John Carter

[FickleGM]

I enjoyed the movie. Not great, but good.

Also, I'm not the fan of the material that some folk are, as I've only read A Princess of Mars (and even then, only once, years ago). I will say that the decision to leave out Woola would have been akin to leaving out the likes of Chewie, Merry & Pippin, or the like. It wasn't as vital as John Carter or Dejah Thoris, but it was certainly more important than having Steven Tyler's daughter rescue Frodo.

Now, how they protrayed the cuddly mutt would have been where the pandering may have taken place, in my mind, but I believe that portrayed it fairly accurately (once again, considering my fuzzy memory).

It's okay if you didn't like it, though, Felon.

 

[Felon]

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.

I think my response to Umbran pretty well sums up my thoughts on the issue of canocity. If you're doing a painstaking recreation, then stuff is included for the sake of inclusion. If you're heavily pruning and rewriting, then obviously saying something was in the original source material isn't adequate explanation for why it's in the movie. Everything that's included is included because it ultimately serviced a need.

Having said that, I don't recall saying I didn't like the great white ape fight or the CGI dog. The action scenes and CGI were pretty good. I think you're skimming a bit if you're categorizing all of that as complaints. About the harshest thing I said was that the movie was a mess. Well, I also said there were people walking out and a guy dozing off behind me, but that's really more of an observation than an opinion.

 

[fanboy2000]

Character arc inversion

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.

I gotta say I agree with you. It's weird that they removed the most complex part of the plot only to replace it with something else in the name of making it more complex. By having Tars Tarkas be Jedakk of the Tharks from the beginning, they inverted his character arc and, I think, lost something in the process.

FWIW, in the book...

[sblock]...Tars Tarkas starts out as a Jed (i.e., a lieutenant, sort of) of the Tharks and towards the end of the book John Carter manages to goad the Jedakk into fighting Tars Tarkas. This results in Tars Tarkas becoming Jedakk and having the power to pledge the Tharks to helping John Carter. This is a more satisfying conclusing to Tars Tarkas (and Sola's) story imo.[/sblock]

 

[Umbran]

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.

I was responding to the movie being difficult to follow, or the motivations of characters being "inscrutable". The nature and origins of the villains is tangent to having a basic grasp on their motivations, and was not part of what I was addressing. So, I didn't speak to it.

I don't think their nature and origins *should* be clear, at this time. I don't hold to the idea that, at the end of the movie, all questions should be answered. Powers forfend they should leave me with a few things I need to (*gasp!*) think about! Doubly so for a film that hopes for a sequel (well, I hope for it anyway), and a movie derived from a serialized, pulp source. The genre strongly encourages leaving the audience with some questions for next time.

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".

No argument there.

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.

Ah. You see, there's a middle ground between being slavishly loyal and all things that are included are so for specific modern reasons. It's called "trying to be generally faithful". In this mode, it is the *changes* that are what you have to justify, rather than the things you keep. Did they have a good reason to remove Woola? No? Then they try to do a good job of portraying the spirit of the character.

I'm sure kids will like Woola, but in the film, the creature plays roughly the same role as in the book - telegraphing the fact that John Carter, while maybe not perfect, is a basically good human being. It's a fairly standard trope - the love and loyalty of animals (and usually children) comes to those of good heart. So, while Carter is spending effort claiming that he's mercenary, and only after his cave of gold, Woola's loyalty tells us otherwise.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Yes, because I think that one line plays to a false premise - that a piece should play to only one audience, and the movie should be marketed to that one audience.

Burroughs' books, rather than following modern formulae, are some of the seminal works of other, older formulae. Does that mean that the modern marketing machines will have some problems with it? Likely so.

Personally, I get tired of so many movies fitting into the Big 3 formulae mentioned upthread. I find John Carter (and other films that play with other forms) to often be refreshing and attractive specifically because they don't fit neatly into the standard marketing scheme. It'd be nice if maybe the marketers would learn about something outside their standards, and work a little harder to sell them.

 

[Hand of Evil]

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.

I would have to re-read to books but from Wiki...

White Martians
Orovars -- The White Martians, known as 'Orovars' were rulers of Mars for 500,000 years, with an empire of sophisticated cities with advanced technology. They were white skinned, with blond or Auburn hair. They were once a seafaring race but when the oceans began to dry up, they began to cooperate with the Yellow and Black Martians to breed the Red Martians,[40] foreseeing the need for hardy stock to cope with the emerging harsher environment. They became decadent and 'overcivilized'. At the beginning of the series they are believed to be extinct, but three remaining populations, some original Orovars, Therns and Lotharians, are still living in secret and are discovered as the books progress.[7]

Lotharians -- The Lotharians are a remnant population of the original White Martians, which appear only in Thuvia, Maid of Mars. There are only 1000 of them remaining, all of them male. They are skilled in telepathy, able to project images that can kill, or provide sustenance. They live a reclusive existence in a remote area of Barsoom, debating philosophy amongst themselves.[41]

Therns - Descendants of the original White Martians who live in a complex of caves and passages in the cliffs above the Valley Dor. This is the destination of the River Iss, on whose currents most Martians eventually travel, on a pilgrimage seeking final paradise, once tired of life or reaching 1000 years of age. The valley is actually populated by monsters, overlooked by the Therns, who control these creatures, and ransack, and eat the flesh of those who perish, enslaving those who survive. They consider themselves a unique creation, different from other Martians. They maintain the false Martian religion through a network of collaborators and spies across the planet. They are themselves raided by the Black Martians. They are white skinned and bald but wear blond wigs.[42]

 

[Mercutio01]

To be clear, in the movie, the Therns were a sort world-destroying, chaos-eating, alien race that seem like a weird cross between the Marvel Comics villain Galactus and the Goa'uld from Stargate. I don't think their motivation is hard to determine. As for why they use cats-paws...think of it in terms of immortals who can only die through violent means. Would they want their presence known, with the possible resistance that would engender, particularly if people knew that their goals in life were to upset any kind of balance in life so that they could feed off the ensuing chaos until such time that the world has self-destructed forcing them to move on? Or would they hide and cause entropy through manipulation?

In the books they were corrupted religious heirophants that sowed tales of everlasting life through the River Iss when in fact they captured and killed the pilgrims or provided them as sacrifices to the Black Martians, the so-called First Ones.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Just went to see the film with my brother. Loved it. I've not read the books yet, but the plot was interesting and well paced (although some aspects of it would have been better if they had been more thoughtful with the trailers). I loved the design of everything on Barsoom, and the characterisation of the tharks was great.

Some of the long shots were particularly nicely done.

I saw it in 3D, but I have a suspicion that it was a 'post processing 3D'. I wouldn't have gone for the 3D version except it was the only convenient option available.

Cheers

 

[Mercutio01]

I wouldn't have gone for the 3D version except it was the only convenient option available.

Same thing happened to me. Regal, by any chance? The extra $3 a ticket was a bit of a drag, but the 7:30 showing time beat out the 11. I'm too old for that.

 

[frankthedm]

Enjoyed most of it. Carter's backstory was good, but some of the other early parts were kinda meh. Movie definitely picks up as thing go along.