated series on Disney XD and a sequel.

  • I guess you were so giddy that you didn't hear the five minutes of plodding voice over of names and locations and backstory on the war. That's exposition, in point of fact. And a horrible way to open a movie in my opinion.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:36 a.m. CST

    An actual conversation..

    by sapno_krei

    I watched it with a friend, who went in cold, only with the vague knowledge that JC was a prototype for much sci-fi fantasy. Friend: Wow, that was really good! Me: What do you give it? Friend: 3.5 out of 4. Me: That movie cost $250M. Friend: Really? *after a moment's thought* Why?

  • March 14, 2012, 6:38 a.m. CST

    !!!Fuck John Carter!!!

    by nobbythehappyelf

    Forgive me if my !!!Fuck John Carter!!! campaign has been misconstrued. I have no issue with the source material - in fact I'm unfamiliar with it (although I have now bought a copy  of the Traci Lords "A Princess of Mars" and an old paperback of the original ERB pulp novel.) As posters like DrPazuzu point out ignorance of the original story is no excuse for negative posting. I am not a trendy hipster who hates everything -  in fact I found the nihilism and detachment shown towards the viewer in recent genre pictures such as Tron Legacy / Watchmen refreshing, whereas most people on here are happy to bash these movies ad nauseum.  I enjoy the family mainstream as well and normally gladly hand over my tax-payer-funded salary to watch the latest blockbuster. Professional reviewers hold no water with me - their jaded palates have little tastebuds left. I love being intrigued by the mystery of a good trailer, word of mouth buzz and the like... If JC had a better advertising campaign here in the UK, and this site had not resorted to the most shallow of tactics to push its jerking stillborn corpse upon us then I would gladly have gone to the flicks and paid to see this in IMAX 3D. In short I never wanted this film to bomb, however I am sickened by the shilling that I believe has taken place on this site. All I've endeavoured to do is state that I'll be giving this one a miss purely due to the misguided (paid or otherwise) over exposure on AICN. Sorry for the rambling post, and indulge me one last time when I say... !!!Fuck John Carter!!!

  • You still feel compelled to whip this dead horse. Time to face reality guys. You backed a loser, and now pride (or $$$) prevents you from acknowledging that this movie truly does suck. None of your posturing and finger pointing will change that fact. Time to bury this rotting corpse and move on to much more interesting prospects.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:51 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by UMAGA

    Never said a thing about the original Tron but it's funny that you're trying to justify yourself masturbating over fictional characters in a book. Did Frodo float your boat, too?

  • March 14, 2012, 6:52 a.m. CST

    I agree with Beaks. I can't believe it.

    by D.Vader

    But he's right. John Carter is getting unfair treatment.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:11 a.m. CST

    what is risky about JOHN CARTER?

    by Spandau Belly

    It's a big expensive family-friendly movie that follows the formula of a million other hugely successful films. I see no creative risk, just a movie that most people think is bad or had no interest in seeing.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:19 a.m. CST

    Beaks, I'm glad you liked/loved it but . . .

    by Rob Jenson

    it really wasn't that good. Bear in mind, it wasn't BAD. It just wasn't GOOD. A solid B, maybe. But with all that talent and money it really should have been an A. We should have had a compelling main character. We should have had memorable fight scenes. We should have had a clearer/better plot with a better villain with a less goofy reason for being. Dejah Thoris should be the ultimate symbol of femininity, not Xena with a microscope. We should not have had to suffer through a bunch of crappy CGI, with creatures moving way too fast and stupid blue shit everywhere. And the sets . . . my god, Barsoom has been realized beautifully before -- not just beautifully, but AMAZINGLY. Frazetta's designs are awe-inspiring and brilliant. If you can't evoke them (or even in some theoretical world, something better), don't bother. Andrew should have made the world look at least as good as Frazetta did. I could go on, but enough.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:21 a.m. CST

    Most of you are fucking idiots

    by NightArrows

    Prattling on and on about how "you knew this would suck" etc. etc. Yes, you are all so magnificent in your foresight. You get the prize! As for the film, I was underwhelmed. It didn't "suck" as many of the extremists are shouting, it also didn't shine as it could have. It was a big bowl of OK and that's the problem. When you have Avatard raking in the billions for it's bright, shiny world, John Carter HAD to deliver a better experience. And that's where it was bound to fail because of exactly what it was: the source for much of what's come before it. It had some great moments, but it was plodding at times and there was too much exposition. I think it would have benefited from a little more of an adult tone. Still, I didn't hate it and it wasn't money wasted.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:22 a.m. CST

    Overhyped beyond all belief by AICN...

    by paint163

    And now its all backfired!!

  • March 14, 2012, 7:24 a.m. CST

    I liked the movie, just don't understand this article

    by Ashs_Right_Hand

    This $250 million dollar movie made $30 million domestically, which looks like a flop. It's wrong to call it a flop because its better than POTC 4? People are only calling it a flop because they have it out for anybody involved with Pixar?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:28 a.m. CST

    Another problem is the binary thinking of talkback commentators.

    by Happyfat73

    It's just not enough that a film can be flawed, yet still be pretty good (with a dash of excellence). Nope. On these internets a film must either suck completely, or be the best thing ever, with nothing in between.</p> </p> John Carter has soreal excellent set pieces, an earnest old-school epic feel, beautiful imagery, some amazing depth to the 3D, and one of the hottest leading ladies in recent years. But apparently none of these virtues can save it from "completely sucking".</p> </p> Fuck the binary thinkers. Great article, Mr Beaks.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:29 a.m. CST

    by sarg2k

    Basically AICN have been pimping this film for months and they cannot disagree at this stage because they have a backhander with Disney for future promotions. There is nothing wrong with critics not liking a film, they are people as well and they have opinions. You will find that the majority of people agree with the critics opinions. In my opinion it is a rubbish film and comparing it to something like Blade Runner or Abyss is nonsense, those are films of ideas and vision. We will have this conversation in 6 months to see if people feel the same about it in hindsight. This basically sums up the majority of the problems of the film in 15 minutes- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1LQkZKYsaY

  • March 14, 2012, 7:40 a.m. CST

    I loved John Carter

    by menacingphantom

    Maybe it's because I grew up reading so much ERB. And any guy who didn't have a hard-on for Lynn Collins is batting for the other team.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:41 a.m. CST

    Yeah the more I read this article, the more baffled I am

    by Ashs_Right_Hand

    This movie may have had the moat laughable marketing campaign I've ever seen. Blandest title I've heard in ages, questionable trailer, and an unknown in the lead role. Why weren't they pimping Woola, one of the movies best ideas, and which definently would've enticed more kids. Maybe look at what the studio and the movie itself did wrong with their new franchise before taking your battle to the critics who are calling it as they see it. I'm sure those same critics gave shitty reviews to POTC 4.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:42 a.m. CST

    @Sapno_Krei: What, That Costs 250 Million???

    by Media Messiah

    Who pocketed the money at Disney and Pixar? The set was largely done outdoors--taking advantage of natural desert vistas, so nothing really went into building anything but the aircraft, and a few indoor sets, so where did all the money go? They could have shot that movie for well under 100 million dollars. As you are may know, Pixar has a CGI character fabrication software called Everyman, or something similar, so for them to create the green aliens, all they had to do is model one, and the Everyman program automatically creates duplicates--as many as they like, that have differing aspects about them, in order to distinguish characters from one another, so given that, they weren't going broke with R&D, so this whole thing looks to be someone's convenience tax-shelter--from the start, thus maybe they wanted it to fail from day one?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:46 a.m. CST

    That's "convenient"...

    by Media Messiah

    ...not "convenience".

  • That's just a legitimate question. I don't think a movie has to have an A-List star to be great. I think great movies can make an A-list star. But I wonder if that's why so many people kind of skipped on it. I mean Johnny Depp definitely wasn't A-List before Pirates so I guess it's a Chicken or Egg argument. But I wonder is the fact that no one really knew who Taylor Kitsch was had anything to do with it? Then again people will probably flock to the garbage like Battleship.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:56 a.m. CST

    Yeah, I ask the same thing...

    by HughHoyland

    Why in Gods name did it cost 250 million to make? I'm sorry but there shoud be no reason under the sun moon and stars movies like this should cost a dime more than 100$ mill tops, perhapes less. I still want to see this though, and will. As far as the almost wishfull negativity from the press about this move...welcome to the American BS machine called the "mainstream"media.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Much better than prince of Persia, Tron 2 and POTC 4

    by garagons

    And for a Disney's kids film, it had some brutal moments that were awesome I would love a sequel. The marketing sucked since they forgot only geeks know where the stories come from As of today, nobody knows who or what John Carter is. Terrible marketing

  • March 14, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    I do think the marketing just severely failed this film

    by Wcwlkr

    Not that I had a real desire to see it. But nothing about the marketing made me even want to bother. But I felt the same way about Avatar nothing about they're marketing made me want to see it. But that was a huge success and I really hated that movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:58 a.m. CST

    Can't wait to see Dejah Toris on screen again

    by garagons

    That alone is worth the price of admission; whoever says otherwise; I'll challenge you to a duel! Who will pledge your steel to me?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:59 a.m. CST

    This and Vern's review only ones to call Hollywood on this

    by Arteska

    As if the pre-release and review drive-bys on this movie weren't enough I was especially disgusted by the Stanton hit pieces that were obviously planted/fed over the weekend. Anyone who has actually seen the movie knows Stanton was/is not the weak link. It's become something of an internet meme for people to weigh in on the marketing for this movie (EVERYONE IS A MOVIE MARKETING EXPERT ONLINE) but it was gawdawful. For a studio that was obviously scared of the material being impenetrable to any non-fanboys under the age of 35 they sure chose a hell of combo of decisions The teaser was indistinguishable from a Gatorade ad. They change to title to one better suited to a Nicholas Sparks movie (and head-slappingly borrowed 100% from the Prince of Persia line art for title block to hammer it home). Every public spot/trailer leading up to release was utterly devoid of even basic plot (which is sometimes fine, but only if replaced with mood, which it wasn't). Just one spot grounding Carter as an Earthly character might have done wonders for the uninitiated trying to make sense of the FX reels being thrown at them. The Super Bowl spot, released at the height of pre-release ridicule and probably the last chance to stem the bleeding, was breathtakingly obtuse. One of the 'let's throw Stanton under the bus pieces' mentioned that he wanted to score a spot to a Led Zepplin song/music. Doesn't that sound magnitudes more inspired and appropriate than anything that was produced? I know Stanton wanted to sidestep the Frazetta thing a little but at least some small embrace of the Molly Hatchet van art vibe might have helped in any number of ways too. The campaign for this movie should have been celebratory and retro cool but instead was timid and embarrassed from the beginning. It's a shame too because the broad assumptions that will be drawn from this are bad for movie fans and worse for genre fans - unless you like more 80s remakes, preboots, an requels. I'd take 10 more John Carters first. Good one Beaks. For those that haven't read Vern's review too.

  • It's crazy how your movie could make over 100 million but be considered a flop now. It's like if your movie doesn't make 300 million no chance of seeing more. And it's just a great change at how we look at movies. I mean like you said Blade Runner was not well received now it's praised. Drive was a supremely awesome movie, but I don't think people consider it a hit, because it only made 74 million. But that movie was FAR from a flop.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:02 a.m. CST

    Also, this movie made 100MM+ in 72 hours worldwide

    by Arteska

    Flop my ass.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:04 a.m. CST

    garagons

    by Rob Jenson

    eh The actress was hot, but the character was not Dejah. Xena with a microscope she is not. Of course, they also screwed up the title character, too, so I guess they don't care about things like character. Or action. Or set design. Or writing. Or . . .

  • March 14, 2012, 8:05 a.m. CST

    You wanna blame someone for the hate this movie gets?

    by Nerd Rage

    Blame Frank Frazetta for increasing our visual expectations for a Princess of Mars film. You'd think an animation expert would find a way to build on those expectations. Then again this is the guy who changed the title to John Carter.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:06 a.m. CST

    Media Messiah is well and truly back

    by Miyamoto_Musashi

    this site gets its little bit of crazy back (CTM is beyond crazy) Though I had once thought that Media Messiah and dioxholster were Harry or another contributor acting as the crazy guy or Stargate geek

  • I disagree that the majority of folks wanted this to fail. People were watching a slow moving train wreck, starting with that first teaser that failed to entice. Every subsequent dribble that followed was even more underwhelming than the last. And Beaks, Blade Runner, Abyss, etc. were ahead of their time. If your intent was to imply that Carter is equally misunderstood and revolutionary, you've failed to convince me. If anything, it is behind the times. In that it's best bits have been plundered and picked over for years. In other words, we saw it before we saw it.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    The studio only keeps half the box office gross

    by Nerd Rage

    and this movie cost at least 300 million once you include marketing, so yeah, it's a HUGE flop.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:23 a.m. CST

    Ain't it Cruel News

    by Chuffwoode

    Nicely stated, Beaks. This a mob pile-on; the criticisms are irrational, wickedly stated. 1980's Flash Gordon was greeted in a similar fashion by many at the time, given Dino de Laurentis' past excesses. We may not have future Barsoomian installments, but Stanton et al will likely have beloved film 20 years on...

  • You'll get more of the same, and more cliched derivative crap from Hollywood. People will continue be to scared to get behind new unknown material. We can all kiss the dream of ever seeing a Cowboy Bebop movie good bye.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:30 a.m. CST

    arteska, maybe I got a different trailer than the one you did

    by Spandau Belly

    But I saw a trailer that I felt gave me the whole plot. I saw the hunky hero getting captured by the primitive alien culture, winning their respect by fighting some big alien beast, then being begged by the beautiful love interest princess to fight for her, then the hero making the obligatory Braveheart rallying speech in which he mobilizing the primitive aliens to fight against the bad guys who all have more advanced technology. All this was in the trailer. You can debate the quality or effectiveness of the trailer, but I really don't think anybody can reasonably say it gave them no idea as to what the movie would be about.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:30 a.m. CST

    nerd rage

    by Rob Jenson

    exactly

  • March 14, 2012, 8:32 a.m. CST

    Or it REALLY is dull

    by Dolmes

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

  • March 14, 2012, 8:37 a.m. CST

    The AICN shilling of JC continues...

    by ATARI

    I am not surprised.<br> <br> Just let it go, already...<br> <br>

  • March 14, 2012, 8:43 a.m. CST

    Beaks, that's fucking HORSESHIT and you know it!

    by Jaster Mareel

    First off, the whole industry said Titanic was going to bomb. How'd that turn out again? Secondly, if everyone is rooting for failure from people who have been successful, why wasn't everyone calling for Avatar to sink? Or The Dark Knight? Or Pirates 4? Or Return of the King? Complete. Fucking. Bullshit designed for one thing and one thing only, to dry your tears about your luvey wuvvy BOMBING! The quote under that pic was almost 100% accurate asshole! The fanboys (eg YOU)were 100% WRONG! FUCKING DEAL and quit crying! Jesus Fucking Christ!

  • No, really. I really enjoyed the movie and would love to see sequels! I went into the movie, thinking it would suck, the cgi would look dumb and the main actor would come across like a douchebag who cannot act, but none of the above was the case! It was a really fun, scifi romp, well directed, well acted and well made. Sure, its no masterpiece, but it was damn good!

  • March 14, 2012, 9 a.m. CST

    the blame game...

    by zom-bot.com

    the only thing worse than haters are the apologists. if you liked the movie, then great- you got the movie you wanted. but if your movie didn't do well enough to warrant a sequel, don't get mad at all the people who could tell they wouldn't like it or it wasn't their cup of tea. you realize now you are blaming people for NOT going to the movies. something entirely in their right to do. save money and two hours of their lives on something they weren't interested in to begin with. now, if you ask me, it IS the fault of the disney marketing team. they gave many of us NOTHING to be interested in, though if you ask me, i'd agree that some of the fault is owed to the creative team as well, who gave us the drab dusty planet instead of the world of wonder from the books. after all, superfans, shouldn't it be about honoring the books?

  • The casting is so bad. I will catch it on Netflix.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:04 a.m. CST

    John Carter was better than Avatar

    by MariusXe

    Its so sad that Avatar was a hit, and now, the better movie tanks. Really sad.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:04 a.m. CST

    Calling others "fanboys" on here is like...

    by MemBirdman

    ...calling them "WATER DRINKERS!!"

  • March 14, 2012, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Re: Zombot

    by MemBirdman

    Uhhh...OK, I just read the first three Barsoom books about a month ago, but in Princess, wasn't Barsoom just shown as a drab, dusty planet? There was wonder in it, but it didn't change the image the book created. Gods and Warlord definitely changed the "look" of Barsoom in those areas, but I thought the movie was faithful to the look presented in Princess.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:19 a.m. CST

    Not really buying it

    by MandrakeRoot

    Beaks made some decent points, but ultimately it kinda feels like a bunch of excuses to justify the films reception. Avatar had to deal with an insane amount of negative hype, especially when the teaser trailer was released. Because for so long it had been called the "game-changing movie to end all movies", a lot of people attacked it pretty viciously once we started seeing footage. People were constantly shitting on the design and CGI, claiming it would be for certain one of the biggest flops ever. The bottom line is that when it finally came out, it spoke for itself...it was a great movie and one those movie experiences that come around once in a blue moon. Despite familiar story beats, it combined a tight, well-paced plot with genuine emotion, and it was a spectacle the likes of which people hadn't seen. Unlike Avatar, John Carter failed to present these classic themes in a unique, interesting manner. It's not a bad movie but ultimately rather soulless and dull. It obviously has fantastic CGI, but the fx don't feel as integral and natural to it all as they did in Avatar, which in turn makes the flick much less engaging. I think that the response has been very fair, with most critics conceding it's a decent yet unremarkable movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:19 a.m. CST

    self fulfilling prophecy

    by Joey Robinson

    DITTO Beaks. This movie was flawed, but it doesn't deserve piling-on it's getting.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    JC cost more than TF:DOTM and 2012

    by sapno_krei

    Again, great movie IMHO, but how $250M?

  • March 14, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    Blade Runner, Heaven's Gate and The Abyss are all masterpieces.

    by kwisatzhaderach

    John Carter isn't.

  • Jesus...it's starting to sound like a bunch of little girls who had their Valentine card rejected in junior high. Is it your $350,000,000? Is Stanton your dad? Are you dating one of the talent involved? No? Then stop being so invested in the fucking thing....IT IS JUST A MOVIE...it is ridicules...move on.

  • Looked like about maybe $80 Million tops. Where did the money go then? My guess would be to the computer animators. But, they must be charging $10,000 an hour at least. I need to go back to school.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    I'll never understand the hate levied at POTC4

    by TheLastCleric

    I do understand franchise fatigue but it’s a solid movie with a phenomenal cast (Ian McShane alone makes this film worth watching) and it certainly does something different than the previous films in terms of story. To accuse it of being some cash grab strikes me as disingenuous and not a little ironic considering how harshly critics treated the film last summer. As to JC, I’m still interested in seeing the movie but fuck me the AICN coverage has reached almost satirical levels. One could visit this site and think the JC thing is some sort of inside joke given the sheer breadth and volume of coverage and this article only adds to that lunacy. Perhaps I’ll feel differently after seeing the film this weekend but Beaks might want to take his own advice and let this particular battle go.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:27 a.m. CST

    Beaks, Pirates 4 was not as bad as you make it out to be

    by Joe Plumber

    Didn't see it in the theater, but rented it and enjoyed it very much. I particularly appreciated the retro studio era feel to it, utilizing mostly practical effect and real sets (not green screen) and choreographed live action sequences.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST

    Darth...Stanton squandered it..that is a fact.

    by conspiracy

    More than a few people are saying he shot enough for two films...the overtime on this thing must have been astronomical. I'll never get to see the itemized internals on this project...I don't have that much invested...but I'd love too. Stanton was given a blank check and no supervision...and you simply can't run a studio that way these days, especially not with a virgin director (which Stanton was...animation is a different animal all together)...or THIS is the result. And myself...I think it'd have been a tighter, better film on a lower budget...it'd have forced him to trim the fat that anchors this film to the dirt.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    Also Beaks, Carter is no Bladerunner and never will be

    by Joe Plumber

    Perhaps, a Flash Gordon (1980).

  • March 14, 2012, 9:32 a.m. CST

    A Rebuttal from a fan of the movie

    by TallanDagwood

    Mr. Beaks, That was an impassioned article, but i think it is somewhat misguided. I truly enjoyed the movie, but I do think that Stanton and Disney should take the blame for the massive cost overruns on the movie. 250 million plus at least another 70 million in marketing means that the movie would have to make at least 620 million before it broke even, forget profit. What studio gives a first time live action director that much freedom? Your arguments seems to come down to he is a "visionary", therefore he should be allowed spend/waste money as he sees fit, and if we criticize these kinds of moves and moviemakers we will never get to see a visionary's work. Allow me to politely disagree with two names. James Cameron and Peter Jackson. Jackson is not on the same level as Cameron as a filmmaker but he certainly was given a massive budget and a property that had bedeviled studios for a long time. And he pulled it off. So called "visionarys" will be given work, but they and studios who back them also must be held just as accountable for their failures. Stanton was a proven commodity in the animation world and he did a credible job with his flawed but entertaining John Carter. But does that mean he deserves a pass based upon his track record and being hailed by some as a visionary? No, he is a film director who had a passion project that excited a portion of geekdom, but certainly not the masses of filmgoers. No one is above criticism, and the argument that the mere act of criticism will have a chilling effect of future such projects is ridiculous. See: Cameron, J. Once again, I truly enjoyed this movie, but it was not worth 300 million dollars. The studio and Stanton deserve to be criticized for turning a first time live action director loose on a passion property that has little to no resonance with today's film going public. He took a 19th century confederate war hero and turned him loose on a bland brown desert planet . Said hero has the bland name of John Carter - which somehow the decision was made to use the same bland name as the title of a planet spanning action adventure movie - Barsoom must have been unavailable. He was given an enormous budget and overran it anyway, and the marketing department dropped a bomb a thermonuclear proportions trying to market such a property, and yet no one deserves blame because some think he is a visionary?

  • March 14, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST

    Good for you Beaks

    by Logan_1973

    Haters exist mainly due to pack mentality. Cheers.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:34 a.m. CST

    ...

    by MandrakeRoot

    And about the black or white mentality, that's it's either amazing or terrible... that definitely happens here, but in reading through this talkback most people have said it's a decent yet flawed movie. There's really not that much hyperbole being thrown about. However it is definitely true a lot of people like or hate things for the wrong reason. For instance, I wonder how many people are sticking up for JC due to it's mediocre reviews and poor B.O, yet hate Avatar for just the opposite. Just the typical stance many people take, despite the fact that their criticisms of the latter would probably apply to JC even more.

  • You call it possibly the greatest film Disney has ever made and then go on to say JC was no masterpiece. I got a list of films you need to watch, friend.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:36 a.m. CST

    Frazetta is just one Man's interpretation after all

    by D.Vader

    Not official art sanctioned by Burroughs himself.

  • Was this some Double Secret theatrical Cut that was only shown to the press. Because, the Miami Vice I saw was an unwatchable shaky-cam piece of crap shot in pixelated terrible looking digital format.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    AICN is pack mentality

    by DARKJEDI

    I hate to say it, because I used to LOVE coming to this site for its reviews, and movie news since the 90's....since there was gonna be a Toy story 2, or a Lethal Weapon 4.... But now you can tell that many inside AICN have gotten so close to the industry, you can tell when there is biased opinions, or biased reviews...I dont even bother reading some any more...which is sad, because I do think they have a wealth of insight.... To me...John Carter wasn't that good, and neither were any Michael Bay movies...but John Carter was also not appealing...I really didnt want to see it.....and the over-coverage on this site...I knew it was gonna be a bomb. All this to say...pack mentality goes both ways...biased for and against... I long for the untainited AICN site I'd visit everyday that wouldn't try to push to me to a particular movie..... But hey I understand to get this kind of movie coverage you gotta scratcha few backs...

  • None of this -Oh, I'm a creative artiste and don't want to copy a superior visual artist like Frazetta even though it would make my movie 10x more visually interesting- Great artists steal, you ever hear that one Andrew?

  • Almost as obscene as all the money that is being thrown away for the next Presidential election. I think this is one of the reasons that people are so eager to jump on the Box office failure bandwagon. They seem to be saying, "How can anyone spend this much money on a silly fantasy film when the economy is still in the shitter and so many people are struggling just to get by. Hooray for Hollywood." Sorry, I realize that I did just that. Got political.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Of course AICN will cover movies they like

    by D.Vader

    To not do that would be ridiculous. When it's a geek property they've loved for years, why wouldnt they promote it? I'm tired of the accusations that AICN must be bought bc they liked movies you isn't. Harry loved the Nightmare on Elm St remake, but I certainly don't think it's bc he was bought out.

  • ...and why hollywood loves snapping up distribution on cheaper, fresher movies- only to milk shitty sequels out of them...

  • March 14, 2012, 9:51 a.m. CST

    Expect more found footage movies, ad nauseum

    by Joe Plumber

  • March 14, 2012, 9:57 a.m. CST

    Tron: Legacy made $400M worldwide.

    by PeopleCallMeTheBriMan

    Ummmm, that qualifies as a flop? WTF??

  • March 14, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    Same thing you idiots did with Episode I

    by lonecow12

    When Episode I came out everyone was all about it, and other than that old host of the Daily Show (can't remember his name), no one had anything bad to say about it. But the better it did, it has steamrolled into this evil ball of hatred for the movie all because it was a huge hit. Watching it again in 3D last month only confirmed the volatile hate towards it is completely unfounded. All it's faults can be found in the LOTR movies and no one bitches about them like they do the prequels. So what John Carter will tank and you will cry about it. Consider it just deserts.

  • March 14, 2012, 10 a.m. CST

    darth_meh, where do you think all that money goes?

    by FlickaPoo

    what you're saying feels right in my gut, but money spent making a movie, no matter how bloated...and going to working production people is better than that money sitting is some producer's bank account, right?

  • March 14, 2012, 10:06 a.m. CST

    Barsoom from the novels is just the opposite of a drab, dusty planet

    by BEHEM Pascal

    “I found myself lying prone upon a bed of yellowish, mosslike vegetation which stretched around me in all directions for interminable miles.” “Here and there were slight outcroppings of quartz-bearing rock which glistened in the sunlight” “Coming, as they did, over the soft and soundless moss, which covers practically the entire surface of Mars with the exception of the frozen areas at the poles and the scattered cultivated districts…” “We traversed a trackless waste of moss which, bending to the pressure of broad tire or padded foot, rose up again behind us, leaving no sign that we had passed. We might indeed have been the wraiths of the departed dead upon the dead sea of that dying planet for all the sound or sign we made in passing. It was the first march of a large body of men and animals I had ever witnessed which raised no dust and left no spoor; for there is no dust upon Mars except in the cultivated districts during the winter months, and even then the absence of high winds renders it almost unnoticeable.”

  • March 14, 2012, 10:12 a.m. CST

    pascalahad2

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    You beat me to the punch. Drab and dusty indeed. They missed the mark on so many levels adapting this thing. And people want more from these people. Low fucking standards.

  • The $250 Million figure just seems kind of absurd. I think John Carters B.O. failure may actually make studios seriously pull back and and be careful not to go overboard in the future. I think this is actually what Beaks is lamenting. He fears the era of the big geek fantasy movies with bloated budgets may be coming to an end.

  • That would give them each about 5 and a half bucks? There's no doubt that providing the monetary equivalent of a combo meal at McDonalds for 46 million people is a better entertainment than this movie was, but that 250 million didn't exactly go down the drain either. It did provide jobs for all those names you see when the credits roll. And those are just the direct beneficiaries.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:21 a.m. CST

    Carter is a mixed bag with some fun elements

    by Robert

    I truly was rooting for Mr. Stanton to succeed. Loved "Wall-E" and "Nemo," so was hoping for the best. While I liked all the actors (thought Carter and the Princess enjoyed great chemistry), I shook my head in amazement, while watching this movie. It completely stumbles when it comes to some simple basics: 1. I knew the movie was immediately in trouble, when the opening prologue brought to mind David Lynch's "Dune." 2. In these types of Sci-Fi movies, audiences wanted to be transported to exciting, bold new worlds - "Avatar" and the "Star Wars" universe for example. Barsoom is an ugly, muddy-looking place. It's basically Tatooine and not even Luke Skywalker wants to return to there. 3.The good guys and the villains ships looked exactly the same, except for teeny tiny red and blue flags you could barely see. The two warring factions were also humanoid, so they looked the same. Which means when it came to the big ship battles, often you couldn't tell what the hell was going on. 4.The movie failed to establish coherent geography. Where was Carter and the Tharks in relation to the good guys city and the bad guys walking ship. It reminded me of the LOTR: "The Two Towers." Early reaction to the film was one of confusion at times. No one knew where the characters, armies and such were in relation to one another. In the DVD commentary, Jackson said he had to go back and literally shoot a "map scene" - a character (If I remember correctly) walks up to Faramir, unrolls a map of Middle Earth and says something like, Character A is here, Mordor is there, Character B is over here, the army is over here, etc. Heck, even "Aliens" has a "map" scene. The third act, though, is actually a lot of fun. I feel bad for Mr. Stanton and I hope he's able to roll with the punches and come back with a great movie.

