 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As far as I'm concerned the film suffers from a few fundamental missteps:
1. Vague, one-note antagonists.
2. The white saviour and rote "empowerment" narratives.
3. The (obligatory) heteronormative romance between two actors lacking the required on-screen chemistry.
You do realize the film was (pretty faithfully) based on serialized stories published in a pulp magazine in 1912... right?
#s 2 and 3 are pretty well baked into the narrative of "A Princess of Mars" (the first story), so I'm really not sure what you expected the filmmakers to do to "fix" the source material without making their adaptation something else entirely. As for #1, I thought the antagonists were similarly fine for the sort of story this is. This is a (far) precursor to Star Wars. This is not The Expanse.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Personally...despite it being based on an early science fiction/fantasy work from 1912, I found John Carter to be a far less regressive story, along those lines, than I did Avatar. I think it was largely marketing that made the difference, to be honest. I personally was actively turned off by a lot of the John Carter marketing, from posters to trailers. It just looked...trashy! But when I saw the film I realized it was fairly different from how the trailers made it look. And also, Avatar was A Technological Experience, which drew a lot of people in. But in terms of story and script and characters, I found it far inferior to John Carter.
Yavar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't know why anyone thinks this movie should've done better and I've heard everything from bad marketing to Disney wanted it to fail. If nothing else the film looked average at best.
It's just to dated of a concept. Some guy goes to Mars, breaths the air, can hop hundreds of yards and fight humanoid aliens. Even the most dimwitted person knows how far fetched that is.
The genius of Lucas was taking classic ideas and updating them, then putting them into a fantasy setting, a "galaxy far far away", where there's suspension of disbelief.
Well, you could certainly steal ideas from various sources and put them into some other form and call it your own intellectual property. Lord knows, Quentin Tarantino has turned it into a cottage industry. On the other hand, you could do what Disney did, which was adapt a classic piece of fiction they actually acquired and try to make it work and be faithful to the source.
Unfortunately, perhaps if the IP was adaptable, it would have been done long before, but the special effects would never have worked back then. By the time the capabilities of SFX caught up to what would be needed to make John Carter work, the potential to suspend disbelief for this story had reached its expiration date. I didn't particularly like the end result but I'm not sure if that's because of what they with the property or whether the source material just couldn't work with today's audience sensibilities. A case could be made in either direction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This score needs a re-release. I refuse to pay the ridiculous current asking prices.
I'm also irritated that I didn't see the movie until it hit HBO.
I'm Nicolas_DW, I'm mad as hell and I'm not gonna take it anymore!
Try Captain America THE FIRST AVENGER
$199 cheap!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I love JOHN CARTER, movie and score. I saw the movie 4 times in theaters, the first time in 3-D. I think it’s Giacchino’s best score, though I admire many others of his.
Though I have the original CD, an expanded release would be most appreciated.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would definitely buy that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
