175 replies to this topic

[John Mosby]

The retitling was specifically done because girls won't go to see John Carter of Mars and boys won't go to see A Princess of Mars, in both cases because they don't know what the movie is really about. A sequel won't suffer that perceived branding problem, so would probably be titled something like John Carter: Warlord of Mars.

The poster has an almost bare-chested guy looking broody. There are plenty of pictures of an exotic-looking beautiful warrior princess kicking ass.

Trust me, I work in marketing and I'm pretty sure both markets are catered for, image-wise - thus making the removal of the words that clarify the genre all the more baffling. It presumes that people still go to the movies and take pot-luck in the foyer without knowing anything about the movies available - which no-one I know can afford to do.

And if you think girls won't go and see sci-fi, you need to check your local movie-theatre more closely!

[jamon g]

it would have been heaps cooler if it was an old slightly overweight grey haired guy with glasses that goes to mars to save the planet which is the average demographic of a doctor!

[Mike]

it would have been heaps cooler if it was an old slightly overweight grey haired guy with glasses that goes to mars to save the planet which is the average demographic of a doctor!

I object to this stereotype.

[jamon g]

but i was talking about you!

[David Chapman]

And if you think girls won't go and see sci-fi, you need to check your local movie-theatre more closely!

I'm not the one thinking it.

[Rory Abel]

I really hope the film is better than this implies because currently having watched it I now have no interest in seeing the movie.

[Steve Sensible]

I kind of enjoyed that. Would have been nice to get a little Barsoom montage at the end, but I guess we've seen plenty of that stuff in the trailers.

[John Mosby]

That's really part of the early-bookending of the film. Think of it as before Dorothy goes over the rainbow.

[jamon g]

that's actually more interesting than the other trailers. my wife would have let me see it if the trailer was just like that, without the jar jar aliens.
anyway i thought he was a doctor?

[Steve Sensible]

A positive review over at Bleeding Cool.

Albeit one apparently written by a 12-year-old, judging by the writing style.

[brucegray666]

Sitting at 73% at Rotten Tomatoes after 15 reviews... http://www.rottentom.../m/john_carter/

A positive review over at Bleeding Cool.

Albeit one apparently written by a 12-year-old, judging by the writing style.

Heh, the guy likes paragraph breaks, doesn't he!

[Johnny Henning]

I really hope the film is better than this implies because currently having watched it I now have no interest in seeing the movie.

That is a bit of an odd scene to choose, isn't it? Oddly, it sorta reminds me of live action Disney movies from the 70's like Escape To Witch Mountain and 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea. Not entirely bad, though.

I sorta hope John Carter defies expectations and does well since maybe that will bring us a step closer to a HUGO DANNER movie.

[Markisan]

I'm torn on this because it looks like this film won't be very good, but I hope it's at least fun.

______________________________


The most fun you'll ever have listening to dudes talk about comics.

Edited by Markisan, 06 March 2012 - 05:48 AM.

[steveuk]

[steveuk]

Ok, seen it.

I'm sorry to say it's no better than 90% of big, popcorn films.

GOOD POINTS:
The cast - good actors, they all step up and put their shoulders to the wheel. The fact that they're not always working with great scenes is unfortunate.
The Tharks - their expressive faces are fine in context and they're animated with a real sense of physicality.
Mars - big and detailed, some really lovely locations and sets enlarged beautifully by the VFX.
Humour - some bits are really funny. On purpose.

BAD POINTS:
Humour - some bits are really funny by accident, and some of the funny on purpose bits don't fit.
Tone - it's really po-faced, almost to the point of parody at times.
Plot - it's really simple at heart but overloaded with extra details. As a result things happen that should really have more dramatic content, but they don't.

It sort of works sporadically. Supporting characters come and go, then one will pop to the surface and threaten to steal the movie, before being sidelined again.

This isn't 'Avatar'. It's not simple or emotionally manipulative enough (not successfully anyway) to get near to Cameron's film.