  • And what's wrong with this? I would hope most storytellers would treat their project as if it was the most important story of all time.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:25 a.m. CST

    umaga

    by DocPazuzu

    Err... I think you'll find that it was in your post that Harry masturbating to John Carter books was envisioned and subsequently condemned whereas Tronboyism was hailed as something better. And where, exactly, do I and Frodo enter the equation, you sick, twisted man?

  • March 14, 2012, 10:26 a.m. CST

    Personally, I loved the first teaser

    by D.Vader

    Sorry it didn't connect with too many people, but I loved that idea of using Peter Gabriel's cover of Arcade Fire's "My Body is a Cage" for John Carter. Pretty apt when you consider how JC actually gets to and from Barsoom.

  • The ad men's idea of "current" would have been The Black Eyed Peas. You can't tell me that would have been a better idea. They wouldn't accept an orchestral scored trailer I'm sure bc its not "current" and worse, no one would be able to recognize it. You look at some ad men's complaints, but when you compare it to the alternative, do you really think they were right? Do you really think hearing Kashmir turns the majority of young people off from the movie?

  • March 14, 2012, 10:33 a.m. CST

    vorlonkosh, I never suggested that

    by Joe Plumber

    But, I do think it is a disturbing trend that people just act like $250 Million is nothing anymore. Most people won't see $2.5 Million in their entire life times.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:36 a.m. CST

    Vern tells it like it is

    by DocPazuzu

    http://outlawvern.com/2012/03/13/john-carter/#more-11106

  • "Success breeds contempt in Hollywood; the longer you're on a roll, the more folks want to see you drive into a ditch going 100 mph with no seat belt. They want to know that you're human, and they want you to suffer for their inability to make a film 1/10th as inspired as the fiasco they're tearing apart*" George Lucas could right a book on this. People on this site have loved tearing him apart. Join the party Mr. Stanton.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST

    fett

    by DocPazuzu

    You're an utter simpleton.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:39 a.m. CST

    Considering he was given the budget of almost the ENTIRE LOTR trilogy...

    by Jaster Mareel

    Or all Star Wars prequels combined for that matter.... In teh words of Robert DeNiro in Copland: YOU BLEEEEEW IIIIIIIIT!

  • You are spot on Mr Beaks. Piss on anyone who says differently! Nice one

  • March 14, 2012, 10:40 a.m. CST

    The difference between Stanton and Lucas is that LUCAS MADE PILES OF CASH!

    by Jaster Mareel

    People LOVE his movies and go back over and over and over and spend gazillions on merchandise. Stanton's film has MADE DICK! So PLEASE don't compare the two. Lucas ASSRAPES Stanton!

  • March 14, 2012, 10:42 a.m. CST

    I wondered about all CGI 3d animation instead...

    by zinc_chameleon

    until I read the specs on 'Tangled' which had the *same* production costs as John Carter; that was one of the reasons the project went to live instead. Considering the flop of "Mars Needs Moms", and the under-performing "Tin Tin" I understand why they didn't take this route. Still...John Carter would have made a much more compelling story that Tin Tin.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:43 a.m. CST

    I'm going to see it again this weekend....

    by Refuge5

    I loved it...

  • Especially when they make it an indicator of a movie's quality

  • March 14, 2012, 10:45 a.m. CST

    The Pirates movies.......

    by Gore_monkey

    made so much money for disney that was the leverage they needed and made them confident to proceed with this JC project that almost everybody feels was doomed from the start. Don't dog on the pirates because they at least earned their money.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:50 a.m. CST

    Biggest Mistake....they set the story on Mars!

    by CinematicFusion

    Mars was relevant back in 1910 when the books were written. People believed of the possibility of life on the planet. All the dreamers about space travel back then thought about Mars. Now we know what is on the planet, maybe some time ago it did have an atmosphere and had some sort of life but Mars has been studied and reviewed almost every night on the History channel. Lucas and Cameron did it right. Put their space epics far away. Allowing our imaginations to expand with possibilities. All the dreamers today of space travel think of galaxies and planets far far away. Oh the possibilities. Mars needs women....fail John Carter of Mars....fail (It's not going to make the 600 million to turn a profit and thus killing a franchise, very sad. Robert Redford was smart enough to change the ending of the Natural so it ends with a huge thunderous roar! The hero wins one last time. The movie wouldn't be successful if Redford struck out. The air wold have left the theater. In the book though, it works perfectly. We the reader flash back to the poem Casey at bat.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu - You tell me. Double penetration?

    by UMAGA

    I still don't remember suggesting that masturbating to TRON was a good idea.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:57 a.m. CST

    wrath_of_fett Lucas and Stanton

    by CinematicFusion

    Both have been very very successful. Both have made films that underwhelmed an audience on a large scale whether it was at the box office or through the critics eye. I was just agreeing with Mr. Beaks. People love to kill a successful individual. Didn't say anything bad about Lucas or Stanton. They have both done amazing work. Shows you just how hard it is to make a movie. If you fail...you get crushed. Aintitcool likes to fan the flames. That is the truth. Lucas made Star Wars and was raised up as a God of fantasy. He then Made Greedo shoot first, Phantom Menace, and AOTC and has been killed in the fanboys eye. I like Revenge of the Sith, feel like he got some of his mojo back with that one...except the whole go kill children part as soon as he accepted his new title??????

  • March 14, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    (Rolls eyes) Oh please let's stop crying in our beer, AICN.

    by Orbots Commander

    Because JOHN CARTER doesn't deserve that; it's a dull, mediocre movie, that others rightly compare to Prince of Persia. Yes, I've see it, and I gave it a chance, but there's not much there to get all emotional about. The narrative is a total mess, the leads are good looking but bland, the Barsoom setting is brown, ugly and lifeless, and apart from some things and small moments that do work, the movie barely qualifies as 'rental' material. Oh, and the 3D absolutely, positively sucked balls. It's ironic that this is being held up as a work of unique vision at AICN, when to me if felt like the kind of thing that you'd get from a studio hack like Brett Ratner. The few things that stick in my memory about JC are the funny penis-looking dog, Lynn Collins' impossibly deep blue eyes, James Purefoys nice Raiders-like scene and Dafoe as Tars Tarkas. That's not a whole lot to hang ones hat on.

  • Absolutely absurd. It's an industry meant to make money. And you have to spend money to make the money. And spending that money gives thousands of people jobs.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Tin Tin...not sold on motion capture yet.

    by CinematicFusion

    give me traditional animation or computer animation that is rigged and animated by an artists hand. Motion capture still gives me the creeps still....but I'm sure they will finally crack the code.

  • ... because Jackson and Lucas had built-in effects houses and didn't have to subcontract much of the work?

  • March 14, 2012, 11 a.m. CST

    Thanks, Beaks

    by Randy_of_AFTimes

    I thought I was the only one who thought that reviews were judging it on its budget & "industry gossip" rather than on the film itself. The wording on the reviews and news articles were all geared towards failure and negativity. This movie is a prime example of an amazingly shitty ad campaign (which seems to be happening a lot recently). All the trailers were dull, showing images that immediately reminded you of other, not so good movies (Looking at you EPII). They never tried to connect the audience to the material. The TV ads FINALLY changed a week or so before release, but damage was done. I've seen the movie twice now and I don't understand a lot of the complaints. Yes, the opening is a clunky until we get to Barsoon and there is a lot of information to pick up along the way. But I was interested in the journey and the chemistry between Kitsch's Carter and Collins' Dejah was one of the strong points of the movie, something we see rarely in big budget films today. All the people I saw it with enjoyed it, much more than they expected to going in. And I think the title of JOHN CARTER OF EARTH would've worked at creating a little intrigue with those who have no idea about the books.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:09 a.m. CST

    irreFUKKENsponsible to give stanton that kind of money for this kind of movie

    by Liberal_Warrior

  • March 14, 2012, 11:11 a.m. CST

    War and Romance in an Exotic World!

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Thrills, Shocks, Cliffhangers! Mighty Men, Wondrous Women, and Vicious Villains! John Carter Escapes One Tribe of Deadly Warriors, Only to Be Captured By Another... What Secrets Await A Natural Born Fighting Man, On The Planet Named After The God of War?!!!!

  • March 14, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I don't know a single person who cared about this movie

    by Erik Radvon

    Even among a circle of geek and genre-friendly cohorts, John Carter gained zero traction and simply looked like shite from the get go. Disney, more than any other studio, ironically seems to have forgotten that movie magic actually requires some magic. Creative sparks between cast, crew, and scenery. The modern day blockbuster format of committee scripting, green-screen shooting, and actors cast for their abs and not their acting skills has given us a bumper crop of forgettable 200+ million CGI mishmashes that NO ONE cares about and certainly won't care about 5-10 years from now. Stopping making 2-hour video game cutscenes, and start telling stories again.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    You can compare this to Brett Ratner

    by D.Vader

    There is nothing in all of Brett Ratner's oeuvre that can compare with the heart found in the scenes of JC's multiple escape attempts or his first comical steps on Mars. Ratner doesn't come close. He's not comparable.

  • Just saying...

  • March 14, 2012, 11:13 a.m. CST

    You CAN'T compare this with Brett Ratner, I mean

    by D.Vader

    Stupid iPhone.

  • I mean, no need to build elaborate sets or sets at all in the case of green screen. No need to build models or animatronic creatures. No need for hundreds of extras. No expensive film processing. No need to actually blow real things up. Anyone can add a realistic explosion effect for nothing to their Youtube video. But, it has not been the case. Movies have gotten more expensive. Look, I know that it takes hours and hours of tedious and brilliant work to produce digital effects, but I really do not understand how it costs way more money to make these cgi fests than it did to make those Epic Cecil B. Demille films. If someone can enlighten me, please do.

  • Follow The Adventures of The Greatest Swordsman On Two Worlds, And the Incomparable Dejah Thoris... The Princess of Mars!

  • March 14, 2012, 11:17 a.m. CST

    Myself, I wasn't reviewing the film's budget...

    by Orbots Commander

    ...only what was on the screen. And it really didn't do much for me. Like I said, there were some nice moments, but overall, the movie wasn't all that good. It wasn't an all out piece of shit, but it wasn't something that I have the urge to ever watch again. It really doesn't deserve either the hosannas on one side or the teeth gnashing on the other.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:21 a.m. CST

    And usually, I'm a sucker for these kinds of movies....

    by Orbots Commander

    ....i.e. big epic swashbuckler adventures. Unfortunately, this one wasn't made all that well. It needed better leads, a MUCH better script (surprised that Chabon wrote this dull thing) and a director, dare I say it, who wasn't that wedded to the source material and willing to inject a bit more imagination and energy into the thing.

  • As someone else would say, "FACT!!!" Spending this kind of money on a flop doesn't help Hollywood's image with Middle America.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:26 a.m. CST

    orbots, your review was spot on

    by Joe Plumber

    Pretty much agree 100%. I went with my brother who eats up this kind of popcorn fare (Prince of Persia was one of his favorite movies last year) and I ended up liking John Carter more than he did. His review, "The dog character was the best part."

  • March 14, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    Why do people think Stanton was slavish to the source?

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    He wasn't. That's part of the problem. JCINO.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:30 a.m. CST

    They could have made 250 $1 million dollar movies instead

    by Joe Plumber

    or better yet 2,500 $100,000 movies. And they probably would have made out better. If even a few of those were hit found footage movies.

  • You don't just "blow money away" on a movie an it disappears. All that money is used to *employ* people. If a movie flops, it doesn't matter as far as Middle America should be concerned bc people were put to work and people made money. If they don't have a basic grasp of movie economics, that's their fault, not Hollywood's. If, for them, a movie is wasteful only when it flops, then where do their priorities lie? If they are all about putting people to work in these hard economic times, the they should be happy studios spend hundreds of thousands of dollars employing crew members. If they think Hollywood should instead give that money to someone else or hold onto it rather than investing, then what are their real viewpoints in capitalism? All this is to say, if they are really that concerned with budgets in these hard economic times, then they really don't know shit.

  • He's got the looks, the southern accent and actual charisma. Why that guy's not in movies yet is beyond me. I can't be the only one who had a huge man-crush on him and thought he was the best character on Lost.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:38 a.m. CST

    Whether Stanton was 'slavish' to the source material or not....

    by Orbots Commander

    ...is irrelevant, as it goes with most book-to-screen adaptations. What matters is the level of story telling, including the acting, the pacing, tone, plot, etc. And like I said, there were some nice moments in the film, but other than that, when it was over and the credits, my row of friends and I sitting in the theater looked at one another, and we all just shrugged and walked out. It's a totally forgettable almost non-movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    vader, all I'm saying is that money could have been more wisely spent

    by Joe Plumber

    I know you loved it. But even so, do you really see all that money up there on screen? Maybe they had a huge catering bill to feed Woola. We did see that awesome Woola cake harry posted a couple weeks ago. That had to cost some scratch.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:47 a.m. CST

    Darth Meh, in regards to budgets of old movies

    by D.Vader

    You have to take inflation into account. And the expanding number of crew members who work on movies. And unions and union rights an more expensive equipment and kit rentals and on and on and on. Movies are more complex/complicated than they were in the days of DeMille.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:51 a.m. CST

    Yes, the level of storytelling

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    was inferior to what was on paper. Many of the problems with pacing, tone and storytelling arose from not being faithful to the source. You can't digress so much and expect to capture the same quality or appeal that made the work worth adapting in the first place. One thing Princess of Mars is not, is forgettable, and there are salient details why. The film-makers missed a good many of those details.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:53 a.m. CST

    It needed to be MORE slavish to the source material

    by lprothro

    I'm a life long Burroughs fan and went into this thing expecting to love it. The introduction in the old west was good but once it meandered into its premature "Thern" introduction storyline, it lost me in a sea of dullness. "Princess of Mars" reads like a modern-day action film and making it into an entertaining movie should have been a no-brainer. But what do we get? Bald-headed, villainous Mark Strong? Shape-shifting villians? Dejah squaring off against her double? It's all been done many, many, times before and most importantly---isn't in the original novel. This film had enough hurdles to get over thanks to the intellectual strip-mining of the material for the past hundred years without adding in even more hackneyed imagery. I was hoping this thing could stay afloat by way of positive word of mouth but I can't in good conscious---give it any.

  • Movies are getting more expensive by the year. Rising gas prices, inflation, etc... And 250 $1 movies will have to cost more than that. Unless you want people to work for free.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    The movie was way, WAY too 'big'

    by Raptor Jesus

    Just because CGI makes it as easy to have 100,000 martians on screen as 100 doesn't mean you should ALWAYS HAVE THE 100,000. Good Christ people, if the Star Wars prequels taught us anything it is that filling the screen with tons of crap is no substitute for good composition. This movie would have been ten times better if it had been five times 'smaller'.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:54 a.m. CST

    Shit, I misread you, Darth Meh

    by D.Vader

    Tis what I get for talkbacking on set. My bad. Forget my last post. Scratch that!

  • there is not a single movie made which ther eisn't some lovestruck fanboy that shouts from the rooftops that Joshie boy should had been better as the lead. Fucking weird!

  • March 14, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    Let's not get all sentimental about the source material.

    by Orbots Commander

    I very recently took another look at the source material, which I hadn't done since my teens. The narrative still moves along at a brisk pace, like a pulp story should, but God, Burroughs' writing was pretty, well.....awful. I also now found the viewpoint, sort of a first person-omniscient hybrid, kind of irritating.

  • Dropping the "of Mars" because people don't like Sci Fi, dumbing down the trailers hugely... And from the reviews, it's just not a fantastic movie anyway. There is no reason we should support this! If you support this you are supporting Disney's Marketing strategy used on this film, to be used on all future films. And you say "if you don't agree, that's fine"... Actually, most people DO NOT agree with you. You are in the minority.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Was worse than I was lead to believe. PG13 Gwendoline w/ CGI

    by Flip63Hole

    and jumping, and no Yik Yak. Though, I thought easily the worst part of the movie was Lynn Collins. Her overacting and heavy handed vocal delivery was something out of a bad episode of Sparticus: Blood and Sand. And the southwestern desert look didn't transplant me anywhere but to Moab, UT at best. The quick dog thing was kind of cute, I guess... I wish Rodriguez got a crack at it.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:05 p.m. CST

    Holoran, Holloway, same difference

    by AsimovLives

    girly haired guy.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:07 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by Joe Plumber

    look at the length of John Carter's hair in the above picture.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    d.vader, no problem

    by Joe Plumber

    Working on anything good?

  • March 14, 2012, 12:09 p.m. CST

    Yeah, Burroughs was no Joyce

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Just prefer his conception of the characters and flora and fauna. Btw, I'm not one of those that demands everything be R rated, but the stories can get pretty damn violent. Alot of heart and throat stabbings. There's kind of an edge that was missing in the film.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:10 p.m. CST

    @justmyluck - Good Articles

    by THX1968

    I was not aware of those articles, but they are well written and come from excellent sources. It sounds like Andrew Stanton fucked himself, which is sad because I really did love the movie. I can tell you all right now that the behavior exhibited by Stanton breeds contempt in Hollywood, and rightfully so. There probably is a lot of people in the business that see the failure of the film as a well earned comeuppance for Stanton. If anything, "John Carter" will be seen as a reminder of the delicate balance of compromise, or knowing when to listen and retain a keen ear for advice.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:11 p.m. CST

    Darth Meh

    by D.Vader

    If your definition of good is a camera wrap at 1:15 pm, then yes, its good =). Otherwise, its just a commercial but nothing too spectacular.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:12 p.m. CST

    awepittance

    by K-Gin

    Agree that the first terminator is Cameron's best film...but I have to weigh in on the Wall-e comment. Its not some sort of masterful achievement that animated characters can pull bigger emotional strings...and especially ones that do not talk. The reviewer that made this quip obviously has very little understanding of how things actually work with animation and film. Cartoon characters usually have bigger eyes to convey expression, and affection. This is common knowledge. Look at Bambi, or any number of animated films. The other thing is with having the limitation of no dialogue, it actually makes the animation have to tell the story and leave more up to the viewers imagination. Watch any number of silent movies...some may be cheesy in some ways, but there are a lot of powerful scenes because they weren't able to rely on speaking to convey emotion or feeling. So hopefully you can re evaluate the reviewers comment and realize it says more about the reviewer than the movies he refers to.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:14 p.m. CST

    I agree with Mr. Beaks

    by Insidious_Bastard

    Look, John Carter is no Star Wars, but it's not the train wreck critics are making it out to be. Not even close. It clearly has some flaws, but those flaws can easily be overlooked by the rich texture in the film. Like Thor and Green Lantern, the Earth scenes hurt the film as the juxtaposition, while done with well intentions, created a jarring effect. It needed a proper backstory for John Carter, not the flashbacks we're given in the movie. Also, naming the movie John Carter was such a tremendous faux pas. They should've gone with John Carter of Mars, though I would've preferred John Carter and The Princess of Mars. Leaving all that aside, though, the movie is fun as hell and the action sequences are fantastic. The simple fact that one human could have such an impact in an alien planet is truly fantastic. Also, the shape-shifting villains of the film, led by Mark Strong, bring the element of mystery to the story. Are they truly evil, or are they just trying to restore some kind of balance to the galaxy? And, what is their intent with Earth? Is John Carter not only helping Mars in fighting these mystical beings, or is he also helping to save Earth in the process? The movie is compelling, as is the story. To equate this to Ishtar is beyond stupidity. While it may have flopped at the box office, I don't consider the film to be an unwatchable flop, like Ishtar. Granted, I'm not familiar with the source material as I have not read Burroughs series. But, as a film, I thought it was pretty damn good.

  • That is to say, the occasional moment but overall, totally mediocre.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:18 p.m. CST

    What does POTC 4 even have to do with his argument?

    by Ashs_Right_Hand

    On Stranger Tides got slammed critically when it came out. It made money so the studio didn't care and it supposedly stunk (haven't seen it so going on what most sites said) so nobody else much cared, and it was largely forgotten. How exactly are they being given a pass? John Carter is a box office disappointment so far and while I liked it, it didn't blow anyone away. Critics pointed out they could see it coming with the lackluster marketing campaign (2 of my co-workers didn't even know it took place on Mars), and there's something wrong with that?

  • March 14, 2012, 12:22 p.m. CST

    Ain't It John Carter News

    by JohnWayneWasGay

    Enough already.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:23 p.m. CST

    The #1 reason why this movie failed: TOO MUCH SAND

    by 3D-Man

    I don't like sand. It's rough and it's irritating, and it gets everywhere.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:24 p.m. CST

    Got no stock in JOHN CARTER, except...

    by sapno_krei

    ...I really enjoyed the follow-up stories to A PRINCESS OF MARS, and if putting the word out that the movie is "good" gets a sequel made, I'm there. It isn't until the second book, THE GODS OF MARS, that we see a drastically different side of Barsoom - the lush and colorful forests and the Temple of Issus. JC was a very good set-up for the adventures to come, yet also good enough to stand on its own. JC's only hope for a sequel now is some sort of miraculous word-of-mouth turnaround in the next couple of weeks, or if Disney gets smart and markets the DVD/Blu-Ray release the way the movie should have been. But I'm not holding my breath.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:29 p.m. CST

    Too much sand and not enough bikinis

    by Joe Plumber

  • No Cowboy Bebop, Robotech, Mass Effect, Halo, Neon Genesis Evangelion, Starship Troopers remake (the only Verhoeven remake that even makes any sense), and other original big budget sci-fi films that might be in the stages of being decided upon by the studio execs. I wonder if Bryan Singer has already started pre-production on his Battlestar Galactica reboot? If not, that could get the axe too. Now, you're all saying, *what about Prometheus, that's a big budget sci-fi/space movie?* Well, the trouble is, even if Prometheus is a massive hit, it will have to be one of The Dark Knight or maybe Avatar proportions to keep Hollywood from deciding that epic space opera is just too expensive and too risky. Then they'll see a bunch of found footage movies and Avengers, Dark Knight Rises, and Amazing Spiderman doing well and decide that superheroes and Transformers via M. Bay is the way to go. Also, they can just use the old excuse of the Avatar 3D Hypnosis Syndrome and the Inception Effect to explain away Prometheus being a big hit. Remember with Inception, they said it was only a hit because it was Chris Nolan's follow up to The Dark Knight, and the film didn't really earn its right to be such a hit being that it was an original film that did really well in a sea of mediocrity. So if Prometheus is a big hit, they'll chalk it up to the fact that it was a well respected filmmaker named Sir Ridley Scott returning to sci-fi after thirty years via the Alien universe and Charlize Theron's great ass in a skin tight space suit. Same thing with The Hobbit, except replace the Alien mythos with Middle Earth and Sir Ridley Scott with chubby Peter Jackson (although hopefully no Bilbo Baggins ass shots in skin tight Elf pants). The sad and brutal irony of all this in the end, is that even if the 200 million dollar budget Battleship is an even worse bomb than John Carter, Hollywood will still churn out over-budgeted board game movies afterwords. So if you like science fiction, big space operas, and any other type of genre film besides found footage horror, superheroes, and board game movies, expect more crap cinema in the coming years.

  • WOOLA OF MARS

  • March 14, 2012, 12:36 p.m. CST

    Well done, Beaks.

    by shran

    I'm glad someone said it.

  • First, why sink 250 million into a project that has little name recognition and no bankable stars (this film could have come in for 150mil). Then why sink what little name recognition it might have to laypeople by changing the title to something dull and uninteresting? And then they have a horrid marketing campaign that makes the film look as generic and post-Avatar as the general public thinks it is? The thing about the 4th Pirates is B.S. because simply, Johnny Depp was a bankable star at that point and the films had a built-in fan base. And people don't always want to see others fail - especially not the guys at Pixar. If Christopher Nolan failed - people would call it a 'misfire' If hubristic people like Michael Bay or James Cameron failed - then people would enjoy it. The same can be said for Disney and effects-laden films in general. Were people wishing this ill-will from the get go - sure. However it's simply because the movie looked like a soulless turkey - and most people didn't realize the source material. Disney did NOTHING to change that idea with its terrible marketing campaign. They have no one to blame for the backlash but themselves.

  • http://twitpic.com/8vh3wr

  • March 14, 2012, 12:44 p.m. CST

    And fuck PG-13 kiddie fare. They churn the shit out like butter. DIE!

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • Moviemaking is a competitive business only and Disney lost on this one. Big Time. I don't think it's indicative of a culture that desires to see successful people fail. I think it points to a, "Show Me The Money" culture.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:50 p.m. CST

    If you spend $250 million you fucking better show me something new.

    by FluffyUnbound

    Something I've never seen before. You know why Cameron gets away with extending budgets so far into outrageous territory? Because you get into his movies and say, HOLY SHIT, I have never seen anything like this. Cameron spends money and exactly recreates the Titanic. Cameron spends money and reinvents 3D, and gives us a world that feels incredibly fresh (even if the story wasn't quite so innovative). Cameron spends money and makes aliens on the bottom of the ocean seem real. Cameron spends money and invents CGI morphing effects no one has ever seen before, and some of the greatest action sequences ever put on film. Stanton spent $250 million and everything looks like outtakes from some other movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 12:52 p.m. CST

    Weak direction and weak script equals weak film.

    by wrongThinker

    I like a lot of movies. I can accept most movies on their own terms. But I just could not get in to JCM. With one exception (at about the mid-point of the film), I felt the action fell flat. I got no sense of wonder. I was just left with a sense of "blah". I couldn't escape the feeling that all of this should be more fun... but it wasn't. Lengthy scenes that explain nothing and serve no purpose abound (inside the temple, 75% of what happened on earth, the villains explanation of his... evil plot-like thing... etc.). The dialogue was a mess. Woola was awesome and mars itself was somewhat interesting, but the rest of the film couldn't find its footing and I left the theater confused and disappointed. John Carter mucked up what little story it had with uninteresting action and poorly written script.

  • If I had been high when I saw it I would have thought it was A New Hope, too.

  • BE HAPPY WITH YOUR TRANSFORMERS AND SUPER-HERO GARBAGE.FUCKTARDS.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:02 p.m. CST

    With tears in my eyes

    by mukhtabi

    As a librarian I claim personally responsibility for the lack of reading in today's youth. It's such bullshit, and why Scott Pilgrim and now John Carter are permitted to become domestic box office disasters. I say domestic, because it's clear library faculty around the world are succeeding at the literacy thing a lot more than I. 70 million international, I'll bet it doubles that figure this week. But John Carter, and Edgar Rice Burroughs, are American Treasures. Admittedly long looted by Cameron, Lucas, etc. But still, I should have done more. I could have done more. I did not. Cyncism and darkness are permitted to reign. This negativity has even entered the political sphere, where the choice is between bad and worse. Just look at the four republican candidates, none of them are winners. Not really. I own this failure because I'm supposed to reach out to kids, get them to read and inspire them to imagine. It's the 'imagineers' as Clive Barker would say, who get it done. And see John Carter. Still maybe all is not lost. Scott Pilgrim is a cult classic and did good money in ancillary. Maybe John Carter will do the same and earn a sequel that way? Time will tell. I haven't watched a film this March. I am protesting Mass Media for the Protect IP act, which thankfully failed to be passed. I may yet make an exception for John Carter. I was wowed by him and his fellow jumpers to Mars as a boy. I just don't have anything else to say... Sorry? Benjamin Franz, EDM, MFA MLS Medgar Evers College CUNY

  • That is what I feel and hope. I'm going to see it again tomorrow -- in 3D this time.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:11 p.m. CST

    Marketing debacle...not theatrical...

    by ZaphodBeeblerox

  • Movies abandon what makes the source material work and trade it for for cold hard $

  • March 14, 2012, 1:15 p.m. CST

    Mukhtabi, your error is

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    thinking the movie actually does service to the books. It doesn't. So there is no reason to lament. Why do unfaithful adaptations deserve success? And sequels? You would be doing the youth a disservice by promoting the movie in the same breath as the book.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:16 p.m. CST

    Everyone's got an opinion-

    by Hyphin

    Everyone's got an opinion as to what happened with John Carter, and I tend to agree with the 'failed marketing' crowd. I feel no need to chime in. All I know is- I feel terrible for people that thought this film was dull, unimaginative, or poorly directed. Really, I do. Was it perfect? No, OF COURSE not. The Fellowship of the Ring is my favorite film of all time. And I don't think it was PERFECT. JC was a great beginning to an epic franchise, though. The ending gave me chills, and I wanted more. I honestly feel saddened we may not ever see the sequel.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:17 p.m. CST

    Asimov....

    by rogueleader66

    Don't you dare lump Stanton in with Bay, he is 10 times the film maker Bay is. The movie is good, period. People who put it on a level of Ratner or Bay or say it is a horrible film, don't know what the fuck they are talking about. I'm not saying everyone is going to or should like it, but to say it is as bad as a Ratner or Bay film, is just plain bullshit and any asshole that makes that comparison needs to take their head out of their asses. Look, the movie isn't perfect, but few movies are. But it does not deserve the vitriol it's getting. It may not be for everyone, but to say it is a horrible film is just plain nonsense.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:18 p.m. CST

    Supporting this movie will actually HURT Sci Fi

    by happybunni

    Disney already doesn't like Sci-Fi. You all know why "Of Mars" was dropped from the title right? Because they did focus groups that show that people don't like Sci Fi. I don't think any real Sci Fi fan should support a movie that does that. If this had succeeded, it wouldn't have been looked at as a Sci Fi success... It would have been a "Hey look, our Marketing trick of getting people to think it's not a Sci Fi film worked!" success. Supporting "John Carter" as opposed to "John Carter of Mars" is being against Sci Fi. Support all the other Sci Fi movies coming out this year instead, I know I plan to!

