John Carter of Mars

[Kramodlog]

First, not everyone has read John Carter of Mars, so it will be new to them.

I didn't read it and, as I said, the film wasn't new to me.

Hell, some probably won't be aware the movie was based on a book.

People are dumb, nothing new there.

Second, not every altered retelling is a thing of beauty.

True, but when the original is bad, at least try to improve it.

Third, simply put, some people DO want to see the original source material adapted for TV, stage or film, especially if done right. (Whether this movie was done right is an open question.)

Well they weren't enough to prevent the film from being a flop.

 

[Kramodlog]

I don't wall myself off from reading anything just because of the genre.

It is not because of the genre, but because there is very little innovations in it. How many times can I read the story of a farmer who becomes a hero or a badass character saving the world with magic and gets the girl or the quest for the macguffin that is really important?

I'm not assuming anything. You said "I do not read anything that has the fantasy or sci-fi label on it".

And later I just mention fantasy, writing sci-fi was an error. I stay away from fantasy cause, like I said, it just repeats the same old tropes. There are exceptions, of course.

If that's someone's game, sure. Doesn't really float my boat. But it's a positive rationale, rather than a negative one.

And?

You're in here with us. And just because I disagree with some of your thoughts doesn't mean I find you particularly crazy, insane, nuts, or out-there. Or even slightly.

So use "the word you'd use".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I didn't read it and, as I said, the film wasn't new to me.

(Edit)
True, but when the original is bad, at least try to improve it.

How can you say the original is bad if you haven't read it?

Well they weren't enough to prevent the film from being a flop.

Quite a few reasons for that, including but not limited to:

1) the film was poorly marketed & promoted. If nothing else, if you're producing an adaptation of a classic, make sure the prospective audience knows you're producing an adaptation of a classic.

2) the movie was probably given too big a budget, given the casting and the source material.

3) no movie does well without expanding its appeal beyond its projected core audience

4) there is, as I said, an open question as to whether this movie was a good adaptation of the source material

5) the director was new to the live-action format, and there were multiple behind-the-scenes personnel changes in the marketing and production staff at the highest levels. That's often a kiss of death for a movie.

People are dumb, nothing new there.

There is a vast difference between stupidity and a lack of exposure to factual information.

 

[CreativeMage]

Perfect, isn't it? Simple mechanics anyone can learn in a few minutes, master in a session, quick, down&dirty results, and allows for on-the-fly reworking if the players go off on a weird tangent. And if the GM needs to improvise, it is easy to throw in a new, unprepared fight to get the PCs back on track.

Exactly. And the adventure format we use, in order to support that kind of improvisational flexibility, is drawn on Technoir. I think it will be a good fit.

 

[Kramodlog]

How can you say the original is bad if you haven't read it?

People telling me the film is a lot like the book.

Critiques and reviews of the books that I looked up cause I was curious to know if it was worth reading. The poor quality of the work seems to be the concensus. It has historical appeal if you want to know how it influence other works, but not much else. At least for an adult with who read a few books in his life. A kid might enjoy it. I know I enjoyed some D&D novels when I was a kid. Sorak, you could trash Drizzt any day of the week!

Thank god that phase is over.

Quite a few reasons for that, including but not limited to:

1) the film was poorly marketed & promoted. If nothing else, if you're producing an adaptation of a classic, make sure the prospective audience knows you're producing an adaptation of a classic.

It had a huge promotion campaign. Lots of money invested in it. As for saying it is based off a classic, I'm not sure that motivates large shares of movie goers. The Lone Ranger is a classic character and the film bombed. It was also a bad film. A strange coincidence.

2) the movie was probably given too big a budget, given the casting and the source material.

It did get a huge budget. Apparently, at Disney they did not want to say no to the director who also directed stuff like Wall-E and Finding Nemo, and was a writer on films like Toy Story and Monster Inc. Basically, they didn't want to piss him off so he got all that he wanted to make the film.

But does too much money=a bad film? It seems that a film on another planet with aliens and high-tech needs lots of cash to not look cheap.

3) no movie does well without expanding its appeal beyond its projected core audience

You don't say.

4) there is, as I said, an open question as to whether this movie was a good adaptation of the source material

There is that, but you know, if you start with bad source material or material that aged badly...

5) the director was new to the live-action format, and there were multiple behind-the-scenes personnel changes in the marketing and production staff at the highest levels. That's often a kiss of death for a movie.

It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film.

There is a vast difference between stupidity and a lack of exposure to factual information.

It was part of the promotion campaign. If people didn't get it or remember it, at some point I question their intelligence.

 

[sabrinathecat]

It doesn't mean it is good and deserves a movie.

No, it means that you recognize it and understand the significance of the concept, and the value of it within the art. I think the book deserves a good movie adaptation. The important word being "Good". One that is honest and faithful to the source material. All of it. In this regard, the existing movie failed.

Disney has no problem with firing people for expressing ideas (like the founder of Pixar), why should they worry about firing one director, or telling him he's wrong. They have all the $$$. They can do what they want. Disney Corp is a giant monster within the industry: nearly a monolith. No one is going to stand up to them and say "no" or not be willing to work for them if they tease with a job offer and some $.