I'm glad I saw it, but it's just another film.

EDIT:
The 3D added nothing. Again. It was kind of irritating. Again.

[Marc Diamond]

Shame. (And apologies...I've been incredibly stupidly busy of late so not many posts.)

I was looking forward to something that wasn't a remake and something that, in this day in age, is quite a brave move. I'll go and see it, but I get the uncomfortable feeling that 'yes, its all a bit of an unfortunate mistake it cost so much' and 'no, one person saying something negative in the focus group shouldn't be given so much credence.'

Its the same with everything these days. CLEVER, INSIGHTFUL opinions and ideas can help...but EVERY idea and opinion will kill it.

[Johnny Henning]

EDIT:
The 3D added nothing. Again. It was kind of irritating. Again.

3D now is a discouraging element to movies which is too bad since AVATAR rocked my world in the theater. Really, I only tolerate it if the film is all CGI and there is no 2D option available nearby.

[Ogul]

3D now is a discouraging element to movies which is too bad since AVATAR rocked my world in the theater. Really, I only tolerate it if the film is all CGI and there is no 2D option available nearby.

I think we're still in the infancy of 3D. We had one director that really went for it, that really put in the work needed to make a solid 3D movie, and then a lot of people tried to jump on the bandwagon, many of them late in their production cycles. Over the next few years we'll see at least a few more movies that put some genuine heart into it, and then, since I doubt the industry will let 3D die off, we'll start to see people copying those people effectively enough that the results will be at the very least worthwhile. It's the Matrix all over again.

[Johnny Henning]

I think we're still in the infancy of 3D. We had one director that really went for it, that really put in the work needed to make a solid 3D movie, and then a lot of people tried to jump on the bandwagon, many of them late in their production cycles. Over the next few years we'll see at least a few more movies that put some genuine heart into it, and then, since I doubt the industry will let 3D die off, we'll start to see people copying those people effectively enough that the results will be at the very least worthwhile. It's the Matrix all over again.

Really, I think we are seeing the death throes of actual theatrical cinema as we live and breathe. I agree totally I'd love to see a new wave of film that rejuvenated or changed the game for theaters, but the theaters themselves don't want to invest the capital in the equipment and quality experience. My major problem with 3D has rarely been the conversion or anything the studios or filmmakers were responsible for. Instead, the theaters projected it at too low light levels or not properly calibrated so I got the full effect instead of a fuzzy dreamlike image.

[steveuk]

Really, I think we are seeing the death throes of actual theatrical cinema as we live and breathe. I agree totally I'd love to see a new wave of film that rejuvenated or changed the game for theaters, but the theaters themselves don't want to invest the capital in the equipment and quality experience. My major problem with 3D has rarely been the conversion or anything the studios or filmmakers were responsible for. Instead, the theaters projected it at too low light levels or not properly calibrated so I got the full effect instead of a fuzzy dreamlike image.

That's something that is a widespread problem. I think quality control in many cinemas is shockingly lax.

As it happens, this screening was in a brand new cinema screen in North London. Both the cinema manager and Tom Hiddleston (who was there to introduce 'The Avengers' trailer) made jokes about it. The room smelled like a new car; fresh plastic and glue etc.

The screen was very big (about half an Imax) and the projector was the latest model.

The 3D still wasn't great.

Disney spent a whole year and a great deal of money on the conversion from 2D and there were no real failures (bits in the wrong place) but it had that faint strobing effect, the "space" in a lot of scenes felt either too shallow or too deep and it did seem to be a touch too dark.

The best 3D I've seen so far is still 'Avatar'. It was as close to perfect, technically, as I can imagine but...

It didn't add much to the film for me.

I think cinemas have to reinvest again, but better seating, bigger screens and more frequent maintainance of the sound systems and projectors will all do them a lot more good than 3D.

As will a lick of paint on some of the older multiplexes. Some of them are really getting shabby now. Cinemas should have a bit more polish.