  • March 14, 2012, 1:25 p.m. CST

    @happybunni

    by Hyphin

    I actually agree with you up to a point. The 'Of Mars' omission was a travesty of a decision. But I feel that it's in keeping with the idea that it's the marketing of this that failed. *SPOILER* When the 'Of Mars' appears at the end, over the shot of Mars itself, it felt perfect. *END SPOILER* The truth is, that kind of HORRIBLE marketing was all over this thing. That strange-for-sci fi block font, the mood and tone of the trailers, the posters, the DESIGN of promotional material was just so lacking in personality. Just like the title. I don't get why it happened, but I feel like to have Andrew Stanton, and this franchise's future suffer due to this is wrong. THAT's why we should support it. Sure, we are, in a sideways way, supporting terrible marketing. But with this creative team going forward, maybe those things will be fixed? Taking that chance is better than letting John Carter of Mars never hit screen again. My two cents.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:26 p.m. CST

    hyphin, you're wrong

    by Joe Plumber

    The Fellowship of the Ring IS perfect.

  • Prometheus is big budget intelligent sci-fi (at least we hope so), but stands a chance of making a profit. The Total Recall remake though? I am guessing that could be a big budget debacle. It is also a bloated one, 200 million dollars. We haven't seen a trailer yet though. Personally, I am not thrilled with the idea of a Total Recall remake from the director of Live Free or Die Hard. The Hunger Games doesn't have the level of grand and fantastical sci-fi world building and visuals that something like John Carter or Prometheus has embedded in their DNA. Also, The Hunger Games will make money on it's tween romance angle and being that it is a movie based on a mega-hit young adult book series. A very different animal when compared to a 100 year old pulp sci-fi adventure novel finally making it to the screen, or a dark Ridley Scott sci-fi flick probing the origins of humanity. These are completely different markets and audiences. Men In Black III is also a very different animal. The main draw with this is Will Smith in a comedy with special effects, which is also a sequel to a popular and profitable franchise. A light and fluffy film like Men In Black has about as much to do with a dark and epic sci-fi film like Prometheus as Ghostbusters has to do with The Terminator. Also, if Battleship under performs, the bean counters can still blame it on the film being too sci-fi and not grounded enough for audiences. They won't blame the brand, cause it could have been done as a historical or real world present day set movie about naval warfare. If it is a hit, they'll attribute it to the Hasbro board game brand name.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:29 p.m. CST

    @darth_meh

    by Hyphin

    Hah! If there ever was a perfect film, FOTR'd be it.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:36 p.m. CST

    You had me until "Avatar"

    by Homer Sexual

    I think John Carter has been horribly marketed. Even keeping "Warlord of Mars" as a subtitle would've probably helped. Just calling it "John Carter" is very generic. Everything about the previews of this movie scream "generic" and I admit I haven't seen it. It may very well be a decent movie, but there isn't one shred of evidence in any of the promos, print or preview, to indicate such. and then you go and say "Avatar" will one day be regarded as Cameron's masterpiece, when "Avatar" has already lost a huge amount of the respect it initally got. It's a pretty borefest. I'm not a huge Cameron fan, but Aliens, Terminator and Titanic are all way, way better than Avatar(d).

  • March 14, 2012, 1:37 p.m. CST

    Whoever said JC is a kids movie

    by rogueleader66

    You obviously didnt see it. Do kids like it? Yea, mine loved it. But to call it a kids movie is stupid.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:39 p.m. CST

    John Carter was a wonderful movie

    by Mattman

    Most who hate it haven't even seen it, so fuck off.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:42 p.m. CST

    Mattman

    by rogueleader66

    Those who have seen it and hate it, must not like good movies. Oh, but remember, we're delusional fanboys who love the movie on principle. That explains everything. Anyone rooting for this to fail, should have their eyes taken away so they can never watch movies again.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:43 p.m. CST

    Stanton is nothing like Bay, or any other hacks

    by Mattman

    He lets his scenes breathe. His camera lingers on scenery, giving you time to digest what you're seeing. His characters are likable and funny, without having to scream all their dialogue. I can tell what's happening in the action scenes.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:48 p.m. CST

    oops...my bad..

    by Homer Sexual

    I just saw Avatar when it said Abyss.. sorry.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:50 p.m. CST

    Mattman.....well said, and all true.

    by rogueleader66

    Anyone saying JC is horrible, I dare them to put it on the same level as Transformers 2, Skyline, Clash Of The Titans. Go ahead, say it's as bad as those movies. You can't, because it isn't. Not even close.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    If this film had used...

    by lprothro

    some of the awesome fight sequences described by Burroughs, like fist fights with humanoid (but not king kong sized) white apes in the Barsoom city square, or elaborate Errol Flynn style sword fights with four-armed green aliens--and had subsequently advertised these scenes in ads, I doubt if we'd be having this conversation. Andrew should have held onto what made him fall in love with these books in the first place and not strayed so far from the original narrative. You guys are also right about the stupid generic title choice.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    I'm glad at least Disney is smart about this

    by Series7

    Just like The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Mars Needs Moms there isn't a toy line for this. I guess they learned their lesson with POP.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:56 p.m. CST

    JIM FUCKING AROUND IN MARIANA TRENCH

    by KilliK

    and give us Avatar 2 before the Hollywood fuckheads kill the epic scifi genre for good.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST

    JIM STOP FUCKING AROUND IN MARIANA TRENCH

    by KilliK

    and give us Avatar 2 before the Hollywood fuckheads kill the epic scifi genre for good.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:58 p.m. CST

    Fun science fiction movie.

    by Steve

    The hot princess chick is totally worth the price of a matinee alone. She's got my Wonder Woman vote.

  • ONLY IN YOUR DREAMS.

  • March 14, 2012, 1:59 p.m. CST

    Rogue, those are bad movies and no one expected anything else from them.

    by Fortunesfool

    With the talent involved, you got what you paid for. With John Carter, all the pieces were in place for it to be really good, and it wasn't. This is the biggest problem with it. It's not a bad film like Transformers 3 (which actually makes you angry at the people involved and at yourself for paying money to see it). It's just an utterly bland, unmemorable one. Personally, I had forgotten almost everything about it by the time I got home from the cinema. I've been reading about it all week and still struggle to name most of the characters or places. I get the arguments for it, but for me, mediocrity should not be celebrated.

  • March 14, 2012, 2 p.m. CST

    Avatar was an experience to see in the theater

    by rogueleader66

    On home viewing, it loses a lot. Part of the draw of that movie was the way the 3D sucked you into the world of Pandora. Without that wonderment, it doesn't hold up as well. Still a good movie? Absolutely. A masterpiece? Not by any stretch.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    I did like that John Carter played tribute

    by Series7

    To one of the Bay's finer achievements: http://images.allmoviephoto.com/2001_Pearl_Harbor/cuba_gooding_jr_pearl_harbor_002.jpg

  • March 14, 2012, 2:05 p.m. CST

    Lucas ASSRAPES Stanton!

    by DocPazuzu

    That right there is the sophisticated level of movie appreciation that fett operates on. He's a shallow, bean counting swillhead who hates movies that he can't understand, that have subtext or otherwise confuse him.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:06 p.m. CST

    oh, and AICN?

    by DocPazuzu

    If you find the time... FIX THE FUCKING QUOTE PROBLEM IN TALKBACK ONCE AND FOR ALL, GODDAMMIT!

  • March 14, 2012, 2:07 p.m. CST

    PROMETHEUS IS A MORE PROMISING MOVIE? SINCE WHEN?

    by KilliK

    with a super-model for the protagonist? with a good-looking,non-everyday man,cast? with everything in the movie looking polished,clean and sterile? with a boring,done to death scifi concept about aliens creating mankind and time-travel? with a hack writer who worked in the LOST fiasco? trying to destroy the cosmic horror mystery of the original masterpiece by explaining everything in the prequel? PG-13? Is this the movie that is supposed to cause the rebirth of the big-budget scifi genre with original,fresh epic/pulp/hard scifi movies? GIVE ME A BREAK.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:07 p.m. CST

    What I would want is a new editing of the movie

    by BEHEM Pascal

    Removing all things that were shoved in "for the sequel" that will never happen. Get rid of the "ninth ray" boring subplot, since there's absolutely no payoff in Dejah's knowledge of this ray. Keep the romantic part, put it elsewhere (the scene was probably shot with green screens anyway, with digital lihgting correstion you could place it anywhere). Throw away the temple of Issus scene too. In general, get rid of everything that is not related to the main characters, MAKE THIS LOVE STORY SHINE AND MAKE IT THE MAIN PLOT ELEMENT. There's probably an even more awesome movie on the cutting room's floor.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    =A masterpiece? Not by any stretch.=

    by KilliK

    WRONG.TRIPLE FACT.

  • kind of made me sad actually.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:11 p.m. CST

    @lprothro

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    I've been trying to convince people of this for the past week. Some kick ass sword technique and old fashioned ass kicking would have served this well. John Carter is an expert soldier and fighter, "the greatest swordsman on two worlds." None of that was conveyed in the movie Fucking Hollywood

  • March 14, 2012, 2:15 p.m. CST

    umaga

    by DocPazuzu

    Harry never mentioned masturbating to John Carter. Since you equated his love for the property with masturbating to it, I naturally assumed your love for the Tron franchise meant that you enjoyed flogging the log to neon-jumpsuited men inside computers. It really wasn't that much of a leap, son. Perhaps you should try expressing yourself a little less confusingly?

  • as an Alien and Aliens fanatic, I am trying to remain cautiously optimistic and go in with an open mind, unlike with Alien Resurrection where the trailer was awesome and I thought we were going to be getting another AL()ENS after ALIEN 3. The thing with Prometheus is that it just doesn't have the vitriol being spewed at it like John Carter has had since the beginning. If at the end of the year though, Prometheus, along with the other big sci-fi films like John Carter, Riddick III, Total Recall, Battleship, and Gravity end up all being financially disappointing in the eyes of Hollywood execs, then I really fear for us ever getting any space operas or space themed movies ever again. Maybe Avatar II, but even then, 20th Century Fox will be breathing down Jimbo's neck so bad he will probably climb into an AMP suit and murder all the studio bean counters and nattering naybobs of negativity.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    killik, damn right

    by Mattman

    JC is a masterpiece. It's going to be rediscovered like Blade Runner in ten years.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:24 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by lprothro

    With you on that one man! I still beleive Stanton to be a talented director, but he was trying to turn an apple into an orange. He wanted to make an introspective, solemn film but it was an ill-fit for the source material. Carter and the other characters did need to be fleshed out a bit, but not at the expense of the action and the meticulously described sword fights that give the books such a dynamic kinetic pace. (I was also waiting for Collins to do the whole "My cheiftain" thing but looks like dude was so caught up in this shape-shifting Thern nonsense that he forgot about that too.)

  • March 14, 2012, 2:26 p.m. CST

    larsson, Fudgepack Friday

    by lv_426

    I am guessing that choppah might feature Dejah Thoris as this Friday's subject of fudgepackage. Or is that too obvious?

  • March 14, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Well I heard Stanton wildly overspent and was irresponsible with the budget...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    so if he did that, all this is partly his fault and he deserves to be dragged through the mud.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    Killik

    by rogueleader66

    I'll break it down for you..... Avatar.... Beautifully shot. Well paced. Complete, engaging world. Never boring. Generic characters. Generic story (but well told). Bland Worthington (while not as bad as he usually is, still not all that great either). Very good movie? Yes. Classic? Nope. But keep trying with all of your hard hitting facts. Oh and the fact that you do not find Prometheus promising in any way, pretty much negates your opinions. Even being cautiously optimistic like lv 426 is good. But sorry, you fail.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:29 p.m. CST

    Sorry....substitute Masterpiece for classic in my last post.

    by rogueleader66

    Either way applies, but I mean masterpiece....something Avatar is not.

  • Absolutely ridiculous.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Mattman

    by rogueleader66

    killik was referring to Avatar being a masterpiece.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:33 p.m. CST

    JC is far superior to Avatar imo

    by Mattman

    I liked Avatar, but the characters and plot are very one-note. JC was much more energetic, felt fresher (despite endless mining of its source material), and the characters felt alive. I much prefer Carter and Dejah to Jake and Neytiri.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:34 p.m. CST

    Rogue, oh I see

    by Mattman

    Well, can't agree with that one.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:38 p.m. CST

    MentalDominance, let's End franchises and Begin originality?

    by D.Vader

    How far does this doctrine go? Ignore franchises and we may never get another JAWS or Godfather, movies that changed the source material they were based on and were better for it. Support originality (which I'm always in favor of), and we'll probably get more Paranormal Activity's and small films. That's great, but I do love a good ole fashioned well-told blockbuster. We can still have both. Making a hard stand against franchises no matter what is a bit stubborn and short-sighted in my opinion bc it ignores many wonderful possibilities. And on that note, I hope you're not supporting Prometheus at all.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:41 p.m. CST

    If supporting John Carter is hurting sci-fi movies

    by lv_426

    Then supporting the upcoming Battleship, any Resident Evil films, as well as The Phantom Menace and its lame 3D re-release, that my friends is the equivalent of fudgepacking sci-fi cinema in the ass with an elephant cock.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:47 p.m. CST

    ^^^Oh no he d'n't!^^^

    by Joe Plumber

  • Just the fact Disney was doing it had me worried. There's just so much violence in the booksit should have been made a PG-13 action movie, not a PG comedy. Plus they change the story so much it really was a different story. Maybe if they stuck to the original material it would have been better and more fans of the books would have gone to see it.

  • March 14, 2012, 2:55 p.m. CST

    rogueleader66

    by AsimovLives

    Your dog is ten times the director that Bay is. Saying anybody is a better director then Bay is damning with faint praise. Of course any and everybody is better then Bay, D'UUUHHH!!!

  • March 14, 2012, 2:57 p.m. CST

    you may have liked john carter but stop bashing it cos I DID

    by HELLSFOXES

    um... good argument there Kidd.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:06 p.m. CST

    darth_meh

    by AsimovLives

    At least John Carter in the movie doesn 't have Vidal Sansoon designed hair, unlike Joshie Girly Haired Hollowaywhateverthefuck who looked like the shampoon commercial male model he is. Your beloved Joshie as John Carter would had been even more of a joke to the character.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    Topher, it is PG-13, dumbass

    by Mattman

    There was tons of violence. And while there is Indiana Jones style humor, it was hardly a "comedy". What movie did you see? The fucking Lorax?

  • March 14, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    I was sick to death of it last year.

    by Dkev00

    Playing trailers for it in front of every movie for 6 months is not the way to win fans. I have no desire to see this POS.

  • Anybody looks good compared to shit.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:09 p.m. CST

    Nathan Fillion should have been John Carter!!!!!!

    by lv_426

  • March 14, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    lv_426, Nathan Fillion should have been every hero ever!

    by Mattman

    ;)

  • March 14, 2012, 3:10 p.m. CST

    asimov, you're flat out wrong

    by Joe Plumber

    Not sure what issues you have with Halloway (I'm sure it has something to do with J.J. Abrams), but Halloway can act and has more charisma in his shampoo commercial Girly locks than Kitch has in his whole male model/mannequin body.

  • And the same goes with praising Stanton by comparing with such shit like Mickey Fuckass Bay. It's unfair. People should be compared to the good ones, not the absolutly terrible, don't you think?

  • March 14, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    Thank you, Beaks!

    by Playhouse

    Thanks for nailing the atmosphere surrounding the movie perfectly, Beaks. Fully agree and it's quite disturbing how personal most of the coverage of the movie has been in the media. Personally, I loved the movie. It's definitely flawed but I was thoroughly taken in by its pulpy fun. I can't help but feel that there is a cynicism that is so pervasive in our society today that there is no way a film like this, built on such wonder and a sense of adventure, would succeed. (The original 'Star Wars', released today without any pretext, would suffer the same fate, I'm sure of it.) And the media's go-for-the-throat coverage just solidifies that point. . Frankly, the whole thing has been disgusting. There is some literate discussion out there involving it but most of it has been pitchforks and torches, which is just a scary environment to try to create anything in. . Bonus points for the shoutout to 'The Abyss', which is by far my fave of Cameron's and the best of his work to date.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:14 p.m. CST

    darth_meh

    by AsimovLives

    well then, i must have, lost all those LOST episodes then where Joshie Girlyboy proved to be such a wonderful actor and actionboy, because all i saw was him being a useless himbo with too much haircare. Jezzz, what a coincidence! God must be deliberatly preventing me from liking Joshie GirlyBoy Hollowhatthefuck.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    Good thing JC isn't sci-fi.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

  • Now go see the movie, and maybe we can talk more when you have formed an educated opinion not based on what others have said.

  • He's now twice the man he used to be.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:17 p.m. CST

    mattman, that will be tomorrow then. Stay tuned.

    by AsimovLives

  • They did make one like they used to... and you didn't see it.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST

    won't have to worry about

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    how it affects a completely different genre.

  • Bay never had a moment of brillance in his entire career whatsoever. Not even on the movie where everybody went gay on Sean Connery.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:19 p.m. CST

    chopped down

    by Party_Animal_IV

    Nothing wrong with the movie other than it is obviously brutally edited down from a more cohesive longer film.

  • What are you stuck in the 60's? Go to your basement, a.k.a. your U.S.S. Enterprise bridge replica, where you film your homoerotic fan films, and fly around the Earth a few times at Warp 5 until you time travel to the 21st Century.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:22 p.m. CST

    party_animal_iv, I wouldn't mind a longer cut

    by Mattman

    Not necessarily because I think it was truncated, but just because I want to see more!

  • i call your precious Joshie girly because he has girl hair. it's specific to your precious himbo girly haired joshie boy. You understand it now?

  • March 14, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST

    they don't make 'em like they used to anymore.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    We don't need them like they used to make them. We need Hollywood to evolve and stop hacking up source material. Stop thinking they can improve on it, because it takes no less than a Kubrick to be able to pull it off.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:30 p.m. CST

    "it takes no less than a Kubrick to be able to pull it off"

    by Mattman

    Wait, you complain about hacking source material, then bring up Kubrick, who hacked up The Shining practically beyond recognition, thinking he could improve upon it? Don't get me wrong, he made a great movie, but he also missed the entire point of the main character.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:36 p.m. CST

    Starship Troopers was nothing like it's source but that movie rocks!

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 14, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    The moment you hear DISNEY, you should RUN!

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 14, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance, I wasn't saying it did matter

    by Mattman

    I was pointing out the error in notenoughbiehn's claim.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by Joe Plumber

    notnough's point was actually only Kubrick could pull off hacking source material to improve upon it.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:38 p.m. CST

    Kubrick was able to pull it off

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    And he made something arguably superior to the source material. In my opinion, the changes made to the John Carter story were for the worse. It's inferior to the source material. Some may feel differently, that the film is an improvement. But what I personally liked about the story is not in the film, so it's a failure of adaptation, imo.

  • Who made too little films called Jaws and Jurassic Park. You might have heard of them?

  • March 14, 2012, 3:40 p.m. CST

    Or how about Milius, who made Conan The Barbarian?

    by Mattman

    A definite hacking of the source material, which turned out to be an excellent movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    *two little films

    by Mattman

    Fucking edit button, now.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:41 p.m. CST

    mentaldominance, gotcha

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 3:42 p.m. CST

    (and I agree)

    by Mattman

  • That is an utter bastardization/parody of the source material, and it's fucking brilliant.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:43 p.m. CST

    Speilberg is on Kubrick's level

    by Joe Plumber

    MIlius did not improve on the source material. He just made a good sword and sorcery film that happened to called ConanINO

  • That's up for debate with all the films mentioned, and no one is right or wrong.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    What's important is that each adaptation works as a movie

    by Mattman

    The Shining is a great standalone movie, whether you've read the book or not. I feel the same about John Carter.

  • better than atrocities like Transformers or the upcoming Battleship or the Prequel SW or most of the shitty super-hero comic-book movies that HW has spawned in the recent years. AND IT WAS FUCKING ORIGINAL.ORIGINAL.O R I G I N A L. Now go watch the soulless SW prequels for the millionth time because you cant live without Lucas' cock in your mouth.or Bay's.or Marvel's.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:45 p.m. CST

    And Stanton is no Kubrick

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Put it this way. I think the Milius Conan is a great movie, I watch it at least once a year. But I'm still waiting for a "real" Conan movie, faithful to Howard's writing, characterization. And I'll be waiting for a "real" John Carter movie.

  • He'd probably garner more favor than any of the candidates running for office on the GOP ticket. If he won we'd have Morena Baccarin as a hot first lady. Summer Glau could be like their adopted daughter that would parade around the halls of the White House in sexy underpants. Jewel Staite would act as the cutest speaker of the house ever, while Adam Baldwin would legally change his name to Jayne Cobb so that he could be the craziest mofo of a Secretary of State we've ever seen bust heads on the international stage. And for the kicker... all of President Fillion's speeches and State of the Union addresses would need to be written by Joss Whedon.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    I Liked It...

    by Gary Cochran

    It may not have been the best movie ever but it sure was alot of fun and all my family members enjoyed it. Quite frankly I'm shocked that it didn't do better. It was an epic with new material in a new world and not a rehash of other shit like the last pirates movie where there was little effort to make a good movie. It was all about squeezing the franchise's tit to get 1 more paycheck.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:46 p.m. CST

    @Mentaldominance: You Are So Right

    by Media Messiah

    There are a bunch of crackheads running Hollywood. To give 250 million dollars to a first-time live-action director, over Hollywood basically busting the chops of people like Ridley Scott and Douglas Trumbull for every dime that they get for a film budget is ridiculous...and sad.

  • If so, that person hasn't a clue.

  • When all three Transformers movies made billions. Sigh.

  • TRIPLE FACT.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    Flash Gordon in 1980 was considered a big stink bomb as well.

    by Hesiod2k7

    And now it's considered a camp cult classic. Just saying.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    "And Stanton is no Kubrick"

    by Mattman

    No, he's not. He's Stanton. And he's made two sci-fi masterpieces, as far as I'm concerned... Wall-E and John Carter. Both very different.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:50 p.m. CST

    (but thanks for the invite to John Carter, Beaks)

    by Mattman

    You still suck for your Bring It On love, though.

  • They needa tentpole!

  • Which had a bit more balls than the movie's ending.

  • March 14, 2012, 3:54 p.m. CST

    neonfrisbee, how you figure that?

    by Mattman

    If anything, JC's failure may halt Tron 3 forever. Legacy barely broke even, after it was all said and done.

  • March 14, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    @mattman i know :/

    by KilliK

  • March 14, 2012, 4:03 p.m. CST

    If 'Miami Vice' is Mann's Worst...

    by Playhouse

    ... I'd like to be batting with his average. 'Miami Vice' is severely underrated, especially the extended cut of the film.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:04 p.m. CST

    Media Messiah IS Giorgio A Tsoukalos

    by UGG

    off of that there Ancient Aliens programme.

  • For god's sake, if you give a fuck about film, especially films that aim for the fences, then don't talk about John Carter with the kind of disdain that you would talk about movies made for money and without even the slightest passion such as Transformers or GI Joe. Stanton is a treasure and we should have had his back. Even to simply wonder at his passion and pat him on the back for giving it his all. Trashing John Carter is inexcusable for anyone who is anything more than a consumer of film.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:09 p.m. CST

    d

    by NotEnoughBiehn

  • Half of you assholes who refuse to see Carter probably went to Twilight with some girl you wanted to fuck, and ended up in the friend zone instead.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:10 p.m. CST

    darth_meh

    by AsimovLives

    Let's keep this personable not personal, shall we? Yeah, i find the notion of Joshie Holloway a leading man to be risible. He's little more then a TV pretty boy himbo as far i'm concerned.

  • That's fucking hilarious coming from you.

  • otherwise he would had made like that bland unremarkable cliche riddled TV miniseries that was made afterwards. Kubrick dodged the bullet. Smart fella! His Shining proves why he was a genious.

  • It didn't make Avatar numbers, but that's a considerable notch above "barely breaking even" and a HUGE leap above JC's embarrassing $25 mil (for a flick that cost $250 mil).

  • March 14, 2012, 4:14 p.m. CST

    I kinda liked JC, but I liked Watchmen too.

    by Hesiod2k7

    In fact, I think Watchmen was a masterpiece, that got a really shitty deal from the fanboys. It was a great film, that -- unfortunately -- suffered from the opposite problem John carter did. The marketing for the film was incredible. It generated enormous buzz, and sold the property correctly. There were a ton of stories about the attention to detail Zach Snyder was paying and his fealty to the source material. The only hiccup was the rumored change of ending -- which in retrospect was not as big a deal as the fanboy idiots made it out to be at the time. What doomed Watchmen though, was that it was not a slam bang action packed popcorn superhero movie. It had even less action and more complex themes than The Dark Knight did. And, finally, it came out right when the world was going to hell and the economy tanked. People go to movies for an escape. Especially to big blockbuster movies. They don't go for a slow-moving, complex plot downer with Phillip Glass music. And that's what Watchmen was. In happier times, maybe the mid 1990's, I think watchmen would have made twice the money. John carter -- if marketed properly (a la watchmen -- which had one of the best trailers of the past 10 years) would have generated buzz and would have made a lot more money. but, it's not as good a MOVIE as Watchmen. It has a lot of flaws.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Defending John Carter is inexcusable

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    for anyone who cares about honoring classic stories and bringing their author's vision to the screen. Stanton gets thrown under the bus because of his ego and poor decision making abilities.

  • JC made $100 so far. Not saying it'll break even, but don't cite domestic numbers for one movie while citing worldwide for another in trying to amplify your point.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:17 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn - stanton's ego?

    by antonphd

    what the hell are you talking about?

  • March 14, 2012, 4:19 p.m. CST

    *$100 million

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 4:20 p.m. CST

    Adding complexity to a popcorn fick weakens it.

    by Hesiod2k7

    Go back an really analyze the plot of Star Wars. It was incredibly simple. You had the MacGuffin of the plans for the Death Star. The plans landing on a backwater planet with a callow youth and an aging old warrior. And the Empire going after them. They escape from the planet with a swashbuckling anti-hero and his devoted but tough sidekick -- get captured by the enemy, and escape. Then, as a finally, they attack the big station using the plans and blow it up. That's it. No galactic politics, or exposition about the Empire or the rebellion, or why they were fighting and shit. Nobody cared. What drove the movie were the fantastic characters, with perfectly cast actors in the roles who had great on screen chemistry, and some great action set pieces. Stanton larded up the Princess of Mars story with way to much extraneous and unnecessary shit.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:21 p.m. CST

    hesiod2k7, tell that to Christopher Nolan

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    @Antonphd: Stanton Threw Himself Under The Bus

    by Media Messiah

    It is his film, and with a 250 million dollars, he was given full control to do whatever he wanted, and should have seen the issues with the film, and fixed them from the script level, to reshoots, and pacing. He didn't fix them, and now he has a blunder on his resume. It's not an awful film, just a easily forgettable one. As per the casting, this film is could easily be called racist. In this day and time, a White's only cast, really? That is very informative about Mr. Stanton and his world view, and that of Disney and Pixar.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:23 p.m. CST

    mattman, you mean hooper getting eaten, too gave it more balls?

    by Joe Plumber

    Jaws came out in 75. I remember reading the book years later, I was still quite young, and thinking it wasn't that well written of a book. that said, i did go on to read Benchley's The Beast. Jaws, the film has a perfect ending, imo. When Hooper pops up from the water you are genuinely as happy to see him as Brody is. I'm glad that was changed.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Stanton's ego

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Mr. I'm not going to do Frazetta, even though that's what the fans of the property want, even though that vision is superior to my vision of Utah-as-Barsoom, skinny cartoon Tharks, slavering mole-apes, boyish John Carter. Not too mention my story changes which are completely against the spirit of the thing. I think you need to check out of a few of the links to Stanton interviews in the other thread.

  • Honestly, I couldn't care less either way, I'm just shootin' the shit. I just reckon that Disney would go with a brand that has a demonstrated solid base (even one that didn't do as well as they wanted, but did turn a decent profit) than one that doesn't have a base at all (and bombed). I could be wrong, don't really care if I am.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    Asimov, fine, sorry you took my fanboy joke personal

    by Joe Plumber

    but does that mean that you DO have a life size replica of the bridge of the U.S.S. Enterprise in your parent's basement. If so, that would be so awesome! I'm not even joking. It totally would.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    darth_meh, I'm glad it was changed too...

    by Mattman

    but I can see how some people who had read the book first would think of it as a copout.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:29 p.m. CST

    Defending John Carter

    by Playhouse

    ERB's intent was to make entertaining stories, nothing more, nothing less. I'd say Stanton more than lived up to that standard. As influential as the Barsoom series is to science fiction, fantasy, and space opera, let's not lose sight of the fact that the guy wasn't trying to create classic works of literature. There's this tendency to elevate works like this as if the authors were somehow prescient (and fully responsible, in an orchestrated fashion) for the response years down the road. That's just not the case. The guy thought he could tell better stories than he was reading in the pulps and needed to make some money. The stories have become classics but that doesn't take away from the fact that they were pulp tales. That's what Stanton captured on the screen.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    I need to stop, I'm starting to froth

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    So, who's looking forward to Prometheus?

