Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 5849273" data-attributes="member: 177">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.No argument there.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.</blockquote>

Verification