I am a fan of this film but I have not read the novels. Would someone mind explaining how the Thern in the bowler hat following John Carter at the beginning and end could be shot and killed when were previously told that they were immortal? Thank you.
"It's better to be known by six people for something you're proud of, than by 60 million for something you're not." - Albert Brooks
Two words: plot hole.
In the books, the Therns are ordinary Barsoomians masquerading as gods. They're nothing like the portrayal in the film.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Thank you.
It never fails to amaze me how a novel can be butchered by a screenwriter with no regard for the original author's creation. I suppose I should be used to it by now.
"It's better to be known by six people for something you're proud of, than by 60 million for something you're not." - Albert Brooks
No, you're wrong. In the context of the film, Therns are not immortal. Carter says they are "immortal, not bulletproof." They lie about other things, and it is implied that they lie about immortality.
shareActually Carter says, "Immortal ain't bulletproof."
Regardless, the Therns in the movie present far too many plotholes. We know they can teleport at will and immobilize Carter with their medallions, yet the first Thern Carter meets materializes a knife to attack with and goes for a frontal assault, not even bothering to neutralize Carter's gun. Even if the Therns aren't intended to be invulnerable, their stupid actions in letting Carter kill them make no sense given their awesome power.
Also, what do the Therns lie about in the story? In his required villainous plot reveal, Matai Shang says the Therns serve the Goddess and manage and feed off the deaths of worlds. (I have no idea what the hell he means by that gobbledygook, but then I guess Stanton, Andrews, and Chabon sat through one too many showings of Independence Day and decided to lift elements of that glorified B-movie's plot and dumb them down.)
In any event, the movie neither says nor implies Matai Shang is lying when, having read the script and realized Carter is an utter buffoon, he decides to take him on a jaunt through a CGI playground to catch our inept hero up on what passes for plot in this flick.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
You're totally right. It was a really awful movie.
The only thing that could have made it any worse would be if Brendan Fraser played John Carter!
Actually twenty years ago, I wouldn't have minded having Brendan Fraser be John Carter if Fraser could tone down his antics a bit.
A lot of people fail to realize while ERB overall intended Barsoom to be serious, there's a strong undercurrent of fun in the series. In the books, John Carter is a charismatic, likable guy with a sense of humor--someone you'd like to sit down for a beer with. He may kill without thinking twice and certainly isn't above bragging about his prowess while carving up inferior opponents. He still has an infectious joie de vivre that makes him a magnetic character.
Fraser would be too old to play the role now (because Carter is supposed to look about 30), but a couple of decades ago if he'd tried to balance the humor with the straight man aspect of the character, I think he could have pulled it off.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
If it was rebooted today, who do you think would be the best fit to play John Carter?
shareHonestly I hadn't thought about it. Maybe Alexander Skarsgard since all indications are that he's doing a good job of balancing the dark and light aspects of Tarzan's character.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Oh look who just happens to be on this board now and getting in a dig at you know who.
"It's better to be known by six people for something you're proud of, than by 60 million for something you're not." - Albert Brooks
Sorry, who? Do you mean Edgar Rice Burroughs? I'll have you know miss, that he was the author of MANY classics, and an important contributor to early 20th century Americana. He was a titan of science fiction, and I will NOT have you suggest otherwise.
That would be Sir, not miss.
Love the avatar.
"It's better to be known by six people for something you're proud of, than by 60 million for something you aren't." - Albert Brooks
The Therns as they appear in this movie seem very similar to the villainous Priesthood of The Mind Wizards of Callisto, the Lin Carter novel.
But yeah, plot holes and ill thought out stuff abounds.
Everything will be OK in the end, if it aint OK,it aint the end.
Immortal and invulnerable are not the same thing at all. An immortal can live forever—unless acted on. Witness Jackie Chan’s immortal character in The Forbidden Kingdom, who is immortal IF he has access to his wine elixir. Superman, on the other hand, is an example of a (mostly) invulnerable character who is not immortal. Supes will die of ripe old age, eventually.
I LIKE John Carter, even granting that the title may as well have been Tapioca Pudding. I bought it for my theater library. Why is there this geek-driven mania to suck all of the fun out of movies? I think the obsession to race to hurl the “plot hole” epithet is second only to the footrace to be the first one to scream “racist”! I ascribe this phenomenon to the huge recent nosedive in social skills, which creates a burgeoning population of people who have no actual (meaning flesh-and-blood and not mere usernames in the digital domain) who collectively think that snark about minutia=intelligent and cool. Really smart and cool people would rather have fun than whine and, in my experience, generally tend to eschew minutia.
Regardless of differences from the book regarding the Therns (and there are many), I analyze the film as a stand-alone story (especially because of the numerous differences). Being immortal doesn't necessarily mean you can't be killed/hurt; it just means you won't die of old age. When the Therns claim to be “eternal” they don’t necessarily mean they can’t be killed (which John Carter proves false at the beginning of the film). As John Carter says in the film, "Immortal ain't bulletproof. I shot one of you back on Earth." If they were to present themselves that way, it’s to help establish a superstitious belief in subjugated followers. However, they rarely directly reveal themselves, preferring to manipulate events from behind the scenes.
Having said that, there are other potential issues the Therns of the film present for some viewers. Although perhaps not technically plot holes (an often misused term), for all their power the Therns seem to want to stay in the shadows, to manipulate the evolution of the societies on Mars instead of utilizing their superior powers to destroy everything. My impression was that perhaps they were playing the long game (in fact, I think Matai Shang essentially tells John Carter this at one point). It’s also possible that there are limits to their power they don't want to reveal, or that they are very limited in number and can’t reproduce.
Whatever the details, story elements that were probably planned to evolve more in the sequels (which is why introducing them so heavily in the first film may have been a mistake), they don’t want to reveal themselves. Basically, the Therns want to stay in the background and feed off the chaos they manipulate with the indigenous population. Apparently they get something out of that, and have done so for eons. I’m pretty sure Matai Shang states something to that effect during his multi-morphing walk with Carter. There is also probably a level of arrogance at play. They can’t fathom a mere mortal can thwart them, so they make the mistake of not killing Carter when they had the chance. I can buy into this concept, but just barely.
Because Carter was an unplanned wildcard, why not just take him out? Arrogance, curiosity, perhaps the hopes of incorporating him into the plan, to manipulate him somehow, is the best I can come up with. It's also possible that Matai Shang deviated from the Goddess' plans and devised his own agenda for Carter.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
The power of the Therns and the 9th ray screwed up the movie from beginning to end. I do not remember the exact wording, but as Sab Than said: What's the use in having this thing (9th ray projector) if I can't use it! when restrained by Matai Shang from destroying the Helium forces with the 9th ray.
Why not destroy Helium with a flick of the wrist instead of the convoluted plot of marrying Dejah Thoris just to kill her?
Why not kill John Carter with a quick blast of the 9th ray rather than sending the Warhoons to do so?
Why would Sab Than order his flyer to flee the rifle fire of the Tharks when the 9th ray could have vaporized them in seconds? "THARKS!" should have been "ZAP"......no more Tharks.
The whole movie was full of stupid contradictions due to the Therns and the 9th ray.
Instead of introducing the Thern and 9th ray in the first installment perhaps they should have waited to see how this first "episode" even did (and if others would follow). It may have been better if it were more self-contained (although it’s fairly contained as-is). However, you’re missing a few pieces found right in the movie, and/or are exaggerating the impact of how that component was mishandled. I’d agree it was exposition-heavy, although for me that was part of the charm, harkening back to Saturday morning matinee serials where for example the big baddies explained everything in expository dialogue to the protagonist in arrogant fashion.
My takeaway after seeing the film for the first time was that apparently the Thern were trying to set a certain stage through subterfuge without directly revealing themselves to anyone except key players (i.e. that was their modus operandi). We can’t really know some of the details of their goal, but we can ascertain that it wasn't to wipe anyone out. In fact, quite the opposite. What the Thern do, something explained to us right in the film, is cultivate controlled chaos. They wanted to set up Sab Than in a position of rule as an easily controlled thug with a goal of using him to usher Mars societies toward some ultimate end that served the Thern.
They want to control, not destroy, serving some purpose that isn’t fully fleshed out in the first film.
There's more to the story we don't get, that was probably planned for later films (which was perhaps a mistake), but Matai Shang's motivations are clearly something other than merely wiping Mars out. Obviously he doesn't want the general public to know about the 9th ray because he tries to quell knowledge about not only that (which he confirms with his statement that anyone with knowledge of the 9th ray will be killed), but the Therns themselves (Matai Shang comments to John Carter that he works very hard to stay as myth, or something to that effect). They’re wanting to manipulate things from the shadows, but Deja becomes a threat once she’s on the verge of discovering the 9th ray herself, and that’s something the Therns want to put a stop to.
Matai also makes a cryptic comment that "balance must be restored" (or something like that), “balance” in his mind meaning a circumstance that serves the Thern’s agenda. I recall at the time I watched it assuming the reason behind forcing Dejah Thoris to marry Sab Than, manipulating the situation from behind the scenes, was to put him into a position of power over Helium before masquerading Deja’s death as the victim of an assassin’s blade (which is why they were waiting to kill her to suppress knowledge of the 9th ray). In this way I think they surmised that Deja’s public death and Sab Than’s rise to power would dampen the people’s spirit, with Sab a puppet ruler, and with the bonus of removing Deja and the potential threat of her scientific prowess.
They didn’t want to allow thinkers who could turn things around to have positions of authority. They wanted a brutish, more simple-minded, ruler who they ccould control with the carrot of promised power and glory.
Another thing Matai Shang says to John Carter at some point during their walk when Carter asks him about the Thern's cause is something to the effect of: "We have no cause. We manipulate and feed off the slow self-destruction of worlds”. This is what I recall was the general notion, anyway. It's been quite some time since I've watched it, so I could be misremembering bits. That was my takeaway or impression at the time. Actually, I’ll jump into a digital copy of this and grab some exact dialogue to see if there’s anything to glean…
Okay here’s the conversation that occurs when Carter is walking with Matai Shang:
Carter: “So what is your cause?”
Shang: “We have none. We’re not haunted by mortality as you are. We are eternal.”
Carter: “I don’t understand. The wedding… this little stroll… why not just kill me and kill Deja?”
Note: I didn’t specifically remember this, but apparently Carter asked your exact question right there in the film. Shang then proceeds to reply in typical big bad villain fashion (you know, instead of just killing Carter, who is clearly the only real potential wrench in their plans, something I chalk up to egotism, curiosity, etc.).
Shang: “History will follow the course we have set, Earth man. And we’ve chosen Sab Than to rule next. The 9th ray must remain in the hands of mindless brutes we can control. And the infamy of Deja Thoris’ wedding death will seal his reign. We’ve been playing this game since before the birth of this planet and will continue to do so long after the death of yours. We don’t cause the destruction of a world, Captain Carter. We simply manage it; feed off it, if you like. But on every host planet it always plays out exactly the same way. Populations rise… societies divide… wars spread. Worldwide, a neglected planet slowly fades.”
Woola then attacks Matai, crunching his 9th ray remote controlling device. A fight ensues and Carter says:
Carter: “Immortal ain’t bullet proof. I shot one of you back on Earth.”
Note: what the Therns get out of doing this exactly is left ambiguous. But it’s clear they’re beings who get off on interfering with civilizations already on a path of self-destruction, drawing it out as long as possible while taking advantage of it. He says they “feed” off doing this, so perhaps it’s a source of sustenance for their species. However, they must have vulnerabilities as well because of the behind the scenes approach they strive to uphold. I suspect that there aren’t very many of them, and that perhaps they can no longer reproduce.
During the final battle when Carter crashes in and the Thern agenda gets tossed on its head (which could have been avoided if they’d killed Carter sooner), Matai grabs Deja and holds a knife to her throat:
Shang: “A fitting solution for your setback, wouldn’t you say Captain? Deja Thoris survives her assassin but failed to prove her theory of the 9th ray. Yes… I’ll enjoy playing that out.”
In other words, it’s a big chess game to him. He’s constantly trying to guide the situation, even if having to do so ad hoc, to get a puppet in place, to stop them from discovering the 9th ray, to guide their self-downfall, etc. There’s a larger plan at play that Matai hints at but doesn’t divulge detail about. Regardless, clearly the Thern of the film universe want to stay hidden in the shadows of myth. They’re goal isn’t to destroy anything themselves, but to “manage” the people of a world into prolonging their own eventual destruction, drawing it out for as long as possible as if rationing food (with Matai saying they “feed” off it, whatever that means).
In my mind this answers the question regarding the ruse with the marriage, why the Thern didn’t just kill Deja (and everyone else), etc. Not saying it was handled the best way story-wise, but the answers are there to some degree, probably with the intent to flesh it out further in sequels they should have known would never happen (there were plenty of signs they blatantly ignored that a production budget that big was a colossal risk with this property). What it doesn’t answer is why Matai Shang didn’t just kill John Carter.
As I said previously, if “Carter was an unplanned wildcard, why not just take him out? Arrogance, curiosity, perhaps the hopes of incorporating him into the plan, to manipulate him somehow, is the best I can come up with.” That’s the part that’s quite tenuous story-wise, requiring some pretty big suspension of disbelief. But again, for me, this is what bad guys in these type of pulp stories do, so I find it fitting (barely).
So I don’t see this as a major problem in the film, with the exception that Stanton’s approach included trying to set up a franchise prematurely (a mistake). A bigger issue surrounds how the character of John Carter himself was presented and who they hired to play that role. He’s just not very engaging, either as a character or as acted. And the biggest issue was the overblown budget and Andrew Stanton’s production methodology.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
The only problem with this line of reasoning is that Matai Shang says, "We manage the death of worlds, feed off it if you will."
Translation:
The Therns in fact DO plan to destroy Mars.
You can't have the death of a world without wiping everything out.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Hmm. Actually what he says is what I quoted above, and it has a different connotation than how you just phrased that. I don’t see how it’s arguable that what he explains is that they don't cause the destruction of worlds, that they manage worlds already on a path of self-destruction, meaning they take subversive control of destruction that would be happening anyway and in some manner take advantage of it. I don't see this as a line of reasoning. I see it as what's quite literally and to me quite clearly stated right there in the movie itself.
Here it is again, just that portion of the dialogue:
Carter: “I don’t understand. The wedding… this little stroll… why not just kill me and kill Deja?”
Shang: “History will follow the course we have set, Earth man. And we’ve chosen Sab Than to rule next. The 9th ray must remain in the hands of mindless brutes we can control. And the infamy of Deja Thoris’ wedding death will seal his reign. We’ve been playing this game since before the birth of this planet and will continue to do so long after the death of yours. We don’t cause the destruction of a world, Captain Carter. We simply manage it; feed off it, if you like. But on every host planet it always plays out exactly the same way. Populations rise… societies divide… wars spread. Worldwide, a neglected planet slowly fades.” That’s pretty clear.
Having said that, there's quite a bit going on in this film, which is why it may have been better to keep this aspect of the story for later films. It's possible for some viewers the Thern's intent was obfuscated with other story elements. I didn't personally find it too complex (nor too subtle), but it has been said that it's a bit too much story for the average viewer in a single film, so it's possible it would have been wiser to defer that aspect of it to later installments and to focus more on character development (something that was lacking).
I suspect that there may have been (this is just a nagging thought in the back of my mind) a somewhat liberal/progressive endgame here with the story's intent that might parallel the possibility of self-destruction of Earth by humans, that the Thern may have already begun their insidious machinations (with a message that humans might be horrible, but if we change our ways it can still be turned around--basically the same Hollywood liberal message that's been espoused for decades), something that might be touched on in later films. That's just speculation on my part based on the slight hints in the dialogue, but it's pretty typical Hollywood fare.
Here’s the line by Shang that leads me to think this may have been at play here:
“But on every host planet it always plays out exactly the same way. Populations rise… societies divide… wars spread. Worldwide, a neglected planet slowly fades.”He’s talking about a common naturally occurring process (i.e. not something they cause, but “manage” and benefit from), and Earth is probably being winked at as a suggested parallel by the writers.
But how do you "feed off that?"
Unless this is some psychological feeding, satisfying some non physical urge.
I'd say that's the question of the day regarding this particular topic, something left undefined. Matai Shang says they "feed" off it but doesn't come close to explaining what that means so we can only speculate what Stanton and company had in mind by that. We could possibly take a cue from previous sci-fi stories maybe.
Maybe the Therns of the film are beings who somehow siphon life-sustaining energy from strife and emotional unreset, which might explain why they want to manage a world's self-destruction, put a mindless bully in place who will oppress the general citizenry on a planetary scale, etc. and perhaps prolong it for as long as possible so they can get as much out of it as they can before it completely "fades" as he says. In this way perhaps a psychological feeding is processed by them physiologically into physical sustenance like we eat food. Or maybe they're just sociopaths with an insatiable need to control others and get off on "managing" a world's self-destruction, in which case what they "feed" off of is purely psychological.
On the other hand, at the beginning of the film when the Thern first reveal themselves to Sab Than he asks who they are and they say, “We serve the Goddess. And she has chosen you to receive this weapon.”. So maybe it’s more about “food” for this “Goddess”. In past literature there have been stories that involve a god-like being who feeds off the emotions of subjugated people in some manner, e.g. fear, adoration, etc. Maybe the Thern are emissaries managing the natural decline of worlds inhabited by sentient beings for this “Goddess”.