  • March 14, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    Haters = Dumb fucks

    by PhxMonsterGuy

    Couldn't agree more. All the haters were set to hate this film before they ever saw it. 95% of the assholes on this site are fucking negative bitching assholes that must have zero friends because uh...they're always fucking negative bitching assholes who apparently confuse being a nasty negative fucktard with being an intelligent film lover. God I don't know why I waste my time with this goddamn website.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:30 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn, a lot of directors have huge egos

    by Mattman

    Newsflash.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST

    neonfrisbee, what an adorable way of admitting you were wrong

    by Mattman

    "You corrected me? You must be taking this personally!" Awww.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    @playhouse

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    We're not elevating anything, at least I'm not. There are key things that I think make the books entertaining and memorable, and they aren't in the film. Not very satisfying.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn, it didn't give you what you wanted

    by Mattman

    I get that. It makes sense. You were looking for something else. That's perfectly understandable. But it did give some of us what we were looking for, so it's hardly "inexcusable" to like it.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:35 p.m. CST

    mattman, yes they do

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    This is just one of many times it's annoyed me. For the record Wall-E was spectacular, so I don't have some grudge against Stanton, just disappointment at the whole thing.

  • And also from what Disney and Stanton have said and done about the movie. And frankly, it's not all that appealing. A friend of mine call it "anpother fucking PRINCE OF PERSIA". And that's exactly what it looks like, another fucking PRINCE OF PERSIA. All the advertizement about this movie and allthe things that Stanton and Disney have said in support to the movie seems to be deliberatly designed to make me wish not to watch it. It's actually taking me a lot of good will to bother to go watch it tomorrow. Because tomorrow i'm going alone, not with my troupe of friends. Becasue i have been completly unhable to convince a single one of them to go with me, because, as i said above, it all looks like PRINCE OF PERSIA 2: MARTIAN BOGALOO. And i fucking hate going to the movies alone. It takes a special kind of movie to give me the good will enough to bother to go to a theater alone. The last one that did it to me, and the only one last year, was for DRIVE. A movie whihc i had a tremendous good will toward it because it was directed by Nicolas Winding Reft, the guy who made VALHALLA RISING, a movie i love as much as life itself. This JOHN CARTER offers me not a single atom in comparison to VALHALLA RISING. This JOHN CARTER movie offers no real reason for me to bother to watch it. I'm fucking suprised with myself that i will actually bother to go watch this instead of just wait to DVD or streamtorrent. I'm showing more good will toward this movie then it has any right to demand it from me, because it hasn't given me any reason for it whatsoever. I'm going on the off-chance it might win me over the same way that CAPTAIN AMERICA or SHUTTER ISLAND did, two movies i seriosuly wanted to give a miss but watched them against my judgement and who won me all over five minutes into them. A movie which i was reluctant to and it changes my mind can and has happened. Fortuituous happenings, but not common to happen. And i have to say, the elad in JOHN CARTER is not filling me with any confidence whatsoever. I do not know him from anywhere. This is my first exposure to him. I have no baggage, for me he's not this character from this one show or movie, i don't associate him with any role whatsoever. And yet i'm not liking much what i hav e saw so far. It's not that i think he's a bad actor, i have no reason to think so. But frankly, he doesn't look the part. All i see is this very limited charisma looking californian beefcake surfer boy. And he's canadian!! What i don't see is a 19th century war veteran of the American Civil War. Or a 19th century man of adventure. I see a modern looking boy playing cowboy and indians aor playing conan the barbarian: the high school years. that'show fucking lame he looks to me. The scenery looks too much like earth too little like mars. and i don't even mean a realistic mars. Npo, i mean, i don't see anything that makes me think "Not Earth". Nothing. Amnd don't even make me coment on the visual look. Let's not. My point is, from the movie alone, from the marketing department alone, this movie has not given me much of a good reason to bother to wathc it. If i knew nothing of the Barsoon novels, if i hadn't watched the Mars episode of COSMOS when i was 10 years old back in the early 1980s, if the name Edgar Burroughs ment nothing to me, you can all bet your sweet Jesus i wouldn't give a flying fuck about this PRINCE OF PERSIA looking movie. You betcha. By going to watch this movie i'm giving it far more good will then other movies which had failed to appeal to me as this one has. So, i'll not tolerate any motherfucker who will say i have not give this movie enough good will or given a fair chance, the mere fact i'm going to watch it already is.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:39 p.m. CST

    mattman, I was just countering antonphd

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    It's no more inexcusable to "trash" JC (unless just plain schadenfreude is behind it) than it is to defend it. No one needs to be excused for thinking one way or the other, it's ridiculous.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:40 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn, okay cool

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 4:42 p.m. CST

    darth_meh

    by AsimovLives

    I always lived in flats. Unlike in the USA, middle class people in Europe live predominatly in flats. Only the quite very well off can afford a house in the far away suburbs. I know of basements and their dwellers. And i do not own merchandise of movies, unless they are some small stuff that cna come from a special edition DVD. and then i let it stay there on the box. I'm a collector of movies, not of merchandise. In fact, merchandise upsets me. You can accuse me of being a purist. I only beame a SF fan, if you can it that, quite recently. and you wouldn't caugh me dead buying a enterprise replica, much less dressing up like a nob! My pyjamas are for sleeping.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:44 p.m. CST

    mattman, what can i say? i'm a funny man.

    by AsimovLives

    and in fact, i only get personal when i get pissed off. and i get pissed off when shit gets personal.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    I thought it was a fantastic movie...

    by Cheeses_of_Nazareth

    It was pure action space opera pulp through and through, and just beautiful to look at from start to finish. Asi, I hope that you are serious about giving JC a fair shake. If you do, I think you will enjoy...

  • March 14, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    Kubrick > King...end of fucking discussion.

    by conspiracy

  • March 14, 2012, 4:46 p.m. CST

    But people, READ THE BOOKS!!!

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    You're only denying yourselves the pleasure of pulp kick-assery second to none. Drive up sales of the books and maybe we'll see more of this property somewhere down the line. (with different lead and white apes hopefully)

  • March 14, 2012, 4:49 p.m. CST

    Yes, the books are excellent (and free if you have a Kindle)

    by Mattman

    It's amazing how well they hold up today. And Burroughs is a damn good writer.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    my previous opinion on Stanton is that he made WALL-E...

    by AsimovLives

    ... which is half a brillant movie/half a mind-numbing mundane one. I never saw FINDING NEMO. I have no ill will or grudge against Stanton. He has not made some Michael Bay type of movie to earn it from me. Though his whinning and all his "poor me, they are all against me, they all want me to fail because i'm so awesome and sucessful" paranoid bullshit is really rubbing me the wrong way. And all his talk that he can't bother with such things as budgets and shooting schedules, his complete nonchallant attitude toward how much his movie costed, does paint the picture of a guy who has no concept of responsability and acccountability. He is talented, but i'm not liking the dude much.

  • The miniseries is shit. I'm talking about the book.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    @asimovlives

    by THX1968

    You are a long way off from being a man. Those pubes have to come in first, you sniveling punk.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:54 p.m. CST

    The characters are also much more interesting and real

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 4:57 p.m. CST

    cheeses_of_nazareth

    by AsimovLives

    I can only promise that i'll give you my honest opinion of the movie. I can't promise i'll like it... or not. I gave the first TRANSFORMERS movie a fair chance and came out hating the living shit out of it. You know what i mean?

  • Too many people are reviewing the budget, the director's ego, the advertising, etc.

  • March 14, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    I don't give a shit what went on behind the scenes...

    by Mattman

    It's not like the director raped an underage girl. Fuck.

  • Haven't read the rest yet. I'm even finishing the first, matter of fact.

  • March 14, 2012, 5 p.m. CST

    fee = free

    by AsimovLives

  • March 14, 2012, 5:03 p.m. CST

    mattman, cheap shot.

    by AsimovLives

    and you do not know that about Stanton. For all weknow, he might have a dungeon filled with teenage boys he likes to torture and rape and murder. just because he works for disney and makes family movies doen't mean he is a nice jolly old boy. Holywood history is filled with stories of people who made family friendly movies who were sexual depraved fuckasses. Don't say anything that might blow up in your face later on.

  • ;)

  • March 14, 2012, 5:06 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by DocPazuzu

    You may not mean for it to sound that way, but your posts make it sound like you're preparing to hate it. You're already practicing with phrases like Prince of Persia 2: Martian Boogaloo and Taylor Quiche. To be quite honest, I think you're going to hate it. I think you're going to let its flaws and simple, face-value thrills dominate your perception of it. It would be nice if it turns out that I'm wrong, but I don't think I am.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:10 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu, amen.

    by Mattman

    The thing is, I won't believe anything he says now. Even if he likes it, I'll think it's just a reaction to prove to us how objective he can be. So it doesn't really matter either way.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:11 p.m. CST

    Anyway, I'm out. There's only so much truth this TB can handle.

    by Mattman

  • March 14, 2012, 5:13 p.m. CST

    "John Carter sucks bc it's too close to the book!"

    by D.Vader

    John Carter sucks bc it wasn't different enough!

  • at least then I'd have something to talk about; as it is I'm all John Cartered out, I've given my subjective opinion, discussed the Corporate background noise...and have reached the end of the road here. Time to move on to new pastures...this one has been grazed down to nothing.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Taylor Quiche is mine

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Get your own material, asimov!

  • March 14, 2012, 5:26 p.m. CST

    John Carter of Flop. RIP.

    by Yoda's Ball Sack

    If bullshit was dynamite, these rants would blow us sky high. Weak argument: Go see John Carter or the sci fi genre dies. Pass the Steak Sauce....................you puppets.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:27 p.m. CST

    The curse of Led Zeppelin 'Kashmir'

    by Axl Z

    Both Godzilla and this used that song.. A curse on the blockbuster it is!

  • this is the times when so often a sequel ends up being better then the first movie. so, there would walways be a chance of improvement, regardless of how flawed the first movie is, if it is so. Well, time will tell... and Disney, of course.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by AsimovLives

    Taylor Quiche is not mine. Proper due to who deserves it. As another talkbacker said before me, i'm hoping for the best, bracing for the worst.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:42 p.m. CST

    mattman

    by AsimovLives

    I won't believe anything he says now. Even if he likes it, I'll think it's just a reaction to prove to us how objective he can be. So it doesn't really matter either way.

  • The coments about AVATAR and the rpedictions of doom were really nasty. They made anything said about JOHN CARTER look like high praises. This crying about how people wanted to hate JOHN CARTER before it was released is, frankly, childish! Compared to movies that actually got it pretty bad, like AVATAR and TITANIC, it's pathetic. James Cameron is the guy that seems to have a dedicated hatedom that goes beyond mere geekdom but into the mainstream. Andrew Stanton has not made enough impact to even deserve that kind of hatedom. Stanton should just shup up about his paranoid nonsense and stop sounding like a petulant spoiled brat fool.

  • ... somebody somewhere would still be making movies. If one movie fails, be it huge or medium or small, people will keep making movies. I wish John Carter did better, but I also wish John Carter was a better movie. Lets be honest people, even if John Carter does terrible in the short or long run its not like movies everywhere will stop being made, let alone scifi movies, huge epics or what have you. I know AICN cares about this movie but guys, if it goes down I dont think its the end of the world. Disapointing? Yes, but Disney will keep on trucking in the end.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    re-release = pre-release

    by AsimovLives

  • March 14, 2012, 5:48 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn

    by AsimovLives

    I'm sorry. The royalties check is in the mail.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    thx1968

    by AsimovLives

    Keep it civil or fuck off.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    irregardlessLY!! beat that!

    by dahveed1972

  • ill wait for digital release.

  • March 14, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    to see again

    by dahveed1972

  • March 14, 2012, 5:56 p.m. CST

    fun movie . irregardlessly. that is all.

    by dahveed1972

  • March 14, 2012, 6:02 p.m. CST

    The problem is this folks...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Stanton tried to apply the techniques he used in animation to live action. Do you have any idea how huge of a learning curve it is to go from one to the other??? Pixels do not complain, pixels do not become inconsistent from take to take, pixels do not have notes about their character. Animation is 99% percent director driven. Yes, actors voice the characters, but the story and animation is fairly locked in before voice overs even happen. Plus actors are not as invested in digital characters as they would be with playing a role physically themselves. So I'd imagine they're fairly relaxed about the whole process (sitting in a comfy voice over room) and the director is in complete control. A live action film has so many different elements that do not lend themselves to control. You have to have the sense to plan like crazy far ahead before you shoot...once you shoot, actors only have a few good takes in them. And then to reshoot like crazy, as Stanton did, you're wasting millions of dollars trying to perfect something that cannot be perfected, and it shows you did not properly plan ahead. Stanton thought he could apply his back and forth technique he uses in animation to live action and not properly plan ahead so that you do not need massive reshoots. He was wrong. There's a reason 99.99% of films are planned ahead like crazy and then shot, and then edited, with almost never any reshoots. It saves time, it saves money, and it forces the director to FOCUS. Limitations actually help creativity, especially when you're dealing with real actors and real locations and real technical problems. I'm surprised a supposedly smart man like Stanton did not anticipate the learning curve. Or maybe he did and was arrogant enough to think he could learn how to make a live action movie on a $300 million budget and not fuck up royally. For Stanton's learning curve to be financed to the tune of $300+ million (including marketing) and have such influence on the studio's profit margin is bothersome. What he should have done was directed a smaller live action film to prove he can make the jump (or not)...if successful, he can then move onto bigger budgets. The Wachowski Brothers were forced to direct Bound before they did The Matrix, because the studio was worried they'd never directed a film and would fuck up their investment. The studio was smart to do this. Disney was not. Stanton had only been directing cartoons, while brilliantly done, they are not live things. They can be fiddled with endlessly for very little relative cost because there are no major physical elements to handle. You can't fiddle like that on a big budget movie and Disney was idiotic in handing him such a huge live action film right off the bat. They all deserve what they get. Stanton for being so arrogant as to think he can conquer a massively budgeted live action sci-fi adventure with complex green screen and visual FX right off the bat, never having worked with actors or live stunts before. Even Michael Bay had to prove himself with the underbudgeted Bad Boys, then transition to a bigger action film like The Rock before he could be handed something as massive as Armageddon. He worked his way up the ladder. Stanton did not and is suffering the consequences of his massive ego. I have no sympathy for this man, or the studio. Now what will happen is Stanton will be FORCED to work on a lower budget live action film (if he still wishes to pursue them)...all the while having one of the biggest bombs hanging over his head, ruining his plans for two sequels, and ruining anyone's plans for John Carter now that he's fucked everything up.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    Sorry Beaks, but...

    by Syberean

    It is not success that breeds contempt. Its paying ten bucks a pop to watch a soul less movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 6:10 p.m. CST

    dahveed1972

    by AsimovLives

    Hey, the word exists.... i think.

  • Seriously. YOU may claim to have liked it, but this movie scored worse than Tron Legacy, and the reasons for this are detailed in the countless reviews. When does it stop being the fault of "schadenfreude" and start being a genuinely bad movie? Because those still exist, you know. Even if the director is a guy you like. Was Cars 2 also a victim of the mean press?

  • Seriously. YOU may claim to have liked it, but this movie scored worse than Tron Legacy, and the reasons for this are detailed in the countless reviews. When does it stop being the fault of "schadenfreude" and start being a genuinely bad movie? Because those still exist, you know. Even if the director is a guy you like. Was Cars 2 also a victim of the mean press?

  • March 14, 2012, 6:32 p.m. CST

    Absolutely agree with Beaks on this

    by goodhorse

    It worries me that attacks like this on the returns of John Carter before it's been out ONE WEEK will cause studio types to fall back on more Pirates of Carribean-style rubbish. I thought John Carter had heart, great set pieces, eye candy to spare and a good payoff at the end. What more do you want for your movie dollar?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:08 p.m. CST

    Was the first to see it IMAX 3D. Whole IMAX theater to myself.

    by UltraTron

    Cheered. Laughed. Was swept up in parts. Was bored and hated costumes in parts. Wouldn't mind a couple sequels if there's really a story to warrant them. It's got major problems because when you get down to it it really doesn't offer more entertainment than flash gordon, Krull, beast master or even your highness. All the effects in the world and those films hold your attention better. I'm enjoying little girl who lives down the lane more on Netflix right now. I blame not seeing this movie before I saw starwars for all my life's problems.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:12 p.m. CST

    Cameron's masterpiece? Every movie he has made except piranha 2

    by UltraTron

  • March 14, 2012, 7:14 p.m. CST

    ultratron, that0s the thing, there are stories that warrant sequels.

    by AsimovLives

    There is a legit reason to turn the John Carter Of Mars into a movie franchise because it already is one in book form. It could be the James Bond of planetary romance. They wouldn't need to invent anything, they would just adapt the books in sucession. Doing that alone would give them a 10 movie saga already.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:15 p.m. CST

    I'll be the only one to mention this again..

    by UltraTron

    The title of this movie is John Carter of Mars in the films actual credits. Future people who never saw an ad or poster will know of it as John Carter of Mars. This is the name of this movie. So why do people keep calling it John Carter?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:24 p.m. CST

    Just saw it last night

    by Clio

    And I am really surprised that I did not hate it. Agreed, I like the 1881 scenes best, and the quieter moments on Barsoom, but overall I got my money's worth. What I do NOT want are any more of these pathetic and silly super hero movies, such as the upcoming Avengers. Godamighty, how much can we stomach? Can't someone be a hero without some superhuman ability to fling lightning or turn into some monster? A little drama, please, and less eye candy.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:25 p.m. CST

    Mr. Beaks + AICN = Denial

    by Mako

    The very fact that you spent more time promoting and kissing up to a movie and director that is not very good - lessens your credibility. You all here at AICN loved this film before you saw it. And you are just as bad as the critics you slam yourself. You call Stanton "a great storyteller", so you are already praising him outside the movie. He did not make a good movie. And you and AICN are angry little trolls that are kicking and screaming that JC won't make enough money to warrant a sequel. The International B.O. won't save this film. Disney doesn't make back the same kind of ratio they do with the domestic profits. I didn't like JC. And I didn't like the narrative or choice of designs or story or characters. It was all bland and boring. Like most of the critics have already said. Get over it AICN - you are beating a dead horse here. It's clear you are all too in love with the source material too much to be objective about the movie.

  • Nobody has the time these days. In fact I try and vent as much as I can into the ether of ain't it cool before I even approach most of them. I'm grateful for the handful of friends I have that I can seriously discuss film with. But even they are not always accessible whenever the random shit must flow forth. Thanks ain't it cool for providing a release valve for all the cool shit I see to come out the other end of my brain. Thanks guys for listening to my vitriol, love, rumblings, rants, ultimate desires and above all hate. Thanks everyone. Now go get your fucking shine box you fat virgin cocksucker. Shut up little maan! Shut up little maan!!!! Shut up little maaann Shut up!!!!!!!

  • Dude, it's called Denial. The movie opens with a giant hunk of Very Serious Voice Over Exposition. Which makes the flick open with a thud, quite frankly. It sets the tone in the opening 30 seconds that it's going to be a history lesson. And the worst thing about John Carter is that in it's terrible moments, it does feel like one.

  • March 14, 2012, 7:37 p.m. CST

    clio

    by AsimovLives

    are you a Renault fan?

  • March 14, 2012, 7:44 p.m. CST

    We love you too Ultratron

    by D.Vader

  • March 14, 2012, 7:54 p.m. CST

    Hate to agree with Beaks, but...

    by tensticks

    he's dead on. I went into this movie with low to no expectations, given the early buzz, and was very pleasantly surprised. Yes, it's a bit top-heavy in the early plot/exposition/setup department (though nowhere NEAR, say, the theatrical cut of DUNE), but once you get past that and just go along for the ride, it's a surprisingly fun and decent ride, and in no way deserving of the bile and vitriol it's been receiving. The score is good, the visuals are good (especially Lynn Collins), the action is good, and it's smart without being overly brainy and ambitious without being pretentious. Yes, it's flawed, but the flaws are far outweighed by the virtues. I definitely wouldn't mind a sequel, and I'm actually interested to check out the original books now as well. I hope it continues to defy expectations.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:06 p.m. CST

    The critics are equally divided, amazingly so

    by James_Camera_On

    Looking at the RT results, it is almost a perfect Gaussian distribution (i.e. for every positive review there is an equal and opposite negative one). Which tells me the movie indeed has something going for it. I saw it Saturday in 3-Dreadful and saw it again in 2-D -- a much better viewing experience, btw. And I love JC & the POM as much the second time as the first. Maybe more. So why? Where did it go right, for me anyway? First off, let me state I appreciate the efforts of Mr. Beaks in defense of the film. I still think the main problem as the marketing but I have to admit there is more to it. Disney did not know how to market the film but who would? Second off, I can see why some people had problems with JC. The look, the narrative style, was clearly just too much for some people. Though I don't see why people had problems with the pacing or complained there was not enough action. Did they even watch the movie? Many viewers clearly couldn't adjust, yet this is a breathtakingly beautiful film. And in its reverence for the source material, there were very few nods to contemporary sensitivities. For someone who is sick of hipster dialogue, these were all greatly appreciated. The film, the director to be precise, took huge risks (which is what we want, correct?) and coupled with the huge costs it probably was doomed -- unless we find better audiences (that's a joke). Nevertheless we can and should respect what Stanton attempted. I would rather live in a world where the filmmakers went for it and failed, than in one in which everyone chickened out, saving the $250 million for . . . what exactly? You tell me. More Transformer clones? More end of the world stuff? More teenage sparkling zombie werewolves? I just don't know and have a hard time caring. Thank you Mr. Stanton. You're the man.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:22 p.m. CST

    james_camera_on - i can't agree more

    by antonphd

    i think that haters just love to hate

  • you mock the passion that fuels the support for this movie and this director as if being able to gloat about the failure of either is something for you to feel proud about you clearly don't have anything in life you love or you would never talk about someone's passion as if they should feel ashamed for it

  • March 14, 2012, 8:35 p.m. CST

    The Tron 2 jab is a little odd...

    by Jay

    Given that a cartoon series is on the way and Tron toys can now be found in Walmarts & Toys R Us'. Oh, and the movie made 400 million... Unlike say, Prince Of Persia...

  • March 14, 2012, 8:39 p.m. CST

    TRON LEGACY failed because the story sucked

    by I_Snake_Plissken

    That film had so much potential to create an interesting world/mythology, and the game grid sequences were fairly well done, but the lead actor was a poor choice, and the movie was just plain goofy. Why they turned Flynn into the Big Lebowski is beyond me. As for John Carter, if you're going to take that kind of risk you need to find a more well known actor to play the role - it would have helped to bridge the gap to the more casual movie goer.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:42 p.m. CST

    John Carter. Its like what happened to Cowboys & Aliens

    by Charlie

    Both these films were lots of fun. Both these films seemed to just have that decision made by people that they weren't any good before they came out.

  • Now that EVERYBODY knows how a computer works, its impossible to get past the stupid illogical premise. At least cyberpunk has proven to be somewhat prescient.

  • March 14, 2012, 8:54 p.m. CST

    Disney should still make a sequel as a FU to critics

    by Charlie

    Disney and the Pixar camp know the film is quality. They know the marketing sucked, they know there was a campaign against the film. The film will do ok, not great, may not break even. Still, they should move forward with a sequel, albeit a slightly cheaper one. They know the potential is here, and they know there are factors beyond the quality of the film that have effected it. They should just go again and try and change the narrative in the press. So they have two great films. The stumbling here with such a potentially great franchise. There are plenty of very good reviews and people who loved the film to reaffirm that it was good. There's got to be a logic of, a lackluster start to a potentially great franchise may be better to try for a more successful sequel. Than try to launch another franchise. They say great tv shows like Seinfeld wouldn't survive their first season in todays TV market. However the studio liked the show and believed in it. Let's try that for movies for a change. If you have quality, and they know they do. Don't give up and try and start from scratch again.

  • March 14, 2012, 9 p.m. CST

    Who's the putz that compared Tharks to Jar Jar?

    by Lord Elric

    I want their name.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    rotten tomatoes reviews

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    i mentioned this before but it got cut off or deleted go there and read the fucktards defending this movie like they own stock in disney or the people who made it are their close buddies or something. it's fucking ridiculous - every bad review has the same few jerk-offs attacking the reviewer lol

  • A lot of people clearly enjoyed the hell out of this movie. That might be hard to understand if you did not, but it doesn't make it any less true.

  • they deserve to be attacked. Some of them are factually incorrect regarding scenes in the movie, as though they didn't even see all of it.

  • It was an abject failure. A fundamentally B-movie concept treated totally po-faced and a lumpy plot. I want these movies to be great, but if you're gonna compare John Carter to Cowboys and Aliens then you are telling me you are an idiot who has no idea.

  • Those bashing the story are taking it at face value. It's not simply black and white. Try looking into the grey. Maybe you need to watch it high or something and have an open mind. But i feel really bad if you can't see some of the major philosophical allegories in both films. And I'm not talking strictly religious. Just the concepts of the ISO's digital DNA and the possibilities it holds is fascinating. I realize the action and effects took a front seat compared to the themes. But the themes and ideas are definitely there. Look up some discussions about the films true questions. Maybe it will change your view a little.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:19 p.m. CST

    I happened to like the movie. Not epic, but enjoyable

    by Supermans

    I don't understand all the hate this movie is getting. Yeah, the previews didn't showcase the movie in good light. It was too kiddie in the look of the trailer when it needed to be more Gladiatorlike.But it wasn't as bad as most make it out to be. Too bad it won't be getting a sequel while the shitfest that was Clash of the Titans is.

  • that goes with out saying. but from what i browsed on there, the knee-jerk reaction seemed to be that negative reviews = attack the reviewer.....and this was before people themselves had even even seen the movie....so I don't even know how they'd be able to criticize the reviewers for getting things wrong. lol look at this fanboy fuckery.....all petty responses to bad reviews.... ----You my friend are a buffoon! I bet you voted for Obama too.--- --Fails to transcend the generic. The movie or your review?---- ---your a waist ----- ----Ann, yes this movie will not be pleasing to those of us who are on the verge of Alzheimer. Better go get yourself checked. I and my family found it to be hugely entertaining. ------ HAHAHAH....c'mon now. I find these responses hilarious. Anyway I still want to see the movie for myself regardless of good/bad reviews.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:22 p.m. CST

    Wow, I didn't see any of the so-called "experts" here...

    by BSGDAN

    ...jumping in to defend "Tron: Legacy" when people were calling it a bomb. The fact is, T:L was a hit for Disney. It took in $40 million it's opening weekend, and went on to gross $170 million domestically. Globally, it earned right at $400 million. It made even more with marketing tie-ins and home video revenue. While it may not have been as big as the "Pirates" films, it certainly wasn't a bomb. In fact, most people would consider it's performance to be damned good for a film that was a sequel to a "cult classic" that came 28 years earlier. When certain writers and sites were attacking Disney for even greenlighting "T:L" in the first place, no one on this site, or it's contemporaries, were jumping in to defend it the way the writer of this article is for "John Carter". I find that to be very strange. Well, despite what the "geek media" thinks, "John Carter" will soon be forgotten, while "Tron" will live on in future (if somewhat more budget-conscious) installments.

  • How the hell is that one going to be considered a classic?

  • Although, other than grammar, I don't see what's wrong with the one about him and his family finding it entertaining?

  • That movie was shit back then as it is today.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:28 p.m. CST

    teabaggerharry, yeah, you don't always want Beaks on your side

    by Mattman

    Especially when he weighs every movie he sees against Irreversible and Bring It On.

  • March 14, 2012, 9:29 p.m. CST

    What did the reviewers get factually wrong about scenes in the movie?

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    lol I want to check those out now.... as far as the dude writing about his family, i don't know I just c&p random shit real quick to make my point about the idiocy over there.

  • stop fucking using that movie as an example

  • March 14, 2012, 9:50 p.m. CST

    The Abyss

    by bodian26

    I love the director's cut, but rewatching it a few months ago brought up a new thought. Where are all the sea life? Not one fish, really? I know they filmed it in a tank, but still...

  • March 14, 2012, 9:57 p.m. CST

    So, the fucking drunk made an appearance?

    by Hey_Kobe_Tell_Me_How_My_Ass_Tastes

  • March 14, 2012, 9:58 p.m. CST

    re: "schadenfreude"

    by Ribbons

    That sounds a little like self-pity on Andrew Stanton's part. It's a little more complicated than that. Look at guys like Cameron or Spielberg who can basically make film after film with their greatness unchallenged. People wouldn't be rooting for Stanton's career to nosedive just because he made two good movies. It's more that people love GOSSIP. One of the most expensive movies ever made + troublesome test screenings + re-shoots = drama! And none of that stuff is incorrect, in a way, it's just that people focused on it more than they would have if the movie weren't being made under a microscope. John Carter isn't a great movie, but it certainly doesn't deserve the scorn that's been heaped upon it.

