John Carter of Mars

Edgar Rice Burroughs created this character in 1917 in his published book, A Princess Of Mars. This was the first of 11 novels featuring the character, and is science fiction in its early years.

Disney really goofed it up when they made the movie, "John Carter", and didn't even bother mentioning Mars in the title.

I'm really surprised this hasn't succeeded as an absolute blockbuster. From the artwork by Frank Frazetta to the dozens of comic book portrayals, it really lends itself to being an easy winner.

One thing that does intrigue me, is the manner in which the central character gets to Mars in the original book. He goes into a cave while fleeing Apache Indians, goes unconscious, and finds himself separated from his physical body - astral projecting. He then looks up at Mars and then finds himself on Mars. He has a number of adventures there, and then dies on Mars, and finds himself back in his body in the cave.

He goes into a cave while fleeing Apache Indians, goes unconscious, and finds himself separated from his physical body - astral projecting. He then looks up at Mars and then finds himself on Mars. He has a number of adventures there, and then dies on Mars, and finds himself back in his body in the cave.

deoxyribonucleic acid

When I watched the movie, I didn't think it was too bad. Entertaining enough but hardly worth the $200 million they spent on it

Then I saw 'Filmento' review it on YouTube and yeah, an in depth look at the movie and characters and the movie is indeed a poorly written POS

Do not go and watch that guys cinematic failure episodes of movies you liked. You'll never see them with the same blissful ignorance again

Yeah, I thought it was a typo when I saw the movie trailer the first time.

"Uh guys, you forgot the 'of Mars' part of the title.  Guys?"

Movie was forgettable.  Books are fine entertainment and worth reading even if dated, but not really blockbuster movie material.

Quote from: Smoke Machine on November 02, 2020, 02:34:07 PM

He goes into a cave while fleeing Apache Indians, goes unconscious, and finds himself separated from his physical body - astral projecting. He then looks up at Mars and then finds himself on Mars. He has a number of adventures there, and then dies on Mars, and finds himself back in his body in the cave.

deoxyribonucleic acid

Lysergic acid diethylamide

Yeah, I thought it was a typo when I saw the movie trailer the first time.

"Uh guys, you forgot the 'of Mars' part of the title.  Guys?"

Movie was forgettable.  Books are fine entertainment and worth reading even if dated, but not really blockbuster movie material.

I find it interesting in the original books, the author left it to the readers' imaginations as to whether John Carter's adventures on Mars happened physically from teleportation, or in some dreamscape from astral projection, or on some other ethereal plane of existence on Mars.

In book two, the Gods of Mars, he literally wills himself from Earth back to Mars using a combination of prayer and extreme mental effort.

So, the original books featured a mystical element to his transportation to Mars and even the actual adventures.

The movie had some enjoyable moments, like the casting choice of the princess, but I agree it isn't that great. If done properly, drawing closely on the source material, it would have been awesome.

Quote from: JJA on November 02, 2020, 04:03:25 PM

Yeah, I thought it was a typo when I saw the movie trailer the first time.

"Uh guys, you forgot the 'of Mars' part of the title.  Guys?"

Movie was forgettable.  Books are fine entertainment and worth reading even if dated, but not really blockbuster movie material.

I find it interesting in the original books, the author left it to the readers' imaginations as to whether John Carter's adventures on Mars happened physically from teleportation, or in some dreamscape from astral projection, or on some other ethereal plane of existence on Mars.

In book two, the Gods of Mars, he literally wills himself from Earth back to Mars using a combination of prayer and extreme mental effort.

So, the original books featured a mystical element to his transportation to Mars and even the actual adventures.

The movie had some enjoyable moments, like the casting choice of the princess, but I agree it isn't that great. If done properly, drawing closely on the source material, it would have been awesome.

I've never read the books and caught a little bit of the movie. Is it one of those things like V for Vendetta or Dune where it's in the "un-filmable" category by Hollywood due to complexity of story, etc? (Though I know both have been made into movies and curious to see how the new Dune fairs)

I've never read the books and caught a little bit of the movie.

I have read the first few books, but I'm not entirely convinced that the film makers did.

Is it one of those things like V for Vendetta or Dune where it's in the "un-filmable" category by Hollywood due to complexity of story, etc? (Though I know both have been made into movies and curious to see how the new Dune fairs)

I don't know if I'd put it in the un-filmable category, but I suppose that it depends on how much of a purist you want to be.  I think that it boils down to 3 choices: faithful to the source material as written; faithful to the spirit of the source material but updated for the modern audience; don't give a crap about being faithful and just want to make money off of the name.  Sadly, it seems that Hollywood chooses option 3 all too often.

They put a crap backstory to John Carter in the movie, of him having his family slaughtered during a war he was fighting. Totally unnecessary and generic with all these modern retelling of comic book characters.

John Carter is such a generic ominous title. You spend over $200 million making a movie, give it a title that peaks a bit of interest!

Simply adding 'of Mars' would have made it far more interesting.

The movie itself is forgettable, predictable, cookie cutter Hollywood plot and poorly scripted

It's not terrible for a brainless once only watch popcorn flick. It's just mind boggling what it cost them for what you get

It irritates me that with all the rich paintings Frank Frazetta and other famous artists did, to portray these characters and the landscape of Mars on book covers and illustrations inside, over 100 years, this is the movie we got.

Skinny four-arm aliens that resemble jar jar binks from that terrible star wars movie, picturesque views of the Nevada dessert with zero attempt to make it more red and alien, a protagonist with so much baggage weighing him down you wonder how he can jump so high, and a clunky story full of awful directional choices.

The money went into all the cgi, instead of other areas of greater importance.