But it’s all speculation. We have no idea. This is fallout from trying to stuff too much story into the first installment, or at the very least of banking on there being sequels where what the Therns get out of it might have been more fully explained. We can only guess, because it’s left unsaid and buried in ambiguity in the movie. I do think it's quite clear though that this was their intent (meaning not to destroy anything, fully explaining the marriage ruse, but "feed" off this world's own self-inflicted destruction while managing the process to maximize what they get out of it) even though we can't know the specifics of how it benefits them.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
Maybe the Therns of the film are beings who somehow siphon life-sustaining energy from strife and emotional unreset
Or maybe their just poor clones of Palpatine and the Sith or any number of other villains from other franchises?
This is the dictionary definition of manage:
manage Translate Button
[man-ij]
verb (used with object), managed, managing.
1.
to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship:
She managed to see the governor. How does she manage it on such a small income?
2.
to take charge or care of:
to manage my investments.
So they bring about or succeed in accomplishing the death of a world but don't cause it?
I'm guessing English isn't Stanton's first language. That, or Matai Shang is a moron--or both.
Your speculation on what Shang means is admirable, but honestly the plot line makes no sense and has absolutely no development. In contrast, the book plotline, eschewing the amorphous convolution of the Therns, is clear and straightforward:
Tal Hajus is a degenerate monarch whose penchant for rape and torture leads to a series of mistakes that ultimately undermine and end his status as Jeddak among the Tharks. Meanwhile, Than Kosis has taken advantage of Helium's military unpreparedness brought on by the Thark attack on Dejah Thoris to expand his empire even as Sab Than, desirous of Dejah Thoris, uses the war as a bargaining chip to gain Dejah Thoris. At or near the core of both plotlines is John Carter, who catalyzes great change on Barsoom as a result of his love for Dejah Thoris.
In contrast to this, we have the muddled plot of the movie, whereby the Therns seek "to bring about or succeed in accomplishing" the death of a world without causing it by the convoluted plot of having Dejah Thoris marry Sab Than only to die on the spot so the Therns can feed off the planet's death.
Word of advice to Andrew:
Have some idea of how the plot should develop logically before committing anything to the script.
You can make all the excuses and logical leaps you want to justify the plot of John Carter, but realistically it's both amorphous and contradictory in addition to making no sense.
The contrast between ERB's straightforward method of plot development and Andrew Stanton's storytelling convolutions reminds me of a scene from a Warner Brothers cartoon featuring Duck Dodgers. In the cartoon, while looking for Planet X, Dodgers (Daffy Duck) recommends a confusing, roundabout way of getting to the planet he himself doesn't understand. Shortly after this, Porky Pig looks out the window and sees several lettered planets. He suggests they just follow the planets till they get to Planet X.
Much as Porky Pig had a clearer idea than Duck Dodgers of how to reach his goal and suggested a non-confusing path to get there, ERB had a clearer vision than Andrew Stanton of how to tell John Carter's story and excised all the desultory mumbo jumbo and nonsensical plot threads to take the story from beginning to end.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
I think that Matai Shang in this case is using the word "manage" in the second sense: to take charge or care of (to manage my investments). The feeling among the Therns is that Barsoom is on the road to destruction (wars, bad environmental policy, the energy inefficiency of a walking city, etc.) and they want to get the most out of the planet while they can. They aren't interested in "managing" Barsoom's destruction in the second sense: to bring about or succeed in accomplishing, sometimes despite difficulty or hardship: She managed to see the governor. How does she manage it on such a small income? I mean, if Barsoom is doomed already, why bother causing Barsoom's destruction?
All of that's kind of beside the point of course. The problem with this movie is that they decided they could improve it by
1. changing the hero into a completely different person and
2. changing the villains from false gods to real gods, or real might-as-well-be-gods.
Once you've changed the hero and the the villain, does it matter if you get anything else wrong? Does it even matter if you get anything else right? Walking Zodanga, Dejah the Warrior Princess, Powell the enemy instead of friend; what difference would it have made if Zodanga had stood still, if Thoris had been an average or less than average fighter (or never even touched a weapon), or if Powell had been John Carter's friend from their days together in the Army of the Confederacy? Once they decided to make the hero a moody whining reluctant hero and the villains freaking gods, what did the rest matter?
I disagree with you, but I'm pretty sure you're not Hitler.
- Jon Stewart
^^ This ^^
Doesn't mean it was the best story choice, but he specifically describes their motivations, and clearly says "we don't cause, we manage". Meaning, they subtly manipulate things from the shadows to maximize strife, a condition they "feed" off of in some way that isn't explained. I'm not saying anyone has to like it. I'm just saying it's quite clear this is what the movie portrays. They never get directly involved, and don't even reveal themselves (preferring to be relegated to myth) except to very key people they want to manipulate to achieve their goal. The movie definitely would have been served by some explanation for why they do things this way other than they "feed" off it, possibly by imposing and clarifying some form of limitation to them (e.g. limited numbers, can't reproduce, the "goddess" demands it, etc.) Unfortunately Stanton didn't have the foresight to think of this. Neither did he have the foresight to grasp how his production methodology that would double costs would turn the film unprofitable (despite it being in the top .03% of all-time grossing films).
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
Your definition of not getting directly involved is destroying Helium's ships so they can give Sab Than the Ninth Ray, destroying Dejah Thoris' Ninth Ray generator, leading the Warhoons to John Carter, kidnapping Carter, and trying to kill Dejah Thoris at her wedding.
Those are pretty direct actions.
You yourself are having to hedge on your defense of the movie by saying things work "just barely" and acknowledging how poorly thought out certain plot elements are. That should tell you something.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Your definition of not getting directly involved is destroying Helium's ships so they can give Sab Than the Ninth Ray, destroying Dejah Thoris' Ninth Ray generator, leading the Warhoons to John Carter, kidnapping Carter, and trying to kill Dejah Thoris at her wedding.You're completely ignoring what I stated, taking a small phrase and trying to make a point based on a misrepresentation of what I actually said (and of what's actually portrayed in the film). Again...
They never get directly involved, and don't even reveal themselves (preferring to be relegated to myth) except to very key people they want to manipulate to achieve their goal.That goal, as stated previously in this thread, is to put a mindless, controllable bully in power, and to ensure no one discovers the 9th ray, while staying hidden to the general public (in some cases hidden in plain site). Every single thing they do stems from this. Only for those purposes do they risk exposing their presence. Although even when they do manipulate circumstances they do so in disguise. They're always in the shadows.
You yourself are having to hedge on your defense of the movie by saying things work "just barely" and acknowledging how poorly thought out certain plot elements are. That should tell you something.I'm not hedging anything, nor am I defending anything. I'm merely stating factual analysis and pointing out a misinterpretation repeated on this board frequently, which in essence is that the Thern's motivations aren't clearly portrayed in the film, when to the contrary those motivations are integral to the entire story and presented on many occasions (e.g. them always doing a Jedi mind trick on everyone around them except for who they chose not to so that they appear like someone else). They're always doing things from behind the scenes, never openly except for interactions with Sab Than, the bully they want to try to implant in power, with the ultimate endgame being to maximize Mars’ downfall so they can “feed” off it (whatever that may mean).
That should tell you something.Exactly as I've stated, it's not necessarily a good story choice. I'm not giving an opinion about whether it's good or bad, and agree its over-storytelling (although I personally don't have a problem with over-storytelling). But how I'm describing it is accurate, while some on this board are off base in their interpretation of this specific matter. The Therns motivations are clearly portrayed, just without an explanation underlying those motivations (meaning it’s not revealed what’s meant when it’s stated that they “feed” off a society’s self-inflicted decline, a condition they “manage” to optimize the benefit to them, whatever that benefit may be), which again I agree may have been a mistake story-wise, in part because it seems to confuse some in the audience.
In other words, there’s a clear reason for them doing things the way they do them.
Again, there are lapses in logic there, story items that could have been handled better. They’re not pervasive to ruin the movie for me. But like I’ve said, I can see why it might ruin the movie for some.
The lapses in logic... created by nearly unlimited power, is the crux of the problem.Yet again, they want to stay hidden, to not reveal themselves. This seems to be a very high priority for them. They only reveal themselves to the one person the Goddess chose as their next lackey, Sab Than. They want at all costs to avoid destroying their chances of cultivating an optimized scenario to maximize the benefit of the fall of Barsoom, and there are two bits of knowledge that would do this: 1) the Therns, 2) the 9th ray. Knowing the Therns existed would unite Barsoom against them, resulting in a confrontation that would require them to destroy everything, which violates what they’re doing for the Goddess. Their number one rule is anonymity, even at the determent of their own plan (which they adjust as needed). Their number two rule is to stop any discovery of the 9th ray, which would give the discoverer a power that puts them on equal footing.
the ease with which John Carter kills 2 nameless Therns also flies in the face of logic.I don’t see an issue with the killing of the Thern at the end of the film. He shoots him in the back.
Either forcing Dejah Thoris to marry the peoples' sworn enemy, or simply killing the "fairest daughter" of Helium surely could have accomplished that task.You're still not quite grasping. Sab has to marry Dejah in order to gain the power he needs to rule Barsoom. It's why they can't yet kill her until that happens. He has to be put into a position of ruling power first through the legal means of Barsoom law so it sticks. If she hadn't discovered the 9th ray they wouldn't have needed to kill her, but since she did killing her has the added bonus of also landing a blow to the will of the people (or maybe they would have gone ahead with that anyway, which would free up Sab Than to be an oppressive rule). Again, I'm not saying it's the best choice story-wise. I'm just saying that there is a logic to it, that it's not illogical.
To me, the whole idea that Matai Shang could have easily killed John Carter at any time, but choses to take him captive, send the Warhoons to "see" what Carter was "capable of" and in the end sends him back to Earth makes the whole premise of the movie ridiculous.Again, I get this, especially sending him back to Earth at the end. There is absolutely a lack of logic in this particular piece, but I can rationalize it as a flaw with Matai Shang as a sentient being with emotions living in a silly pulp fantasy world. For some reason Matai Shang is fascinated by Carter, and even after thwarting his plans he banishes him to Earth instead of killing him. This part is even more audacious than their conversation earlier. While I personally can accept this character flaw in Matai Shang, it would have been much more palatable for Carter to fumble around with the device and send himself back accidentally, or merely choose to go back and for some reason get stuck there (maybe losing the device on Earth somehow, or it being damaged). Yes, this part makes no sense, unless it’s now part of some grander plan the Goddess and Therns have that wouldn’t be revealed until a sequel. So I understand why you don’t like it. You want an explanation. None is given.
Well, the Therns and the idiocy of the plot ruined the movie for me.
Yet again, they want to stay hidden, to not reveal themselves.
They only reveal themselves to the one person the Goddess chose as their next lackey, Sab Than.
Again, I get this, especially sending him back to Earth at the end. There is absolutely a lack of logic in this particular piece, but I can rationalize it as a flaw with Matai Shang as a sentient being with emotions living in a silly pulp fantasy world.
So why did they reveal themselves to John Carter. Oh! I know, it was for some unexplainable reason known only to the goddess and StantonNow you're gettin' it! Yes, this is indeed a hole, probably fallout from Stanton and crew putting the cart before the horse and trying to design it as a trilogy instead of concentrating on a stand-alone entry film like they should have done. But yes, from within the framework of the film's universe, either they had designs on Carter or Matai Shang's ego got the better of him, or a combination of both. From outside the context of the film's universe, improper story planning (and ego on Stanton's part, forging ahead with bad methodology).
Since Stanton's John Carter was also a lackey I guess that makes sense.Don't know if he was a "lackey" by the definition of that term (i.e. grunt, follower, etc.), but he was certainly "lacking". Lacking dynamic heroism, personality, really any quality to render him a compelling protagonist. In my view this was the biggest letdown for me personally: John Carter himself, both as a character, and who they chose as the actor (which in turn impacts the character). He was lackluster. While a good actor, Taylor Kitsch is just too droll, quiet, etc. to pull this character off, a character that was already neutered as written.
I can rationalize it as poor attempt at screenplay writing.I see it both ways, from within the framework of the film’s world, and outside in the filmmaker's minds. I do think the issue here is that they planned on revealing more, explaining more in subsequent films, and that approach and mindset left loose ends. Why do the Thern "feed" off worlds, or how exactly? What do they really get out of it? Most importantly, though, why play with John Carter like a cat with a mouse that clearly has sharp teeth and can cause problems instead of just kill him? Why send him home? What plans do they have for him? Is there a war going on among the Therns? One sends him home and years later another tries to kill him.
What I found myself enjoying about it the most was the pulpy feel and design (e.g. costumes, ships, sword and planet ideas, etc.) and the antiquated, fantasy-heavy premise that defies modern-day knowledge.
Sounds like a personal problem. For me it invoked those qualities.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
I disagree that it "grinds the movie to a halt" during their walking conversation, however. I've never understood this notion. Conversation is not a halt. It delays action, sure, but do we really need nonstop action? I found their conversation interesting and had no sense of stagnation at all.
At this point in the movie it becomes clear that Mars is a stage and the Therns work behind the scenes to (try to) manipulate the players for their own ends. But they're not omnipotent or immortal in the sense that they cannot be killed. They can be resisted and thwarted, even defeated. Their existence is dependent upon their deceiving people into believing lies, myths and half-truths; or just keeping them ignorant.
When you say something works for you "just barely," you're hedging. You can say otherwise all you want, but that's exactly what you did. If a premise in a story genuinely works, it shouldn't require qualifiers.
Now let's go onto the other parts of your analysis. The Therns claim to "manage" and "feed off" the death of worlds. Well, thanks to Zodanga, as stated in the opening narration, Barsoom is pretty much dead anyway. The voiceover explicitly says Zodanga has destroyed virtually everyone in the planet but the Heliumites.
Dejah Thoris call's Barsoom "a world on the brink." In other words, it's largely dead anyway. Naturally the Therns are showing up just now to manage and feed off this when it's clearly been a long process. So the thing they manage and feed off has been going on for awhile, yet they are just now becoming a part of the events. So what exactly is their motivation to get involved now when clearly if they do what Matai Shang says, they should have been shepherding the thing all along? At least in the movie this plotline rips off--Independence Day--the primary antagonists' motives are abundantly clear: They want to wipe out humanity and stripmine Earth's resources before moving on to another world to plunder.
Also, if the Therns "manage" and "feed off" the deaths of worlds, why are they on Earth? Earth is neither neglected not dying. Rather, it's a vibrant world doing nothing that would seem to attract the Therns' interest. I'm not exactly seeing a clear motivation here since Earth is still in its prime while Barsoom is dying.
On another note, giving Sab Than the Ninth Ray and making him Jeddak of the remainder of Barsoom are incompatible goals since Sab Than under that scenario has the one thing the Therns claim they want to ensure the Barsoomians don't get. Even if the goal is to make sure Sab Than uses the ray to defeat Helium, he still has it. He also tries to blast the Therns after they empower him, suggesting he's not exactly inclined to be their puppet if he can find a way out from under Matai Shang's thumb.
As for the supposed Jedi mind trick, that's sheer speculation never addressed in the movie. If the Therns are in fact using mass hypnosis of all but a few people to further their goals, then why reveal themselves to those few? Sab Than is initially antagonistic to them until he realizes the Ninth Ray can't hurt the Therns-although guns and calots, which I'm guessing are less powerful than Stanton's blue Macguffin, have no problem doing this. Both John Carter and Dejah Thoris actively oppose them. Woola obviously can see and hurt them. Why don't the Therns just disguise themselves to these few as much as to everyone else? They don't exactly seem to have much of a reason to show themselves to anyone. Even Sab Than should probably be kept in the dark since he only goes along with them when he has no other choice. The Therns can't exactly undo his knowledge of them if he finds a way to become a threat.
Then we have to wonder why the Therns reveal themselves to John Carter and give him a longwinded explanation of their nefarious scheme. Carter brings nothing to the table, but he's killed a Thern because of the Thern's stupidity and stolen his transportation medallion. An easy way to get it back is to teleport to the Thark citadel, assume the form of a Thark, incapacitate and kill him, and take back the medallion. Even if the Therns consider Carter to be beneath him, there's no motivation to lay all their plans out for him since that undermines the whole concept of keeping secret. Carter is a mediocre warrior who can jump far because of Barsoom's gravity. Since the Therns have an Earth presence, they know the differences between the two planets and are thus aware Carter is nothing exceptional for an Earthman on Barsoom. He killed a Thern by luck and transported to Barsoom because of that Thern. That's nothing exceptional and, given their statements about themselves, would logically be of less concern to them than regaining the medallion.
Then we have Dejah Thoris. She's the chief Heliumetic scientist and a princess. Her knowledge of them means she can prepare Helium against them. Thus, logically they should kill her and assume her position unbeknownst to the Heliumites. That would make much more sense than having Sab Than marry and kill her--an unnecessarily convoluted plan that ultimately fails because of its poor conception and execution.
There's a simpler way for the Therns to accomplish their supposed goal:
Kill Dejah Thoris and impersonate her so as to undermine Helium's military might. Kill John Carter to regain his medallion. Let Sab Than know when Helium is fully compromised so Zodanga can attack and overwhelm Helium.
Why the Therns--supposedly superpowerful and supremely intelligent gods--don't simply apply Occam's Razor to things to "manage" and "feed off" Barsoom's death is yet another nonsensical part of an already muddled plot.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
The "just barely" bit means I can accept it due to the nature of the film. Meaning, my expectations don't include a high degree of intelligence (e.g. Transformers, Pirates of the Caribbean, etc.), so I'm more forgiving. It's a big, dumb popcorn flick structured off pulpy serials. In addition, there's ambiguity to the motivations (we know nothing more than they "feed" off dying worlds) so I can accept (to a certain limit, which I've defined in detail) that there may be more going on that might explain certain actions than we're privy to.