  • March 14, 2012, 10 p.m. CST

    blah blah blah

    by ATARI

  • March 14, 2012, 10:02 p.m. CST

    Factual errors in reviews

    by Mattman

    involves the mysterious and manipulative Thens. Yes, there are a lot of silly words in this movie.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:04 p.m. CST

    fat_rancor... My entire post got truncated.

    by Mattman

    Well, I'm too lazy to type the whole thing again, but here's the worst (without quotes this time): We're told that the Kingdom of Helium is the side of right, and their enemies are the enemies of all right-thinking people. But we're given no reason to have an opinion -Mick LaSalle, San Francisco Chronicle OTHER than the reason the enemies are CONQUERING EVERYTHING AND KILLING EVERYONE??? That's not enough reason for them to be enemies???

  • Saying Tharks are 20-30 feet tall, that the airships shoot death rays (nope, only Sab Than's wrist gun does that), there's no explanation for Carter's jumping (Mark Strong explains it), etc.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:17 p.m. CST

    The Abyss is a piece of shit?

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Because the characters are unlikeable? Since when do characters have to be likeable in order for a film to be good? By your insightful logic, Raging Bull, There Will Be Blood, Fight Club, The Godfather, 2001 A Space Odyssey , A Clockwork Orange and The French Connection are also pieces of shit. Unless you actually want to properly critique the film so people will actually take you seriously...? And I don't see how the Abyss characters are unlikeable...Budd is a tough leader, Hippie is a wisecracking geek, One Night is a sarcastic toolhand, Cat is a big loveable bear...the only character I would consider "unlikeable" is Lindsay, and that's necessary because of her character arc...she goes from being a tough bitch, to a puddle of tears by the end. Coffey is also unlikeable, but he's the fucking villain, so that fits. Other than the characters are extremely well drawn, three dimensional and idiosyncratic. In fact they're the best characters Cameron has ever conceived of. They FEEL like real oil rig workers and the actors playing them are brilliant. The film has some amazing, wonderous visual FX...the underwater work is first rate, and has yet to be surpassed by any other movie. The Abyss is still notorious as the most difficult film ever made, whether above, or under water. And it shows in the incredible and realistic stunts and action in and out of the water. It's a pretty gut wrenching, hair raising, thrill ride full of heart and poignancy...and it never feels cheap or unearned like many of Spielberg's tearjerking manipulators. So this leads me to believe you're either trolling or have incredibly bad taste.

  • March 14, 2012, 10:32 p.m. CST

    I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE WITH EVERY WORD OF THAT MR. BEAKS!

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    BRAVO! Abyss IS Cameron's masterpeice. Heaven's Gate IS a damn fine film. John Carter IS admirable and good. For all those pretend friend of animals who take glee in perpetuating anything else; thou doth protest too much, and your cracks are showing!

  • March 14, 2012, 10:39 p.m. CST

    @bodian26 - It probably just wasn't feasible at that time...

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    to cg sea life into The Abyss. Remember, The Abyss was on the bleeding edge of cg just with that water tentacle. I'm no expert, but maybe there's not so much sea life going on at those deapths in that particular spot. Like you, I've honestly never thought about it - which is a credit to how absorbing the film actually is. The good news is, it sounds like you'll be getting crazy Pandoran sea life in Avatar 2!

  • March 14, 2012, 10:52 p.m. CST

    Sadly I went to the midnight John Carter 3D by myself...

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    and there were only eight other people in the theater, and I was the only one alone.:( I do believe we all enjoyed it though. In fact, I pretty much loved it and am going back to see it again tomorrow... yes, again by myself (what can I say; will one of you be my friend?).

  • March 14, 2012, 10:53 p.m. CST

    What's in a name?

    by Vitruvian_Man

    After reading all the comments defending and vilifying JC, I've come to a few conclusions ...and no I have not see the film yet. First, yes it was without a doubt built up and over talked about on this site. What the hell can live up to all that damn hype? Second, it's most likely a decent, perhaps even entertaining, piece of work but not a masterpiece or even near that. Just my opinion after watching trailers, reading reviews, and digesting many talkback comments. As has been said already, it appears over reactions abound both ways. Third and most importantly, I know the real cause of all the angst and perceived failure here. It's quit obvious and is contained in many of the posts here. It's all in the name! Give it a real movie name and the masses pay attention. Order will be restored. BUILD it and they will come. We here simply need to rename this seeming wretch of a movie and balance will be restored. My suggestions so far: ~The Rise of John Carter Holmes ~John Carter: And Why Not? ~John Carter: Game of Thrones ~Welcome Back John Carter! Vman

  • March 14, 2012, 10:55 p.m. CST

    What's this new consensus all of a sudden that Andrew Stanton is a prima donna?

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Since when do we not want director's with egos? What's that about? Kubrick was a megalomaniacal prick but he made damned sure his movies were HIS movies! Are people actually insinuating studios ought to interject and rein in a director's vision? If so, then please, by all means, go to hell with that nonsense!

  • Just like "Indiana Jones And The..."

  • March 14, 2012, 11:05 p.m. CST

    Sex and Rockets

    by Iahael

    One note; Jack Parsons (John Whiteside Parsons) was one of the founding scientists at the Arroyo Seco, later to become JPL. He also helped to found the Aerojet Corporation (he specialized in JATO rockets for carrier fighters, etc) who would later build the rockets for the space shuttle. Now, he was also a member of the OTO and the A.'.A.'., both orders based on the philosophy/religion known as Thelema, the Greek word for Will -- Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Yes, Hubbard was one of Parsons' friends in Pasadena, and their misadventures and eventual falling out are detailed in Sex and Rockets, written by the obvious pseudonym "John Carter". (Fantastic book!) The CO$ says he was investigating the "evil sex cult" for the feds, and the US Navy does not agree with all of Hubbard's awards. 93* 93/93 T.'.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:06 p.m. CST

    yeah...

    by Vitruvian_Man

    stop making sense gent.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:08 p.m. CST

    JUST saw this flick today....

    by Jobacca

    And it was OK. Not bad....not great. OK. It was worth what I paid to see it,but I probably wont watch it again. And....THERES NOTHING WRONG WITH THAT!!!!!! For some reason,America especially and the whole world to a point feels the need to divide EVERYTHING into two camps-ITS GREAT or IT SUCKS!!!!!! Politics,Religion,Movies....its always got to be one extreme or the other. Life aint like that folks....sometimes OK sums it up best. I agree this movie didnt get a fair shake...but thats Hollywood. They did the same thing to THE A-TEAM last year....that was a pretty OK movie that got DESTROYED before ANYONE had even seen it.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:15 p.m. CST

    Huge Opportunity To Sell John Carter Properly In Home Video

    by THX1968

    From the creators of Tarzan and Finding Nemo

  • March 14, 2012, 11:17 p.m. CST

    Who cares about Stanton's vision?

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    When it's Burroughs vision that is the reason for making a film out of this story. Stanton is just an employee, charged with putting the story on screen, Burroughs' story, not his or the screenwriters'.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    the_genteel_gentile

    by Billy_D_Williams

    Kubrick was a genius because he realized in order to shoot a movie for 2 years he had to keep his budgets low. Stanton merely didn't know what the fuck he was doing so he kept throwing money at the problems. He didn't prepare properly and though he could make a huge live action film like an animated movie...where you have the luxury of continuing to reshoot and rework things because you're not on location spending $10,000 dollars an hour ($250,000 a day) as you would be on a film set. He didn't realize that live action films and animated films are two completely different animals when it comes to technical and budgetary requirements. If he had done his proper homework during pre production he wouldn't have gone hog wild on reshoots, trying to patch holes everywhere. It's partly the studio's fault. They should never have let an animation director control a $250+ million dollar live action production. It's a too big of a learning curve. Stanton should have cut his teeth on a smaller live action film first and learned how to properly manage a live production. I'm all for letting talented directors do their thing, but all Stanton did was reinforce the stereotype that auteur directors are megalomaniacal, irresponsible control freaks who have no problem breaking the bank at a studio for HIS vision. Because of him, John Carter went wildly over-budget, and as a result will not be profitable enough for a sequel that could've been helmed by a more responsible director... plus it gives the studios even more ammunition to continue their remake/reboot/sequel craze and take fewer and fewer chances on original, innovate films with brilliant filmmakers at the helm.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:36 p.m. CST

    More Sci Fi...

    by Vitruvian_Man

    Yeah, I am old school I spell it Sci Fi. I know I saw this posed on another thread, but why do THIS book when there is so many other wonderful properties? Are they all tied up for gods sake? The Foundation Series. The Chronicles of Thomas Covinent (that would blow some minds). Ringworld! They could make a hell of a movie out of Stranger in a Strange Land if they really tried. What made them pick this piece of literature? Just curious.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:38 p.m. CST

    USA = Country Full of Retards

    by Red_Right_Return

    Where people like Kim Kardashian, famous for a porn video, rake in the dough off the dead-eyed housewives of our society. I loved this movie, it was exciting and funny. I so wanted to see what happens with the remaining villians but I guess that won't happen. You retards who go in droves to see Vampires Suck can SUCK MY COCK. Go see the same fucking movies over and over with different names. The suits will keep making sequels or remakes of terrible and old TV shows. We will get film after film of safe teenage vampire romance. A country where a cruddy little movie like The Lorax can do better than a great movies like John Carter. How fucking sad you people are.

  • March 14, 2012, 11:49 p.m. CST

    Asimov...just to tell you that...

    by carlos arevalo

    I saw the movie on monday night...and had a lot of fun. I enjoyed it, and took it for what it is: a fantasy film. The humor was well scripted (my wife laughed at the jokes) I myself liked the concept of the "therns" (I don't think it has been mentioned before). It had an "End of Eternity" kind of feeling :-) I also liked the modernization of the transport mechanism between earth and mars: the concept of the "copy" of his body through information (a line of research that is actually being made) But I also agree that it wasn't of LOTR proportions, marketing was bad, lack of freshness, blah, blah, blah. And it will very difficult to make a profit given it's 250 md budget and it's underwhelming BO performance. So, a sequel its unlikely (at least with Disney) One more thing: did you noticed (I'm sure you did) that the Percival Lowell Mars sketches at the very begging of the movie where the same ones that are shown in BLUES FOR A RED PLANET? :-) Take care my friend....and VIVA COSMOS indeed! PD (this is a repost from the Kidd talkback)

  • March 15, 2012, 12:31 a.m. CST

    @ billy_d_williams - I agree that Stanton's lack of live-action experience hurt him

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    But I still feel he pulled out a very good movie, even if every penny didn't make it onto the screen. So I'm not really convinced it hurt that which actually matters - the experience of watching the film. According to Stanton, the budget was always planned for reshoots much like Peter Jackson does. But no doubt, a veteran shooter could have produced this movie with a far more modest budget. That's why I suggest Roland Emmerich because of what he has been able to put up on screen for a fraction of the price due to sheer know-how. But since every movie ticket cost me exactly the same, I really don't care if Stanton's inexpierence caused the budget to balloon! Disney should have known he was going to be learning on the job!

  • March 15, 2012, 12:38 a.m. CST

    Tron Legacy only made 10 million dollars = LOL

    by MediaGold

    For those who don't know, a film's theatrical take only accounts for about 1/4 of its total profits. The rest comes from rentals, pay per views, DVD/Blu-ray sales, and broadcast rights and/or commercial sales as SAS this will be shown on ABC and then Disney Channel. The cherry on top is that Disney has another film to sell for the next century or more.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:45 a.m. CST

    red_right_return

    by Jaster Mareel

    Twilight: Breaking Dawn Part 1 made 48 million fucking dollars in the UK. It made like $400M OUTSIDE America. By the way, when's the last time an English film was worth a shit anyway? You can only remake Jane Eyre so many fucking times you smarmy, snaggletoothed little shit.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:47 a.m. CST

    Should have stuck closer to the book

    by Bass Ackwards

    I think we've seen this problem before, this movie felt like Stanton and crew were more focused on the franchise then on the story, this movie spent too much time on exposition and planting seeds for future movies. As a result this movie seemed to be trying to do way too much with the story while at the same time telling very very little of an actual decent story. I think they should have focused simply on making a nice, tight adaptation of the first book (and cast a better John Carter), rather then trying to create a franchise from the word go.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST

    I really liked it

    by dukeroberts

    I'd like to see it again.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:49 a.m. CST

    @ billy_d_williams - I don't feel Stanton was irresponsible.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    Stanton did his best in ernest, and mostly pulled off what he set out to do. I don't know that John Carter did go "wildly over-budget", from what I gather it was always concieved with a massive budget. If anyone is irresponsible it's Disney for not recognizing that Stanton wasn't fully equipped to take on a film of these proportions as his introduction to live action filmmaking. It's not like Stanton lied to anyone, they knew this and chose to gamble. A gamble that I believe will pay off in the long run if they choose to move forward on sequels, rather than let this domestic underperformance, that Disney itself wrought, reter them. If a good movie like "John Carter" is a flop for Disney, then I chalk it completely up to the bad karma earned from the perpetrated horrors of massive hits like "Alice In Wonderland" and "On Stranger Tides" upon an unsuspecting filmgoing public.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    @ notenoughbiehn - well unfortunately Burroughs ain't around to direct

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    And that's pretty much the job disciption for a director: "have a vision". I believe Stanton did and it was good.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:58 a.m. CST

    genteel...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    dont believe mainstream sources...inside Hollywood everyone knows the real deal. Stanton overspent, that is the common sentiment among real sources. Of course Stanton is going to say he was responsible, nobody is going to throw themselves under the bus. no studio would ever let a director go through the number of reshoots Stanton did, so this whole "was planned from the beginning" stuff is horseshit. Studios do no operate that way...every action film is scripted, storyboarded and then shot within a several month block of time, with the understanding that everything you need is in the script. Reshoots only happen when holes in the story become obvious.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:10 a.m. CST

    I keep wondering why the budget for this was so high. Anyone know?

    by happybunni

    We have a director that comes from animated films. We have actors and actresses that come from TV and are far cheaper than actual movie stars. I remember reading something about how Stanton budgeted re-shooting every scene 10+ times, because that's what they do for animated films. The first 3 Star Wars films were only 115M each, and that was years ago. I'm thinking the film's box office failure blame will fall solely on Stanton... He made the film like he would an animated film, and it inflated the budget hugely?

  • March 15, 2012, 1:11 a.m. CST

    Bad advertising, looked like an Avatar ripoff,

    by Bedhead7

    0 star power, "unknown" director, long ass name and nobody wants to spend two hours in a desert. Not supprised it's bombing. That's not to say its a horrible movie, but this thing was set up to fail.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:14 a.m. CST

    @wrath_of_fett

    by Red_Right_Return

    Hey dumbass, I'm American. You fail. Go back to your starry-skinned vampires, twinkle-toes.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:16 a.m. CST

    One more thing

    by Bedhead7

    Every talkback has a ton of haters, the people that hate the haters and the guy like me that points this out and the guy that hates the guy that points this out. Get used to it.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:25 a.m. CST

    Fuck me, I enjoyed this movie

    by edgardevice

    better than any "blockbuster" that came out last year.

  • If he didn't inflate the budget so stupidly high, this movie would have made a bunch of money and you would have gotten a sequel... Maybe even a whole series of these movies. So why defend him?

  • March 15, 2012, 1:49 a.m. CST

    Andrew Stanton is a Live Action Amateur Director

    by tailhook

    And it showed. He cast unknowns as his leads, the more well-known actors were all buried behind CGI in a franchise starter that most people never heard of. Now, thats not to say he isn't a great animated director. He is. That just doesn't translate well to live-action and you gotta have backstops. Thats what Brad Bird understood. M:I-4 wasn't some great genre breaking film. It was solid, and more importantly had the backing of stars like Cruise and Renner in a franchise that was well known. So selling the film wasn't very hard at all. Either way, Gary Ross is going to show him how its done in like a week and change. The Hunger Games is just going to absolutely destroy at the box office. It'll make more in one weekend domestically than Carter made Worldwide the entire weekend. One other thing, while Blade Runner was an influential film, it *WAS* a horrendous flop and still is. That you were influential doesn't necessarily mean you paid the bills and studios pay very close attention to whether you paid the bills.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:23 a.m. CST

    Lucas made the prequels for $100 million each

    by Billy_D_Williams

    And he even had reshoots. I haven't seen John Carter but it honestly does not look that much more complex than Revenge of the Sith, yet cost 3 times as much???

  • March 15, 2012, 2:25 a.m. CST

    =THE ABYSS was a piece of shit=

    by KilliK

    NO,You are a piece of shit.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:56 a.m. CST

    The Abyss would be great if it wasn't for...

    by ufoclub1977

    1977's Close Encounters of the Third Kind being so much better and ORIGINAL.

  • March 15, 2012, 3 a.m. CST

    Great article, by the way

    by ufoclub1977

    I'm starting to get privy to some development meetings talk, and in many cases there are people in power that have no idea what works as a movie or why something could be great. In those cases they can only measure potential by comparison to the last most popular successes. And boy, they must scratch their heads when something original and passionate comes along out of the blue and becomes immensely successful.

  • In the year 2042 a 12 year old kid whilst on the bullet sky train from San Francisco to New York ready to begin her work day will accidentally access the deepest archives of her holographic portable HDVDO Cloud ULTRA DRIVE account from her iPADXX and discover a film called John Carter, she will wonder why a film would be called this, what does it mean? It doesn't have a number at the end or a sub title like Transformers - Rape of the Metal World Eaters or SCREAM 36, it is simply a person's name. Upon opening the file and watching for a few minutes using her TRU3D iSPECS she is strangely engaged and fascinated by the crude effects and naive storytelling and falls in love. In love with the idea of simple grand storytelling. This unique moment creates a chain reaction that impacts on the world in such a way that world peace is finally realised and humanity is forever changed. Her story can now be told in the brand new documentary 'The birthplace of PEACE - A John Carter Sky Train Love Story' available for viewing from March 31, 2063 on all available HDDVDO platforms, proudly presented by the JOLIEPITT corporation's Coca Cola Fresh baby wipes. But seriously, we have all become too damn pseudo sophisticated and have our heads firmly planted up our asses, can we simply enjoy a film without trying to be experts? Can we? Gosh! Lighten up world. and smile once in awhile, its ok. :)

  • March 15, 2012, 3:35 a.m. CST

    CE3k is Spielberg's masterpiece...The Abyss is Cameron's masterpiece...

    by Billy_D_Williams

    lets not diminish either by comparing them to each other. they're both amazing films.

  • In case anyone writes a book — absolutely shameless: * SBIFF: Quint has JOHN CARTER OF MARS info from Andrew Stanton! (#39879) * Michael Chabon confirms polish on JOHN CARTER OF MARS (#40784) * Andrew Stanton's John Carter of Mars filming (#41391) * Barsoom!! Stars of THE WIRE, CAPRICA and MINORITY REPORT (#42137) * JOHN CARTER OF MARS officially underway! (#43654) * John Carter of Mars now just John Carter? (#49757) * JOHN CARTER Teaser Poster (#50037) * Quint has seen some of Andrew Stanton's John Carter (#50322) * D23: Andrew Stanton presents John Carter footage (#50906) * Mr. Beaks Beholds The Agony Of JOHN CARTER (#50924) * A New Creature Photo From JOHN CARTER OF MARS (#52067) * New JOHN CARTER Poster Looks Burroughs*y (#52099) * Want To See The JOHN CARTER Trailer (#52119) * IGN debuts the full JOHN CARTER trailer (#52128) * I really love this JOHN CARTER image, but the cheap ass font (#52279) * 2 New JOHN CARTER TV spots look far far better than anything (#52312) * Japanese JOHN CARTER trailer begins to show the shape of the story (#52394) * The International JOHN CARTER Poster (#52583) * The making of the WOOLA Cake for the JOHN CARTER wrap party (#53239) * The 60 second version of the JOHN CARTER Super Bowl Spot (#53311) * Quint travels to Barsoom and visits the John Carter set!!! (#53465) * Harry interviews Andrew Stanton about JOHN CARTER (#53561) * New JOHN CARTER clip & PSA appears online (#53594) * Ain't It Cool Exclusive: Hear Selections of Michael Giacchino's Score For JOHN CARTER (#53687) * Leave it to Mondo to actually put out a John Carter poster (#53730) * A Fan*Made Trailer For JOHN CARTER Sells The Movie Better (#53732) * Over 4 minutes of JOHN CARTER has popped (#53823) * Here's a JOHN CARTER Featurette (#53906) * New JOHN CARTER Trailer Is The Best (Official) One Yet (#53922) * Copernicus Exalts JOHN CARTER (#53943) * South Florida! We've Got Your Ticket To Barsoom (#53946) * Houston! Come To Barsoom Next Wednesday! (#53957) * Live in Chicago? Capone has tickets for an exclusive AICN screening of JOHN CARTER! (#53970) * L.A. Readers, Let's Go To Mars! Join Mr. Beaks For A JOHN CARTER (#54002) * ScoreKeeper Goes Mano E Mano With Michael Giacchino About JOHN CARTER (#54008) * Alright Austin AICNers - we're set to screen JOHN CARTER (#54010) * The Infamous Billy The Kidd Speaks To JOHN CARTER Himself (#54029) * Mr. Beaks Has The Guest List For The March 7th Screening Of JOHN CARTER (#54061) * Capone bows before the Princess of Mars herself (#54068) * Capone talks JOHN CARTER, THE PHANTOM MENACE (#54077) * Capone cowers before the mighty Tars Tarkas (#54118) * Capone wraps his JOHN CARTER coverage (#54130) * Nordling Raves (And Rants A Little) About JOHN CARTER (#54133) * Harry's 145002 word review of JOHN CARTER!!! (#54139) * Capone believes JOHN CARTER succeeds as a great historical science*fiction (#54175) * The Kidd Vs. JOHN CARTER (#54180) — finally — * Mr. Beaks Takes Issue With The Coverage Of JOHN CARTER! (54267) ********** Gosh, really, some people aren't covering this movie in a positive light? YOU SHOULD WRITE ANOTHER ARTICLE ABOUT JOHN CARTER.

  • March 15, 2012, 6:07 a.m. CST

    Forget John Carter - check this new japanese Avengers trailer.

    by Fortunesfool

    http://special.movies.yahoo.co.jp/detail/20120315076798/

  • March 15, 2012, 6:17 a.m. CST

    Again, happibunni, that's idiotic

    by D.Vader

  • March 15, 2012, 6:39 a.m. CST

    Who cares? It's in the public domain. Someone will

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    make a better version on a computer and/or with a handheld camera in a few years. Fuck wHollyweird control of filmmaking.

  • March 15, 2012, 6:57 a.m. CST

    Excuse me but Aliens is Cameron's masterpiece !

    by Bjarni

    playmo.tv is the shit right now.

  • OH PISS OFF. Beaks - stop pleading to give the film legitimacy when it is clear that a large section of its own audience has outright rejected it. This sort of apologist nonsense is complete and utter nonsense. Your response and reception of the film is irrelevant when a movie like this fails to land on its feet and simply begging for people to cut it a break because you think the film's failure will endanger 'geek-friendly' franchises and projects in the future is surprisingly inept for someone like yourself who is supposedly so in touch with the industry. When it comes to dollars and genre, nobody gives a rat's ass about the haters for AVATAR. The film did the business and it cemented the director-driven, geek-audience project precedent and it did so WITHOUT people trying to make excuses for it. As for the cult following of films like BLADE RUNNER or THE ABYSS - those films found their audience regardless of what critics and audiences may have said about the films at the time. If JOHN CARTER is going to have the same future then so be it, but making excuses and pleading for sanity is not going to help. Give me a break, this is the sort of attitude that makes studios think that geeks are morons who'll cough up cash for any old crap. You've proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that the margin of lowered expectations runs true among the audience demographic represented here since we'll make any old excuse just to see our favourite films find some kind of respect in the public arena. Grow up.

  • And if you decide that you're going to go easy on the film because you're scared that studios will walk away from 'sci-fi' altogether then you're going to CONTINUE to get more bland, homogenous, middle-of-the-road, safe, cookie-cutter, derivative, paint-by-numbers, lowest-common-denominator, uninspired, focus-group-born, committee-decided, filmmaking at the apex of that art-form. Whether or not the audience enjoyed the film, there is NOTHING, absolutely NOTHING, adventurous or new or brave or daring about this film. It was only greenlit because of those reasons. How anyone wants to defend that or even fear that we may lose that is beyond me. Visionary filmmakers will continue to be visionary no matter what obstacles financiers may throw up at them. If Stanton is a visionary then that's all the more reason why nobody needs to cut him any slack whatsoever. How typical of our demographic that we continue to make excuses for bad films and then wonder why people keep making bad films for us.

  • March 15, 2012, 7:48 a.m. CST

    Apologies - I don't mean "bad" films...

    by NZPoe

    ...I mean films which "fail to find their audience." Good or bad doesn't have anything to do with this, but I resent anyone who thinks we should 'make the best' of what scraps we are thrown.

  • Its brilliant sci-fi in my opinion. There are many who don't see it.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:07 a.m. CST

    Billy D, Lucas also has his own FX company

    by D.Vader

    I'm not sure how the economics work, but I imagine its like Peter Jackson being able to save money bc he makes his effects "in house" so to speak.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:11 a.m. CST

    nzpoe, completely disagree

    by D.Vader

    I'd say this movie was adventurous, not cookie cutter, not bland. Bland would not have heart and soul. JC did. Making an expensive movie based off a 100 year old property the majority of film-goers have not heard of is the very *antithesis* of "playing it safe" and definitely brave. "Lowest common denominator filmmaking", as you put it, would have made Woola the butt of a bunch of fart jokes. This did not. Lowest common denominator filmmaking wouldn't have a scene where a warrior alien race shoots their own babies. This did. I think you should tone down some of your anger toward this film. You're going to extremes that really aren't justified, in my opinion.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    I watched last night and it rocks!

    by Crazymaverick

    I don't know why the critics are singling it out. There have been far worse movies, in recent memory, they haven't torn apart. The exciting stuff is exciting, but the more human & emotional parts are on the money too. In that way it kinda reminded me of early Spielberg and and more recent Abrams. I liked it better than TRON: Legacy, which I only bring up because it was another big budget blockbuster that truly divided critics and audiences alike. For that matter, it was better than Immortals, the new Clash of the Titans and Conan the Barbarian movies too.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:21 a.m. CST

    Do they take in account future Blu Ray & DVD sales?

    by grampageezer

    It's difficult for me to get up the desire to see a movie in a theater nowadays. With the rising cost of ticket prices along with popcorn and sodas, we're talking a minimum of 45 bucks for my family of three to see a new release in 3D. So rather than spend that, I'll wait the 3 months it takes for the flick to be released on Blue Ray 3D and spend only $24 to $29 for the same viewing pleasure watching it in the quiet and comfort of my own home.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:42 a.m. CST

    Blu-ay and home sales / rentals are a ig consideration...

    by u.k. star

    many a sequel in modern times has come about almost exclusively because of how well a film sold i the home market. Especially those with a big jump in budget. (Austin Powers is the prime example.)