It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film.

At this point, I have to ask: Are you deliberately baiting?
The sentence clearly says that it was the CHANGES OF STAFF in both Marketing (pfft) and PRODUCTION that were to blame, not the marketing campaign. (Granted, the marketing (what little I saw of it) did not do a good job--$$$/=quality)

All fantasy novels are about farmers going on quests to rescue princesses with their magical mcguffin powers? And you say you've read some of the 80s/90s D&D books? Are you sure? Those two statements show that one view or the other is not correct. And the Fantasy genre has evolved since the 1930s. (Hollywood doesn't really understand the fantasy genre, but that's another matter.)

So again, are you deliberately baiting?

 

[Nellisir]

So use "the word you'd use".

No. I like EN World because I've been on the internet for a long, long time, and it's nice to come here and be civilized and respectful. Even battered old warships enjoy a quiet harbor.

Back on topic....
CreativeMage, to answer your question....I wouldn't worry about the film. I don't think the film's lack of appeal is going to carry over to your game, unless you explicitly tie the two together.

Hrm. I just read the blurb on the Indiegogo site. Honestly, while I like a lot of what you say, I'd be a lot more interested if it read as a setting, not a rules system. There are lots and lots of RPG systems. The setting is your real hook. Don't be bound by your sources, particularly if you're drawing from the non-canon ones. Go beyond that, make something new, add your own little bits in. The worst thing it could be is a collection of weird places and strange beasties. Everything should knit together into a cohesive whole.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

People telling me the film is a lot like the book.

Not good enough. At best, you're aping the opinions of others who may or may no have actually read the book. (Which, IMHO, was deservedly a classic of its genre.)

It had a huge promotion campaign. Lots of money invested in it. As for saying it is based off a classic, I'm not sure that motivates large shares of movie goers. The Lone Ranger is a classic character and the film bombed. It was also a bad film. A strange coincidence.

Throwing a lot of money at a promotions campaign does not make it a good promotions campaign.

As for letting people know its a classic, at the very least, it informs people up-front that's they are not going to be watching something derivative.

It did get a huge budget. Apparently, at Disney they did not want to say no to the director who also directed stuff like Wall-E and Finding Nemo, and was a writer on films like Toy Story and Monster Inc. Basically, they didn't want to piss him off so he got all that he wanted to make the film.

Which is not necessarily the best plan.

Power, of any kind, is pointless if it is not properly controlled. And just because someone has success in one arena doesn't mean it will necessarily translate into success in another similar area.

Even the best writer, director or producer needs someone to tell him if somthing isn't working, even if it's just the editor or a beancounter. Sometimes, an expenditure request must be met with a firm "No."

And original animated kiddie films are very different from live-action adaptations of classic pulp Sci-fantasy. You don't handle he actors he same way, at the very least.

But does too much money=a bad film? It seems that a film on another planet with aliens and high-tech needs lots of cash to not look cheap.

No. There is no direct correlation between movie quality and the money spent making it.

And that goes for each and every detail of he process. Just because you spend a bunch of money on the CGI doesn't mean you're getting CGI. (And the CGI quality was one of the knocks on this film.)

There is that, but you know, if you start with bad source material or material that aged badly...

IMHO, the source material is pretty good. Perhaps you should read it.

It is cute to blame marketing for a bad film.

I'm not. I'm saying that a bad marketing campaign can kill a film regardless of its quality.

It was part of the promotion campaign. If people didn't get it or remember it, at some point I question their intelligence.

Not in these releases for TV & Theater:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Rf55GTEZ_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edwLjEB-rAY

Oh wait, here it is the online only trailer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WR6HUkzxjR0

Assuming that your audience will get important info that is only released in a part of your ad campaign is idiotic. That the part of your campaign in question was online only just compounds the issue.

The Internet IS a powerful marketing tool, and audiences are increasingly web-savvy, but ASSUMING that level of sophistication is a marketing misstep.

(Personally, I rarely look online for anything beyond a movie's casting, and almost NEVER look at online trailers.)

Hell's bells- they didn't even use obvious options like "...of Mars", or "Edgar Rice Borroughs'..." as part of the title.

 

[Nellisir]

Hell's bells- they didn't even use obvious options like "...of Mars", or "Edgar Rice Borroughs'..." as part of the title.

Yah. This is what blows my mind. What is it about "John Carter" that they thought would be interesting, engaging, and helpful in identifying the film? The Lone Ranger, that works. Tarzan, Conan, Sherlock...these are identifiable, recognized names that essentially carry a brand with them. John Carter is none of that. It's like the third choice for what gets written on a bodybag, after they've already used John Doe and John Smith. The whole hook of the title was "...of Mars". That's what grabbed your attention. It's not a movie about some guy; it's a movie about some guy ON MARS.

I liked that Dejah Thoris wasn't a simpering maiden in the film. That was a very welcome change from the original material.

 

[Kramodlog]

No. I like EN World because I've been on the internet for a long, long time, and it's nice to come here and be civilized and respectful. Even battered old warships enjoy a quiet harbor.

I'm an adult. I can take it.