Kill Dejah Thoris and impersonate her so as to undermine Helium's military might. Kill John Carter to regain his medallion. Let Sab Than know when Helium is fully compromised so Zodanga can attack and overwhelm HeliumThat's actually a great approach. The Thern (and Stanton) should have consulted you. They could have employed their ability to disguise themselves to better effect. They're clearly not perfect beings.
Here on Earth, I can control a gun. If I hand that gun to someone who then shoots me with it, the bullet's not just going to bounce harmlessly off me.
Thus, yes, having the Ninth Ray have no effect on the Therns makes no sense.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
So you're comparing a techno-magical fantasy force in the form of energy that can be manipulated in various ways to a real-world firearm and ammunition? Sorry, man, that doesn't hold up. Bullets don't have a device on your wrist with a little remote control that let's you move the bullet around in someone's body, turn it into a hand-wrap that fires beams, a platform to float down on, form a bladed weapon, etc.
You're absolutely correct that if you handed a gun to someone the bullets wouldn't bounce off you. Unless you have a kevlar vest on, that is. Likewise, a 9th ray blast would bounce off you (or more to point, like Matai Shang does in the film be waved away using his own 9th ray-controlling device) if you had a device that protected against and controlled anything 9th-ray related. Come on, man, I know you know better.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
You missed my point. The ability to control a weapon doesn't make one immune to it.
The closest thing in the books to the Ninth Ray portrayal in the film is the disintegration Ray in A Fighting Man of Mars. Phor Tak is its creator. He's not immune to it at all just because he controls it. He creates a paint that negates the power of the disintegration ray on ships, but any human hit by it is dead.
Maybe once Stanton decided to turn the Ninth Ray into a Macguffin he should have consulted the books to see how ERB handled a similar weapon introduced into the storyline.
ERB didn't just randomly make certain characters immune to weapons for the sake of plot convenience. He actually gave a logical reason for why certain Barsoomians ships are immune to Phor Tak's superweapon.
By the way, that Ninth Ray-manipulating device the Therns used was so great John Carter killed a Thern in five seconds flat while Woola later held Matai Shang helpless.
Talk about plot inconsistencies.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Of course "the ability to control a weapon doesn't make one immune to it." Who says the Thern are immune to the 9th ray? They have a defense against it, i.e. a 9th ray kevlar vest of sorts, or in other words they're shielded against it. The only time I recall in the film the 9th ray weapon being used against a Thern is at the beginning when Matai Shang gives Sab Than the weapon and he fires it at them. As he does, the beam spreads around them in a sphere, hitting a shield that becomes visible for a moment. So clearly their shielded against 9th ray weaponry. But that has nothing to do with defenses against physical projectiles or blades. Quite clearly the 9th ray can't be used to stop physical attacks. Still, giving Sab Than that weapon makes little sense.
By the way, that Ninth Ray-manipulating device the Therns used was so great John Carter killed a Thern in five seconds flat while Woola later held Matai Shang helpless.I guess I don't see you're point here either. Having a device that controls the 9th ray doesn't make the Thern's reflexes faster or help them think more clearly in a combat situation or impervious to harm. Woola zoomed up and bit his device, destroying his 9th ray tech (presumably he got a new device to use later on), which allowed Carter to escape. Like you said, five seconds flat. I don't see how use of the 9th ray would have helped him react faster, especially since Woola immediately bites down and destroys his device.
So your argument becomes that a shield can stop a concentrated energy beam but would be useless against a bullet or a dog.
That's rather convenient, wouldn't you say?
As portrayed in the film, the Ninth Ray is a Macguffin. It can destroy whole ships, render enemies immobile, and form a shield against a concentrated beam from another Ninth Ray generator. It draws the line at stopping bullets, killing heroes, or preventing a ten-legged hound from destroying the bracelet used by the Holy Hekkador of the Therns to incapacitate John Carter.
In other words, it's all-powerful when necessary and impotent when the script calls for it. Forgive me for being unimpressed with Stanton's inconsistent use of his own plot device.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
So your argument becomes that a shield can stop a concentrated energy beam but would be useless against a bullet or a dog.That's not just an argument. It's what we empirically observe happen in the film. But yes, that’s accurate. But it’s not an all-purpose shield. There’s even precedence of this in science fiction literature and cinema (as well as gaming). There are examples of energy shields that only block certain things, often non-kinetic, meaning energy blocks energy, which actually makes sense. Why would we automatically assume that an energy field would block a physical projectile? In this case a 9th ray force field only blocks the same type of energy it’s comprised of, i.e. 9th ray energy blast. There’s no inconsistency here (strictly for this specific concept, that is).
That's rather convenient, wouldn't you say?How so? Again, this bit is not only consistent in the film, it’s logical. 9th ray stops 9th ray. That's actually a very consistent rule the movie adheres to. At no time in the film is the 9th ray portrayed as "all-powerful". It is quite versatile, however, based on how it's employed in technology. If they could use it to stop a sword or bullet, they would. Allowing it to truly be that “all-powerful” would make it, well, too “all-powerful”. The movie does not set it up that way, but for some reason you’ve concluded that it did. It did not.
It draws the line at stopping bullets, killing heroes, or preventing a ten-legged hound from destroying the bracelet used by the Holy Hekkador of the Therns to incapacitate John Carter.Come on, that’s just a silly statement. So the 9th ray somehow magically kills heroes without a cognizant user of the device using it to do so? At no time do we see the 9th ray used to try to destroy Carter and it for some reason doesn’t. Woola speeds up and destroys the devices that controls the 9th ray before Matai Shang can use it. A weapon is only as good as the person using it. And it’s rendered useless if crunched by canine teeth.
it's all-powerful when necessary and impotent when the script calls for itNo it’s not. It’s consistently used (for the most part). See all of the above.
More likely you missed my point even though you blockquoted pretty much everything I said.
When I said the Ninth Ray was all-powerful I was being sarcastic because Stanton portrays it inconsistently. The final block quote was the meat of my argument even though you obviously failed to connect the two.
Furthermore if Stanton is applying gaming rules--which have no place in a world putatively based on a century-old pulp novel--to his universe then clearly it shows his complete lack of understanding of the novel he is supposedly adapting.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Perhaps I did miss your tone. Written text doesn't often convey tone adequately. It seemed you were serious when stating it was all-powerful. If that's not what you're saying, then the sarcasm didn't come through and I missed it, so I apologize in that case. However, if this is the crux of your argument:
it's all-powerful when necessary and impotent when the script calls for itAs I replied previously, I don't agree with this. I don't see that any scene in the film demonstrates it as all-powerful, nor is it ever rendered impotent, for the very detailed reasons I responded with in that previous post. It is in fact consistent in regards to the 9th ray itself, and I find some of the details of what you're claiming exaggerated or misrepresented (again, the details are in the previous posts).
I don't think there's any question about Stanton's failure to grasp the source material. I don't see that it has bearing on the discussion at hand
Don't forget these things, Mcr:
1) Dejah Thoris is a better fighter than John Carter but needs Carter to fight for her.
2) Sab Than can defeat Carter in hand-to-hand combat, yet...
3) Carter can slaughter dozens of Warhoons singlehandedly.
I'm guessing Andrew's not exactly a big fan of storytelling consistency.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Of course we have gone over all of the convoluted plot lines and inconsistent ideas over the past 4 years, yet I still cannot believe how poorly this movie was put together. It's as if the screenplay was simply thrown together to provide a background for CGI visuals.
One of the things that made me think: "OH! Come On!" was "Tharks don't fly." Followed by Thanks arriving just in time to save the day, while somehow piloting airships to Helium.
🚫🚠⚠
And as you said, Sab Than could outfight John Carter who; killed 100s of Warhoons, killed 2 giant white apes, decapitate Tal Hajus with a single swing of his sword, and jumped a quarter mile between airships and buildings in Zodanga while holding another adult.
You had to know Stanton was struggling with the screenplay when he called in help from another Pixar "genius" and an award winning writer, Chabon. The 3 of them togrther could not match ERB's first attempt to write a pulp story. Amazing.
Well I guess if you put it that way it has a bearing in a certain sense, but what I meant was the movie is a stand-alone product. Stanton could have learned some lessons from Burroughs, but he should have known those lessons regardless. The main thing I see that he really failed on was to capture the nature of the John Carter character himself (despite deciding to use that as the name of the movie). For me this was the biggest miss. Much of the style and tone easily invoked a pulp feel for me. But Carter fell flat.
Again, I don't necessarily agree with every detail of what you guys are citing as problems. I think a few of you are going overboard and exaggerating things because of your disdain for how Stanton treated the property (and although I don't have the same reaction, I do understand where it's coming from). In other words, I suspect you're being harder about certain items than you probably otherwise would due to your viewpoint being hardened by Stanton's mistreatment of and lack of reverence for the material (despite him claiming otherwise).
For example, your oft-used example of him twirling a huge bolder while not able to break a chain isn't a problem at all, and is actually scientifically viable. He's not any stronger than he is on Earth. If he can't break a thick iron chain on Earth (and who could?), he can't do it on Mars either. However, because Mars has lower gravity he seems super-strong when it comes to any action entailing weight. It's grossly exaggerated of course (him jumping around is ridiculous), but fits the pulp tone. But it makes perfect sense he can lift things without being able to break an iron chain. One has nothing to do with the other. Lower gravity would have absolutely no influence on whether or not someone could break an iron chain. You should really stop using this as an example.
The inconsistencies that I think are arguable are more related to character decisions and behavior, and how much story is packed into a single installment (the latter of which I personally don't mind and even prefer) that had plans to be continued in sequels (which the part of the latter half that was a mistake). In fact, both Princerd and GreatWhiteApeOfBarsoom replied to you with viable examples of inconsistencies that have some debatable merit (while I do disagree with GreatWhiteApeOfBarsoom's previous examples regarding the 9th ray, a few of which don't even make sense, he does bring up a couple of good items in his reply to you here). I see them as largely nitpicky, items that exist in all films of this nature, but arguable.
For example, one item that holds weight of what they listed in their replies is Carter being outfought by Sab Than. Another is the Tharks showing up the way they did at the end. Deja Thoris needing Carter to fight for her is a good example (if that's really how it happened). To add another, drinking a potion to understand languages I guess is passable for this type of film, but it's also a lazy way out. There are definitely examples like this, but they're nitpicky and I don't really expect better from this type of pulpy, silly, big-budget popcorn flick.
I suspect you often don't either for films of this nature, giving those nitpicky items a pass, but don't for this one in particular because you hold such an affinity for the source material. Again, I get it. I just ask that you step outside yourself for a moment and acknowledge that that's a factor, a factor that isn't applicable to the average moviegoer, most of whom have never heard of John Carter.
Of course the biggest issue isn't really found inside the film itself, but lies with the horribly mismanaged production of it. The movie must have done something right to at least some degree, given the large amount of sales it had (grossing more than 99.87% of all other films ever made), but it didn't have enough of what it takes to reach beyond making very good money into the realm of making CRAZY-SCARY phenomenal money (meaning past the $600 million mark or encroaching toward and beyond the billion mark, something a very small number of films actually do). Meaning appeal didn't spread to the toughest crowd to please: teenagers, young adults and children, the portion of the population that goes back and sees it twice or more.
And these nitpicky details (except for the overstuffed story and elements introduced and planned to be continued in sequels, which I can see as possibly detracting viewers from positive word of mouth) being cited most likely have little bearing on what kept it from achieving that rare appeal since these very types of items exist in the very movies that have achieved stratospheric ticket sales. There were other qualities that I think it needed, a big one being a more dynamic protagonist and lead actor, and although I don't personally need this, a more streamlined story probably would have helped. A more modern take may have helped as well.
As I've said in the past, this movie would have actually made money if the budget hadn't been so woefully managed. It's biggest failure was how much was spent to make it vs. what it had to offer the "Twilight" generation and children, which are absolutely necessary ticket buyers to get anywhere near the 1 billion mark in sales. But on a purely creative level, regardless of financial success or failure, I see the main character as lacking, but some of the details being mentioned here as alleged problems as being non-issues (with a couple of them being downright incorrect and goofy) or being par for the course for this type of film.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
The book stands alongside Tarzan of the Apes as the quintessential pulp novel.
Now let's look at how Burroughs handled these things:
Carter never once leaps hundreds of feet into the air or a half mile forward and certainly never does so while carrying a person.
He never twirls a boulder over his head either.
Now he does toss Llana of Gathol onto a roof in the book named after her. One has to assume Llana would probably weigh no more than 100 pounds on Earth. On Barsoom, she's considerably lighter and has less air pressure working against her. Thus, since we know Carter is very strong for an Earthman and has that magnified because of the atmosphere and gravity on Barsoom, it makes sense Carter can toss her onto a low-lying roof.
That's the pulp feel. The books set limits on what Carter can do and avoids using his strength and agility as a randomized deus ex machina. This is not what the movie--which more resembles a Super Mario Brothers game than a pulp novel--does.
Thus, upon examination, John Carter does not present a pulp feel because it ignores basic things from the original pulp novel it claims to be based on. Rather, like Peter Jackson's Hobbit Trilogy, it's more of a glorified video game than a movie.
That's not what I wanted when I bought my tickets. If I want to watch a video game translated to screen, I'll watch Silent Hill, Need for Speed, or Street Fighter.
Furthermore, pulp writing tended to eschew overt political messages. Stanton is a leftist. That shows in his decision to have Zodanga fly a red flag while Helium flies a blue one. He also has eeeeeeeeeeeeeeevil Zodangans destroying the planet's ecosystem whereas while the book addresses ecology as something to be aware of, ERB makes it clear Barsoom is naturally losing its ability to support life with all Barsoomians banding together to preserve their world. (For the record, ERB was a staunchly conservative Republican and likely would have expressed contempt for Stanton's leftist grandstanding.)
Thus, there isn't a pulp feel in the movie. It's a dumbed down live-action video game engaging in left-wing psychobabble.
There's nothing pulp about that. I highly doubt ERB would have approved.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Can't disagree with aspects of what you say here. Many of these movies have the video game feel, which is why I don't expect much from them (or perhaps more accurately, that’s what I expect from them). That's kind of been my point. But the costumes, the ship designs, the loin cloth-clad Carter on a somehow breathable Mars, the campy action, the monologues, etc. are all part of the pulp feel for me. The crazy jumping around may not be in itself a pulp component, but for a film full of other pulp elements it fits, in part given the Superman leap it inspired (but could have been toned down—CGI is used as a crutch much too often nowadays).
Keep in mind I'm associating this to screen adaptions of pulp stories like the Saturday serials of yesteryear as much as the actual pulp magazine sci-fi, detective, western, etc. stories themselves that comic books/graphic novels descended from. For me it's about high adventure with schoolboy fantasy concepts, cheesy dialogue, wonderfully juvenile viewpoints (e.g. all men are macho, all women are busty and super sexy, all heroes are larger than life, etc.), and incessant over-the-top melodrama. Plus, deus ex machina was a staple of pulp storytelling. By all accounts John Carter stories were fraught with it. It was a pulp convention. It in part is what made it pulp. But that’s exactly how I like my pulp (well, I also like it in juice and lemonade).
So I don't quite agree with your description of what the "pulp feel" is.
But many of the aspects you mention indeed did not contribute to that pulp feel. I take the good with the modern - er, I mean bad. Like I said, its par for the course with this type of film. There are benefits to CGI, but these days CGI often takes over in this type of film and displaces story, which is why I call them "big, dumb popcorn flicks". But in essence, that’s what a pulp story was: a “big, dumb” story (to varying degrees—and by “dumb” I don’t mean something derogatory) that at the time appealed very strongly to young men and the working class as escapist entertainment. Unfortunately for those types of stories, the world “grew up” and got overtly whiney and PC. The magic left. Actually, that’s not quite true. It didn’t leave. It just changed form.
I also have to agree that this film is infused with a leftist undertone. Almost all films are these days. It does threaten to get on my nerves sometimes, but I let it slide. Why give something else that kind of power over me? Original pulp fiction could sometimes have certain propagandist qualities, but generally it was much more about larger-than-life heroes getting larger-than-life heroines while vanquishing larger-than-life villains. This aspect was definitely lacking in the movie, especially with the lead protagonist character. So I get that.
Thus, there isn't a pulp feel in the novel. It's a dumbed down live-action video game engaging in left-wing psychobabble.You should edit that. I'm sure you meant "movie" instead of "novel" there. Just an FYI in case you want to correct that. But I see that it’s both. Those two qualities aren’t mutually exclusive. They can co-exist.
However, because Mars has lower gravity he seems super-strong when it comes to any action entailing weight. It's grossly exaggerated of course (him jumping around is ridiculous), but fits the pulp tone. But it makes perfect sense he can lift things without being able to break an iron chain. One has nothing to do with the other. Lower gravity would have absolutely no influence on whether or not someone could break an iron chain. You should really stop using this as an example.
Superman gets his powers from Earth's Yellow sun. His species evolved under a Red Sun on Krypton. Complete comic book magic and nothing remotely scientific, but all his powers come from a Yellow sun, which is why at various times throughout the characters history he's shown in the upper atmosphere close to death being revived by the Yellow Sun. The lower gravity on Earth vs Krypton also plays into it (Kryptonian muscles are naturally stronger, even without Yellow sun enhancement), and it's the combination of these two factors that allows him to control his "personal mono-directional gravity field", which is how he flies.
