Ten Forward


Warning: Illegal string offset 'signature' in /home/customer/www/theviewscreen.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mingle-forum/wpf.class.php on line 915

Warning: Illegal string offset 'signature' in /home/customer/www/theviewscreen.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mingle-forum/wpf.class.php on line 915

Warning: Illegal string offset 'signature' in /home/customer/www/theviewscreen.com/public_html/wp-content/plugins/mingle-forum/wpf.class.php on line 915

Welcome Guest 

Show/Hide Header

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.





Pages: [1]
Author Topic: John Carter (of Mars)
Guest
Ensign
Posts: 13
Permalink
Post John Carter (of Mars)
on: February 2, 2012, 16:59
Quote

Anyone else excited to see this? I've been a big fan of the books since I was ten, and while Burroughs reflects many of the unfortunately horrific attitudes of his time, he also is an extremely imaginitive guy and has had a tremendous influence on genre fiction. I imagine that alot of the issues with the John Carter books will be worked out for the big screen adaptation, and I would hope that the Dejah Thoris character is a bit more 'proactive', but I'm hoping that this movie comes together well and ends up being a blast.

Its hard to believe that this movie has been in development for eighty years or so...this is the 100th anniversary year of when the first story was initially published. Crazy!

bobsandieg-
o
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: February 3, 2012, 00:16
Quote

oh yes, I'm there. This made it on my list of things in 2012 IU am looking forward to. I have not reads the book but I might after the film. My sweetie-wife read the book for the first time just a few weeks ago.

Torie
Administrator
Posts: 73
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: February 3, 2012, 10:49
Quote

I will totally be seeing this, though I haven't read the books.

What I don't get is why they dropped the "from Mars" part of the title. I saw the trailer before Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and it looks fairly standard and cliche until the "Mars" bits. Seems like a marketing failure to me.

Guest
Ensign
Posts: 11
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: February 3, 2012, 14:15
Quote

I remain cautiously optimistic. Dejah Thoris was already kind of forward-looking as a heroine--recall she packs a mean radium pistol--so I don't think she'll need to be changed all that much for the film, other than to have more clothes put on her.

toryx
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: February 3, 2012, 14:40
Quote

I have hopes it'll be good. I haven't read the books since I was a kid so I remember almost nothing but I do remember enjoying them. It'd be nice to have a good science fiction film to watch.

Guest
Ensign
Posts: 11
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 10, 2012, 01:54
Quote

O Gods of Hollywood! Thank you for making this movie not suck!

bobsandieg-
o
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 10, 2012, 10:37
Quote

Quote from Torie on February 3, 2012, 10:49

What I don't get is why they dropped the "from Mars" part of the title. I saw the trailer before Girl With the Dragon Tattoo, and it looks fairly standard and cliche until the "Mars" bits. Seems like a marketing failure to me.

John Scalzi has an essay on this. Short answer, Hollywood thinks if you put 'Mars' in the title the film will fail, because quite a number of films, some very high profile, with Mars in the title have crashed horribly at the box office. (Most recently Mars needs Moms.) Now Of course the real reason is that these Mars movies have sucked, but rational thought is not at a premium in tinsel town.

toryx
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 19, 2012, 09:37
Quote

I finally got around to watching John Carter on Saturday night and they actually made the title change make sense. It was very much a part of the way they told the story. I was kind of impressed.

Anyway, it's certainly not a brilliant movie but I was absolutely entertained. I quite enjoyed it.

dep1701
Lieutenant
Posts: 50
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 20, 2012, 18:06
Quote

I saw it Sunday ( in 3D no less ). I was not all that excited to see it, mainly because the trailer made it seem a lot like a standard formula action film..which I'm not into, but went because my partner wanted to go ( also we had movie rewards passes which took a bite out of the ticket price, and gave us a free drink and popcorn ). I was pleasntly surprised that it was better than I thought it would be.

I don't know how faithful it was to the original novel but i'd be interested to hear from someone who does. I agree with Torie that the title change made sense in the context of the movie. I'm just glad they didn't use the original novel's title: "A Princess Of Mars". It sounds like a '50s B-Movie, and I would have been expecting to see Paris Hilton with a ray-gun in a sparkly gown ( after all, she's the Zsa Zsa Gabor of today ).

bobsandieg-
o
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 20, 2012, 23:49
Quote

I saw it on Saturday with my sweetie-wife, we had missed it opening weekend because she had a cold, and short answer it that we throughly enjoyed it. I too have not read the original but my Sweetie-wife did and she said that basic followed the plot line of the first book. I would recommend seeing this in the theater if you can. We did not see it in 3-D, she disposes 3-D movies and I only see very special 3-D productions but directors I trust to know their crap.

toryx
Lieutenant
Posts: 58
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 21, 2012, 09:50
Quote

dep1701: That was me, not Torie, who said the title change made sense in the context of the movie. :)

I ended up seeing it in 3D but only because that was the theater it was showing in at the time I was available to see it. I really don't like 3D at all and I can't remember a single instance in the film where the 3D made any real difference to my enjoyment of the movie.

I'm really sad that the movie was so unsuccessful. I'd have liked to see a sequel but that seems awfully unlikely at this point.

dep1701
Lieutenant
Posts: 50
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: March 22, 2012, 16:56
Quote

"dep1701: That was me, not Torie, who said the title change made sense in the context of the movie. :)"

Sorry Toryx. I guess the "Tor" part stuck in my mind!

Actually, I enjoy 3d when it's done well. I wouldn't want to see every movie in 3d ( for example, I have zero interest in seeing the re-release of "Titanic" in 3d ... well, it might be inteesting to sit through the last 15 minutes or so, but it wouldn't be worth re-watching the first two hours and forty-five minutes ), but when it's done well, as a special effect and not the raison d'etre for the film, I think it's fine. But I do agree, it's become an overused crutch for weak films.

Torie
Administrator
Posts: 73
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: July 30, 2012, 12:59
Quote

I just got around to seeing this (it was out of theaters so fast...) and my feeling is meh. It looked pretty and they did a fairly good job making a convoluted and potentially hilarious story really clear and believable, but there just wasn't anything that stood out for me. It was Extruded SF Product(TM): airships, science!, unshaved heroes, women in bikinis (who were actually decent characters, though), noble savages, daddy issues, arena fight scenes, etc. I saw it less than 12 hours ago and it blends into so many other movies for me. It also didn't benefit from being Disneyfied. The extended Woola-dog sequences and non-gory fight scenes are just bland.

Kevin
Ensign
Posts: 22
Permalink
Post Re: John Carter (of Mars)
on: June 20, 2013, 14:34
Quote

I liked John Carter quite a bit--I think it benefitted from the giant screen/3D experience. In a way, the film is doomed to feel derivative, because so much of the source material has been copied. A lot of good filmed sf doesn't feel as fresh now as it did originally--The Matrix and Babylon 5 both come to mind. Flash Gordon was pretty much a dumbed down version of Burroughs, right? And so much came from that.

There's so much groupthink in blockbuster movie development these days--with every movie assembled from the same small repetory of jigsaw puzzle pieces, no matter whether it's Star Trek, or James Bond, or Iron Man--that I was hoping that by adapting something old we would ironically have the opportunity to see something fresh. And we got some of that. I liked the backstory with the Civil War, and there seemed to be the promise of some interesting worldbuilding if the series continued. Didn't care for the technobabble, which was the part most reminiscent of Star Trek!

Pages: [1]
Mingle Forum by cartpauj
Version: 1.0.34 ; Page loaded in: 0.019 seconds.

About the Author