John Carter

[Mallus]

Villains don't need motivation or explanation, becuase evil is just evil and needs to be killed--what more do we need to know to enjoy an adorable CGI space-dog?

We see the chief Thern, Matai Shang, manipulating the chief Zodangan, Sab Than, throughout the entire film.

Shang was also considerate enough to explain himself to John Carter, at some length and while demonstrating his fancy shape-shifting abilities, in Zodanga.

So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure.

The evil, planet-hopping, chaos-eating thing isn't from the original. It's from the film. That's the gist of what Shang tells Carter in the scene I mentioned above. Popcorn break?

If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.

FYI... in the books the Therns are just a race of degenerate Martians who murder religious pilgrims and take their stuff, so they can lead lives of decadent evil comfort in a spacious mountain lair.

Yes, their motivation is "kill things and take their stuff". In the context, it's fine -- though I personally prefer the new film's take.

 

[Felon]

I think there were a lot of marketing problems, foremost among them "not enough marketing." There've been more ads for that Eddie Murphy movie than John Carter, at least where I live.

I think this is one of those movies that has a big identity problem.

It's not really a light-hearted thrill ride in the vein of "Raiders" or "Pirates". You're not laughing constantly at lovable, quirky characters right before gasping as they go over a waterfall or narrowly avoid being swallowed by a giant monster.

It's not a dramatic epic in the vein "Gladiator" or "Braveheart" either.

Nor is it a blood-soaked, hyper-violent, killing-floor flick like "300".

Those are pretty much your three types of big action movies: the family thrill ride, the epic, and the slaughterhouse. John Carter dips a toe here and there, but doesn't commit to any. You get an adorable CGI dog, which is typically included to play to younger audiences, but does that really happen here? Does the movie ever really driver home a major theme, be it "love" or "freedom" or "family"?

 

[Desdichado]

I don't go shell out cash for a movie with plans not to enjoy myself. I doubt that many other people do so either. Rather, they have standards and the movie simply doesn't meet them. That is all fairly self-evident, which leads me to the unfortunate conclusion that you're trolling for criticism to which you can reply with comments that are far snarkier than anything I said.

No, actually I just find your comments very curious in that Matai Shang's motivation is both shown on screen throughout the entire movie, and he even gave John Carter the "evil villain monologue" at one point. Your claim that it was incoherent and inscrutible is probably best explained by you either falling asleep during at least the villain monologue scene and not paying much attention during the rest of the movie, or having gotten too big a drink and needing to take a bathroom break halfway through or something.

It's just bizarre.

You wish to praise the movie's lack of coherence by saying "they didn't dumb things down", and imply that it must have just gone over my head. Well, that's pretty disingenuous.

No, I just disagree that it's incoherent, especially in the way that you claim, that the villains have inscrutible motivations and agendas. Either you're being disingenious and you haven't actually seen this movie, or you weren't paying attention. Or you accidentally went to a showing in a language you don't speak or something.

I'm really not trying to troll you here, I just don't know how in the world you can say that the villains were "inscrutible" when the movie went to rather blatant pains to make them not so.

This is not what you call a subtle, thinking man's film by any stretch of the imagination. Lack of exposition is not a sign that the creative team had immense respect for their audience. Rather, it's a movie about lively action set-pieces with a guy blatantly jumping around on wire while fighting CGI monsters, and that is the essence of dumbed-down entertainment. Villains don't need motivation or explanation, becuase evil is just evil and needs to be killed--what more do we need to know? Brother, this movie may succeed in those respects--because it has more than its share of spectacles--but it is about as dumbed-down as you can get without tossing in an adorable CGI dog...oh wait, they did that.

See, now you're just getting snarky again. Plus, you've ascribed to me a claim I didn't make. All I'm claiming is that the villains weren't inscrutible and the plot wasn't incoherent.

So far, the only answer I've gotten regarding the Therns is from Mercutio, which is that they "appear to be evil immortals that feed on chaos and destruction". Now, that's from a fan who read the books, and he's not too sure. If that's what constitutes "clearly spelled-out" in your book, then we've simply got a big difference in standards.

The fact that you still can't--despite I thought fairly clear demarcation in this thread already--tell the difference between what was claimed to be in the books and what was claimed to be original to the movie is, if anything, further evidence that the "inscrutibleness" and "incoherence" of your experience with this movie had very little to do with the movie itself.

 

[Felon]

We see the chief Thern, Matai Shang, manipulating the chief Zodangan, Sab Than, throughout the entire film.

Shang was also considerate enough to explain himself to John Carter, at some length and while demonstrating his fancy shape-shifting abilities, in Zodanga.

I didn't take much in the way of specifics from that other than that "The Ninth Ray is much better than rays one through eight, so we don't intend to let anyone else have it". What isn't explained is the need to work through a patsy (a rather uner-utilized character himself) rather than simply unleash the full force of thier superior technology.

In general, adventure movies today really don't play up their villains enough. A lot of films just don't bother to give you a good scene that showcases how fully monstrouse they are. Darth Vader blows up a planet, and that pretty well sets the tone for him. But I go to a movie like Captain America or Green Lantern or John Carter, and there's not much of a sense of menace.

It's a separate issue from motivation, but villains also need a scene where they "make a statement"--particularly if they're not going to have a motivation beyond being evil.

 

[Desdichado]

I didn't take much in the way of specifics from that other than that "The Ninth Ray is much better than rays one through eight, so we don't intend to let anyone else have it". What isn't explained is the need to work through a patsy (a rather uner-utilized character himself) rather than simply unleash the full force of thier superior technology.