The flying ability is utter bunk from a scientific perspective. However…
Because Superman's species is from a high-gravity planet, he's naturally much stronger than anyone on Earth (due to Krypton’s gravity being around 10 times that of Earth’s), even minus any powers from a Yellow sun, meaning if Kryptonians could break a chain made of a typical iron composition on Earth they certainly could on Krypton as well (which is why some of their items are forged from Kryptonian alloys comprised of purely fantasy metals). The combination of the Yellow solar energy and their naturally greater strength makes them a force to be reckoned with on Earth. Again, this incorporates a lot of unscientific mumbo-jumbo.
Because Carter can't break an iron chain on Earth, he can't break one on Mars either. Changing gravity doesn't change one's strength. It merely makes everything else weigh less in comparison. For example, an object that weighs 100 pounds on Earth would only weigh around 16 pounds on the Moon, or 38 pounds on Mars (or 238 pounds on Jupiter due to its stronger gravity). It would not, however, somehow make an iron chain more breakable or make a human stronger or weaker. It only makes things weigh different comparatively.
I recall it being argued that perhaps Mars inhabitants make metal chains that are weaker since they don’t need them as durable to hold them due to their comparably weaker strength, but that doesn’t make any sense. Metal is metal. Additionally, Mars is very rich in iron, being why the planet is red in color, so any metal they forge would almost certainly be iron. And if they forged a thick metal chain on Mars it’d be no different than a thick metal chain on Earth. Humans can’t break iron chains. Carter isn’t super strong. Everything else is lighter.
Beyond that what is funny is how you want us to believe you would rate this film a 6.5 at best yet defend it as some sort of good movie and take anyone who has issues with it as nitpicky.No what's funny is how you skip over the various negatives I assess the movie has, including a weakly written main character played by a boring, lackluster actor (in this particular role, meaning he wasn’t a good fit for it), overstuffed story, outlandish budget, improper production methodology, etc. What I present is balanced and not colored by emotion, which in your case is disdain and hate with how Stanton treated the property (something I also agree with, but don't care about, not letting it skew my view of the film), while someone like a Back To Barsoomer is at the opposite end of the spectrum and just as tainted by emotion.
Since you brought it up... Suoerman originally couldn't fly - just jump long distances - and "nothing short of a bursting artillery shell" could penetrate his skin.
An excellent tidbit of history! It's where "jump over a building in a single bound" came from (this version of Superman was influenced by John Carter). When first created during the Golden Age of comics the character wasn't as fully realized as in the Silver and Bronze age eras. In fact, all Kryptonians were at first shown to have the same abilities, even on Krypton. The gravity angle was then soon introduced (at which time it was used to explain how he could jump and lift very heavy objects, the aspect inspired by John Carter, although all Kryptonians had nearly impenetrable skin regardless), and later in the Silver Age came the Yellow sun factor. Wonder what the character would have evolved into if the jumping hadn't been changed to full-on flight? Certainly would have altered a lot of storylines. It's interesting how such things develop over time.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
In the Beginning
By Jerry Siegel, 1983
As a science fiction fan, I have long been very familiar with the various themes in the field. The superman theme has been one of them ever since Samson and Hercules. I just sat down and wrote a story of that type – only in this first story, the Superman was a villain. (The Reign of the Superman, 1933)
A couple of months after I published this story, it occured to me that a Superman as a hero rather than as a villain might make a great comic strip character in the vein of Tarzan, only more super and sensational than that great character. Joe and I drew it up as a comic book.
Clark Kent grew not only out of my private life, but also out of Joe Shuster’s. As a high school student, I thought that someday I might become a reporter, and I had crushes on several attractive girls who either didn’t know I existed or didn’t care I existed. So it occured to me: What if I was really terrific? What if I had something special going for me, like jumping over buildings or throwing cars around or something like that?
One night, when all the thoughts were coming to me, the concept came to me that Superman could have a dual identity, and that in one of his identities he could be meek and mild, as I was, and wear glasses, the way I do. The heroine, who I figured would be some kind of girl reporter, would think he was some kind of worm; yet she would be crazy about this Superman character who could do all sorts of fabulous things. In fact, she was real wild about him, and a big inside joke was that the fellow she was crazy about was also the fellow whom she loathed.
Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter was able to leap great distances while on Mars because the planet was smaller than Earth, and so he had great strength. I visualized the planet Krypton as a huge planet, much larger than Earth, so that whoever came to Earth from that planet would be able to leap great distances and lift great weights.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Superb piece of information. I have to say GWAOB, your informational posts are very interesting reads. I especially like the stuff you post regarding other characters and properties in the early pulp and fantasy genre. Your breadth of knowledge on the subject is commendable. I only dabbled a bit in the early works of this type (e.g. A Princess Of Mars, Tarzan Of The Apes, etc.), imbibing stories from the 60's on more often than early turn of the century stuff, but having seen the cinematic serial adaptations of some of those stories from the 30's and 40's I have a sense of nostalgia for material from that time (both literature and cinema).
Although Stan Lee has been probably the most prolifically influential figure in comic book history when it comes to how we view superheroes today, and The Phantom was introduced two years before Superman, in my view what two young struggling Jews, Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster, did with Superman was the trigger for what eventually evolved into the modern superhero. They took high-adventure pulp story concepts and enhanced them into something new, forever changing pop culture with an inspirational character that really hit home right when it was needed. Without them doing what they did we may not know Stan Lee's name today.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
Why thank you, Warrior_Poet. Although ERB is my favorite author, I feel a well-rounded General knowledge of literature is a necessity in fully enjoying a literary or cinematic property. After all, even movies not based on books usually have at least a ghost of inspiration in something attached to an author's name.
You may notice I tend to update all my posts from time to time. I do this because often when I'm typing my off-topic posts, I'm going by memory and consequently get details wrong. As such, I research what I'm discussing and revise my posts so as to be as accurate as possible. I feel anyone reading what I post deserves that as accurate details are necessary to determine if one is interested in the property discussed.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
I wanted to thank Warrior Poet and Great White Ape (and maybe one or two other posters) for this very detailed and interesting discussion. It helped me understand the movie more, as I've never read the original books (although I'm a Tarzan fan, as well as Gor, which was inspired by the John Carter books). I saw the movie in the theater and was entertained, but felt it was "overstuffed," as Warrior put it. I also agree with Warrior's rating the movie around 6.5/10, although I might grade it slightly higher.
But I didn't loathe the guy who played Carter (but, again, I never read the books) and thought he was striking in a masculine way, an effective balance to the princess' stunning beauty. For me, you couldn't ask for two better actors in the starring roles, particularly as far as visuals go, which is paramount in this medium.
For some reason, I didn't see the red/blue symbolism with the ee-vil Zodanga destroying the environment, but it's so obvious (aduh). I wanted to especially thank Warrior for explaining in length common criticisms about supposed "plot holes," like why Carter couldn't break chains and the whole 9th ray debate.
You guys are very erudite & eloquent and I like how the discussion never devolved into juvenile ad hominem tactics (except for that guy who referred to Warrior as "Mr. I'm So Smart," lol). I commend you both. You didn't waste your time.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
But I didn't loathe the guy who played Carter (but, again, I never read the books) and thought he was striking in a masculine way, an effective balance to the princess' stunning beauty. For me, you couldn't ask for two better actors in the starring roles, particularly as far as visuals go, which is paramount in this medium.
You guys are very erudite & eloquent and I like how the discussion never devolved into juvenile ad hominem tactics (except for that guy who referred to Warrior as "Mr. I'm So Smart," lol). I commend you both. You didn't waste your time.
"masculine?" Are we defining masculine just his looks or does that include his character? Because honestly the last thing this Carter brings to mind is masculine. More like emo loser.
Maybe because old Warrior Poet has been pulling his "I'm so Smart" routine for a while now. First when he came on here he used a defense that since the movie was perfect from an "objective" stand point (i.e. it wasn't a cheap Ed Wood-type production) no one was in a position to criticize it. Only recently has he supposedly changed his tune
rays that fail at convenient plot points and unbreakable chains
Well, he certainly ain't feminine or "transgender" (whatever that is).
Warrior effectively explained these supposed plot holes.
From my perspective, however, it's a dense and entertaining adventure/fantasy, sometimes spectacularly so, as far as the visuals, sets, props, costuming, cast, locations, etc. go. What's more, there's some quality mindfood to mine, like Matai Shang's comment to Carter that every world they're involved with has the same conflict of extremes (red vs. blue, right vs. left) and the Therns manage it or feed off of it. I give it a solid 7/10.
First when he came on here he used a defense that since the movie was perfect from an "objective" stand pointThere you go making things up again, seeing everything through a prism of self-generated distortion, expecting everything to be black or white, one extreme or the other, instead of balanced with some good and some bad (like everything in life). What I said then is what I'm saying now. A few of you aren't looking at everything objectively, exaggerating certain issues or in a couple of cases just plain making them up, blended with some objective statements. I never, not once, said this move was "perfect". What orifice did you pull that out of?
I never, not once, said this move was "perfect." What orifice did you pull that out of?
I have, however, debunked or disproved a number of claims, for example the recent discussion about the 9th Ray, the Therns motivations, etc., and from the get-go my stance has been that the reason for it's financial failure was its overblown budget on an antiquated take on a Sword and Planet concept that simply will never have enough appeal to justify such massive expenditure, meaning it will always lose money with that type of massive production budget, no matter how it's treated.
“Calls me out?” You somehow believe that’s what you were doing? Want some examples of what I actually said? Because I will produce them. No, that “charming” statement was in response to an absurd and patently false mischaracterization. I can only ignore it for so long. “Calls me out”. It’s telling that you think that’s what you accomplished. Nothing I stated was condescending in intent. But yes, I’ve disproven various details being claimed by, yes, objectively explaining what they actually meant, even providing direct evidence in quoted dialogue that clearly portrays exactly what I was stating was the intent of certain aspects of the story. That’s not intentional condescension. It’s fact. I cleared up some misinterpretations with irrefutable proof.
As for calling the movie perfect I do remember your first posts. Most of them were exactly what I said they were, you arguing that no one had an "objective" point of view and thus were not in a position to criticize anything about this movie.Poppycock. That’s a misrepresentation. I never said “no one” had an objective point, nor that those I was debating with wasn’t in a position to criticize “anything” about the movie. I was arguing about certain specifics being mentioned, no different than I am to this day. I was attempting to convey that the items specifically pertaining to deviations from the source material weren’t part of a viable analysis regarding its financial failure, that financial failure doesn’t necessarily indicate that a movie is creatively “bad” (sometimes the opposite is true), and that credibility was diminished if not nullified on certain points due to the prism tainted by disdain through which such points were being derived. Below I’ll post a number of my arguments from that thread…
While I completely agree with you about this conspiracy nonsense that makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, do you realize you just dubbed "John Carter" a "bad movie" because it failed at the box office and yet stated that "The 13th Warrior" failed at the box office despite not being bad? My point here is that box office earnings are only one indicator of whether a film is considered "bad" or not. In fact, it's a small factor in the grand scheme of things. It's about timing, the cultural climate of the audience at a given moment, etc. Very good movies have failed miserably at the box office, and objectively "bad" movies have succeeded.Here’s portions from the next few replies:
I thought it invoked the pulpy, silly, serialized stories of yesteryear fairly well, e.g. flying boats and weapons running on an ultra-fantasy/sci-fi energy, portals between Earth and Mars, 6-armed aliens, an Earth man running around on Mars in a loincloth sword-fighting in classic Sword and Planet fashion, etc., while missing it in some ways as well. This film had a fair amount of imagination and wonder (as did the source material). You can't state that it didn't because it's right there for all to see, alongside it’s faults.
Those are brief examples, however. And they are arguably objectively imaginative, meaning "fanciful or make-believe". Now having said that, the movie owes the source material for the bulk of the imaginative ideas it employed, but those elements are indeed infused into the film, i.e. it's imaginative. If by your objective assessment "John Carter" isn't imaginative, then neither is "A Princess of Mars" or anything else in the Barsoom series. By calling "John Carter" unimaginative, you're assigning the same label to the source material.
In fact, you're doing nothing but revealing yourself as a fanboy of the source material. I have no problem with that. And like I said, I also have no problem with you not liking the film as a result of that. However, much of what you’re offering isn’t an objective analysis, and by your own admission you’re unwilling to attempt it. Therefore, although I accept your opinion about your personal dislike of the film, I cannot seriously consider some of what you present as objective criticism (nor anyone else with that kind of narrow mindset).By this point my words were being quite twisted by responders, taking my statements out of context…
Again, the definition of "imaginative" is "Tending to indulge in the fanciful or in make-believe", and I don't think you can argue that the elements I denoted, along with many other elements in the film, don't meet that criteria on an objective basis. I'm just saying that it renders your analysis specifically and personally for you and those of like-mind, which is why portions of it in my view aren’t objective (or maybe I should say are skewed). But this means those specific items are an opinion and not necessarily something wrong with the film. It's just something you didn't like.
As I've stated multiple times now, it's perfectly fine for you to feel that "it isn't fun to watch, it doesn't evoke a sense of pulpy fun and adventure and it doesn't entertain" you. But it's equally fine for others, like myself, to feel that "it was fun to watch because it did evoke a sense of pulpy fun and adventure and it did entertain". An objective analysis of what that means from a social standpoint reveals that those who allowed their experience with the film to be tainted by preconceptions of what it should be like, in your case because in part it deviates from the source material, are less likely to enjoy the film, limiting the possibility of enjoyment by making that choice. Those undergoing the experience without those constraints are more likely to enjoy it.
Yeah Stanton screwed up with his comments. There's no doubt about that. I'd agree as well that it fails as a faithful adaptation (I just don’t care, and let it stand on its own). And if you don't like the movie for either of those reasons, that's on you, not the film. Objectively, it can be reasonably stated that Taylor Kitsch didn't pull off the leading man role. This didn't come close to ruining the movie for me, but it's painfully obvious. He was merely adequate and did not shine in the role. But I don't understand your claim that the story was a mess (it was overstuffed, however, the byproduct of Stanton mistakenly trying to use this to set up sequels).
"What is objective is its failure to generated much repeat business necessary to sustain it at the box office and subsequent failure to recoup its mammoth budget."By this point I was getting frustrated…
Indeed, that is an objective measure. In fact, you just rephrased one of my exact points. It failed to accomplished what few rare films do at the box office due to subjective reasons, in addition to several objective missteps (i.e. weak character/actor, overstuffed story, antiquated premise, grossly mismanaged budget, etc.), not because Stanton spouted nonsense or because it didn't follow the book closely. The few on here who don't like it because it isn't a faithful adaptation of the books, or because Stanton foolishly shot his mouth off are in the minority of the total audience. The box office reflected the mood of the public at the time toward the film.
Don't disagree with this at all, nor with the rest of the changes you cite. These are clear alterations when comparing the source material to the film. And if you don't like the film because of that, I get it and won't blame you for that. All I'm saying is that it does NOT make the film objectively bad. It just makes it a film you didn't like. Honestly I’m growing a bit weary of having to repeat this. You guys refuse to attempt to comprehend what I’m actually saying and assign your own subverted meaning to it.
Again, though, there are issues here. I personally don't mind convoluted plots, in fact prefer them so that they solicit use of my brain. I don't see that "John Carter" had a lot of that going on here like some claim, but it does edge in that direction, and they tried to stuff too much story into this first installment, which was most likely a mistake (leading to a few of its story-related problems). The lead character was weak, granted, and I think it would have served the film better to have a stronger protagonist, something at least a little more like was in the book. There was little chemistry between the leads, and barely an attempt at a love story, which I think reduces the emotional engagement factor (reducing ticket sales). And there are some plot contrivances, although no more than you'd find in any other big-budget blockbuster film, so I find them acceptable.These are from that initial conversation. Let’s see how you proceed to distort my words yet again. What I argue is logic-based. I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by disproving the chain vs. strength debate, but I know for a fact I’m correct. Knowing I’m correct isn’t condescension. It’s being confident in my conclusion. I was attempting to help you out so you’d stop making a statement that didn’t hold up. So what if I was right? Get over it and move on. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes. That’s how we learn. Trust me, in my younger days I was wrong plenty of times. But learning from when I’m wrong allows me now to be right most of the time. It’s merely life-experience and acquired knowledge. That’s how life works. Learn from being wrong, learn from mistakes.
I can't speak for others on here, but I have repeatedly said both here and elsewhere I appreciate the fact that Stanton played up Dejah Thoris' scientific background in the movie since ERB left that aspect of her character largely undeveloped in the books. I didn't like her being a Warrior Princess infinitely more competent in battle than John Carter.
Nor did I like the majority of what Stanton did with the movie, though I have to say I did think James Purefoy did a worthwhile job as Kantos Kan.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Good point about Deja Thoris' character enhancements. And really anything surrounding how the John Carter character was treated is where things fall short, at least in my view. I'm not saying this as compared to the books, but just as a stand-alone story. He was supposedly a civil war warrior, and that isn't transposed very readily into his role on Mars so it doesn't quite gel. I can see him bumbling a bit at the beginning while he adjusts to the gravity difference, but his prowess in combat should definitely have been played up much more. My biggest beef with the character, however, is the lack of charisma. He was just too understated.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
Nothing I stated was condescending in intent. But yes, I’ve disproven various details being claimed by, yes, objectively explaining what they actually meant, even providing direct evidence in quoted dialogue that clearly portrays exactly what I was stating was the intent of certain aspects of the story. That’s not intentional condescension. It’s fact. I cleared up some misinterpretations with irrefutable proof.