  • Dozens of times, in AICN's case. I saw it last night. It had its good points, but no great shakes, but definitely not worth all the whoring out that AICN has practicing for months. I've been highly critical in the past of AICN's conduct regarding this film. For months and months now, all we've seen on these pages is John Carter material and I was starting to get a little pissed off, but I still went into it with an open mind. What I saw was, by today's standards, rank average. I wanted to enjoy it. I wanted to come out of the cinema and be rendered speechless, as I was when I saw Star Wars, Die Hard and the Dark Knight. Didn't happen. Sorry, AICN. I know you wanted us all to love it as much as you. This guy didn't. Perhaps now it's time to clean up the spilled semen with some dignity and let this one go as a gamble that didn't work.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:54 a.m. CST

    d.vader in my opinion your opinion isn't justified...

    by NZPoe

    Since the number one topic of conversation isn't really about the film persay, but about how much people hate it or how much people seem to find something to love about it, despite the fact that the movie's own tracking numbers showed a level of disinterest from the public and the box office numbers are not supporting the paradigm of a film that has 'found its audience'. I don't care what people's opinions are about this film -- everyone is free to enjoy the film even though I clearly did not. But Beak's insistence that we have to "go easy" on JOHN CARTER because it is somehow going to ruin the chances of us seeing more 'sci-fi' or 'geek-friendly franchises' in the future is ludicrous. Because like it or not, d.vader, the opinions on this film are: 1) SPLIT pretty evenly therefore half of the film's potential audience despised it while half of the film's potential audience loved it 2) The film has NOT found its audience since it's not doing the box-office it should given similar projects. And yet Beaks is suggesting that THIS KIND of film with THIS KIND of performance is something that should be beholden to special treatment and that we want to see more of THIS KIND of film in the future? Give me a break. Ridley Scott or James Cameron (going by Beaks two cited examples) don't wait around for audiences to accept or reject their work or approve of their vision. THEY MAKE WHAT THEY WANT TO MAKE ANYWAY. That's what makes them visionaries. That's why I don't mind it if people give Cameron's AVATAR shit or that Scott makes films every few years which fail to find any audience (*cough*A GOOD YEAR*cough*) because they will continue to make WHATEVER they want to and they will organize the powers that be to make it happen. JOHN CARTER only was possible because of AVATAR, the film that stole directly from Burroughs. One is the work of a visionary who doesn't let trends or studio insecurity guide his hand. The other is made by a spoilt sacred cow who openly admits he wouldn't know how to make a $5 million film and that Disney only let him do whatever he wanted because he thought they were terrified of him from his previous successes. I'll support the visionary - for good or bad - anyday rather than the studio brat. And the good thing about visionaries is that we can sling as many tomatoes at them and they'll keep on truckin'. JOHN CARTER doesn't deserve any excuses; if you liked it then more power to you. But it is a box office disaster and it is an audience disaster and, for me, its a gargantuan, snore-inducing, bore of a film to boot. And that is something that the film will carry as a burden as part of its package. Your other points: ""Lowest common denominator filmmaking", as you put it, would have made Woola the butt of a bunch of fart jokes. This did not. <--- yes, but they made Woola a live-action cartoon character. Not happy with a simple 'dog' substitute creature, they had to turn it into an extra from Monsters Inc. Fart jokes are for the lowest common denominator because there is the stupid notion that farts make people laugh. Over-cute animals who do overly-cute things is also lowest-common-denominator because it pleads for an audience to love a character without the character earning it through the story; even the dogs. Which explains the number of dog movies that we get from Hollywood. "Lowest common denominator filmmaking wouldn't have a scene where a warrior alien race shoots their own babies. This did." <--- Oh please, that notion had a screenwriting 101 stamp smack dab across it; it's a classic type of device to make someone look interesting and Disney didn't even have the balls to make a meal of the sequence. I felt as much sympathy for the baby Tharks as I did for the pebbles on the sand dunes they were standing on. If that ACT of killing the babies actually PAID OFF in the script, if the Thark way of life made them supremely vicious and powerful creatures then THAT would've been something...unfortunately JOHN CARTER can kill a Thark with a single punch and no Thark achieves anything remotely 'bad-ass' until the final battle which you see nothing of. The sequence was a wasted 'look-at-me' moment which was never paid off and lowest common denominator writing is ALWAYS about sticking stuff in because it looks or sounds 'cool' or 'bad-ass' but never actually pays off. "Making an expensive movie based off a 100 year old property the majority of film-goers have not heard of is the very *antithesis* of "playing it safe" and definitely brave." <--- and you know what? A guy named James Cameron did that, endured through two years of online abuse, hate, bad tracking numbers and naysaying and turned it into the biggest blockbuster of all time...and now Disney makes a film of the story that James Cameron stole. Brave you say? Not playing it safe you say? Really? How interesting what your concept of 'playing it safe' must be.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST

    nzpoe

    by NZPoe

    The forum ate the second half of my post, so here it is again... Your other points: ""Lowest common denominator filmmaking", as you put it, would have made Woola the butt of a bunch of fart jokes. This did not. <--- yes, but they made Woola a live-action cartoon character. Not happy with a simple 'dog' substitute creature, they had to turn it into an extra from Monsters Inc. Fart jokes are for the lowest common denominator because there is the stupid notion that farts make people laugh. Over-cute animals who do overly-cute things is also lowest-common-denominator because it pleads for an audience to love a character without the character earning it through the story; even the dogs. Which explains the number of dog movies that we get from Hollywood. "Lowest common denominator filmmaking wouldn't have a scene where a warrior alien race shoots their own babies. This did." <--- Oh please, that notion had a screenwriting 101 stamp smack dab across it; it's a classic type of device to make someone look interesting and Disney didn't even have the balls to make a meal of the sequence. I felt as much sympathy for the baby Tharks as I did for the pebbles on the sand dunes they were standing on. If that ACT of killing the babies actually PAID OFF in the script, if the Thark way of life made them supremely vicious and powerful creatures then THAT would've been something...unfortunately JOHN CARTER can kill a Thark with a single punch and no Thark achieves anything remotely 'bad-ass' until the final battle which you see nothing of. The sequence was a wasted 'look-at-me' moment which was never paid off and lowest common denominator writing is ALWAYS about sticking stuff in because it looks or sounds 'cool' or 'bad-ass' but never actually pays off. "Making an expensive movie based off a 100 year old property the majority of film-goers have not heard of is the very *antithesis* of "playing it safe" and definitely brave." <--- and you know what? A guy named James Cameron did that, endured through two years of online abuse, hate, bad tracking numbers and naysaying and turned it into the biggest blockbuster of all time...and now Disney makes a film of the story that James Cameron stole. Brave you say? Not playing it safe you say? Really? How interesting what your concept of 'playing it safe' must be.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:57 a.m. CST

    I bet 90% of you guys stomping on the film didn't see it!

    by TheBigFuckinLebowski

    Because if you did, you would find it good! I saw it last night, in IMAX 3D, and it was a hell of a thrill ride! Never read the books, never read the comic adaptation. And the trailers and clips I'd seen of the thing didn't amaze me or thrill me. I was saying to myself "yeah. ok. Looks like Episode II." But it was made by the guy who did Wall-E... So, a friend of mine who had read the Gil Kane comic and me gave it a try last night, and... WOW! Best 2 hours and 20 minutes I've had in the cinema for a long time! I would see it again tonight (if it wasn't for the $20 it costs). You really have to see the whole thing to feel it work, to get engaged in the story, plot and characters. So before yapping your mouth about this movie, do us ALL some good, and go see it. Or shut the fuck up.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:59 a.m. CST

    Oh screw it...

    by NZPoe

    This stupid forum isn't letting me post that section of my reply. Ignore it, it wasn't vital to the main point anyways.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:01 a.m. CST

    thebigfuckinlebowski

    by NZPoe

    I have seen it and I almost fell asleep, it was so damn boring. Should I shut the fuck up? Is this film so bad that only people with nice things to say about it are allowed to talk?

  • March 15, 2012, 9:08 a.m. CST

    Saw it yeserday afternoon with maybe 20 people.

    by cookylamoo

    But seriously, I don't know if there were a hundred people in the entire building and this theater had 27 screens. Let's not forget, people just aren't going to movies anymore, not in the usa.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:10 a.m. CST

    justmyluck = dayummmmmm

    by fat_rancor_keeper

    lol epic list I had the same feeling with all the human centipede news too.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:12 a.m. CST

    I'm just glad they made "John Carter".

    by cookylamoo

    Ever since I was 14 I've wanted to see this story come to life. If it seems old fashioned because so many others have ripped off Burroughs then so be it. And honestly, I don't know how someone could make a better JC movie and stuck close to the source material. Now, it's there. I got to see it on film and if they never make any more at least we have it to watch. Could it have been made cheaper? Sure. Go watch the Tracy Lords version.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    @ nzpoe

    by TheBigFuckinLebowski

    No, you shouldn't shut the fuck up: you saw it. My comment was directed at the people bashing the movie without having seen it. You have the right to dislike what I liked. No problem with that. I'm just tired of the gratuitous skull bashing from people saying: "I won't see it cause it's a piece of shit!"

  • March 15, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST

    cookylamoo

    by NZPoe

    So you're saying "shut up and appreciate we got something half-good instead of nothing at all?" Coz if that isn't the worst possible way to watch movies then I don't know what is.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:22 a.m. CST

    Makes you realize how daring Watchmen was.

    by knowthyself

    Say anything you want about that movie but it was anything but cookie cutter or safe.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:25 a.m. CST

    I don't really get what some of you have against this movie

    by Jason

    I didn't know anything about the story or the books. I had no real interest in the movie either, due to lackluster commercials, but the wife wanted to go see it simply because it looked actiony and we both loved it. I'd put it as one of my favorite movies in recent years. After seeing it I feel the marketing for hte movie just blew it. I've talked to so many people since seeing it and nobody has a clue what it's about. At best people think it's Conan with aliens. Had the marketing focused on it being set in civil war times and going to mars and all of that, along with some of the love story, I can't help but think it would have done much better. Any complaints I had with the actual film were minor.

  • That's not much of an endorsement. My brother said it was good but forgettable.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:29 a.m. CST

    LESS John Carter - More District 9/The Fountain

    by knowthyself

    That's right stop wasting so much god damn money when you can tell a better story with LESS money and make MORE profit. If JC dissuades studios from creating bloated pieces of crap than that's a good thing. The best science fiction films have always been smarter, smaller, and have had something to say about the world we live in.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:35 a.m. CST

    FIRST POST EVAR

    by Barack Obama

    That creature in the picture has a herpe for a nose.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:37 a.m. CST

    @ nzpoe

    by TheBigFuckinLebowski

    Wow, are you deliberately twisting everything I say or are you really that dumb you can't understand what I'm saying? Finally, just shut the fuck up.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    thebigfuckinlebowski

    by NZPoe

    I didn't even REPLY to your last post. What the hell are you talking about? Jeez, who's twisting whose words? Sounds like you're really on the warpath. What, you don't think this obviously amazing film can't withstand the opinion of a few dissenters who didn't like it? Aim your nerd-rage at the right person.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:42 a.m. CST

    I didn't know anything about the story or the books

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Then of course you don't get what was wrong with the movie. You don't know what you don't know.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:43 a.m. CST

    Totally unfair

    by mastermold

    John Carter was a damn good movie; both my buddy and I enjoyed every minute of it and neither of us were terribly familiar with the books. Incidentally, I recall hearing this movie was DOA months before it was even released, so the fix was in on it long ago. The terrible marketing campaign Disney gave it did it no favors either. But what can you expect in a world where Michael Bay can direct three steaming piece-of-shit movies called Transformers that make a gazillion dollars?

  • March 15, 2012, 9:43 a.m. CST

    nzpoe, don't use quotation marks

    by D.Vader

    That's what deleted the rest of your comments.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:46 a.m. CST

    Thanks d.vader

    by NZPoe

    I just figured that out LOL. Jeez, this forum is shite.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:47 a.m. CST

    save your vitriol for the films that deserve it....

    by ZodNotGod

    Exactly, Beaks...got that, Lucas/SW haters?

  • March 15, 2012, 9:48 a.m. CST

    RE: cookylamoo

    by ZodNotGod

    It was a Wednesday afternoon when most people are at work or in school of course its going to be thin.

  • They are the exactly the same type of big budget, high concept, special effect fantasy spectacle movie. And for the record, I like both. But, if Carter is any deeper or more profound than the Pirates movies, I don't see it. And the people who are lamenting the fact that there will be no Carter sequels seem to be the same people lambasting the Pirates sequels. I think some of you have deluded yourselves into believing John Carter is something more than it is. I mean, it's got a cartoon turtle dog alien creature that runs around at the speed of sound for Jebus' sake?!

  • How about showing off expert swordsmanship, not casting and Abercrombie an Fitch model who's not convincing as a Virginian gentleman or badass soldier, having the Princess act like the noble that she is instead of being deceptive, making the planet look as otherworldy as described in the source, not burdening the main character with dead family issues, not showing us Barsoom until John Carter gets there. In short, not do a typical Hollywood hack job of the source material.

  • You're bringing up Beaks' opinion and comparisons to AVATAR and the 50/50 critic split and the box office; none of which I spoke of in my last post to you, so I'm going to ignore all of that. As I said above, I think the extremes you've gone to to slam this movie are not justified, in my opinion. If you didn't like the movie, I understand. If it didn't grab your attention, I understand. But to suggest this movie is on the same level as something like Nu-Conan the Barbarian, which is the very definition of soulless, crass, bland, heartless, lowest common denominator filmmaking that plays it safe, then I have to completely disagree. That's going way too far.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:11 a.m. CST

    Yeah nzpoe

    by D.Vader

    I can't believe its been over a year and AICN *STILL* has not told its readership how to get over this stupid " " marks hump. I've figured out the way to do it is to make sure you have a character before the " mark, even if its just a hyphen or space. If you start a new line with a " mark, it erases EVERYTHING else you've written. Absolutely ridiculous!!! Harry said this was a temporary thing over a year ago!

  • March 15, 2012, 10:26 a.m. CST

    media messiah

    by DocPazuzu

    You're also the guy who actually believes venus is covered with jungles, that there's breathable air on the moon and that it's covered with foliage and have gone on record in talkback calling -- without a hint of jest -- the Jet Propulsion Laboratory a satanic sex cult. I'm guessing you found Barsoom disappointingly less lush and verdant than you know it to be in real life.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:38 a.m. CST

    Awesome article, Mr. Beaks!

    by Stereotypical Evil Archer

    You have my respect.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:51 a.m. CST

    nzpoe: I'm saying I got what I wanted.

    by cookylamoo

    If you think you can do better and have something that in some way resembles the Boroughs books, then you're welcome to scape up 350 million and try. Watchmen bombed too but it at lest stuck pretty close to the story. I don't know what movie you want to see but I hope someday they make it for you.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:56 a.m. CST

    The extreme hate about any movie is hard to take seriously...

    by ZodNotGod

    You hate a movie.... "I hate __________ with every fiber of my being..." really? The bitter retards talk about the SW prequels like they are now the nerds go-to of suckage, which is so pathetic and inaccurate Dial it down, nerds. Just spit it out, you didn't like the movie, no big deal. Move on and don't let the childhoods get raped.

  • movies like this no matter how harmless they may be get slapped with failure and demonized.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:58 a.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn: It's easy to be an armchair director.

    by cookylamoo

    But you're just picking on "flaws" that other AICN posters have posted and parroting them like they ruined the whole movie. Could they have cast a better Carter and Dejah? Maybe, but to get the actors you like would have cost another 10 million.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:59 a.m. CST

    Unless you've seen JC, shut your gobs!

    by ZodNotGod

  • March 15, 2012, 11:01 a.m. CST

    I think it's a miracle JC got made and didn't totally suck.

    by cookylamoo

    Now go out and sharpen your knives for the Avengers.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:06 a.m. CST

    I'm just patiently waiting for Asimovlives review

    by Joe Plumber

    Ultimately, his is the only opinion that matters.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:12 a.m. CST

    I mean I could complain that Woola looks like a walking turd.

    by cookylamoo

    But I won't.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:15 a.m. CST

    cookylamoo

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Actually, read the the Harry TB and this one. No one has been as adamant about being faithful to the source material as I have. I'm one of only a couple of posters who have mentioned specific digressoins from the source and why they fail to stack up. I'm parroting no-one. And the flaws did ruin the movie in a way. Adaptations are pointless if they don't capture the spirit or salient details of the source material. The fillmmakers did nothing to improve on the source, so why change something that is already highly cinematic. And tell me, who are these expensive actors you claim I want? I didn't know actors were priced according to masculinity.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:18 a.m. CST

    The Mess of JC

    by wrath 4771

    I don't blame Stanton for the mess that is John Carter. I blame Disney for green-lighting the movie in the first place. Like you said, it's not a well-known property and the budget and marketing were too high for something that most people aren't remotely familiar with. And again, not blaming Kitsch or Stanton, but for something like this to have a chance as a "blockbuster," Disney needed a Cameron type director and an A-List lead to get those not familiar with John Carter to give it a chance. It seems like those who have read the books like the movie well enough, but those who haven't read the books seem "lost." Which probably explains part of the reason John Carter wasn't made into a film before.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:20 a.m. CST

    @ canned_dirty_ape

    by wrath 4771

    Well said. The site does have that, "You HAVE to like it feel," doesn't it?

  • March 15, 2012, 11:24 a.m. CST

    Think of the drowning scene in The Abyss...

    by kwisatzhaderach

    and then think of the equivalent scene in John Carter. Oh. There isn't one. In fact, the title card for The Abyss is better than the entire John Carter film. <p> According to The Digital Bits The Abyss and True Lies are finally being released on Blu next year. About fucking time.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:30 a.m. CST

    Nice article but a quibble

    by Jeremy Jar Binks

    -- Stanton was already on the clock after the largely-dialogue-free WALL-E... -- Um, this makes no sense. Actually he was praised to high heaven for Wall-E. There wasn't a critic who wasn't lined up to give him a blowjob for it. (I assume Quint is talking about media and critical acclaim, not box office status... although it is one of the weaker Pixar films at the box office, it's made over half a billion total since it was released, according to box office mojo) I know this talkback has already moved on, though... into the usual four or five topics AICN trolls love to bitch about. Oh well...

  • March 15, 2012, 11:32 a.m. CST

    @ billy_d_williams - George Lucas OWNS ILM - that helps reduce cost.

    by The_Genteel_Gentile

    When you're a major fx production and you OWN the fx house's ILM and Skywalker Sound - you can kind of give yourself the employee's discount. Plus Lucas had been around the block a couple of times and didn't do much location shooting. And guess what all that means? - Nothing. Because the prequels were tepid and John Carter was good. And that's all that matters to me. I don't know why amature enthusiast here on AICN should care what the budget for John Carter was - what, are you all aspiring studio suits or something? If so, that's is supremely sad.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:33 a.m. CST

    not Quint

    by Jeremy Jar Binks

    Sorry, I meant Beaks. My failure. And AICN's 1997-ass no-edit-button forums that were coded by a tweaked-out Belarussian hacker collective

  • making it animated with musical numbers, let Woola and the WhiteApes talk with funny voices and various racial stereotype personalities. You know, given it the whole Aladdin treatment. I think if they had done this it would have been a giant hit, cost a fraction of what it did and Lorax wouldn't have stood a chance.

  • with tons of boobs and blood and severed heads and limbs.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:52 a.m. CST

    John Carter was boring suckage.

    by atlatl

  • Some are good but flawed - Scott Pilgrim was a gorgeous spectacle, a wonderful feast for the eyes but overall it was easily Edgar Wright's weakest film. And John Carter was not only poorly marketed but very poorly titled, and Stanton and Disney/Pixar utterly failed to distinguish it beyond another tired desert-loincloth-sword and sandals movie that no one wants to see. See also, Prince of Persia, Attack of the Clones, etc. THIS IS NOT ABOUT US AND IT IS NOT ABOUT HOLLYWOOD EXECS. Yes, Nikki Finke and the industry was waiting for Stanton to fail and helped that narrative along, but fail he did. And you guys consistently get incredibly hyped about a single film or "auteur" that you try to clumsily affix the seal of "geek cred" to and declare them the new great white hope. Then, when their product turns out to be less than stellar, or just okay, or outright bad, you blame the public, the industry, and the press. You NEVER are honest about the films, or your consistent failure to recognize these issues before the films come out. Until now it's been blind, unquestioning adoration of John Carter in public. Or Scott Pilgrim, or any of the other so-so films you guys champion, crying "IF YOU DON'T SEE THIS IT IS THE DEATH OF ORIGINAL SCI-FI/GENRE FILMMAKING IN HOLLYWOOD!!!! IT'S THEIR FAULT FOR NOT WANTING NEW THINGS!!!" STOP BLAMING EVERYONE ELSE AND TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN GEEK MYOPIA WHICH WORSHIPS A PERSONALITY OR PROPERTY WITHOUT LOOKING AT THE HARD DATA ON A FILM IN PROCESS.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    Pleasantly mixed feelings about this

    by Dreamfasting

    I had a lot of problems with the movie, but overall it was a fun, solid popcorn flick. The opening scenes really sum up my dilemna - the pacing and narrative feels all off and disjointed, but then I try to imagine how to clean it up and whatever I think of comes out too clean, too predictably cliche. It *needs* to throw the audience off-stride. I do admit that it was a little jarring in these war-weary days that we have a story where nobody across all the factions needed any coaxing to charge wildly into battle. But in the context of the world they've created, it makes sense as long as you don't stop and wonder what percentage of the population dies on any given day.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:08 p.m. CST

    JOHN CARTER RULES!

    by funky buzz

    Only assholes who don't like movies hate JOHN CARTER!!!!!!!

  • March 15, 2012, 12:28 p.m. CST

    canned dirty ape, good post, right on.

    by Orbots Commander

    All the talk about budget, marketing, etc., is all besides the point. It doesn't mean anything; look at the final product. I've seen the film, and it's just not that good. It has a few moments of fun and wit, buried in two hours of dross. My question is: how did Andrew Stanton, coming form Pixar, where story, character and script are everything, allow his live action film to become such a muddled, overlong, unwieldy mess? The editing decisions can also be questioned by placing a voice over narration exposition dump scene at the beginning of your movie. In comparison, Avatar jumped right in to the story and ladled out the exposition expertly over the course of the opening twenty minutes. One can also argue that Mr. Stanton clearly showed his rookie director chops by not casting the film properly (bored looking lead in Mr. Kitsch), and not making the best of the actors he had; any more veteran director would have showcased Mark Strong, Cieran Hinds and James Purefoy more, to bolster his more flat lead actor. It's been said, about film directing: get your script right, and cast it right, and more than half of your job as a director is done.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:33 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by Mako

    Exactly how I felt about both the movie and AICN's gushing love for something that is mediocre. JC is no where near the brilliance of Blade Runner. And although I have issues with The Abyss - Cameron's movie is better than JC. JC is getting the negative feedback here beause AICN did just the opposite. So for Beaks to whine like a 3 year old - isn't helping the cause.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:35 p.m. CST

    And the final battle rescue scene were cliches piled on cliches.

    by Orbots Commander

    Beautiful princess about to wed the nasty bad guy, and moments from taking the oath/drink? Check. Bad guy morhphs into double of good guy and hot chick, fights double? Check. Good guys crashing in through a large overhead window? Check. Bland bad guy (Dominic West) is dispatched extremely easily (having the audience wonder 'is that it'?) Check. By this time, I had pretty much mentally checked out of the movie.

  • March 15, 2012, 12:49 p.m. CST

    I am glad the movie was made

    by chuckmoose

    I enjoyed it quite a bit, and was not familiar with the source material. I just cannot conceive of people saying a movie like this or Tron is "boring" or "exposition heavy".

  • March 15, 2012, 12:55 p.m. CST

    Whats the difference between the prequels and John Carter?

    by tailhook

    People watched the prequels.

  • Please tell me you are kidding.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:33 p.m. CST

    Good Observation About Why JC Isn't That Good...

    by Mako

    http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/03/14/the-real-lesson-of-john-carter

  • March 15, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    Disney's aggressive AND TERRIBLE marketing campaign

    by jimmy_009

    Fixed that for you.

  • It would throw the fanboys and the haters into sharp relief, allowing the rest of us to avoid them and ignore their bullshit. I'm going to see this movie tomorrow night, can't wait tbh. That said, I couldn't wait to see Green Hornet or Lantern either, and look what that left me with... The source story was old, yes, derivative, only in retrospect, and I'm speaking of the book which I have read rather than the movie I haven't seen. Maybe, if Fox or Paramount had of made this movie, and put their weight behind it, would we be having this conversation? The absence of Pixars fingerprints on the finished product is, indeed, worrying I have to say. A cheaper sequel, could be the way to go, with a lot of the work already done, maybe just maybe, less flashbacks/forwards, more fun, just like Wrath of Khan.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:47 p.m. CST

    rogueleader, for the most part, yes

    by Joe Plumber

    That said, I am curious to hear his take on it since he had so much to say about just the trailer.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:51 p.m. CST

    The ads were simply terrible

    by jimmy_009

    This is MY kind of movie, and I had zero desire to see it based on the drab advertising. It really did look like rejected shots from Attack of the Clones or Planet 51. I'm sure there was plenty of fresh things in the movie (I have yet to see it), but they chose to frame the movie in the worst possible light, from the title on down. Having not seen the movie yet, I won't place blame or call it a disaster, but I do fell comfortable saying the ad campaign was horribly done and made me personally, a fan of this kind of movie, say eh... maybe on DVD.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:53 p.m. CST

    Orbots you forgot one cliche:

    by Joe Plumber

    Magic/Vital device vollied about back and forth across the set between hero and villain.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:54 p.m. CST

    The whole recent culture of Disney filmmaking fed into this debacle

    by Jaster Mareel

    Disney used to release a dozen or more films a year, like the rest of the studios. Now they release 3-4 films a year, but with giant budgets, hoping for blockbusters. That's just a bad fucking bet. You never know how a film is going to enter the zietgeist. All the right pieces could be meshing perfectly....and you end up with Prince of Persia or The Sorceror's Apprentice. It's a stupid way to run a film company, but it explains why they kept pumping money into a drifting ship. They didn't have a backup plan.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:55 p.m. CST

    jimmy_009, it is worth seeing in the theater

    by Joe Plumber

    at the very least at Matinee price if you can swing it.

  • March 15, 2012, 1:58 p.m. CST

    ILM and WETA do not give discounts folks...

    by conspiracy

    Why? Tax incentives. The whole point of accounting is to make it look like you didn't make money, while you made money...especially Hollywood accounting. ILM and WETA operate as separate divisions within a larger corporate structure. You are basically paying yourself, but charging it against a films bottom line, so that in effect your film has farther to go to turn a net profit than it otherwise would if you simply gave away the services for free. Why? Several reasons...that would take the better part of the day to explain in detail; but ONE of the most important reasons is Profit Participation. If done correctly...a film will NEVER show a profit in paper...and therefore can be used as a write off for years, decades even; it also means all those people who have net points clauses in their contract..and most above the liners do...will never see a residual check...which if paid would amount into the millions. For example...Empire Strikes Back...is STILL in the red, and guys like David Prowse have yet to see a dime of bonus money. It ensures that lots of people farther down the line will never see a dollar past their paycheck...and that the Stars, Director etc won't have to share their First Dollar points if they have them. So...guys like Lucas in effect Pay themselves full bore, charge it against the film, film never makes money on paper although their "Gross Points" ensure they do, plus they get the tax write off and never "REALLY" spent the money they paid too themselves. If you think Big Corp are corrupt and scheming...spend a few months talking to the finance folks in the Industry.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:01 p.m. CST

    John Carter 2: Non-Existent

    by fat_rancor_keeper

  • March 15, 2012, 2:08 p.m. CST

    darth_meh

    by rogueleader66

    I am interested on his take as well, but I fear he has been unduly influenced by the way too over the top haters on here, the critics who got most of their negative views wrong, and the overall disdain for the movie. We'll see.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:10 p.m. CST

    conspiracy, sounds similar to war profiteering

    by Joe Plumber

    So, these people make money even if the film fails at the expense of everyone else. Also, sounds like the plot to The Producers.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:11 p.m. CST

    PWESENTS set visits, interviews, seems y'all got bought

    by Fritzlorrerains

    The movie sucks, admit it and move on.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:14 p.m. CST

    korus1234

    by rogueleader66

    Wont admit something I dont believe to be true. Did you see it?

  • March 15, 2012, 2:21 p.m. CST

    korus1234, I'm guessing you didn't actually see it

    by Mattman

    Your opinion is invalid. Admit it and fuck off. Thanks.

  • March 15, 2012, 2:48 p.m. CST

    The reason Hollywood keeps putting out crap = people like JC fans

    by Flip63Hole

    You keep giving them money, they going to keep pumping out mindless crap for the mindless masses. But thanks, guys! This just means we'll get more films with the quality of the Star Wars prequels instead of the originals. "Yay for Jar Jar. Jar Jar funny. I like funny. Mommy, I want toy with Happy Meal, okay? Hey, look Mommy, Tarzan is jumping around the desert with Avatar design rejects! That looks fun. Yay!"

  • March 15, 2012, 2:53 p.m. CST

    Just got back from seeing this

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    and I liked it just fine. It's by no means perfect, but everything with the Tharks is brilliant. The human-martian stuff I can take or leave, but overall I thought it was a solid film. I think it would have been better to be called A PRINCESS OF MARS though, and certainly should have had a cold-opening starting with Burroughs arriving at the train station so that we found out about Mars when Carter finds out.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:08 p.m. CST

    OK, i just returned from watching JOHN CARTER.

    by AsimovLives

    Or should i say, JOHN CARTER OF MARS, the movie's real title, right'at least according to the end titles and even lampshaded by the main character himself."John Carter of Mars. It sounds so much better" Yes it does, fella, yes it does. I'm organizing my thoughs on the subject, i shall write a more indeep review a bit later, if anybody cares for it.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:12 p.m. CST

    flip63hole, oh please

    by Mattman

    First, your argument makes no sense given that JC didn't do all that great. And second, movies like Transformers flourish. THOSE are the reason Hollywood puts out crap (see Battleship).

  • March 15, 2012, 3:13 p.m. CST

    nzpoe = Tellin the truth like it is. Wow. Someone else with taste here.

    by MENTALDOMINANCE

  • March 15, 2012, 3:15 p.m. CST

    lordcarlos

    by AsimovLives

    Hello, my namesake friend. I'm glad you took so much enjoyment out of this movie. At least as far you are concerned, you got your money worth. But the real question is: what would Carl Sagan think?

  • March 15, 2012, 3:18 p.m. CST

    @red_right_return

    by MrLongbaugh

    So you are an American, and you make the statement "America is full of retards". Are you calling yourself a retard? FYI...not everyone goes to see Twilight and Vampires Suck. Using your blanket approach to include everyone, shows what a dumb ass you are. I'll close with a sincere...Go fuck yourself!!!!

  • March 15, 2012, 3:25 p.m. CST

    All I know is the trailers remind me of the SW prequels

    by FrodoFraggins

    No thanks.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:26 p.m. CST

    canned dirty ape

    by FrodoFraggins

    Where/when did they ask us to stop talking about "it".