He specifically said that they don't cause planets to die, they just "manage" the change. Sure, he didn't explain why they prefer to do that. But that doesn't make the villains inscrutible. After all, clearly they were set up with a hoped for sequel. Matai Shang Strikes Back or something. More exposition there would not have helpd this movie, and lack of it didn't make it incoherent.

Besides, I think it was pretty strongly hinted at when Carter points out that eternal doesn't equal immortal--after all, Carter shot and killed a thern guy at the beginning. The therns prefer the puppet-master role because it's safer.

In general, adventure movies today really don't play up their villains enough. A lot of films just don't bother to give you a good scene how fully monstrouse they are. Darth Vader blows up a planet, and that pretty well sets the tone for him. But I go to a movie like Captain America or Green Lantern or John Carter, and there's not much of a sense of menace.

Well, that I can agree with.

Although--technically--Tarkin blew up a planet. Vader just choked a guy.

 

[Umbran]

First off - Felon and Hobo, please stop making this so personal. It's a movie, an entertainment, and does not merit you guys getting ugly over it.

That said...

I saw the film yesterday, and quite enjoyed it.

For those who say it was incoherent, or that it would be hard for someone who hadn't read the books to follow - I've read "Princess of Mars", but my wife has not. She had absolutely no problem following what was going on, and enjoyed the movie as much as I. I don't know about you, but we weren't confused at all by what was going on, nor had any problem figuring out the various character motivations.

You get an adorable CGI dog, which is typically included to play to younger audiences

Woola is directly from the original text - down to it being so ugly it's cute. So if anyone included it to play to younger audiences, it was Burroughs.

Does the movie ever really driver home a major theme, be it "love" or "freedom" or "family"?

Does it have to?

 

[Scotley]

I saw it yesterday and quite enjoyed it. I have read the books. I wasn't thrilled with the boost magical power the bad guys got, but I guess the vague astral projection kind of explanation for traveling to Barsoom in the books wouldn't play as well with a modern audience. An effort was made to tie the story and the menace to Earth. I thought the weakest point in the movie was Carter himself. The books have a first person narration and you get into Carter's head and he's a pretty interesting dude with an emotional and philosophical range that is totally lost in the movie. His sensibilities are clearly from another time.

 

[Felon]

For those who say it was incoherent, or that it would be hard for someone who hadn't read the books to follow - I've read "Princess of Mars", but my wife has not. She had absolutely no problem following what was going on, and enjoyed the movie as much as I. I don't know about you, but we weren't confused at all by what was going on, nor had any problem figuring out the various character motivations.

There's nothign confusing or hard to follow about a guy beating up giant white CGI apes. Note that there's a big difference deciding that the villain's motivations don't matter--because they're villains, after all, and villains like to conquer and kill--and stating that their nature and origins are clear, which they aren't.

To get to the heart of the matter, while I see lots of posts by you and others insisting clarity, if you actually get into what we get from Shang, it's pretty nebulous who they are, why they do what they do, and why they go about it so obliquely. Even in Hobo's refutation, there's a tacit admission that broad strokes are all you get.

Woola is directly from the original text - down to it being so ugly it's cute. So if anyone included it to play to younger audiences, it was Burroughs.

You're talking around the point I was trying to make. I think it's safe to say Burroughs was not involved with creative decision-making processes as far the film goes. And it's equally safe to say that this film does not represent the painstaking devotion to recreating the source material that we seen in films like "Watchmen" or "Sin City". Now, the movie takes liberties with Burroughs' material, including, excluding, and adding whole cloth as they deem fit. There was a decision to include Woola. What deos that decision speak to? I figure it was a stab at pandering to kiddies, but you tell me.

Does it have to?

You're isolating one line from an entire post questioning what audience the movie plays to, and what audience the movie should have been marketed towards.

 

[Relique du Madde]

Felon seriously YOU ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT THE SOURCE MATERIAL!

The "Great White Apes" the "cgi alien dog" and the "green skin giant aliens" "villainous plots that revolve around I stab you you stab them we all stab each other" WERE ALL CANNON.

The real problem with the movie is that they removed Thark politics from the plot and focused only on the big action scenes. About 60% of the book spent was spent with the Tharks with on Sokoja and then Tal Hajus* as being the villians. The Zodanga only came into play towards the end of the book and were really "grey" villains since the only crimes they committed were being at war with Hellium, raiding Thark hatcheries, and having a prince who was about to marry the woman the main character was madly in love with.

Seriously the additions of the Thern and placing the marriage plot into the forefront of the story really helped it and gave it structure beyond "what is John Carter, Sola, and Dejah Thoris going to this month? Read and find out!"


* Sokoja hated John Carter and Sola and based her efforts on making their lives horrible. Tal Hajus basically was the big bad of the Tharks who Tars Tarkas was afraid of facing (he killed Tarka's wife) and tried to rape Deja, but only appeared in several chapters. The movie version of him was a agglomeration of all Sokoja's henchmen.

 

[Radiating Gnome]

I saw it over the weekend WITHOUT benefit of having read the books (shameful, I know).

I expected it to be terrible -- it had all the signs -- but I came out with rousing sense of "Hey, that wasn't awful". So, not quite Pirates of the Caribbean (the first one) good, but not quite Phantom Menace bad, either.

I think Kitsch could have been a lot better, but he wasn't terrible. I imagine it's a huge challenge to act with such a heavily CGI cast, and he certainly did it better than MacGregor did in PM.

-rg