However, much of what you’re offering isn’t an objective analysis, and by your own admission you’re unwilling to attempt it. Therefore, although I accept your opinion about your personal dislike of the film, I cannot seriously consider some of what you present as objective criticism (nor anyone else with that kind of narrow mindset).
I’m sorry if I hurt your feelings by disproving the chain vs. strength debate, but I know for a fact I’m correct. Knowing I’m correct isn’t condescension. It’s being confident in my conclusion. I was attempting to help you out so you’d stop making a statement that didn’t hold up. So what if I was right? Get over it and move on. It’s okay to be wrong sometimes. That’s how we learn. Trust me, in my younger days I was wrong plenty of times. But learning from when I’m wrong allows me now to be right most of the time. It’s merely life-experience and acquired knowledge. That’s how life works. Learn from being wrong, learn from mistakes.
I don’t grasp your last statement about performance and budget. The thread did indeed start with questions about the Therns and I added additional commentary. Why is that a problem?
And here Great White Ape and I thought this board was all but dead.
<sigh> The fact you don't "buy" the chain-v-strength bit says a lot.
Again, here are the primary issues that kept it from spiraling toward the 1 billion mark as I see it:
1.) Lackluster lead character/actor (e.g. no charimas, no humor, not "cool", etc.)
2.) Overstuffed story mistakenly designed to set up sequels (leaving things dangling)
3.) Not a strongly enough presented emotionally engaging story component (e.g. love, underdog, tragedy, etc.)
4.) Limited starting appeal with core Sword and Planet loincloths-and-swords-on-Mars concept
5.) No established brand, and not taking the time to establish it with the first installment
Basically, none of the hooks other big-budget popcorn movies had that made them international mega-successes, especially those that appeal to younger audiences, a key demographic for billion-dollar success.
And minus those components to potentially propel it further, here is why it failed financially:
1.) Improper shooting methodology (the entire film was literally shot twice)
2.) Which lead to an overblown budget, spending twice as much as otherwise could have been
3.) Stanton and Disney execs not recognizing what the required recipe is for billion-dollar success
You do realize that your comments about Batman V Superman play right into item number 2 above, right? That while not necessarily complex in my view, too much story was crammed into it, which may have led to too much ambiguity if not about the Therns, then at least the motivations of Matai Shang regarding Carter? As I've stated, although I personally didn’t have an issue with this (and actually liked the ambiguity), that aspect of it could have either been more fully fleshed out (leading to even more story) or more wisely left until sequels before being introduced, letting the first installment be more about John Carter acclimating to Barsoom, with a stronger focus on his characterization, which may have helped repeat sales a bit (although alone, probably not enough).
The Therns aren't nearly as confusing as being claimed, especially since exposition in the film explains them in true pulp villain monologue fashion (which for me is a positive, not a complaint), but there are indeed questions more specifically about why Matai Shang doesn't kill Carter, either during that long walk-n-talk, or especially at the end of the film (sending him home instead). Where I see the potential of a personal agenda that would probably have been continued in sequels, I also recognize that this could have confused some viewers, or left them wanting (although it's a matter of perspective--half glass full vs. half glass empty).
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
More likely Stanton just didn't think that aspect of the film through when Matai Shang could have killed Carter but instead decided to immobilize him and bring him up to speed on the plot. There's no suggestion--at all--in the movie's narrative Matai Shang has any deeper motivation than plot exposition in the "Let me tell you every aspect of my evil plan so you know exactly how to defeat it" scene.
On another note, if Stanton had such weak storytelling abilities he couldn't reveal the plot organically but had to go for a David Lynch's Dune-style info dump, then that likely hurt the film with the majority of audiences, who probably wanted Stanton to get on with the story and not give them a cram session of plot points. The way Stanton handled it is a negative rather than a positive.
For the record, pulp stories like the one Stanton putatively based John Carter on didn't tend to use sleep-inducing monologues to spoonfeed information about the plot to the audience. I recently re-read ERB's Barsoom, Pellucidar, and Amtor series. All three opted for organic plot reveal rather than lengthy rants delivered with all the passion of Roman Hruska on Valium.
The old movie serials that adopted that means of storytelling did so as a means of costcutting so as to maximize information for the audience at the lowest expense possible for their already tight budgets. It was an economical decision rather than an artistic one. That Stanton was such a poor storyteller he felt the need to adopt outmoded ways of exposition for a movie whose budget didn't require them reflects poorly on him and shows its counterproductive nature in the film's failure at the box office.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
More likely Stanton just didn't think that aspect of the film through when Matai Shang could have killed Carter but instead decided to immobilize him and being him up to speed on the plot.That could very well be possible. But the ending of Matai Shang sending him home left me with the impression that there was more to the story that would be revealed in later installments that would never come. As I've said, it's something I suspect. A suspicion is all it'll ever remain, of course, and not one that's provable. It's entirely possible I'm wrong about that. Ultimately, it doesn't matter I guess, since in either case the end result is incomplete dangling story threads. Again, it may have better served the film to introduce the Thern story-line later on instead of cram it into the first installment, focusing more on Carter finding his place on Barsoom.
For the record, pulp stories like the one Stanton putatively based John Carter on didn't tend to use sleep-inducing monologues to spoonfeed information about the plot to the audience.That's absolutely correct. The exposition comes from the episodic film adaptions, and as I've conveyed previously for the exact reason you cite, which is...
The old movie serials that adopted that means of storytelling did so as a means of costcutting so as to maximize information for the audience at the lowest expense possible for their already tight budgets.Which is what I compare this to since this is a film, not a book. I don't put this up against the books as you know in part because it's an entirely different medium. Regardless of the reasons behind the exposition, especially the walk-n-talk scene, it reminded me of those old serials, which is why I personally find it fitting, while simultaneously recognizing, as I've previously stated, that such exposition may not have been an attracting force for key demographics (which is in part why I said that some of the things I liked may very well have been a detriment to appeal to key moviegoers that result in repeat ticket sales).
It's entirely possible I'm wrong about that.
Again, it may have better served the film to introduce the Thern story-line later on instead of cram it into the first installment, focusing more on Carter finding his place on Barsoom.
Again, here are the primary issues that kept it from spiraling toward the 1 billion mark as I see it:
1.)Lackluster lead character/actor (e.g. no charimas, no humor, not "cool", etc.)
2.) Overstuffed story mistakenly designed to set up sequels (leaving things dangling)
3.) Not a strongly enough presented emotionally engaging story component (e.g. love, underdog, tragedy, etc.)
4.) Limited starting appeal with core Sword and Planet loincloths-and-swords-on-Mars concept
5.) No established brand, and not taking the time to establish it with the first installment
And minus those components to potentially propel it further, here is why it failed financially:
1.) Improper shooting methodology (the entire film was literally shot twice)
2.) Which lead to an overblown budget, spending twice as much as otherwise could have been
3.) Stanton and Disney execs not recognizing what the required recipe is for billion-dollar success
The Therns aren't nearly as confusing as being claimed
So we pretty much agree, minus a few caveats.
The main difference is that I wish the cheese factor had been upped even more, and I enjoyed the cheese that was there. It touched on it here and there, but didn't go far enough. That would have reduced it's appeal even further most likely, however. Also, of course many movies succeed without an established brand. That's just one factor that puts it at a lower starting point. In fact, all of the factors I listed put it at the lowest possible starting point and minimized it's potential for financial success. Stanton and execs should have known this, but they were too blinded by a variety of mental impediments to think rationally. They are a business, after all, and for some reason they abandoned any and all business acumen for this project. It's kind of strange.
Those are great suggestions if sticking to a more serious tone. As I've said, focusing more on John Carter finding his place on Barsoom instead of stuffing so much story into it in the hopes it could be continued in sequels may very well have served the film better, especially given that it'll now never be continued.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
The fact you don't "buy" the chain-v-strength bit says a lot.
Again, here are the primary issues that kept it from spiraling toward the 1 billion mark as I see it: ]
You do realize that your comments about Batman V Superman play right into item number 2 above, right? That while not necessarily complex in my view, too much story was crammed into it, which may have led to too much ambiguity if not about the Therns, then at least the motivations of Matai Shang regarding Carter?
The Therns aren't nearly as confusing as being claimed, especially since exposition in the film explains them in true pulp villain monologue fashion (which for me is a positive, not a complaint), but there are indeed questions more specifically about why Matai Shang doesn't kill Carter, either during that long walk-n-talk, or especially at the end of the film (sending him home instead). Where I see the potential of a personal agenda that would probably have been continued in sequels, I also recognize that this could have confused some viewers, or left them wanting (although it's a matter of perspective--half glass full vs. half glass empty).
Appreciate the feedback.
You mention "Gor", which brings to mind the movies Gor and Gor II, both of which in my view where just shy of abysmal. Which is why I enjoyed John Carter because there have been so few Sword and Planet or even just fantasy films made that are very good, or that successfully call upon a certain pulpy feel to the detriment of quality. One of the better pulp films in my view was the 1980 Flash Gordon (although quality may have suffered a little bit, it captured the spirit of pulp, and Queen's soundtrack elevated it to a whole new level of campy style--I found it charming, but today's younger audience would probably view it as pretty stupid by and large). John Carter has certain pulpy aspects, but also steps outside of that quite a bit, forgoing self-aware campiness with a straighter approach (I wouldn't have minded a bit more camp). There was also Krull, which wasn't too bad but still didn't quite hit the mark for me. One of the few fantasy films that worked for me was Ron Howard's Willow. I also liked Conan. But so many attempts have been ultra low budget or creative, amateurish failures, so it was nice to see at least some of what I like in John Carter, even though it wasn't a perfect film.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
I rented the first "Gor" years ago and turned it off after 20 minutes, lol. I never dared check out the second one. I'd love to see "Nomads of Gor" (my favorite), "Priest-Kings of Gor," "Outlaw of Gor" or "Raiders of Gor" done in the manner of "John Carter," but less Disney-fied for obvious reasons.
I still have yet to view "Krull," "Flash Gordon" and "Willow," but I'll get around to it. Thanks for the noting them, Warrior.
Getting back to "John Carter," I'm glad they put limitations on the 9th ray because, as you said in an earlier post, otherwise it would've been all-powerful and therefore too powerful. That would be like Superman without kryptonite.
The movie, by the way, inspired me to finally read "A Princess of Mars." I'm up to the part where Carter takes on the Thark chieftain and the movie captures the book well so far. I'm waiting to see if John learns the Barsoomian language via a beverage (rolling my eyes).
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
All right.
I have to ask how the movie captures the book well in the early going when the movie begins only vaguely like the book and completely changes the portrayal of the characters in the initial sequence of events.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
I realize the details of the beginning were changed a bit, but that's to be expected in translating the material to a different medium. I was mainly talking about Carter's initial time on Mars, his discovery of the incubating Tharks followed by his confrontation with the Thark warriors.
As far as the portrayal of Carter, all it conveyed so far is that he was a Civil War vet and prone to laughter, willing to play with the kids as readily as he was with adults in other pastimes.
That said, I have no reason to doubt that the movie version of the character is noticeably different from the book version, as you say. I'm sure I'll discover this soon enough.
Main characters are often changed from book to film, which doesn't mean the film itself is a piece of sheet. Take "Bram Stoker's Dracula" where the antagonist is changed from a paragon of unadulterated evil to a vampire with a serious case of love-sickness. This ticked me off at first but that film eventually became one of my favorite Dracula movies. Or how about the portrayal of Tony Stark in the Iron Man and Avengers flicks? He wasn't a witty nigh-immature smart-axx at all in the comics; that was actually how Hawkeye was. Iron Man in the comics was closer to Reed Richards. Speaking of Hawkeye, they totally changed his character in the movies obviously because, if they didn't, he would've been too much like Stark.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
That facet of Dracula from the movie was different. Overall, he was still an evil character though. He imprisoned Harker at the beginning and fed off Lucy till he killed her. By the way, there is a fan edit of Bram Stoker's Dracula editing out the love subplot. (This also was not original to the film, having earlier been the focal point of a Dracula film featuring Jack Palance.)
As far as Tony Stark, I don't know enough about the comics to say definitely, so I'll take your word for it. I suspect the filmmakers may have had Downey portray Stark that way to play off his boyish charm and charisma.
As far as John Carter, surprisingly the Asylum Princess of Mars portrayed him closer to the original. Although updated to a Special Forces Marine in that film, Carter as portrayed by Antonio Sabato, Jr., was a charismatic, fun-loving guy as in the book. Stanton turns him into a thuggish ripoff of The Outlaw Josey Wales complete with cliched Lifetime: Television for Women backstory. That's not John Carter, and I venture to say it's not what people were looking for when they went to see the film.
Hence its lack of repeat business and ultimate flop (though other factors of course played a part).
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
That facet of Dracula from the movie was different. Overall, he was still an evil character though. He imprisoned Harker at the beginning and fed off Lucy till he killed her.
I suspect the filmmakers may have had Downey portray Stark that way to play off his boyish charm and charisma.
a thuggish ripoff of The Outlaw Josey Wales complete with cliched Lifetime: Television for Women backstory.
Hence its lack of repeat business and ultimate flop
That's what makes a movie a flop: not recouping its budget. As for the Amazon reviews, a lot of them are from Back to Barsoom fanboys who openly lobbied for sock accounts and false reviews to artificially Jack up the rating. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in them. Many are legitimate of course, but a whole host of them are false reviews stemming from the miserably failed Back to Barsoom campaign.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Honestly the only way to watch Gor is to watch the MST3k version of the second film, re-titled Outlaw.
Plus it's good to hear you're reading the book and I hope you enjoy it. I guess if there was any positive out of the film is that more people did pick up the books.
You're face to face with the Man Who Sold the World.
That's what makes a movie a flop: not recouping its budget.
As for the Amazon reviews, a lot of them are from Back to Barsoom fanboys who openly lobbied for sock accounts and false reviews to artificially Jack up the rating. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in them.
You're assuming 100% of ticket sales go to the studio. They don't. The official budget (marketing plus production) was $407 million dollars. Disney took a $200 million writedown on the film. It was a colossal failure. As a general rule, a film has to make approximately twice its combined marketing and production budgets to be profitable. John Carter came nowhere near this--and flopped.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
The movie's selling to this day -- DVDs & Blu-Rays, TV showings, etc. -- and people clearly love it. It'll likely make money in the long run, if it hasn't already. So it's obviously not the total flop some claim (which isn't to say it wasn't a flop in the sense that you say it was). The 2011 version of "Conan the Barbarian" cost $70 million and only brought home $21 million in the USA and $63 million overall. Now that's a flop.
I'm just saying: Any movie that rakes in nigh $300 million worldwide wasn't a flop in the sense that it didn't find an audience because obviously it did. It may not be as unparalleled as, say, "Avengers," but -- nevertheless -- people went to it in droves worldwide. The naysayers can't accept this fact and so ignore it and zero-in on the studio losing money.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
The movie's selling to this day -- DVDs & Blu-Rays, TV showings, etc. -- and people clearly love it. It'll likely make money in the long run, if it hasn't already. So it's obviously not the total flop some claim (which isn't to say it wasn't a flop in the sense that you say it was). The 2011 version of "Conan the Barbarian" cost $70 million and only brought home $21 million in the USA and $63 million overall. Now that's a flop.
I said "DVDs & Blu-Rays, TV showings, etc.", meaning any format that people purchase or rent movies, not just disk sales.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
Despite the bad marketing that so many go on and on about, "John Carter" brought in close to $300 million worldwide, which puts it in the .3% of films to accomplish this. The mass of positive reviews up to this day and post-theatrical sales further show that it has a huge audience of fans. Sooner or later it will make a profit, even if that's five or ten years from now. So this argument that it's a colossal flop because it lost money is a temporal thing. In the long run it doesn't apply. The movie will make a profit and is making money as I write this.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
I see.
Hence why Disney scrapped plans for sequels and let ERB, Inc., reacquire the film rights.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
According to stats here at IMDb the movie cost $263 million and made back $285 million (worldwide)
That's not exactly a loss.
Of course, I realize you're going to argue that this budget figure doesn't include this or that expense (like marketing), which begs the question: Why didn't they add these other expenses to the overall cost figure?
Then there's the colossal worldwide DVD, etc. sales,
which are adding to the profit of the film to this day
It'll likely make money in the long run, if it hasn't already. So it's obviously not the total flop some claim
people went to it in droves worldwide
The naysayers can't accept this fact and so ignore it and zero-in on the studio losing money.
Except it cost just under $307m and made $283m WW.
Curiously you regard Conan grossing $7m less than its budget as a huge flop, but somehow this film's gross falling $24m of its budget is pretty much a cause for celebration and a sign of success.
combined DVD and Blu-ray sales in the US,
this is a film that is unlikely to ever recoup its budget: the shortfall is just too large.
It sold around 7m tickets Stateside (its takings were boosted by 3D and IMAX ticket premiums), which is hardly droves. More importantly, the film had higher than average drops in almost every territory it opened despite never having particularly good openings anywhere outside of Russia (where it fell of a cliff in its second week), falling short of most projections of the total gross it could expect based on its opening. That's not an indication of a hugely popular film, more of a film with poor word of mouth or limited appeal. The low rating on sites that the BacktoBarsoomers didn't boast about flooding with fake reviews in the belief that it would persuade Disney to ignore their losses and make a sequel imply that both are the case: a 6.6 rating on IMB (despite swarms of identikit shill reviews, many identical but for the newly created accounts posting them) and 60% on RottenTomatoes from users are pretty much the equivalent of a "Meh..."