  • March 15, 2012, 3:37 p.m. CST

    frodofraggins, yep, that's all you know about it

    by Mattman

  • Damn right. The people who are hating on John Carter are the same people who embraced fucking POTC4 and Transformers DOTM.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:48 p.m. CST

    And, dear haters...

    by bob_uzumaki

    Have you even seen the movie? I doubt that.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:49 p.m. CST

    Can someone please make Restaurant at the End of the Universe, now?

    by Hesiod2k7

    Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy was a good movie that did not find an audience. But, I think it actually made a little money given its low production budget. But, considering that it made back its budget, plus -- the fact that John Carter is nowhere near going to do that pretty much dooms any talk of sequels.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:53 p.m. CST

    saw it yesterday, enjoyed the hell out of it

    by drave117

    Watching this movie made me feel the same kind of giddy joy and wonder that I felt as a little kid the first time I discovered the science fiction and fantasy racks at the local library. Sure, it stumbles a few times, but the end result is fun and fearless filmmaking, and I left the theater incredibly happy to have seen it.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:55 p.m. CST

    bob uzumaki

    by Orbots Commander

    I think it's pretty easy to determine who has seen the film, and who hasn't: MOST people haven't! Ha! I kid, I kid........ Anyway, those going on and on about budget and marketing, probably haven't seen JC. Those of us pointing out, by citing particular scenes and elements, what makes JOHN CLICHE oh, sorry, JOHN CARTER, such a lackluster experience, oh so definitely have.

  • March 15, 2012, 3:59 p.m. CST

    Beaks comes dangerously close to saying:

    by Jaster Mareel

    FUCK YOU PEOPLE! Just LEAVE AICN if you aren't going to be led around like the sheep we pretend you are!

  • March 15, 2012, 4:15 p.m. CST

    Nell Carter http://tinyurl.com/72742k8

    by donkingkong

    Now that's a movie I'd throw down some scrill to see.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:22 p.m. CST

    This thread needs an enema...

    by Darth Macchio

    Ok..so it's a bit awesome too. Not "professional - smash your fucking lights" awesome but awesome none the less.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:26 p.m. CST

    KEWL.JOHN CARTER FLOPPED.

    by KilliK

    That means more unoriginal retarded movies based on super-hero comics,cartoons,game boards,reboots,remakes,sequels and prequels. THANK YOU MOVIE AUDIENCE FOR RUINING THE CHANGE FOR ORIGINAL BIG-BUDGET GENRE MOVIES IN THE FUTURE.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:27 p.m. CST

    canned dirty ape

    by Ribbons

    You do realize that Beaks linked to his take-down of Fright Night to prove that he wasn't in bed with Disney, right? But no, it's some crazy conspiracy, man! They invited him to the Fright Night set and told him to trash it just so that it would give him some cred when he hyped up John Carter! Yeah, that's totally what happened!

  • March 15, 2012, 4:33 p.m. CST

    Beaks and his moronic thoughts on JC

    by 9000rpm

    I had a mild interest in seeing John Carter but after reading Beak's brain dead defense of JC I am hugely glad I stayed away (like everyone else). As the old saying goes, with friends like Beaks JC doesn't need enemies. Truly a moron.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:34 p.m. CST

    TL;DR: We got overpaid to hype this crap.

    by Arcadian Del Sol

  • March 15, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    If you want a sequel....

    by Kirbymanly

    Join the movement at the Take Me Back To Barsoom! Facebook page.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    One simple change would have made the entire movie better

    by glenn_the_frog

    At the start of the film, rather than having three different starting sequences and loading in flashbacks and random expositions... show John Carter losing his wife and swearing to never fight again. Its implied in flashes and snippets, and we start out with him after that loss and already refusin to fight, but we never get the meat of *why*... and considering it shaped his actions for most of the film... it was kind of important. if we'd actually seen that *major* character defining moment, or been given a bit more info about it, and the rest of the movie had been about him going against that, we would have felt for and associated with him *much* better. That was mostly what the film lacked. A strong hook and sense of empathising with the lead... which could have been built in with a couple extra minutes of showing him being a person. (Or more pleasant charisma moments and one liners, I suppose.)Once you have that attachment, you can get through exposition and new characters easily. Instead of vaguely half revealing his dead wife and kid at the end of the film in brief flashes.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:53 p.m. CST

    I don't agree with Beaks

    by Ribbons

    It's weird seeing all this vitriol, though; it's almost like TalkBackers are just contrarian douchebags by nature. Weird... Here's what I will say: I know that TalkBackers seem to hate it when the site collectively hypes a movie, like The Muppets or Attack the Block. And no, almost none of those movies are worthy of the weight of that hype. But at the end of the day if it gets the word out there, that can only be a good thing. Some people will resent it forever and never let go of that grudge, but other people will come back to it in a few years and realize that, hey, this movie isn't a masterpiece but it's actually pretty good. But that's also why I disagree with Beaks' chastisement: because if John Carter really IS any good, then it will endure. Blade Runner may have been reviled when it first came out, but now it's one of the most influential sci-fi films of all time. There are a lot of different factors that could lead to a film tanking upon initial release, but once it's out there it doesn't matter anymore. I don't think John Carter is especially good, but people will come to see that it's not THAT bad, at least. And to those of you who are gnashing your teeth and yelling "Beaks thinks John Carter is just as good as Blade Runner! I can't believe how stupid he is!" Grow up. You know that's not what he said.

  • March 15, 2012, 4:57 p.m. CST

    NELL CARTER OF MARS BAR

    by Joe Plumber

  • March 15, 2012, 4:58 p.m. CST

    Start off with just him prospecting

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    like a less ominous There Will Be Blood. Natives on the horizon, chase, buddy gets killed, cave, Mars. No need for Barsoom prelude or all that rebel characterization bullshit in the beginning. That's not who JC is.

  • Apache," Carter says between drags of his cigar. "Look I get that you think this is your dead ancestor's gold, but it's mine now. And I don't really want to fight. I've got too many dead Indians on my conscience already. Do we have a problem?

  • March 15, 2012, 5:18 p.m. CST

    LOL FUCKING QUOTATION BUG DELETED MY ENTIRE STORY

    by Joe Plumber

    OH WELL. JUST WOULD'VE PISSED PEOPEL OFF ANYWAY.

  • http://www.imdb.com/media/rm3317412096/nm0604747

  • March 15, 2012, 5:25 p.m. CST

    Beaks, nice try but John Carter is STILL a piece of shit

    by 420 Boylston St

    you can make all the lame excuses in the world about what is special and this is Stanton's film live action venture but issues of the film should judged on it's own merits. John Carter has Character's I couldn't connect with. I didn't buy Carter as a civil war veteran who has experience in using guns and instead of using them he wants to leap around with swords???

  • March 15, 2012, 5:29 p.m. CST

    John Carter will never be as influential as BR

    by DocPazuzu

    But it will most definitely grow in stature over the next ten to fifteen years. When all the Caribbean pirates and morphing robots have blurred into a CGI miasma in the public consciousness, John Carter will stand out as a unique, beloved and no doubt inspiring film, despite -- or perhaps in part thanks to -- its flaws.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:35 p.m. CST

    420 boylston st...

    by Kirbymanly

    You're a piece of Emerson douche.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:43 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by AsimovLives

    I sincerely doubt JOHN CARTER will be remembered next year... or by the end of this year, for that matter. The only way for JOHN CARTER to endure in people's conciousnessis if the foreign and home vidio ends up profitable enough to warrant a sequel. Otherwise... it's not a keeper.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:45 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by DocPazuzu

    You know, it really is a flimsy reason to whale on AICN by accusing every person involved with the site of being in the pocket of Disney. Nobody has been able to adequately explain this yet, but perhaps you can. How does championing a project and hoping for its success before it has been seen constitute accepting payola and pwesents? Is the only objective and morally untainted stance one of pessimism and snarky criticism before a movie comes out? Does that make their love of the final product more believable? You take issue with those of us beating on haters who've loathed the project from storyboard to screen, yet you're doing the exact same thing with the people who've excitedly looked forward to the film and done everything in their power to garner interest for the project and, yes, enjoyed watching the final movie. With one major difference. You're invoking some sort of asinine conspiracy to explain the evil machinations of the enthusiasts, whereas we consider the haters to be obnoxious assclowns all on their own.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:51 p.m. CST

    asimovlives

    by DocPazuzu

    I think you're wrong. It's unique enough to be rediscovered after all these ephemeral love/hate shitstorms have passed. Once the hype and anti-hype have died down, the feeding frenzy petered out and the floptrolls have moved on to other things to sound the death knell over, the movie will be judged more on its own merits. It may never enter the hallowed hall of what's considered Great Movies, but it will be reappraised and loved by a great many people.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:55 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by AsimovLives

    my thinking was based on the fact of all those interesting movies that will be released futher this year, namely all the summer tenpole movies. When they come, i think they will sweep JOHN CARTER from the audiences, and even many of the geek's memory. This year does promise a riches of goods. Hopefully, some of those will be truly memorable. Personally,i'm geeking out for THE DARK KNIGHT RISES and PROMETHEUS. And least we forget, there's also this little movie coming out called THE HOBBIT.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:57 p.m. CST

    well, The Kidd might not being payed by Disney since...

    by AsimovLives

    ... he's the only staff member in here so far who has not given a glowing review of JOHN CARTER. So there's that.

  • March 15, 2012, 5:59 p.m. CST

    Should've gotten Cuaron to direct. Or at the very least,

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    made Stanton take the Snow White gig and given JC to Tarsem.

  • March 15, 2012, 6 p.m. CST

    Scripting duties to Paul Dini or Peter David.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

  • March 15, 2012, 6:06 p.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by Mako

    Only time will tell if JC will indeed become more popular due to letting it age like a fine wine. I will sit down and watch it again in a year or two... and see if my initial reactions were spot on... or not. But currently - this film did very little for me. And I loved "Finding Nemo" and "Wall-E". I think Stanton has the chops to make great films. I just don't think this one was it. And my hope is that this will make him an even better film maker. Some of my other favorite movies include, "Raiders", "Jaws", "To Kill A Mockingbird", "Alien", "Seven Samurai", "Star Wars" and "Blade Runner". What worries me a little is, "Prometheus". I am a huge Ridley Scott fan. And I may just be putting this movie way too high on a pedestal. Kind of like JC was to many fans of the source material.

  • March 15, 2012, 6:09 p.m. CST

    It's pretty clear...

    by Chris

    Disney felt as though they had a new franchise here, because they saw dollar signs they tried to control everything based on how successful films in the past had worked but failed miserably. The fact they changed the title of the story turned me off to this film, the reason being if they're going to form some kind of consortium and put so much emphasis on what to call it so they can get EVERYONE in the seats, than just imagine how awful the process of writing and making the film must have been. It didn't look like a wonderful, sci-fi fantasy epic. It looked like a plodding mess put together by a boardroom. That kind of studio control is obvious to a person that's aware of it. Also, seeing Mars as some kind of drab, colorless, barren desert in the shitty trailers made the movie look dull and boring. I wanted to be sucked into the film, to be excited about this amazing fantasy world. Instead I'll just watch it on Netflix.

  • So exactly how much shit sucked through a tube was it like watching John Carter?

  • March 15, 2012, 6:13 p.m. CST

    ribbons

    by Mako

    The "Fright Night" remake was made by DreamWorks. Not Disney. Disney didn't front any of the money for it - unlike JC. So for BEAKS to bash "Fright Night" doesn't really support your argument that he also bashes Disney films. http://www.dreamworksstudios.com/films/fright-night

  • I guess not...

  • March 15, 2012, 6:38 p.m. CST

    I liked it

    by Patrick Nottingham

    And I'm seeing it again. Not gonna feed the trolls here.

  • March 15, 2012, 6:43 p.m. CST

    AICN's Rose Colored Glasses Problem

    by Mako

    Other than The Kidd, it's fair to say the AICN posse came to JC with a lot of past baggage. I remember seeing posts about JC almost a decade ago here. And how everyone wanted to make it. How in love Harry was with the source material. And you know what... that's cool. I don't take issue with that. What I take issue with is AICN using AICN to not only market and push a mediocre movie on us, but then turn it around and start lashing out at the fans on AICN and the people who didn't care for the movie and saw all it's flaws. The BEAKS thread here reminds me of a 3 year old child, kicking and screaming because someone took him JC action figure and dropped it in the mud. JC was just way too much of an investment for this site not to get involved with Disney - if you look at it's past history. And it tainted any true objective review we were ever going to get from these guys.

  • March 15, 2012, 7:03 p.m. CST

    canned_dirty_ape

    by Ribbons

    I'm pretty sure your entire argument is "pwesents." There's really not a whole lot to poke holes in. For your relationship to Fright Night last year to be the same as Beaks', you'd have to have been flown out to the set as well, something that surely qualifies as pwesents in the eyes of most TalkBackers. And my amazing forensic analysis was just me clicking on the two links Beaks left behind in the article while saying the exact same thing I just said. Not really an analysis or amazing, certainly not in my words. But I know being super-patronizing makes you seem smarter, so rock on.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:05 p.m. CST

    They should make a Kantos Kan movie next

    by cookylamoo

    Wasn't he the hero of Chessmen of Mars or one of the later books. Purefoy seemed to have a great time playing the roguish officer and the dude certainly has star power if you were lucky enough to catch Solomon Kane.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:11 p.m. CST

    Asimov...what would Carl Sagan think...

    by carlos arevalo

    ...what an interesting question my friend! Of course I think he would see the movie with scientific eyes, and from that point of view, the story would fall apart...he would ask: * Why a civilization with technology capable of building that kind of flying devices, didn't try to move to another planet, given that his own (mars) was slowly dying? * Why there isn't any sign of a planetary civilization on mars now? * Why there isn't any trace of oxygen, water, biological life now * Etc, etc. But I guess that, given that the story was so close to his hart and childhood memories, some skepticism would be left aside to focus on the faithfulness to the original books... And you know what...It would have been cool that -if Carl Sagan had lived- they invited him as a consultant...!!

  • March 15, 2012, 8:16 p.m. CST

    John Carter = tv material

    by CreamCheeseAlchemist

    You get the kids directly because it's not 10-20 a head and non-geek parents don't want to see a movie with monster apes. The same thing happened with Black Cauldron. Quality issues aside, I'm sure plenty of parents passed on it because it looked just like He-Man to such muggles. Plus, Cameron's Avatar is basically the modern version of this story.

  • March 15, 2012, 8:17 p.m. CST

    I enjoyed John Carter, Price of Persia, Tron Legacy

    by Charlie

    They were all of different quality. Prince of Persia was just a fun action, fantasy film. I don't know what people wanted from it? Tron 2, i was a little disappointed with it. I still enjoyed it. John Carter I liked the most out of them. So in my books Disney isn't doing anything wrong with these films. Last Pirates film was dull though... It showed how central Will and Elizabeth's story was to the original. This was just stuff happening with non of the major characters actually having an Arc or story. Eh go along to the fountain of youth for no real reason, stuff happens and leave the film with the characters exactly as they were at the start.. meh.

  • This would seem to solve all the hater's problems. Even though the second book is probably the best in the series. For myself I would like to see The Synthetic Men of Mars so I can see a sheet of flesh covered with screaming heads, arms and feet, threatening to engulf the planet.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:05 p.m. CST

    Saw it tonight in Paris.

    by Franck

    Didn't like that much the Avengers 3D Trailer, loved, absolutely loved the full Prometheus trailer. As for John Carter, I actually got what I went for: I travelled to Mars for a good two hours, I got sucked into that world, I found some dialogues to be cheesy at times, other times I found myself cheesy to fall for some obvious cliches, but I liked it. I delved into the action scenes, although wished there were more, or they'd last longer, or be less Disney and a more Frazetta. I found Kitsch's acting surprisingly decent, Lynn Collins average and a bit off at times, Dafoe excellent and convincing. I liked the 1981 Flash Gordon, retro science-fiction feel of the ceremony scenes, costumes, colors and set designs,liked the 3D serving the movie well enough without excess. Loved the ending, although felt some unnecessary cuts were made during the last 15 minutes on Mars. Would I like to see a sequel ? Absolutely. Will it be in my top 50 movies? Probably not, but not because it was bad, but because some were better. I did enjoy it though, worth every Euro, a cheap price for a trip to Mars.

  • March 15, 2012, 9:16 p.m. CST

    I Loved John Carter!

    by Real Deal

    I think if you go with an open mind and don't try to over analyze it you'll have fun and enjoy it. It's an adverture romp based on a story that was written in 1912 so trying to see if it's scientifically acurate is pointless. It's not that kind of film or story. What it is : Engaging, fun, pretty CGI, good characters that you care about, and did I mention fun? I really want a sequel! I want to see these characters again. I'm also glad they at least made this movie. It was the most fun I've had in the movies in a long time. I also liked the score especially the main theme. It's really difficult to come up with a score for this type of movie these days that doesn't sound militaristic or nautical. One more thing : I loved WOOLA!

  • March 15, 2012, 9:24 p.m. CST

    My Review From Another Page ( Spoilers )

    by Real Deal

    I really loved it! I wasn't bored or really disappointed in the film. I was smiling through most of it. Was it perfect? No of course not. If I were to nitpick I would say it was a lot of back history to throw at the audience ( if you hadn't read the books ). Kind of like Dune. However my wife ( who isn't a big SF fan ) didn't have any trouble following the plot. She said she really liked it and was surprised that she enjoyed it so much because it really didn't seem like her kind of film. My daughter and her boyfriend enjoyed it also. As a matter of fact he kept saying " That was a really good movie! " " I want to see it again! " “Are they going to make a sequel? " " I really didn't expect it to be that good because of what I'd read online. " It seemed like they lumped parts of the first two books together but I'm ok with that. They also made some changes but they helped flesh out the plot. I loved thousands of Tharks yelling " Virginia! Virginia ! " The theater I was in was packed ( unusual for a tuesday night ) and the audience seemed to like it. They laughed at all the jokes. I've gotta say that Lynn Collins is so hot! She really was the incomparable Deja Thoris. Kitsch was good also. I couldn't fault his performance. The thing about this movie is that it had heart. It was fun to watch and I cared about the characters. I had to use the restroom at one point and I was trying to find a good spot to leave. My wife said when I came back " You just missed the coolest part! They were in this room where the floor lighted up and you could see the whole solar system. " And then there's Woola! One of my favorite parts is where John tells his dog to leave because he's facing an entire army and Woola just grits his teeth and looks at them like " I'm not leaving you. I'm gonna tear them up! " It's really funny to see the Calot out flanking the army and come rushing at the camera with his mouth open. And several points during this sequence it did remind me of what I'd read ion the books with bodies piling up around Carter. Also I liked the part where he had flashes of what happened to his wife and son while he was hacking the bad guys to pieces. Strong was as always the quintessential bad guy. Was this movie artistic and meaningful? Not that kind of movie. Was it scientifically accurate? Give me a break! The story was written in 1912! Was it fun to watch? Hell yeah! I just hope it has stayng power so I can go back and see these characters again. Tars! I loved his character. Willam DeFoe is always fun to watch. In short this was everything TPM wasn't. You really wanted the good guys to win. The CGI was really top notch. And yes I saw it in 3D. I loved the last 10 min and the way they resolved the plotline with Burroughs and tomb. One thing I was thinking as they finally showed " John Carter of Mars " and the logo on the screen was " Now it makes sense removing Mars from the title because he's not John Carter of Mars until the end ". I also have to say that I felt emotional a little bit when I saw they dedicated the film to Steve Jobs. The other thing I was thinking was if someone who likes adventure and old style SF doesn't have fun watching this film then I think they take life too seriously and have forgotten how to have fun at the movies. So there you go. I loved it and hope for a sequel. I can't wait to see it again because visually there's so much to take in. It's really too bad about the marketing. It's a difficult film to describe to someone not familiar with the books. Go see this film!

  • March 15, 2012, 9:43 p.m. CST

    Tars Tarkas cries at a wedding in this movie.

    by victor laszlo

    Cries. At a wedding. Unforgivable. notenoughbiehn, I commend your truth and virtue. The worst part about the media narrative right now is that there are mind-boggling articles actually saying the problem is that Stanton was 'too faithful'. No one seems to have actually read the book, but they won't admit to that. 'A Princess of Mars' must not get dragged down into the generic muck in which 'Disney John Carter' belongs.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:09 p.m. CST

    Bullsquash, maxcherry

    by D.Vader

    I liked it bc it was enjoyable. No need to force anything.

  • March 15, 2012, 10:33 p.m. CST

    I loved this film, and F the masses!

    by jvamvakias

  • Ew. Simply...ew.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:16 p.m. CST

    Haven't seen this yet

    by Patch

    I thought it looked pretty good but I have to agree that this had flop written all over it long before it was released...

  • March 15, 2012, 11:18 p.m. CST

    maxcherry, ha

    by Mattman

    Who comes up with that shit? Why would I pretend to like a movie I don't like? I genuinely loved John Carter. Saw it twice, had no problem with any of it, and can't wait to get it on blu-ray. I respect your opinion (can't say that of everyone here), so please respect mine.

  • March 15, 2012, 11:20 p.m. CST

    Also, the characters have personality and life

    by Mattman

    They don't seem like cardboard cutouts reciting sterile dialogue.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:12 a.m. CST

    Not sure why the hate

    by maxwello

    I saw it the other day with a friend of mine who used to work for one of the big three talent agencies in Hollywood, but got out of it to go into teaching and research. Anyway, aside from erring on the side of pretty with the actor in the title character, it was a great summer movie, and a much better take on the book than I would have expected from Disney. It's a sci-fi story style from an earlier era. It's not going to appeal to everybody. Certainly not to a youth audience. But I'm glad the story was handled so well. Without John Carter, we don't get Luke Skywalker, or Han Solo, we don't get Buck Rogers, we don't get The Martian Chronicles, 2001, or most of Heinlein. And Dejah Thoris is the prototype for all of the strong sci-fi females that came after her, all the way down to Princess Leia and Aeryn Sun, and this is from a writer working several years before women were even given the vote. My friend and I have a theory that the romantic orchestral score was to off-putting to the under-30 crowd. I hope that we'll get more from this universe, though I know it's a long shot. The audience studios value are too hip to have any sense of history, or character. Anyone with an autonomous sense of taste is too much trouble to impress. Much less work too put out yet another mindless, explosion-fest with a disaffected young protagonist, a heroine who makes up in volume what she lacks in character, and a musical score the leaves the audience shell shocked and bleeding from the ears.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:15 a.m. CST

    apologies

    by maxwello

    Way to many typos. Yes, I know the difference between "to" and "too". It's late and it's been a long day. Should have proofed it before I hit enter.

  • March 16, 2012, 4:59 a.m. CST

    There's a fan trailer on YouTube which blows all the official stuff out of the water.

    by Smoke Monster Loves Kate

  • March 16, 2012, 5:01 a.m. CST

    The lead actor did a serviceable job for most of the film.

    by Smoke Monster Loves Kate

    I think the film's flaw was trying to cram so much into 2 hours, but that's the nature of the story.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:16 a.m. CST

    lordcarlos

    by AsimovLives

    I think Sagan would say the new movie wouldn't stir in the younglings the same passion and excitement and sense of wonder that the original novels did to the people of his generation when they first read as young kids.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:34 a.m. CST

    wrath_of_fett

    by AsimovLives

    Yes, i saw JOHN CARTER yesterday evening. I'll need some time to put my thoughs to writing. I do have quite a few things to say about the movie. I just don't know if i should write a review lenght post or just tell it peacemeal throughout the talkback convo.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:53 a.m. CST

    @Asimov did you like it? yes or no?

    by KilliK

    just answer that.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:56 a.m. CST

    =Its a piece of fucking SHIT=

    by KilliK

    YOU ARE A PIECE OF FUCKING SHIT. btw i bet that you must that moron braindrain or something who was banned a few months ago.

  • March 16, 2012, 6 a.m. CST

    cookylamoo

    by AsimovLives

    James Purefoy seems to have been deliberatly made to play protagonists in swashbucking adventure movies. He's a very physical adept actor, he has tonnes of charisma, and he's damn good.

  • March 16, 2012, 6:05 a.m. CST

    they should have cast a real man like Josh Holloway instead

    by chien_sale

    and go for broke, make it a crazy r-rated fantasy with alien chicks with big tits

  • It doesn't help the fact that the defenition of planet was reformulated in 2006, which demoted Pluto from palnet to dwarf planet. So it's easy for people to mistake how many planets are there in the solar system, because we were educated to think it's 9 when nowdays only 8 are called such. and to make matters even more complicated, not every astronomers agree with the reclassification. The definition of solar system is not that easy and clean cut either because now we are discovering enough evidences that it's not just stars that have planets orbiting them, but also quasi-stellar objects like brown dwaves, but also post-stellar objects like neutron stars, pulsars and black holes as well. There's many stars who have twin companions, the double stars and triple star systems, like our neighbours the Centauri stars. In such systems, a star is not the center of the system because there's more then one. The mutual gravitational center is the center of the system. And matters became even more complicated because some stars have their own planets while others have planets orbiting btoh stars. And then there's other star systems that have 3 or more stars. And i'm not going to even talk about the MACHOS.

  • March 16, 2012, 6:56 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    It's not easy for me to answer that in such a binary fashion. I'd be lying if i did.

  • March 16, 2012, 7:03 a.m. CST

    Asimov movies are like food.either you like it or you dont.

    by KilliK

    you are not asked to take a position over a major social debate ie: death sentences,abortions,stem-cell therapy,etc So did you like the movie or not?

  • Julius Caesar, Marcus Antonius, Posca and Atia, together again. That was one serious nostalgia trip right there. Ahhh, ROME! Good times!

  • March 16, 2012, 7:47 a.m. CST

    We take issue with the way AICN covered John Carter.

    by knowthyself

    You know..sucking it's dick every day before release and then SHOCKING...loving it as if their minds hadn't already been made up before hand.

  • March 16, 2012, 7:47 a.m. CST

    Too bad Polly Walker had no chance to be reunited with the others

    by BEHEM Pascal

    Especially James Purefoy! What a strange couple in Rome. I hope that in the dvd bonus we will be able to see the "Tharks" performances compared before/after pixelisation.

  • March 16, 2012, 7:57 a.m. CST

    Don't be a (John Carter) hater.

    by ZonToro

    I'm not film critic, but I really liked John Carter and feel it is getting a bum rap. Here's why - it was a movie I could enjoy with my boys (age 11 & 8) and not have soft core porn (Transformers), ham-fisted political messages (Avatar / Wall-E), or non stop fart jokes (pick one) jammed in our faces. It actually felt like something new that I hadn't seen a million times before and for once the 3-D really worked for me. Was the middle a little soft? Yes, but overall it was a very entertaining experience - which is what I want from a movie. Sometimes for my $12, I just want to be entertained, not be preached to or subjected to some Hollywood idiot's idea of what's "edgy." I mean really, film critics gushed all over Wall-E, which was boring as watching paint dry. But, what do I know, Cars (the first one) is one my favorite animated films and everyone seems to hate it to.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:13 a.m. CST

    Oh and the Blade Runner theatrical cut is BALLS.

    by knowthyself

    It didn't become a masterpiece until Ridley Scott finally removed that horrid narration that the studio forced him to put in.

  • Don't forget not everybody is blessed with a constant exposure of a mediterranean menu.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:48 a.m. CST

    Let me put it like this...

    by chronicallydepressedlemming

    Empire Strikes Back-->A New Hope-->Rotj/John Carter-->Avatar-->Star Wars Prequels.

  • Gushers? Accepters? Why is it only the people who happen to dislike a movie get branded with a negative connotation? Why not the people who love? And what should we call the people inbetween? Hum? One day i'll lose my cool and my composture, and i'll go ugly on the fuckass who keep on seeing all this movie geek business merely divided between loverboys and haters. One day shit will get ugly! Fucking ass!! Some people loved, some hated, and some got lukewarmed. Got it?

  • March 16, 2012, 9:20 a.m. CST

    re hater

    by DocPazuzu

    Everyone hates one movie or another, but usually after having seen it. Haters are the particular breed of talkbackers who find pleasure only in ganging up on and ripping apart movies before even a single frame has been shot. Their hate is both method and goal and has nothing to do with any real love of cinema.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:21 a.m. CST

    asimovlives: I believe we're called "Fans"

    by cookylamoo

    And rather than "hater" I would say "Armchair director". People seems to feel that if only they had made the movie their way, it would have made 300 million over the first weekend. But really, Hollywood can get along fine without you. If you want to save someone...try the Auto companies.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:27 a.m. CST

    If you have to know, i liked AVATAR better.

    by AsimovLives

    Also, i don't mistake JOHN CARTER for the book from which was adapted, A PRINCES SOF MARS. Just because the book came first and is the foundation of all planetary romances, including AVATAR, that fact doesn't give JOHN CARTER any free lunches just because it's the first official adaptation.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:28 a.m. CST

    and also: Did you feel I was knocking James Purefoy?

    by cookylamoo

    Far from it. His very small bit was one of the highlights of the film. JC could have used more of a Han Solo character.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:37 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Haters and gushers. What should we call the people in between? What about apologists? Prequel APOLOGISTS. JOHN CARTER APOLOGISTS. I've got to put my hand up and admit... I'm a TERMINATOR SALVATION APOLOGIST myself! If a movie has some problems. If a lot of people hate on it but you happen to like it. And because people hate on it you express your like for it more strongly than perhaps it deserves... what does it make you? AN APOLOGIST.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:40 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    ps. I haven't read this thread except for the bit at the bottom but I have read Beaks comparing JOHN CARTER to BLADE RUNNER??? Comparing JOHN CARTER to THE ABYSS??? That's beyond being an apologist. That's just being a dumb cunt.

  • There has to be some title to the people who love a movie which has to have as much a negative notion to it the one who doesn't. There has to be fair play here. And by the way, also another one for those whose opinion is somehwere inbetween. Fair's fair.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:44 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by AsimovLives

    And what shall we call to those who love a movie before seeing it? The opposed equivalent? There has to be something for those.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:49 a.m. CST

    @Asi so how did the movie taste? did you like it?

    by KilliK

    would you eat it again?

