John Carter

[Janx]

I took the day off and saw the movie with a friend. I was cautious, given the reviews and mixed discussions here.

We liked it.

More importantly, the kids behind us who couldn't shut up liked it. They were oohing and ahing and talking about what they were seeing the whole time.

My conclusion is, every opinion that doesn't agree with me, doesn't matter.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I enjoyed the movie.

In this case, I guess we're supposed to have a Tin Man who needs to find that some things (and people) are worth fighting for.

In Carter's case, he thought there were things worth fighting for - so he fought in the civil war. But when he returned, his wife and kid were dead. So he decided that he'd never fight for anyone else anymore.
He had to realize that this fight was not one of the fights for someone else, and more so, this time he had to fight to not lose someone, where the Civil war as a fight that cost him someone.

 

[Piratecat]

I enjoyed the movie. Not great, but good.

That was me as well. I'd give it a 7 out of 10. Ponderous in parts, fantastic in others, and lots of fun. I'm glad I went -- and not just because I got to see Dejah Thoris kick ass.

 

[TanisFrey]

To correct my earlier post. The original book was published in the Pulp magazine The All-Story in February 1912 to July 1912, compiled and published in hard cover 1917. See John Carter of Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It is still in the correct time frame to be have inspired the superman character of Action comics #1 published 1938.

 

[Nellisir]

I saw it today and agree; 7 out of 10 ain't bad. And this film had a serious marketing problem. I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't, couldn't, and wasn't billed as "John Carter OF MARS", which would have made it a bit clearer, and the trailers could have been utilized to set the stage far more than they did. Honestly, it was in the same ballgame as Thor, and possibly Captain America.

As far as Thern motivation, I might have been distracted, but I basically got "because we're older than this planet, and it amuses us", which really seems like all the reason you need when you measure lifespan by the number of planets you outlive.

Those are pretty much your three types of big action movies: the family thrill ride, the epic, and the slaughterhouse.

I think this is either overly simplistic, or you're just flat-out missing some categories. I don't see any of the major comic-book superhero movies falling into the categories you've labelled. (Spiderman, Iron Man, X-Men, etc, etc). There's a clear theme of self-sacrifice, overcoming personal loss, and redemption in all of them, and John Carter is squarely in the middle of that.

 

[Zelda Themelin]

I really liked the movie. It was funny, had action and get my interest up. Only negatives: Forced 3D, this happens almost all the time, and no option to watch 2D it relaly sucks. I hate 3D for almost all movies I've seen using it. Other negative is that I think marketing doesn't sell such a great movie enough, many people who would have liked it miss it and we don't have sequel. Damn it, I'd really wanted to have a sequel.

 

[Umbran]

It is still in the correct time frame to be have inspired the superman character of Action comics #1 published 1938.

While he didn't stick with us as well as Tarzan, he was big in his day. It is probably reasonable to say that John Carter of Mars inspired or informed pretty much all of sci-fi that was to follow for the next few decades.

And really, that should have been a big part of the marketing:

"Before Luke Skywalker...
Before Captain Kirk...
Before Superman...
There was.... John Carter of Mars!"

Of course, getting license to use the names of other characters in your advertising is not going to happen. But that's how it should have been sold anyway!

 

[TanisFrey]

While he didn't stick with us as well as Tarzan, he was big in his day. It is probably reasonable to say that John Carter of Mars inspired or informed pretty much all of sci-fi that was to follow for the next few decades.

And really, that should have been a big part of the marketing:

"Before Luke Skywalker...
Before Captain Kirk...
Before Superman...
There was.... John Carter of Mars!"

Of course, getting license to use the names of other characters in your advertising is not going to happen. But that's how it should have been sold anyway!

That might be allowed under fair use rules but I am no lawyer.

 

[Umbran]

That might be allowed under fair use rules but I am no lawyer.

I would expect all those to be covered not just by copyright, but trademark as well. I don't think "fair use" applies to trademarks.

 

[Mercutio01]

I would expect all those to be covered not just by copyright, but trademark as well. I don't think "fair use" applies to trademarks.

IANAL either, but when Pepsi commercials use Coca-Cola dress and trademarked items to put down Coke and sell Pepsi, I'm not entirely sure how that works.

Take the Pepsi Max commercials on the US tv around now (I saw one last night). The Coke Zero guy buys Pepsi Max, and there are definite uses of the Coca-Cola and Coke Zero trade dress.