Its flop is not a 'temporal' thing: it is a permanent state of affairs,
no matter how much you like the film and want to project your own reaction on to the rest of the world to validate that opinion.
which means that it made over $20 million more than it's production cost (not including marketing)
I'm going by which film drew in more people and there's no comparison.
Whether you care to admit it or not, this movie is going to be selling for decades.
My point was that, sooner or later, it will make money for the studio, even if it's 10-20 years from now.
Wow, you're not going to give this movie an iota of credit, are you?
I'm not talking about shill reviews
Whether you care to admit it or not, "John Carter" falls in the bracket of less than 1% of theatrical films in regards to box office earnings. No matter what you say or how you try to play down the figures you can't take that away from the film.
It was only a flop in the sense that it didn't make enough to be profitable for the studio when it was released.
as noted above, it will eventually make money for the studio, even if that's years from now.
Even you consent to this possibility
which I claim is an ironclad eventuality.
It was not, however, a flop in the sense that people didn't go see it when it came out
Nor is it flop in the sense that it's a bad movie (which is a matter of opinion, of course) or that it doesn't have legions of fans.
your unbalanced perspective makes you lose credibility
Everything you say about the movie is so negatively skewed it naturally brings your words into question.
I'm just offering some balance
Ask yourself: Why are you so utterly hell-bent on trashing this film and not giving it any credit whatsoever?
I have nothing more to say.
My friend, thou doth protest too much, methinks.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
My troll, me knows thou doth deny and lie too much.
Still, it's a cast-iron certainty you'll keep running away from those nasty facts.
"Security - release the badgers."
I couldn't find any copies of john carter; and the store told me that they constantly sell out
So much for your shill detector: even ignoring the unlikelihoopd of someone only going to video stores to check up on the weekly sales of John Carter several years after it came out, you're desperately clinging for comfort to a post by Wallfish, the most prolific sockpuppeteering troll on the IMDB.
No surprise, since you've demonstrated your ability to only see what you desperately want to as you keep on desperately paddling up that African river.
"Security - release the badgers."
[deleted]
Well, I managed a Wal-Mart where copies of Dredd sold out by the millions weekly.
I still go by there and have the clerks tell me it's on backorder for the next 24 months.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
It was only a flop in the sense that it didn't make enough to be profitable for the studio when it was released. This is a fact, of course. But, as noted above, it will eventually make money for the studio, even if that's years from now. Even you consent to this possibility, which I claim is an ironclad eventuality.
It was not, however, a flop in the sense that people didn't go see it when it came out, which is obvious by its earnings, no matter how you try to twist the figures to your sourpuss favor. Nor is it flop in the sense that it's a bad movie (which is a matter of opinion, of course) or that it doesn't have legions of fans.
Of course you did, Wallfish, inbetween your busy career as a bagman for Disney in charge of bribing critics, head of embezzlement/marketing at Revolutionary, ticket-tearer and payola distributor at an indie movie theatre that makes a $100,000 profit every week and the other 57 imaginary jobs you hold down inbetween trolling, racist abuse and constant masturbation. And I owned the f.y.e. chain and every single branch sold 37 quintillion copies of Super Mario Bros - The Movie every day and still had queues of people wanting copies stretching back to Cleveland, making it officially the greatest movie of all time.
"Security - release the badgers."
I guess anything is possible. Even Cleopatra eventually tuned a profit for Fox. It just took 20 years and the advent of home video for it to achieve a profit so I guess it could happen with John Carter. But its reputation probably won't change as a "flop."
I've seen people claim that Heaven's Gate is an underrated masterpiece and an epic, yet I thought it was a boring, overlong slog with little outside of beautiful photography to salvage it. There is also fan bases for movies that range from Howard the Duck to Scott Pilgrim Vs the World and yet the financial reality is that most of those movies failed and for many that is the only real yard stick that measures a film's worth.
most of those movies failed and for many that is the only real yard stick that measures a film's worth.
Unfortunately as stated I don't see much redeeming in John Carter
right now wrapped up with The Legend of Tarzan coming out
I just don't think John Carter is destined to become the next Blade Runner or Stanton's arrogant boast how it will become a 21st century Wizard of Oz either.
There's a difference between being possible and happening. McR cited a movie that took 20 years to make a profit after losing far less than John Carter.
Even the most generous estimates about John Carter have its failing to ever make money. Even if it ultimately does 50 or 100 years from now, what would be the point? The damage is done, and John Carter has a reputation as the biggest flop of all time. It killed its intended franchise aborning. None of the leader actors has been attached to a major project since. (Taylor Kitsch certainly couldn't catch a break since Battleship and Savages--his two big releases immediately following John Carter--also flopped horribly.) Andrew Stanton had to rush back to the world of animated films.
In short, even if by some miracle John Carter does defy the odds and turn a profit decades or centuries down the road, it won't much matter. It'll still have the stigma of a flop and will never be the tentpole picture Stanton intended it as.
That means turning a profit belatedly--a dicey prospect at best--will be a hollow victory neither its makers not its fans are likely to be still alive to celebrate.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
As already noted, "John Carter" was NOT a flop in the sense that people failed to go see it. As far as box office earnings go -- disregarding the movie's colossal cost -- "John Carter" ranks with less than 1% of theatrically released films.
The difference between these films and "John Carter" is that, again, "Carter" actually brought in droves of people worldwide to the tune of almost $300 million. I know I'm sounding like a broken record, but I need to stress and re-stress this because certain "Carter"-curmudgeons on this thread can't admit the fact that it brought multitudes to the theater worldwide and is even more popular on DVD, Blu-Ray, etc. Of course I get it: The movie failed to make a profit because it cost so much, but this doesn't negate that (1.) it's a quality sword & sorcery movie, and (2.) it found an audience at the box office and, more so, afterwards and up to the present.
Consider, for example, your comparison to "Heaven's Gate." There's no comparison as it only made $3.5 million in the USA in 1980 while costing a whopping $44 million.
As far as "Cleopatra" goes, believe it or not it made a profit when it was released. Check the figures for yourself: It cost $31,115,000 to make in 1963 dollars. People say a movie has to make twice its cost before it turns a profit. Well, it brought in $58 million in the USA alone and $72 million worldwide, which means it made a profit, however small. Nevertheless, I agree that it's a bad movie, unless one likes over-talky historical melodramas with almost zero action. (I'm actually shocked by these figures, by the way, because I always deemed it a flop at the box office).
I disagree and feel it has loads of redeeming factors, as cited in my review, which I won't re-cite here, except this: Practically every frame of the movie looks like it was taken right from the cover of one of the books in the series, at least any scene with John, Dejah or the Tharks.
Moreover, the Thern revelation during the walking conversation between the lead Thern (Strong) and Carter was the most intriguing sequence in the film and morphed the movie from mindless fantasy-adventure-on-another-planet to something deeper. (Seriously, I can't believe someone on this thread criticized this part as dull and dragging the movie down). The sequence simultaneously reveals the mystery of the Therns while being ambiguous enough to keep the viewer scratching his/her head searching for more concrete answers (which, I'm sure, would've been answered in sequels).
It suddenly becomes clear at this point in the movie that Mars is a stage and the Therns work behind the scenes to (try to) manipulate the players for their own ends. But they're not omnipotent or immortal in the sense that they cannot be killed. They can be resisted and thwarted, even defeated, but only if one realizes they exist and are trying to manipulate. Their existence is dependent upon their deceiving people into believing lies, myths and half-truths; or just keeping them ignorant. When you relate this to our lives on earth it becomes even more profound.
As for Stanton, I don't even know who he is and don't care to because I generally don't care about the politics behind a movie. All I care about is if the film's worthy -- if it's entertaining and (hopefully) contains some interesting or inspiring mindfood. As for the "Wizard of Oz" boast, I don't know if the guy actually said this, but I don't see it happening simply because "John Carter" doesn't have the same widespread appeal. It's a bad comparison. Now if he said it would become the 21st century version of, say, John Milius' "Conan the Barbarian" or "The 7th Voyage of Sinbad," I can buy that.
Thanks for admitting that "John Carter" will eventually make a profit for the studio
A 'flop' means "to be a complete failure."
Most filmmakers would kill to make nigh $300 million worldwide.
please don't suggest that it failed to attract droves of people
certain "Carter"-curmudgeons on this thread can't admit the fact that it brought multitudes to the theater worldwide and is even more popular on DVD, Blu-Ray, etc.
"This is a bad movie because it failed to make a profit for the studio at the box office"? Of course not.
It didn't matter to us how popular and successful it was at the box office; all that counted was what we thought after watching it. And, yes, I gave it a second try years later.
As far as "Cleopatra" goes, believe it or not it made a profit when it was released.
Thanks for admitting that "John Carter" will eventually make a profit for the studio despite the loud, incessant cries of folks on this thread that are apparently obsessed with it (supposedly) being a flop. A 'flop' means "to be a complete failure." As already noted, "John Carter" was NOT a flop in the sense that people failed to go see it. As far as box office earnings go -- disregarding the movie's colossal cost -- "John Carter" ranks with less than 1% of theatrically released films.
Oh and John Carter will never make its money back. It's probably still well over $100 million in the red and the pittance it gets from what litte dvd/blu-ray sales it may still have and the money from basic cable TV rights won't make a dent in those losses.
I think I can safely say no one currently on this board will ever live long enough to see this film get in the black.
Stop the presses! He admits he might be wrong about something.You're ignoring the phrase "could be". What I said is I don't know with a degree of certainty. When I know I'm right I state phrases in a way that indicates it. When I don't know for certain I use terms like "I suspect it could be", which is exactly what I've done with this notion. I say what I mean and mean what I say. Grow up.
No that would have been too much like the books, something that would have horrified Stanton, considering his lack of respect for them. At one point the Pixar Brain Trust told him to ditch the opening and actually start the story with John Carter, just like A Princess of Mars does. Stanton's response? "That's lazy guys." So the idea of introducing the Therns in sequels like Burroughs did would have probably received the same response.That's certainly possible, exactly as you've said given Stanton's lack of respect for the material. Unfortunately no one made an effort to reign him in or to give him any kind of limit and his ego took over. The end result was him shooting the entire film twice and too much story crammed into an origin story (which again, I personally don't mind, but it may have helped eek out a few more ticket sales if he’d focused it more, although I don't think it would have made a big difference given the budget, unless that focus was on the lead character).
Yeah, It says I don't buy you theory.It's not theory. Its fact and common sense. What it says is you're woefully uneducated in basic scientific principles. You're embarrassing yourself by sticking to your guns on this one. You need to wake up and wise up.
Do you realize that's the first time you mentioned that as a potential reason for John Carter's failure?Do you realize you're utterly wrong about this? Do some research before posting. I even bring this up in one of the above quotes from the original thread. You really should stop posting, because all you do is dig a hole deeper and deeper, defying common sense logic for some personal vendetta (unlike the others on the board who share your dislike for the film, but who seem to possess a modicum of civility, common sense, and the ability to see viewpoints other than their own. Here I'll do some quick research for you regarding previous posts mentioning how the story may be "overstuffed", could have been streamlined, leaving story elements dangling due to mistakenly planning this to have sequels (i.e. Stanton putting the cart before the horse, so to speak), etc.:
I even wonder have you even read the books or anything classified as pulp?I'll repeat this yet one more time. I'm equating this to the film serials, not the books. We're discussing a film here, not a book, which is why equating it to the pulpy qualities of cinema is what truly matters.
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
Welcome, Norran, to the curious group of individuals who are -- for unknown reasons -- staunchly obsessed with the claim that "John Carter" will be a perpetual flop.
I don't mean to give you a coronary, but it's a hit on DVD/Blu-Ray and TV.
Regardless, it will eventually get in the black and therefore make a profit for the studio. Not to mention the movie itself is an ad that promotes Disney. In other words, it's existence is an ongoing commercial; and what is that worth to Disney? It's priceless.
He's already said that $38m was a bigger success than the theatrical box-office and insists that most filmmakers would love to spend $407m to get a $155m net return. Which pretty much says it all about his credibility and basic math skills.
"Security - release the badgers."
Actually that does in fact account for inflation. The significant difference is how films are marketed and released, which you allude to. By 1980 mass releasing or mass saturation was picked up by the major motion picture businesses, a methodology they picked up from independent film distributors at the time (one of which was my uncle). Once they did this those small film peddlers (who dealt largely with schlock, exploitation, etc. although some good films were included in the mix with the junk) were stamped out because they couldn't compete. My uncle was a big influence on getting the concept out there, essentially shooting himself in the foot. You're also right that in recent years the worldwide market now propels sales even higher, so it can be hard to compare even if adjusting for inflation. Right now if a film breaks the 1 billion mark (or actually about 1.2 billion) they'll be in the top 50 highest grossing films if adjusted for inflation (with Gone With The Wind maintaining the number 1 spot, followed by either Avatar or Star Wars: A New Hope, depending on whether the list is worldwide or domestic).
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
I enjoyed the film for what it was, and think that some of the complaints are very overblown and had little bearing on ticket sales (especially since most of them are the same kind of complaints that other successful blockbuster films, some exceeding the billion dollar mark, possess). But I think you may also be overblowing the notion of the film's potential for eventual financial success. I don't see this ever turning a profit in a way that'll make any difference regarding how it's viewed. At this point the damage is done. It's true "John Carter" is in the top 1% highest grossing films of all time (and that's even adjusting for inflation, although a big factor there is modern mass saturation releasing methods, including the worldwide market which in recent decades has become much more crucial to overall grosses). The issue from a financial perspective is that way too much was spent making a product that wasn't inherently worth that much, i.e. that didn't possess the innate appeal or one or more of the crucial points of the formula (which I've mentioned in other posts) required to break the ceiling necessary to even think about encroaching the half billion mark, much less higher.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
It's true "John Carter" is in the top 1% highest grossing films of all time
My point with this isn't that it's attendance was impressive. It just wasn't small, and in fact could have potentially been profitable if the production hadn't been so badly bungled. I use this stat to show how poorly it performed when compared to it's overblown budget, while suggesting that everyone behind it should have known better (and probably felt stuck once they got the ball rolling so forged ahead with fingers crossed). In other words, despite it being in the top 1% of all-time highest grossing films (adjusted for inflation), it still failed financially. It highlights how piss-poor the project was handled from a business standpoint. The more recent the list is narrowed of course the lower down it's going to be percentage-wise, so it just becomes a numbers game at that point.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
It's true "John Carter" is in the top 1% highest grossing films of all time and that's even adjusting for inflation,
But I think you may also be overblowing the notion of the film's potential for eventual financial success.
The issue from a financial perspective is that way too much was spent making a product that wasn't inherently worth that much
"John Carter" is an ongoing commercial for Disney, which is priceless. I'm not even factoring this into the eventual profit.
it will eventually make a profit because it has an increasing audience
Why do the "John Carter" curmudgeons on this thread find this obvious (eventual) fact so infuriating?
it has growing legions of admirers, whether people like me & you, who think it's good, and others who think it's excellent.
It's not theory. Its fact and common sense.
Do you realize you're utterly wrong about this? Do some research before posting. I even bring this up in one of the above quotes from the original thread. You really should stop posting, because all you do is dig a hole deeper and deeper, defying common sense logic for some personal vendetta (unlike the others on the board who share your dislike for the film, but who seem to possess a modicum of civility, common sense, and the ability to see viewpoints other than their own. Here I'll do some quick research for you regarding previous posts mentioning how the story may be "overstuffed", could have been streamlined, leaving story elements dangling due to mistakenly planning this to have sequels (i.e. Stanton putting the cart before the horse, so to speak), etc.:
l repeat this yet one more time. I'm equating this to the film serials, not the books. We're discussing a film here, not a book, which is why equating it to the pulpy qualities of cinema is what truly matters.
Wow. I've explained the science. His muscles aren't stronger! He's lighter in comparison, and so is everything else (I've given the detailed stats in a previous post). Repeat: John Carter doesn't get stronger. Everything on Mars is lighter than it is on Earth! Why are you refusing to even try to grasp this? Of course the jumping around is exaggerated. That's well-established. It's a comic book-like, video game-like movie. Good lord.
And no he does not break the chain holding his wrists. He slips out of them! Watch it closely. He DOES NOT break the chains (although even if he had, those chains are much smaller, and could be old and rusted, but he doesn't--he squeezes his hands out of them). You really need to step back and take a longer look at this.
I'm not being condescending whatsoever. I'm trying to help you out so people aren't snickering as they read your posts. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU! Jesus. You're refusing to accept reason. And I only exhibit ire after being provoked time and again with the kind of attitude you almost always immediately display when you reply for the first time to anyone who likes the film, i.e. it’s you who treats people as if they’re dumb for enjoying the movie, who behaves in a condescending, uncivil manner toward anyone who likes the film.
I could provide countless URL’s as evidence.
I stated in an early post on the board (during one of the first threads I posted in, although I have no idea who was involved at that point) that I read A Princess of Mars when I was quite young, but not the others in the series (although I've been familiar with the character and premise, and read a few of the comics some time back as well). I don't recall you asking this question and the link you posted doesn't work publicly, but there's your answer. That's not relevant to anything, however. This is a forum about a movie.
There’s plenty of debatable material in this film. The chains vs. weight item is not one of them.
____________
I'm something new entirely. With my own set of rules. I'm Dexter. Boo.