  • March 16, 2012, 10:02 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    It lacked a bit of red meat to it's bones. The condiments were too familiar. I'm still digesting it. I wouldn't want a rushed digestion, you know?

  • March 16, 2012, 10:13 a.m. CST

    Asi, drink a soda.

    by KilliK

  • March 16, 2012, 11:27 a.m. CST

    killik

    by AsimovLives

    i have a capricious stomach. a soda over it would only make it worst, i'm affraid. jezz, this metaphor stuff is addictive.

  • March 16, 2012, 11:28 a.m. CST

    HAPPY FUDGEPACK FRIDAY, LADS and LASSES!

    by Robert Evans

    In honor of St. Patrick's Day, today's subject is ... QUIET MAN co-star MAUREEN O'HARA! Whut th' fook ya think? Did she let th' Duke and John Ford or any other virile fella stem her brown shamrock?

  • March 16, 2012, 11:34 a.m. CST

    I'm seeing 21 jump street JUST to hurt john carter

    by knowthyself

  • March 16, 2012, 11:41 a.m. CST

    docpazuzu

    by Mako

    I agree with asimovlives - there seem to be a lot of fan boy over-zealouness to this movie. A movie that is pretty bland when you watch it on it's own merits and not because of where the source material came from.

  • March 16, 2012, 11:56 a.m. CST

    I'm slowly becoming a Hollywood hater, not JC or Stanton hater.

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Stanton made Wall*E, so he's got the chops But he's also part of the Hollywood machine, with its delusion that it can improve on source material, make it more palatable to mass audiences according to their 'market research.' This is why we can never get proper Conan, Punisher, Transformers, GI Joe, I Am Legend (heard the Vincent Price one was close though), Tarzan, barely get superheroes origins correct, turn solid video game narratives into clown shoes, get a Star Trek movie with none of the intellectual weight of the series, etc. btw, why the fuck was Jane Punisher set in Miami? And being a middle east war vet doesn't carry the same resonance as a Vietnam vet.

  • March 16, 2012, 11:59 a.m. CST

    We've flogged this JOHN CARTER pony enough. It's time for Fudgepackin'!

    by Robert Evans

  • March 16, 2012, 12:01 p.m. CST

    @ASI then walk

    by KilliK

    a walk after a good meal helps with the digestion of the food.fact.

  • March 16, 2012, 12:31 p.m. CST

    AL: I feel the same about the people who love the end of Lost.

    by cookylamoo

    But you know, fuck it. If they enjoyed it, it's no skin off my dick.

  • I'm so over the hero having to be "reluctant" or "unsure" or having to "overcome some personal demon" before he can let loose and kick ass. This is what spoiled "Green Lantern" for me, that the guy supposedly without fear had to be "he who can 'overcome great fear." The "Hero's path might have been a good outline once. But now that we've seen it a hundred times and know exactly where it's going, all it does is slow down the movie. I imaging John Carter to be like Indiana Jones. He's not conflicted. He's a hero by nature.

  • March 16, 2012, 1:19 p.m. CST

    =He's not conflicted. He's a hero by nature=

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    Indeed. That is the character. A man of action, without hesitation. Un-remorseful ass kicker and heart stabber. But I guess they think today's audience couldn't relate to that. Too old-fashioned, too macho. Some would say fascist. That's how bitch-made we've become

  • March 16, 2012, 1:21 p.m. CST

    It's been a week and I still can't figure out if I like JC or not

    by BEHEM Pascal

    Tough call. I would have preferred to hate it completely, or love it completely. All things better than this middle-of-the-road impression. All I can say for sure is that it's a missed opportunity that will probably not present itself again in a close future. It could have been so much more...

  • March 16, 2012, 1:34 p.m. CST

    Pascalahad2

    by lprothro

    That's a normal reaction to a lukewarm, bland film. I had a very similar reaction walking out of the theater. I despise all the negative hobgoblins on this site who hate everything and was one of the few who had high hopes for this film going in--but oh well. Cookylamoo and Notenoughbiehn--well said sirs. Stanton has stated in interviews that he felt Carter needed to be given some character depth, and he was absolutely right. But an angsty, tortured background is kind of a generic, trendy way to do it. Spielberg and co. made Indy feel completely real by giving him humor, vulnerability, and weird little quirks and hang-ups; not by killing off his parents or his dog or his auntie or whatever. As classic and well-known as those films are it's shocking how few have caught on to this yet!

  • The line where he says he came to Casablanca for the waters. Reply: but we're in a desert HB: I was misinformed. I've probably misquoted that, but it's a perfect example of not having to explain everything about a character to know that he's a real man, with a past and secrets, and that's damn well good enough.

  • Was that guy from John Carter's ridiculous portrayal of Jigsaw. Everything else was fucking spot-on. And people just didn't like it. I don't really know why. Too brutal maybe? But then again I mostly loved the Thomas Jane film too so what the fuck do I know.

  • March 16, 2012, 1:57 p.m. CST

    The ending of Lost still pisses me off

    by Jaster Mareel

    I just pretend that they kept the original ending and they all died in the plane crash because that seems 1000X better to me. That magical brothers bullshit chaps my ass.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:17 p.m. CST

    We'll forgive Dominic West for "Jigsaw."

    by cookylamoo

    Since he's done this movie and "The Hour" rather well. But really Dom, don't let it happen again.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:20 p.m. CST

    Melonman

    by lprothro

    Yep---even better example.

  • Because before you indicated you'd only partially read them.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:23 p.m. CST

    Re : maxcherry

    by Real Deal

    Sorry but that's just not the case. Besides I talked about it not being what TPM turned out to be in my review.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:27 p.m. CST

    wrath of fett, I saw JC last Saturday and enjoyed it

    by Joe Plumber

    I give it **1/2 out of *****. Really nothing to hate about it. But, nothing to love either. Dare I say it? Oh, why not? Meh.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:31 p.m. CST

    wrath, also hated the ending of Lost, the very end

    by Joe Plumber

    where they fudged around with the original idea that they all dies in the crash and were in purgatory. That said, I loved all of the Indiana Jones/over the top adventure stuff. Same is true of the last season, which for the most part was a huge disappointment.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:32 p.m. CST

    Dominic West was Jimmy fucking McNulty in The Wire.

    by Robert Evans

    He doesn't need your forgiveness, peasants.

  • Did you pick her because she was in ERB's Tarzan movies as well as her Irish heritage. Hopefully, Conspiracy will find O'Hara a better fudgepack muse.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:39 p.m. CST

    darth_meh: Both.

    by Robert Evans

    Plus, I like imagining The Duke bending her over a barrel of the finest Irish whiskey, making her squeal like a banshee.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:41 p.m. CST

    Irish Whiskey, Mmmmmm...

    by Joe Plumber

    1 More Day.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:42 p.m. CST

    It's already St. Pat's in Asia, darth_meh.

    by Robert Evans

    Why wait?

  • March 16, 2012, 2:43 p.m. CST

    Anyone else sick of those animated 21 Jump St. ads yet?

    by Joe Plumber

    How many times do I need to see Jonah Hill dry humping someone in public. Looks like AICN is having there own Fudgepack Friday.

  • March 16, 2012, 2:54 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by Joe Plumber

    The bars open at 7AM tomorrow. That's early enough for me these days. When I was younger I would have started at Midnight and made an entire day of it.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:04 p.m. CST

    Frazetta's art is kitschy genius...

    by Plathismo

    ...but if the film had followed that design/costuming aesthetic, it would only have been a comedy or a porno.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:07 p.m. CST

    This Talkback has taught and/or reminded me of the following items:

    by Mr. Nice Gaius

    1. The fact that Andrew Stanton has suddenly become a directorial force worth surprising amounts of praise AND derision. 2. The capacity for hate in Talkbacks (and comment sections in general) is becoming symptomatic of a much larger and troubling condition that's looming over the real world. 3. AICN Talkback is always so much more entertaining when the old-school Talkbackers are roused to reappear and charge from the trenches. 4. Media Messiah is still crazier than a shit-house rat. Slainte!

  • March 16, 2012, 3:27 p.m. CST

    What ever happened to Danny Glover's Dick Blood?

    by kirttrik

    Greatest name in talkback history, and more than probably a powerful aphrodisiac.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:28 p.m. CST

    I agree with plathismo, the movie should have been a comedy porno.

    by kirttrik

    Then the big bucks would of flowed in.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:29 p.m. CST

    MR BEAKS - how was HARRYS set visit today to PACIFIC RIM?

    by donnie

    How how how

  • March 16, 2012, 3:44 p.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    i finished reading A PRINCESS OF MARS the fday before i saw the movie JOHN CARTER. So, i'm pretty well informed on the similiaritudes and differences between both, and it's still pretty fresh on my mind.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:47 p.m. CST

    choppah

    by AsimovLives

    if you think Mauren O'Hara is hot in THE QUIET MAN, you should see her in those pirate m ovies she made in the 1940s. Technicolour was invente just for her, i say. A fiery red-head with green eyes and gorgeaus like few. Damn pretty good actress too.

  • March 16, 2012, 3:56 p.m. CST

    notenoughbiehn and cookylamoo

    by AsimovLives

    Thing is, people in the audiences shouldn't be too worried or trouble if a character doesn't act like a modern man in a story set in the past. John Carter is a 19th century virginian cavalry man and a southerner gentleman, of course he would act and think like a man of his time. And why shouldn't audiences accept that? ROME was a big hit and it had everybody act completly differently from us today. even the heroes and the nicest people in the show acted in ways people today would think as dartardly and evil. And those were the good guys. The TV show SPARTACUS also show the heroes of the story, the good guys of the show, act and do a nd say stuff that for people of today would look psycophatic and the actions of evildoers. And yet the show is an immense sucess and people can't get enough of it. I agree with you guys. Nowdays, what would look fresh in a movie would be a hero who wouldn't follow the Hero's Path. That would be refreshing. The creatives in Holywood shouldjust remove the Star Wars stick they have up their asses and stop copying it for everything. Enough is enough already.

  • March 16, 2012, 4 p.m. CST

    wrath_of_fett

    by AsimovLives

    I liked PUNISHER: WARZONE. I see it as a very dark black comedy. And it has Ray "Titus Fucking Pullo" Stevenson in the main role, which he inhabits with the dedication and professionalism as if he was playing a shakespearian character in a London theater. How could i not like that?

  • March 16, 2012, 4:24 p.m. CST

    Punisher War Zone wasn't like the ones I read

    by NotEnoughBiehn

    It was like that ridiculous, trying too hard to be edgy MAX line. It was nothing like the superior Mike Barron run or John Romita Jr. run. Punisher never punched through someone's head in those. Save that shit for zombie movies and Ricky O.

  • March 16, 2012, 4:32 p.m. CST

    I like to think that even today there are men who are fearless.

    by cookylamoo

    Anthony Bourdain comes to mind. He travels the world, jumping out of planes, swinging through trees, bungee jumping off sky-scrapers. and eating whatever shit people offer him (Including a pig's raw asshole) The man drinks, swears, says whatever he wants and don't take crap from no one. Bourdain is this era's Indiana Jones.

  • March 16, 2012, 4:41 p.m. CST

    Bourdain is an ill-tempered cocksucker.

    by Robert Evans

  • March 16, 2012, 4:45 p.m. CST

    All hail Gaius!

    by DocPazuzu

    Good to see you, MNG! As for considering what the opposite number of the haters would be, it certainly isn't " gushers " . There's a fundamental difference here. People who go apeshit enthusiastic over a project and scream how much it's going to rule, tend to save this behavior for certain properties dear to their hearts and they don't operate in packs. Haters, on the other hand, hate anything and everything that they possibly can. Take moviemack for instance. This was a guy who hated literally EVERYTHING. He was asked repeatedly what he actually liked and habitually ignored the question. Haters thrive on the hatred and tearing down of things that other people like. People who gush over certain movies don't do it to spite other people. It's like MNG says, haterism is a symptom of a broader malaise affecting the internet and western societies in general. Big difference.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:34 p.m. CST

    DocPaz, Moviemack is still among us

    by Robert Evans

    today he spends his time turning off subtitles.

  • March 16, 2012, 5:54 p.m. CST

    Ah.

    by DocPazuzu

    I should have known.

  • Dublin was the birth city of Maureen O' Hara; Dublin, the heart and soul of Irish Roman Catholicism and football. a city where the only virtue prized higher than a fair face and a full pint is a tight vigins crutch and the desire to use it. Maureen knew in her heart that having a gingers " Luck O' the Irish" wasn't enough to make her dreams come true, she had to use what the good lord gave her; and what the good lord had given her was, as Father O'Shea had said after tracing her freckles down her back with his tongue during confessional at the age of 16, was fair soft skin, a tight shapely ass and a firecracker pink turd tunnel that the good father had descibed as "Deeper than a peat bog and tighter than a choir boy". Maureen knew on that day...she was destined for stardom, for greatness...and in America fame and fortune would flow from her shit tap like the beer at her favorite pub...endless. But it wasn't until she met Marion Morrison (John Wayne) and John "Sod Plower" Ford together on the set of Rio Grande that she would truely earn the pet name Father O'She had given her in her youth, "poll álainn ", and the Hollywood legend of "Dos Hombres y Mujer de rojo del Culo" would be born.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:07 p.m. CST

    No movie should cost $250 million dollars. Period.

    by Jaka

    There's just no excuse for it. Even with Avatar, where a large part of the cost was developing the technology, the fact that it made such a huge profit was a fluke (and I really like that movie, doesn't change the fact that it's profit vs budget numbers are an anomaly). As I said in another talkback, they should have been able to make two lengthy movies for that amount of money.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:10 p.m. CST

    mr. nice gaius said...

    by Jaka

    The capacity for hate in Talkbacks (and comment sections in general) is becoming symptomatic of a much larger and troubling condition that's looming over the real world.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:21 p.m. CST

    Gushers are as bad as Haters

    by AsimovLives

    There's nothing positive in being an adoring fan of a movie that's flawed or even bad, or supporting movies sight unseen and rate them great movies even without much evidence. It's just the flip side of the same coin that the haters inhabit. There no positivity in mindlessness.

  • Because unlike Taylor, Josh actually has charisma.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:24 p.m. CST

    rojo del culo? red of the ass?

    by AsimovLives

    if you mean to say red ass, then it reads culo rojo.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:25 p.m. CST

    Haterz? What the fuck is that...I'm not some uneducated ghetto fuck.

    by conspiracy

    That silly generic, general "Haters" shit has to stop. I didn't like the film, I gave my reasoned reasons...does that make me a "Hater"? Turn off Jersey Shores and Grow the fuck up people.

  • March 16, 2012, 8:40 p.m. CST

    Holloway, Kitsch, same difference

    by AsimovLives

  • March 16, 2012, 8:47 p.m. CST

    jaka said something after what he posted above

    by Jaka

    But he forgot that these asshole talkbacks fuck themselves off if you use quotation marks. Hmph. Anyway, he agreed with mr. nice gaius.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:12 p.m. CST

    Comparing Blade Runner with John Carter is ridiculous

    by Jymn

    Blade Runner was a masterpiece when I saw in a theatre in 1982. It's even better now after dozens of viewings. John Carter, on the other hand, is a cartoon. It's derivative of Lucas and Spielberg. Blade Runner stands on its own. There is no comparison. Blade Runner is in the big leagues. Carter is strictly bush.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:14 p.m. CST

    asimovlives " Gushers Are As Bad As Haters " Bullshit!

    by Real Deal

    Bullshit! You just called their opinion " Mindlessness " " Flawed or bad " is an opinion and subjective. I saw it and I'm " gushing ". Bullshit asi.

  • March 16, 2012, 9:36 p.m. CST

    Asimov...sense of wonder...

    by carlos arevalo

    ...sadly I agree with you on that. And by the way you have just touched the essence of the discussion: the difference between great fantasy & Sci-fi, and the rest: the ability to inspire, awe, be thought provoking and shock the readers or the audience. The Books of Asimov, Phil Dick, Arthur Clarke, Star Wars and Blade Runner have this effect. And that is why I love Sci-Fi and Fantasy. But, as Sagan said about science, I think you also have to have at the same time an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism. Some times you have to dig around a lot of mud to find some jewels. Sometimes a movie can be a mediocre pile of s***t, and STILL, in small scene or passage, have an original and thought provoking idea (a lot of B movies are like this) I think you are right that this JC movie wont have the same impact on kids like 50 years ago as the pulp JCM stories had on young Sagan. Or like the original Star Wars had on me when I was 7. Or when I read the Foundation Series when a was a teen. This JC is not great Sci-Fi. Is just fun Sci-fi (I still smile with the "Vorginia" joke). Cheers my good friend!

  • March 16, 2012, 9:45 p.m. CST

    Sometimes you are called upon to Gush, even in the face of hate.

    by cookylamoo

    When I saw "The Artist" I fell in love with it. I actually cried at the end. But, you know, most people here loathe anything at all sentimental. When you love something, you want to share it with others. When you hate something I guess you want to warn people away. But one persons joy really has no more value than another persons disgust. The people who bother me are the people who hope their thumbs down will stop people from ever making a sequel or another film like it. If that's the case, we should have simply contented ourselves with the Tracy Lords version.

  • March 16, 2012, 10:14 p.m. CST

    asimovlives ..."2 Friends and a red woman of the ass"

    by conspiracy

    As in 3 people who are "Of the Ass", "Fetishists", "Anal Paramours"....

  • March 16, 2012, 11:22 p.m. CST

    darth meh...for Christ sake's they DIDN'T all die in the plane crash!

    by DrBathroomMD

    Everything that happened in the show ACTUALLY happened to them. Oh and ya John Carter was great, IMO.

  • March 16, 2012, 11:28 p.m. CST

    Maureen O'Hara:Twas the Luck O'the Anus

    by conspiracy

    It was a match made in heaven, and the three friends soon set about blazing a trail top notch westerns and blown out rectums from Hollywood to Puerto Vallarta. “I was comfortable with Duke the minute I met him, …” O’Hara has been reported as saying, “…the minute I saw those size 11 boots I knew I’d finally found a leading man who understood an actresses need to relax, anal relaxes me”. Ford saw the reaction between his co-stars and knew more than quality film would be made, but that he now had two partners in his never ending quest for the three “C’s” as he referred to Cigars, Cunny and Culo. “I knew Maureen was a sport the minute I laid eyes on that magnificent gob of hers…I was in her giblets within 10 minutes of walking on set, regrettably Duke was there first so I was hot bunking with Marion, not the first time, not the last either. Irish like buggery as much as brawlin and Maureen had a shitter that was tasty as Shepherds Pie” It is reported that after the three went to Wayne’s Puerto Vallarta Villa for a month that after the first week local clubs began to charge them an “Ass Tax” due to the fact that waitresses and dancers that left with returned days later and unable to sit. “The Gringo’s were crazy…” relates Jose Gutierrez who owned “La Casa de Morena Puta” during the late 1950’s, “…the girl was the worse, red hair, beautiful, but always betting customers she could pick up bottles with her butt…all night long, bottles in her ass, bottles in her ass…customers didn’t have money left for the girl or drinks.” Today at a Spry 91, Maureen O’Hara divides her time between New York and Ireland; reports say her 91st birthday was a celebration of a life well lived, and an ass well used. Leaked stories relate that Maureen delighted family and friends alike during a moving tribute to her long and illustrious film career by using a nutcracker from the Set of “Miracle on 34th Street” and in a extraordinary display of Nonagenarian rectal mastery gave a demonstration of some of her greatest Anal moments, the highlight of which saw Ms. O’Hara augment the Nutcracker with a Mutton bone and a Walking stick in a reenactment of the Brawl scene from “McLintock”. Related Taffy Jones, O’Hara’s live in Jamaican caregiver; “Dat Ms. O’Hara…she sumthin else; when she had dat nutcracka up her Jerk Hole…I said, Taffy if you could do dat you be a stat too…dats real skillz you know? Day don’t make dem stars like dat no mo…no sir”

  • March 16, 2012, 11:55 p.m. CST

    "poll álainn" ahhahaha.

    by Bedknobs and Boomsticks

    Next week's Fudgepack Friday: Who packs fudge better/faster -- The Keebler Elves or The Oompa Loompas?

  • March 17, 2012, 12:05 a.m. CST

    I just saw this piece of shit movie

    by animas

    Mark me down as a "hater."

  • March 17, 2012, 12:30 a.m. CST

    Avatar's success was a fluke, jaka?

    by D.Vader

    Come on buddy, do you realize how ignorant you sound with that kind of statement?

  • March 17, 2012, 1:16 a.m. CST

    No vader, that's not what I'm saying at all.

    by Jaka

    The amount of money Avatar made as PROFIT compared to it's (reportedly) astronomical COST was a fluke. A great, vast majority of all ridiculously budgeted movies will never reach anything in the same neighborhood of the profit Avatar made. We know this because we've seen it happen over and over, time after time. Even the people in the talkbacks who WANTED Avatar to be a success prior to it's release would never have assumed it was going to make $2 billion worldwide. THAT, was a fluke. <p> My point is that NO MOVIE should cost $250 million, INCLUDING Avatar, because the chances of it never seeing a profit, or only seeing a small one at best (and probably only after home video rentals, sales and licensing), are the norm.

  • That's always the best way to inspire intelligent discourse. (Insert eyes rolling right here.)

  • March 17, 2012, 1:21 a.m. CST

    The problem was the editing

    by ThrowMeTheIdol

    It was edited like an animated film. Dejah Thoris ruled though, I'd love to see another film with that character.

  • March 17, 2012, 1:48 a.m. CST

    Hey jaka

    by D.Vader

    Dude it's Friday night, it's been a long week, and I'm talk backing from out of town. I saw you say Avatwr's success was a fluke. I didn't see any of the immoral mathematics or explanations for how studios claim they never make a profit. So hey, my bad. All I saw was something that looked like it said " Avatar shouldn't have made the money it did."

  • March 17, 2012, 2:20 a.m. CST

    Cameron's "masterpiece"..

    by krylite

    will be judged to be T1, T2 or Aliens. Abyss falls into the True Lies and Avatar camp , relegated to memory trivia decades to come.

  • March 17, 2012, 2:42 a.m. CST

    real deal

    by AsimovLives

    Not bullshit at all but the truth. And i should know all about mijndless devotion and supporting for movies based on nothing but blind acceptance and lack of critical though. I should know about that. Gushers and haters, different sides of the same coin.

  • March 17, 2012, 2:44 a.m. CST

    conspiracy

    by AsimovLives

    Anal paramours!!! That's hysterical!!! You made my laugh of the morning. Good job.

  • March 17, 2012, 2:50 a.m. CST

    lordcarlos

    by AsimovLives

    to have at the same time an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism

  • That's by keeping the characters and setting as written that it would have been fresh in today's cinema. No angst-driven character, no "realistic fantasy" (which is still a nonsense to me), no complicated plot. Pick a charismatic and sympathetic actor (=Purefoy), throw him on Mars and let him discover its wonders and dangers, one at a time, at the same pace as the viewer. Stay close to him and to the characters, and to their emotions. Really, how hard was it?

  • March 17, 2012, 3 a.m. CST

    lordcarlos (cont)

    by AsimovLives

    fucking AICN bullshit coding frucked up my whole post. Here it goes. =to have at the same time an open mind and a healthy dose of skepticism= That's very much my guiding principle for so much in my life, and this goes for movies as well. Many like to think they do this, but they so often err exclusively onthe side of opne mindness. Many believe that simply having an open mind is good in itself, but that's not so. Being an uncritical open mind allows you to fall into quakery, superstition and fraud. This happens so often about people's acceptanc of movies. The Gushers are a clear case example, accpeting a movie just because the advertizement was good or because it has lots of CGI or lts of action stuff and whatever, accepting it all without critical temperance. I can't partake in such. If there's something i berate myself, is that i'm not skeptical enough, that i'm not rational enough. JOHN CARTER failed to provide me a sense of wonder. Despiste all the CGI thrown at me. It's funny that so often movies today with all the modern special effects that can create images that would be impossible to realise 25 years ago, images that could only be dream of, and yet they so constantly fail to proveide the same sense of awe when i first saw BLADE RUNNER, 2001, ALIEN, ALIENS, to name a few. Strange thing this. If i had to provide a possible explanation, is that so many filmmakers today, specially the younger dudes (but also so many of the veterans who should know better), are showing a remarkable unability for self-control and restrain. Strange thing that. We have technology today that should be heralding a new golden age in cinema. Instead, it all feels like moving backwards not fowards.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:01 a.m. CST

    $250 million has to be a marketing lie

    by Knuckleface

    It's just not possible that this movie cost 250 million with no marquee star, an unproven director and location shooting. As someone else pointed out, the entire LotRs trilogy was budgeted at around $250 million. If there are effects in this film that cost that much, then I've not seen anything in the trailers to suggest it. What was Avatar's budget? Johnny Depp's paycheque for PotC 4 was a fifth of that film's budget. The wildly exaggerated budget has been used as a marketing tool to make it seem like the blockbuster it isn't. The late winter/early spring release date, tell us it was a b-list movie all along. I agree that ultimately the crappy title did more to kill the movie than anything else though.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:03 a.m. CST

    d.vader

    by AsimovLives

    partaking in saint paddy's festivities? with mead?

  • March 17, 2012, 3:09 a.m. CST

    A SENSATIONAL CINEMATIC EXPERIENCE THAT NOB..

    by KilliK

    OH FUCK IT.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:18 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Knuckleface, see the below from an interview with Lindsey Collins: *There's no way to talk about it without sounding defensive, but I'm going to sound defensive for a second and say this movie was made on budget, Collins asserted. I think Disney took a huge leap of faith with us early on and said, Okay, we believe your number and it's higher than we wanted but we believe it so make it for that ... And in fact, in most areas, it came in under, and the one area we came in slightly over was offset by all the underages of the others, so it came within I think two percent of the budget. The budget they say they hit was $250 million, which went into live shoots in desert locations and massive computer graphic work to create an elaborate world in which a leather-clad Taylor Kitsch, as Carter, leaps into a war between two rival nations and a race of green, horned, four-armed natives.* Sadly you can also add another $100 million on top of that for marketing (terrible marketing i'm sure we all agree), which all adds up to... well, a bump in the road for some very rich people... I guess a few Disney execs wont be able to have that 2nd tennis court they were after this summer and might have to cut back on the gold plated toilets for all 8 of their guest bedrooms.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:20 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    Beaks or anyone else, trying to twist your arm behind your back - saying Disney fucked up so get out their and support them, see JOHN CARTER cos if you dont it hurts the art form. Fuck. That.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:25 a.m. CST

    more depressing news

    by animas

    i just read that william friedkin's "killer joe" lost its rating appeal. i'm starving for a good film.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:26 a.m. CST

    by Cobra--Kai

    In fact the one person that I have most respect for out of this whole debacle is our very own *conspiracy*. This man is a Disney shareholder. He's the one who ought to be tubthumping for this film, but he's giving his honest opinion- and he didn't like it!

  • March 17, 2012, 3:49 a.m. CST

    knuckleface

    by AsimovLives

    aparently the pricetag for JOHN CARTER is mostly due to the fact almost the entre movie was reshot by Stanton. He basically shot the movie twice. He brought that animation style of filmmaking to his first live action movie, and he refused to accomodate and adapt to a different style of filmmaking. As he even said so himsefl, he was learning on the spot. Making this the most expensive film school tuition ever. All made more notable by Stanton own admition that he has no care for how much a movie costs, that 250 million dollars for him is meaningless as long he puts what he wants onscreen without other futher conbsiderations. He evne admits that, because right from the start he has worked on very high budgeted animation movies, he doesn't know any other way, he can't work on smaller budgets, he would be at a loss on what to do with less money. He said so in his radio interview for the Mark Kermode program. The price tag for JOHN CARTER can be explained because they actually made the movie twice, although you only see one. Effectively, you are seeing a 125 million dollars movie.

  • March 17, 2012, 3:59 a.m. CST

    cobra--kai

    by AsimovLives

    The Lidnsay Collins defensive defense is a bit too suspicious, if you ask me. It's now coming to the fore that so much of the movie's budget was because of Stanton's willingness to reshoot so much of the movie, and that he hadn't a producer to reign him. I love artistic freedom, i love tos ee a filmmaker make a huge budget art movie, but there has to be soemthing to the movie then just a lot of pretty images, there has to be substance. JOHN CARTER is just an adventure movie without any ulterior thematic ambitions. That such a thin movie can end uop being so costly is, frankly, an insult. That a director goes Michael Cimino on such a thin movie is insulting like hell. For all you can fault HEAVEN'S GATE, it's a movie with thematic ambitions, that it has something to say, that it has a message, that it has thematic meat to it's bones. John Carter, regardles of how much one might enjoy it, is a thin movie devoid of any theme or message or thematic ambitions or anything of such. It's just an adventure movie. How the fuck can one such be this bloated? How the fuck can this happen? I can understand an HEAVEN'S GATE, but i can't a JOHN CARTER. It's all fucked up and upside down.

  • but the behind the scenes stuff, that's madning. it's irritating beyond belief.

  • March 17, 2012, 4:07 a.m. CST

    music was so bad , I had to look it up

    by animas

    not surprised it is Giacchino. Has to be the worst music score I can remember.