Wow. I've explained the science. His muscles aren't stronger! He's lighter in comparison, and so is everything else (I've given the detailed stats in a previous post). Repeat: John Carter doesn't get stronger. Everything on Mars is lighter than it is on Earth! Why are you refusing to even try to grasp this? Of course the jumping around is exaggerated. That's well-established. It's a comic book-like, video game-like movie. Good lord.
I'm not being condescending whatsoever. I'm trying to help you out so people aren't snickering as they read your posts. I'M TRYING TO HELP YOU! Jesus. You're refusing to accept reason. And I only exhibit ire after being provoked time and again with the kind of attitude you almost always immediately display when you reply for the first time to anyone who likes the film, i.e. it’s you who treats people as if they’re dumb for enjoying the movie, who behaves in a condescending, uncivil manner toward anyone who likes the film.
I stated in an early post on the board (during one of the first threads I posted in, although I have no idea who was involved at that point) that I read A Princess of Mars when I was quite young, but not the others in the series (although I've been familiar with the character and premise, and read a few of the comics some time back as well). I don't recall you asking this question and the link you posted doesn't work publicly, but there's your answer. That's not relevant to anything, however. This is a forum about a movie.
There’s plenty of debatable material in this film.
This is a movie that if you think about it is a complete failure scientifically.Indeed it is. It’s by no means a scientifically sound documentary. Exactly as I’ve said. It’s this silliness that mirrors the pulp aspects of those old serials. I’ve even cited some of those various antiquated, quaint qualities about Sword and Planet loincloths on Mars concepts, and have suggested that the entire notion was a possible hit against viewership because of it, with one of the items that it had stacked against it being “Limited starting appeal with core Sword and Planet loincloths-and-swords-on-Mars concept”, which includes exactly what you’re talking about here. Here’s a quote from an earlier post of mine: “Put this in combination with an antiquated (although to me quaint) Sword and Planet story with not only aliens somehow surviving on Mars despite no breathable air or drinkable water but a human going there and doing the same, and its appeal is going to be limited to a certain demographic.” But what bearing does this have on this conversation whatsoever? It’s clear this film is far from a bastion of science. As I said, it’s a “comic book-like, video game-like” presentation.
Also where does it say in the film that everything is lighter on Earth?The first thing it shows us is Carter jumping, partially floating, clumsily trying to get his footing due to the change in gravity, i.e. that he’s lighter. And we see him lift things that would be heavier on Earth. It doesn’t have to “say” anything at all. It quite clearly shows us that everything is lighter for him, including himself.
In fact I do remember one scene where Dejah Thoris suggests that Carter's muscle mass is giving him the ability to jump. In fact here's the dialogue thanks to IMDB: "It must be the density of your bones."Bone density has nothing to do with muscle mass or strength. Those are two entirely different things. However, biological entities would naturally evolve higher bone density in higher gravity environments along with stronger muscles (not necessarily mass since tensile strength could evolve as well regardless of mass). Meaning, John Carter’s bone would be less breakable under equal exertion of force upon them as compared to a humanoid indigenous to Mars. He could fall from a greater height with less chance of bone fracture. He’s more durable, especially on Mars where falling would happen more slowly and with less force. In other words as she’s studying his skeletal structure, she’s doing so while trying to understand how he can jump so far and not hurt himself while landing. But his ability to jump higher is all about him weighing less than he does on Earth while having a higher baseline of muscle strength due to having evolved and developed in Earth’s stronger gravitational field.
Of course they even got that wrong since Carter more than likely would be suffering from osteopenia and his mass and bone density would decrease.This is something that only happens over time, after many weeks in space. It doesn’t happen instantly. It’s why astronauts do exercises to maintain force against their body in an effort to avoid as much atrophy as possible. There’s a difference between the effects of this in the vacuum of space with absolutely no gravity, however, and lower gravity on Mars compared to Earth (where there is still a gravitational exertion of force, just less of it). So here again, developing, which a biological life form is constantly doing as it regenerates cells and ages, is heavily influenced by the force of gravity. So over time humans in space suffer from a variety of effects, including bone density slowly diminishing, muscle mass reducing, ocular orb changing shape, skull changing shape, etc. Because we evolved in Earth’s gravity, developing in zero or lower gravity without doing something to counter it will over time produce effects to a factor of whatever the gravity variance is. Return to Earth and most of these things will then “normalize”, returning to what they were at that life forms evolved baseline.
And did I ever ask your help? No I did not. But you love to try to give it don't you? That is what is condescending and insulting about you. That if someone doesn't measure up to the Warrior Poet standard you have to correct them and prove what an idiot they are.No for most items I’m merely conveying my viewpoint. For this one item I’m trying to tell you that it’s not a good point to bring up again and again because it’s based on an incorrect premise.
You have in my experience never treated someone who disagrees with you as an equal or even able to reason. Instead you smugly dismiss their statements or the person completely without even thinking that they may be right or that they are not stupid.Really. Merely read all my posts. You’ll find that this doesn’t come close to describing them.
That is how you come across. And while you can claim it's being provoked, no that is how you have been on here from day one. You just can't see it.This is your ego reacting. I wonder why you’re the only one who thinks this? Think about it. All one has to do is actually read my posts with an unbiased mindset to discern the efficacy of your statements here. I’m always civil and matter-of-fact in my demeanor. Again, ire only comes out when provoked repeatedly.
I don't know what serials you have watched but none of them have a whiny, moping loser as the hero, villains that have vague, poorly defined motivesYou realize you’re completely ignoring that this is exactly part of what I felt was lacking in the film, right? That this was in no way something I attributed to the pulp feel, which is a very specific list I provided?
And while it's true they did engage in much exposition it was as pointed out due to cost and the need to fill up to 12 episodes of screen time. That's why most of them usually had a a recap episode just to save money and reuse footage.Umm, exactly. I’m the one who initially brought this up in a previous post, the link of which I’ll provide below. But how is that relevant? It’s an emulation of that quality, regardless of why it was done then. Even if this was an unintentional emulation of those serials (I don’t think it was), it’s still a quality that helped bolster that pulpy feel for me, along with various other elements (despite the aspects that are counter to it). If you recall in a previous post you said “I don't remember ever seeing one as confusing or filled with such dull exposition as Carter had”, for which I replied “Have you actually watched them? I have, and that's pretty much all they are, partly because they didn't have the budget to do much other than stand around and explain everything, having to be choosy with what to show.” Here’s the URL linking to the full discussion within which this took place:
Why doesn't everyone die from asphyxiation due to lack of a breathable atmosphere? Talk about a lack of true science (or even the novel's Atmosphere Plant. Oh I forgot this is a movie forum, no discussion about the books!)Sigh. This has been my point (see the quote earlier), that the inherent nature of this type of concept could have been a detracting factor, something I’ve mentioned numerous times. It was at least one aspect of the Sword And Planet loincloths on Mars premise that some viewers would take issue with. It’s also, however, one of those quaint pulpy items that I actually liked, i.e. that Mars was once a lush planet that is now dying and on its way toward becoming unsustainable, with barely enough breathable air left, along with drinkable water. We know today that this has never been true, much less true a mere century ago. It’s part of the pulp charm.
Why doesn't Sab Than's arm burn off from using that silly Thern laser weapon device. I mean it never even singes his arm hairHuh? Because it’s obviously not designed to. What would be the point of a weapon that harmed the person utilizing it? You find this a debatable point? What in the world are trying to accomplish with this?
Why did Dejah Thoris, despite hearing John Carter's constant whining about his cave of gold, think he would suddenly change his mind if she could trick him into Helium.Irrational belief, something fostered by his abilities she was amazed by. Blind hope. This bit is of course debatable, albeit a nitpicky story element of character motivation common to movies. I don’t have much problem with her behavior, but there’s nothing ironclad or objective about it so it can’t really be argued except for whether a viewer accepts her motivations or not, i.e. this is a matter of personal preference and is completely subjective. For whatever reason she saw potential in him. I see a second part to this, however…
Also what was he supposed to do? He couldn't fight all that well so was he just supposed to jump around and confuse them?As I’ve stated in the past, this ties into something I consider a downside of how the character was portrayed. I would have preferred if he’d been a more competent warrior from the get-go. And if he had been, her reaction would have had a more solid foundation to build on, would have been more justified. Although I don’t have an issue with her irrational hope in him, I do have a problem with the John Carter character itself.
Why if it all it takes is a magic medallion does Carter run around for 10 years looking for one and then decide to resort to deceiving and back shooting a Thern?Are you asking why he waited 10 years before setting his trap? If that’s what you’re asking then it’s simply because he didn’t think of it. He’s only human, after all. The fact it took him 10 years would be yet another aspect of the character I’m not particular fond of, although this one is minor for me. I do think it’s a viably debatable point to bring up, but again boils down to individual viewer preference since it’s about accepting possible character behavior and motivations. I lean your direction on this one. 1 or 2 years maybe. But 10?
Why if moving Zodanga is a threat to the environment of Barsoom is quickly forgotten about as the story progresses? Poor writing or poor reshooting?Poor writing, or at least improper planning and “putting the cart before the horse”, as I’ve explained many times previously. Exactly as I’ve said, Stanton using this first film as a jumping off point for a franchise left a variety of story components dangling that may very well have been planned for later installments. Even if he hadn’t specifically planned on addressing mobile mine, it’s still fallout from him planning it that way. I suspect Stanton’s leftist ideas also played into this. Instead of a machine barely sustaining the dying planet, it was a partial cause for it, strip-mining materials out of existence. There’s clearly a liberal bias behind this notion.
Why don't the Therns shape shift into people someone trusts and kill them? Why the whole wedding assassination plot or the suspicious guy trailing Carter on Earth?Really? Really? REALLY?
If things are lighter on Mars wouldn't it be the reverse for someone from Mars coming to Earth? Wouldn't that Thern be crushed by everything else being much heavier here due to heavier gravity?The Thern didn’t evolve on Mars, and aren’t from it, so their baseline would be different from a native Barsoomian indigenous to Mars. We don’t know where they come from, but we know they don’t come from Mars and have done this to many planets over many eons due to their un-aging, unchanging immortality.
It's hard to tell whether this is pig-headed wishful thinking on your part or just trolling.
[deleted]
But what bearing does this have on this conversation whatsoever? It’s clear this film is far from a bastion of science. As I said, it’s a “comic book-like, video game-like” presentation.
The first thing it shows us is Carter jumping, partially floating, clumsily trying to get his footing due to the change in gravity, i.e. that he’s lighter. And we see him lift things that would be heavier on Earth. It doesn’t have to “say” anything at all. It quite clearly shows us that everything is lighter for him, including himself.
This means that by an absolute measure of tensile strength for an iron chain, someone from Jupiter might be able to break it, while someone on Krypton definitely can. A human from Earth cannot, and a person from Mars would have no chance whatsoever. Developing in gravity effects a variety of things, but for this discussion the important items are lifting capability and bone density.
To address your question, the movie has dialogue about it being a dying planet, including the opening voice over narration, where it directly addresses breathable air. Here’s the exact narration:
Huh? Because it’s obviously not designed to. What would be the point of a weapon that harmed the person utilizing it? You find this a debatable point? What in the world are trying to accomplish with this?
Really? Really? REALLY?
You admit it isn't a documentary or even a 2001-like attempt at real or pseudo-real science but a romp with silly concepts, yet when someone else points out those silly concepts and how poorly they are done or thought out (i.e. the chain or the 9th ray) you put on your Stephen Hawking defense.Not even close. But for that one specific item your complaint simply has no basis. You're trying to say there's a problem where there isn't one. This movie has plenty of other problems. This isn't one.
By that logic then the chain would also be lighter and thus breakable.A resounding no. That makes absolutely no sense. Why would it be more breakable because it weighs less? It’s material construction and hardness wouldn’t change. I'm going to pretend you didn't just say that.
so if we go by your rationale-that everything is lighter, including Carter, than the chain should be lighter, not heavier. See again it comes across as contradictory your defense.Who said it was heavier? Man you really... need... to... stop. You seem to be confused.
You're using a fake planet as a defense? Or did I miss the news that Krypton exists?I mention it because you brought up the comparison to superman in a previous post. Plus, it’s an interesting comparison. It doesn't matter if it's real or not. It's the numbers that matter, and Krypton was an extreme fictional example merely for the sake of comparison. Feel free to ignore the Krypton factor if you wish.
Also you seem to forget that-at least in the film universe of John Carter is not a "person from Mars" but a person from Earth and according to you everything is lighter on Mars for him. Except apparently chains.Actually that's what I've been saying all along, including that chains are lighter (which does NOT make them more breakable). You're confusing yourself. Step back a minute and think about what you're saying here.
OK let's rephrase it then. Why doesn't Carter die of asphyxiation? He is not from Barsoom but another planet so wouldn't his lungs be unable to adjust to the atmosphere of Barsoom?Because the movie tells us what we think we know about Mars is wrong, that there is in fact breathable air on Mars, but that it's dying and heading the way of the dodo bird, meaning at some point in the near future it will no longer be breathable, but now it is. It tells us this right there in the movie during the opening scenes. It’s this notion that Mars was once breathable that comes right out of pulp fiction.
You're defense. It wasn't designed to. So that makes you an expert on alien technology?This one's really out there. You see that right? And no, disintegration by an imaginary sci-fi fantasy 9th ray does not necessarily require a heat source. But if it did, the wearer of the technology is clearly shielded. It's quite simple. We don't see him get burned, therefore it's designed in a way that won't burn the wearer. The movie has legitimate and viably debatable issues. Why are trying to make some up where there are none?
Yes REALLY! Because it is a debatable point. Why not just have them killed and be over with it. Why The Princess Bride charade with killing Dejah. Why not shape shift into the butler and poison Carter? Again you just dismiss something because hey it's nitpicky, it's beneath your thought process and it would mean this film has flawsDismiss it? I've done nothing of the kind. All those links discuss this exact point in excruciating detail. I’d agree it’s debatable, though, but there’s a clear answer given to us right there in the movie. You were even a part of some of those responses. But maybe you missed that discussion, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. The motivations of the Therns are told to us by Matai Shang right there in the movie. The first link in my previous post hits the core of it, and the other posts expound upon the concept. I’m not going to repeat it all here.
So see there are things here I can agree with (like the Thern being crushed on Earth)This is an example of you not really reading my post carefully and thoroughly (I now they’re long, but if you’re not going to read them, don’t reply to them). While I find this question you’ve brought up a great thought to debate, I also see an easy explanation for it, a possibility not directly defined by the movie but logically deduced. See the previous post for details. Therefore, I don’t see this as an immediate problem.
but the fact that you want to defend every thing wrong with this filmI have never "defended everything wrong with this film". I’ve even given a list of things I see wrong with it. I merely give a more balance viewpoint, not one colored by disdain generated by Stanton's mishandling of what for some is a beloved property. Again, I understand that hate, and recognize his lack of respect for it, but it's twisting some interpretations of elements of the movie into misinterpretations, which are the misunderstandings I'm trying to correct, the complaints I'm arguing against, i.e. only the ones that have no merit, or that are debatable but have a more likely interpretation. I've gone on with these in detail and at length so I don't see how there can be any misunderstanding of my view, but you still seem to have one. You seem think I’m a Stanton-worshiper who sees no flaws with the film, and my posts quite clearly show a mixture of good and bad. Like I said in a previous post: “Not the extremes. Not all-or-nothing. Good and bad combined. Balanced.”
Who said it was heavier? Man you really... need... to... stop. You seem to be confused.
You see that right? And no, disintegration by an imaginary sci-fi fantasy 9th ray does not necessarily require a heat source. But if it did, the wearer of the technology is clearly shielded. It's quite simple. We don't see him get burned, therefore it's designed in a way that won't burn the wearer. The movie has legitimate and viably debatable issues. Why are trying to make some up where there are none?
You seem think I’m a Stanton-worshiper who sees no flaws with the film, and my posts quite clearly show a mixture of good and bad. Like I said in a previous post: “Not the extremes. Not all-or-nothing. Good and bad combined. Balanced.”
And right back your standard insult mode.Sorry, but I'm not being insulting. I'm being very genuine with this. I'm trying to guide you away from certain erroneous thinking. I'm not making you look like an idiot. I'm not making you anything. I'm pointing out an item that you're irrefutably wrong about. How a person feels and reacts to situations is solely on that person. No one else has that power over you. How you feel and react to any circumstance is your choice alone. I'm not meaning to insult. But you need to stop that particular line because it doesn't hold up.
What's your excuse for this one?No excuse needed. We know what powers it. The 9th ray. Isn't that clear? There's all kinds of energy that don't involve heat. For all we know it could be fart bubbles. Admittedly you made me laugh with that one. That was pretty funny. But there is no excuse needed because there's no explanation needed other than it's a 9th ray weapon that shoots 9th ray energy, whatever that is. Well, actually, we know what it is--magic sci-fi mumbo jumbo (meaning we can pretty much make up whatever we want as long as it doesn't contradict what we observe in the film). But why do you need so desperately for this to be a problem? Why make up problems when there's plenty of legitimately debatable material to choose from? Don't answer that. It was rhetorical.
Well you certainly seem like one, coughing one excuse after another for bad movie making.Unwilling to conceded the film has flaws? You need to realize you lose all credibility with statements like that. All one has to do is read my posts to know it's a falsehood. All films have issues to some degree, and there are indeed a few legit issues with John Carter, and with the production of it. But some are being exaggerated and others are being completely fabricated, from what I can tell fueled by disdain for how Stanton treated the material. Again, I understand and have no problem with not liking it for that reason, but it shouldn't then lead to irrational misrepresentations, obscuring a grounded, level-headed analysis. The items I find incorrect, including a variety of them directly explained in the film itself but that is for some reason being ignored (or maybe forgotten, not realized, etc.) are the ones I argue against. The items that are irrefutably true I agree with.
No excuse needed. We know what powers it. The 9th ray. Isn't that clear?
Unwilling to conceded the film has flaws? You need to realize you lose all credibility with statements like that. All one has to do is read my posts to know it's a falsehood. All films have issues to some degree, and there are indeed a few legit issues with John Carter, and with the production of it. But some are being exaggerated and others are being completely fabricated, from what I can tell fueled by disdain for how Stanton treated the material.
All films have issues to some degree, and there are indeed a few legit issues with John Carter, and with the production of it.
Let's just use a poorly defined power source to give an idiot a death rayYeah, that's pretty much it. In fact that's exactly it. Big, dumb, popcorn cinema at its best.
and then have it not work sometimes.When does it not work sometimes?
The only negative points you bring up constantly is Taylor Kitsch's lackluster lead performance and how the film failed to connect with audiences either due to lack of interest in the film itselfThat's not actually true. There are "negatives" I personally find acceptable, such as the Voice of Barsoom, a silly cop out that fits within the framework of a big, dumb, popcorn film. I'm also not too bothered by Matai Shang's strange behavior and obviously personal agenda that's completely unexplained (probably with the intention of exploring it further in sequels) regarding Carter, e.g. not killing him and instead telling him his plan, sending him home at the end instead of just killing him, etc. Those are items that don't really bug me but that I acknowledge are dangling plot points that could have been handled better (some are fallout from Stanton's design of the story with the intent of continuing them in sequels). There are a number of things like that.
You also constantly state that those who take issue with Stanton's debacle are fans who hold disdain for how badly Stanton handled the material.I don't say that at all. I do, however, assign this to those specifically on this board who it pertains to. You're the one applying specifically contained statements to a broader base, which is incorrect.
Maybe the fact is that the legit issues are not the same for each person? Maybe if John Carter had going for it a strong compelling story, likable or intriguing characters, a gripping storyline or even amazing and exciting action sequences then we wouldn't be nit picking the flaws this film does have.I don't disagree with this (entirely). I think it's debatable whether or not someone liked the action sequences, for example, or whether or not they found them exciting. But in general, yes, this is correct. It's why there's debate in all movie forums. People see things differently. The items I argue against, however, are complaints that are based on something that was misunderstood, misinterpreted, or perhaps forgotten about since watching it, i.e. items that are irrefutably incorrect due to a faulty basis of information. It’s why I tend to stick to the things that more apparently contributed to it not making more money, or the behind the scenes problems that lead to the massive over-expenditure on it, i.e. it cost much more than it could have and so didn’t make a profit.
If he had delivered a competent or entertaining filmThe thing is, he partly did. It's not a complete failure creatively. It's not one extreme or the other. Everything in life is a shade of gray. Nothing is truly a 1 or 10 if using the IMDB scale. It's somewhere in between. Balance. There's good and there's bad. There are indeed issues here, and the impact of those issues will vary for each audience member, the totality of which averages out. There’s a reason it gets a mediocre rating in various places (although the Amazon rating is filled with a plethora of obvious 5-star shills, and with only about 3,000 reviews those shills can still have a numerical impact, especially without a weighting system to counter them).
So OK you claim you have problems with the film. I have problems with this film. We can agree on that, but the level well I guess we'll never see eye to eye there. You see a fun pulp inspired film, I see a bad insult to human intelligence.Of course this is correct, and inarguable. Don't you see this has been one of my points regarding its creative reception? There are people who really like the film. Not quite sure why, don't really care (everything has its diehard fanboys for whatever underlying reasons). There are a few people who really hate the film, some because they don't like Stanton's disrespect for the source material it's based on, others because it just plain annoyed them (like with any movie). Then there are people who dislike the film (not hate, but just aren’t fond of) because they didn't connect with it, dangling story threads, overstuffed plot, too long, bland, too cartoony, etc. Then there are people like me who do like it (for various reasons, whether they're familiar with the source material or otherwise) because they connected with it, but who see it as a big, dumb popcorn flick that's a fun couple of hours but forgettable (and therefore find some of the nitpicky "flaws" passable since they exist in pretty much all movies of this caliber, including a few that have made more than $1 billion in sales).
I just wait to see what defense you will come up with for that statement.You still seem to think I argue against everything, when my posts clearly suggest otherwise. You provided a clear fact, dare I say one of the very insights into human behavior I’ve tried to touch on here and there. How can that be argued against? So… nicely done with that statement (the first part of it, anyway).
http://www.the-numbers.com/home-market/bluray-sales/2012
Check the actual sales numbers on this web site. Even in 2012 John Carter was way down the list at number 35, or in units, 560 K compared to 4.6 M for The Avengers. It fell off the charts completely after 2012.
All of the long winded attempts to explain and rationalize this films plot boils down to one thing. Andrew Stanton's ginormous ego.
Unsatisfied with simply adapting the book to film he had to completely change everything about it. From the characters to the locations to the plot.
The result is that a fun and entertaining pulp adventure story was mutated into a convoluted, unsatisfying mess that needs constant explanations in order to attempt to get any sense out of it's leaky, sieve like logic.
======
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
http://www.filmsite.org/greatestflops.html
This site was up to date in 2015 adjusted for inflation, as well as not adjusted, for comparison. Note, it only adjusts for some post production costs, where JC was known to be high on such costs.
JC is still in the top 10 worst financial flop of all time.
Oh and John Carter will never make its money back.
but after factoring in home video sales and TV broadcast rights among other revenue streams, Waterworld eventually became profitable.
Well over a decade after losing far less than John Carter, Waterworld finally made money. That still didn't end its stigma as a flop. Even if John Carter eventually makes a profit 50 or 100 years from now, the damage is done. Perceptions about the film won't change, so turning a profit decades after its release will do this film absolutely no good.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
That still didn't end its stigma as a flop. Even if John Carter eventually makes a profit 50 or 100 years from now, the damage is done. Perceptions about the film won't change, so turning a profit decades after its release will do this film absolutely no good.
You're ASSUMING it will make money for the studio. That's not at all a guarantee and is in fact highly unlikely. Even assuming it does, that won't change the fact that John Carter is a flop. Disney isn't going to say, "John Carter took 50 years to make $1,000, so let's pop champagne corks." This franchise is dead. It has the stigma of massive flop status. That won't change even if a whole litany of things causes it to barely eke out a profit when I'm in a nursing home at age 84.
You have remarkably fixated on an unlikely scenario--putting it mildly--and declared it an absolute certainty when in fact the reality of the situation is that this film has the steepest of hills to climb to make the slightest amount of money and so far has proved incapable of doing anything necessary to become a profitable film.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
You're ASSUMING it will make money for the studio.
That's not at all a guarantee and is in fact highly unlikely.
Disney isn't going to say, "John Carter took 50 years to make $1,000, so let's pop champagne corks."
This franchise is dead.
It has the stigma of massive flop status.
You have remarkably fixated on an unlikely scenario
You are insufferable. You are emotionally committed to some ridiculous belief with no basis in reality and honestly no chance of ever occurring. John Carter is not going to make a profit. It failed miserably to do that and has not generated anywhere near enough enthusiasm post theater to dig itself out of the nine-digit hole it's in. I've tried to be conciliatory on this, but you make my doing that incredibly hard with your pedantic rants guaranteeing something that quite honestly isn't going to happen.
The film flopped. Live with it. Watch it 15 times a day if you like. That's never going to change the fact that it's not a profitable movie. It lost far too much money due to a host of poor decisions by its mastermind, Andrew Stanton, and has generated exactly no enthusiasm outside an incredibly small but vocal and apparently mentally unstable group drawn to it for reasons I can't even begin to fathom.
Honestly I don't know what about this film completely annihilates the capacity to think logically among its few supporters, but something does. You and your ilk can't just enjoy the movie. You have to create elaborate conspiracy theories and fantasy scenarios to justify it for some reason. Fans of other films that flop just accept reality and move on. For some reason, Stantonites obsessed with John Carter can't do that.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
the infamous "Waterworld" eventually made a profit. Again, "Waterworld" is the most infamous, "stigmatized" flop of the last twenty years
and, yet, it made a profit.
there's the fact that the movie itself and every showing around the world for as long as this current era exists is an advertisement for Disney, which is priceless.
[deleted]
"Security - release the badgers."
shareNo matter how you slice it, Trevor, the infamous supposed 'flop' "Waterworld" went on to eventually make a profit for the studio, and has been making money ever since. Despite their differences, the same applies to "John Carter," which is a better movie with a more hardcore worldwide following.
I realize this is hard to face in light of your curious obsession with wholly denouncing "John Carter" and anyone who dares say they like it, but please try not to have a coronary. I'm concerned for your health.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
No matter how you slice it, the infamous definite 'flop' "John Carter" went on to still incur massive losses even after TV and the disappointing home video sales. No matter how you slice it, it's a worse film than Waterworld with a 'hardcore following' of just 13,516 who petitioned for a sequel, considerably less popular with paying audiences that Waterworld, which made much, much more money, sold many, many more tickets and sold many, many more copies on home video. Even without the writeoff, your 'infamous flop' had a minimal shortfall between what the studio spent making and marketing it and what they received from theaters - so small, in fact, that even in the year it was released the trades acknowledged it wasn't a flop. By contrast, JC had losses of over $200m when it left theaters and couldn't even make as much in US theaters as Waterworld had in 1995 with ticket prices almost half what they were when JC opened.
So your comparison with Waterworld is completely bogus: their financial profile and performance are completely different. It's like saying that because The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made a very small profit once it went to home video and TV after it fell around 10% short of its breakeven point theatrically, that Pluto Nash is now in profit after falling $110m short of its breakeven point. The discrepancy between the two is so massive to make the comparison infantile. Which is why you've not been able to debunk a single fact in my post, instead choosing to stick your fingers in your ears and sing "I can't hear you, I can't hear you" in the hope that reality will run away from you.
I realize this is hard to face in light of your curious obsession with desperately denying "John Carter" is the biggest flop of all time and anyone who dares point that out - like, say, the studio who actually made it - is in some way ill, but the only one having a coronary over this irrevocable fact is you. If it's not trolling, this constant fixated denial of yours is a pretty clear sign that you need to go back on the meds. And you'd better have a proper accountant check your tax returns before the sending them to the IRS: they take a more Planet earth approach to financials.
I know you're utterly impervious to facts in your quest to prove that black is white, day is night and a $200m loss is a glowing success, so I'll leave the last word with this fella:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MMzd40i8TfA
"Security - release the badgers."
1. "John Carter" doesn't suck; it's not even close to being as bad as you & your sourpuss clique say it is. I give it a solid 7/10.
2. It made nigh $300 million at the box office, which only less than 1% of releases make.
3. It's been a hit on DVD, Blu-Ray and other formats.
4. It has a hardcore and growing worldwide audience of admirers & fans.
5. It will be selling to the public for decades, including 50-60 years from now (unless there's a worldwide nuclear holocaust that wipes out the planet, of course).
6. And it will eventually make a profit for the studio, just as infamous supposed 'flops' like "Waterworld" eventually did.
I know the truth hurts, but nothing you say -- no amount of wordy arguing, negative spinning and juggling statistics, etc. -- can change these six facts (the first one is a matter of opinion, of course, but it is a fact that the majority of people like or love the movie -- including me -- which is reflected by the current rating on IMDb).
I'm sure you're a cool guy, but your obsession with denouncing this film is illogical (as Spock would say).
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
1. "John Carter" is mediocre, no matter what the Barsoomian obsessives claim.
2. It made considerably less than $300 million at the box office, and barely as much as a film you claim was a bigger flop did back in 1995.
3. It's been a mediocre underperformer on DVD, Blu-Ray and other formats.
4. It has a hardcore and shrinking worldwide audience of obsessives who couldn't even muster 15,000 signatures on a petition for a sequel in several years.
5. Its sales and revenue will be shrinking every year.
6. It will almost certainly never break even, let alone make a profit for the studio, and comparing it to films that sold twice as many tickets and sold ten times as many units on home video won't change that fact.
I know the truth hurts you like a dagger to the sphincter, that nothing anyone say - no amount of verifiable facts that you've been completely unable to refute - will change the reality or your seven fantasies and delusions until you seek treatment for this less than magnificent obsession of yours. But at this point your inability to refute any of the facts that have been raised here and the cowardly way you run away from them constantly repeating It will make a profit, it will make a profit" as you click your ruby slippers is beyond illogical. As Spock would say while raising an eyebrow in disbelief and incomprehension, "Fascinating." I'm sure one day a psychiatrist will be able to make a career out of your delusions.
"Security - release the badgers."
When it comes to the facts and figures of the movie bizz, I'll take TrevorAclea over anyone else who posts here so...yeah, What he said.
======
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
[deleted]
What's remarkably illogical is that your obsession against "John Carter" prevents you from accepting the six facts I posted in my previous post, which are indisputable. As Jack Nicholson said in "A Few Good Men":
YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
What's remarkably illogical is that your obsession against "John Carter" prevents you from accepting the six facts I posted in my previous post, which are indisputable.
1. "John Carter" doesn't suck; it's not even close to being as bad as you & your sourpuss clique say it is. I give it a solid 7/10.OK, This is not a fact no matter how you spin it. It's an opinion,
the first one is a matter of opinion, of course, but it is a fact that the majority of people like or love the movieYes as you say it's an opinion but, "The majority of people like it" is also not a fact. It's a claim and one that can neither be proven nor disproven unless you poll every single person in the world or at the very least in the US. Therefore it can be summarily dismissed as a useless statement.
2. It made nigh $300 million at the box office, which only less than 1% of releases make.I don't know where you get your figures from but Box office Mojo has its total worldwide earnings as $284,139,100. close but no cigar.
3. It's been a hit on DVD, Blu-Ray and other formats.How about some numbers to back this up? Otherwise it's just another empty claim.
4. It has a hardcore and growing worldwide audience of admirers & fans.Another unprovable claim that's nothing but your opinion.
5. It will be selling to the public for decades, including 50-60 years from now (unless there's a worldwide nuclear holocaust that wipes out the planet, of course).Also an unprovable opinion unless you have access to some kind of time machine that provides you with future info.
6. And it will eventually make a profit for the studio, just as infamous supposed 'flops' like "Waterworld" eventually did.Another unprovable opinion.
I know the truth hurts, but nothing you say -- no amount of wordy arguing, negative spinning and juggling statistics, etc. -- can change these six factsExcept they are NOT facts and they certainly don't hurt.
but it is a fact that the majority of people like or love the movie.A very ambiguous statement that anyone with half a brain can recognize. Majority of WHAT people?
Regarding my first point, you wrote:
OK, This is not a fact no matter how you spin it. It's an opinion
The only indisputable fact in this whole argument is that you're fanatically devoted to an unprovable premise in an attempt to justify your love for a failed movie. Fans of other movies that flop tend to live their lives and move on. John Carter fanboys can't accept reality though and either descend into ranting conspiracy theories to excuse its failure or create unrealistic fantasy scenarios to pretend it's more popular than it really is.
Requiescat in pace, Krystle Papile. I'll always miss you. Justice was finally served.
jhjslj: I wanted to commend you on your list of 100 Favorite Movies. You have a lot of good stuff on there. And thanks for the (indirect) recommendations of movies I haven't yet seen.
My 150 (or so) favorite movies:
http://www.imdb.com/list/ls070122364/
Thanks and you're welcome but you points still are not facts. They are mostly opinion.
======
Wenn ist das Nunstück git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput!
Thanks and you're welcome but you points still are not facts. They are mostly opinion.
And,sadly, from the reviews "Legend of Tarzan" seems to have done no better at capturing the appeal of a fun pulp adventure story,though it's mistakes were different.
shareIt appears most critics were upset by a white man daring to be involved with the continent of Africa.
😱
My wife wanted to see it (Skarsguard shirtless!!!!) so we did.
It's watchable, nothing more. The color palette is the worst thing about the movie, followed by the fact that Skarsguard didn't really have any depth as the character. I don't know whose fault that was.
It was okay for sitting in an air conditioned theater on a hot Sunday in East Texas, but not good for much else.
Thanks and you're welcome but you points still are not facts. They are mostly opinion.
Aduh, did you not read what I later said on the same post: "the first point is a matter of opinion, of course, but it is a fact that the majority of people like or love the movie -- including me -- which is reflected by the current rating on IMDb."
Yes as you say it's an opinion but, "The majority of people like it" is also not a fact. It's a claim and one that can neither be proven nor disproven unless you poll every single person in the world or at the very least in the US. Therefore it can be summarily dismissed as a useless statement.
I encourage you to read posts fully before airing hollow criticism.
2. It made nigh $300 million at the box office, which only less than 1% of releases make.
I don't know where you get your figures from but Box office Mojo has its total worldwide earnings as $284,139,100. close but no cigar.
the-numbers.com Has it listed at 406th for all time highest grossing films worldwide.
Result- without numbers from a reliable and verifiable source, NOT a fact.
3. It's been a hit on DVD, Blu-Ray and other formats.
How about some numbers to back this up? Otherwise it's just another empty claim.
Result- Same as above, NOT a fact.
4. It has a hardcore and growing worldwide audience of admirers & fans.
while 5 & 6 are obvious imminent facts,