Jump to content

Sign up for a free account!

Signing up for an account is fast and free. As a member you can join in the conversation, enter contests to win things like this Logitech Harmony Ultimate Remote and you won't get the popup ads that guests get. Click here to create your free account.

- - - - -

JOHN CARTER (Trailer )

  • You cannot start a new topic
  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 of 65 SWFF



  • 1,830 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 14 2010
  • Real Name:Shawn Francis
  • LocationUSA

Posted July 14 2011 - 05:43 AM

Looks like he finally gets his ass to Mars.

#2 of 65 Quentin



  • 2,469 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 04 2002
  • Real Name:Quentin H
  • LocationLos Angeles

Posted July 16 2011 - 05:12 AM

Looks like it has great potential. I'm curious...the "inter mundos" door and the shot of Carter sketching a picture of Dejah infer this could be a stand alone movie and not the beginning of a franchise? I got a "Somewhere in Time" vibe. That doesn't sound like Disney...

#3 of 65 Brandon Conway

Brandon Conway


  • 7,060 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 30 2002
  • Real Name:Brandon Conway
  • LocationNorth Hollywood, CA

Posted July 16 2011 - 06:21 AM

Looks fun, if a bit cheesy. Andrew Stanton being the director gives it even more promise.

"And now the reprimand, from an American critic. He reproaches me for using film as a sacred & lasting medium, like a painting or a book. He does not believe that filmmaking is an inferior art, but he believes, and quite rightly, that a reel goes quickly, that the public are looking above all for relaxation, that film is fragile and that it is pretentious to express the power of one's soul by such ephemeral and delicate means, that Charlie Chaplin's or Buster Keaton's first films can only be seen on very rare and badly spoiled prints. I add that the cinema is making daily progress and that eventually films that we consider marvelous today will soon be forgotten because of new dimensions & colour. This is true. But for 4 weeks this film [The Blood of a Poet] has been shown to audiences that have been so attentive, so eager & so warm, that I wonder after all there is not an anonymous public who are looking for more than relaxation in the cinema." - Jean Cocteau, 1932

#4 of 65 Edwin-S



  • 5,556 posts
  • Join Date: Aug 20 2000

Posted July 16 2011 - 06:33 AM

What's he trying to do? Make an art film out of a series of pulp novels? The music selected for the trailer and the gravitas of the voice at the end make it sound like he is making some kind of pretentious drama. Hilarious.
"You bring a horse for me?" "Looks like......looks like we're shy of one horse." "No.......You brought two too many."

#5 of 65 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,032 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted July 16 2011 - 07:28 AM

Reminds me of a lot of the syndicated action adventure series we got in the nineties on weekend afternoons.

#6 of 65 Woola



  • 1 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 14 2011

Posted November 14 2011 - 02:52 AM

Simply put, it means "Between Worlds". In the novel, the crypt was a kind of safe gateway that Carter would use to travel (inexplicably) between Earth and Barsoom (Mars). It is locked from the inside.

#7 of 65 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,644 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted November 25 2011 - 09:52 AM

The books are great fun and this looks like a surprisingly straight adaptation. I'm really looking forward to it.

My wallet cries me to sleep!
This post kills threads!

#8 of 65 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted March 10 2012 - 02:17 AM

For anyone who's gotten a whiff of the trailer, it's no mystery that earthman "John Carter" somehow shows up on Mars, with extraordinary physical abilities (the most obvious one is the ability to jump high, very high and far, and land without hurting himself too much due to the lower gravity on Mars, similar to Hulk's jumping abilities), as a movie, it does a lot of the technical stuff well, showing us 3 different sets of Martians, with 2 sets of humanoids at war for a long time, and the taller, green-skinned 4-armed Tharks, who pretty much stay on the sidelines. John Carter, himself scarred by the conflicts his military service entailed in the mid-1800s, wants no part of this Martian war, and appears to be emotionally bottled up at the start of his Martian adventures. There's a lot of material to cover in this film, but the script causes the film to sputter in the middle, and the motivations of the various characters are threadbare, and not quite involving. I'd say the film over-reached on the politics of Mars, and the plot developments don't quite unravel in a natural manner, which lends to itself to a lazy meandering energy level in terms of intensity of the stakes involved for Carter (I blame this lazy tone on the direction of Andrew Stanton), and the 2 humanoid factions at war with one another. Due to the initial reddish white balance of the Martian atmosphere at the start of Carter's arrival on Mars, it's not quite all that pleasing to the eye, but there is a lot to stare at, as far as the Martian terrain goes, as well as the cities, the set designs, the technology designs, so I can't say it's really boring, just that the film never finds a groove to settle in. With much of the film's Martian terrain scenes shot on location (not in a studio with green screens), the film oddly has a hazy nondescript, unfocased look to it, rendering it less interesting than I had thought it would look. Taylor Kitsch's casting as John Carter might have been a mis-step, he simply doesn't quite have disarming charm at his disposal as an actor, and comes across far too one-note for most of the film (the reluctant warrior, always looking to avoid physical conflict, but never quite managing to escape them), and has a difficult time raising his game as an actor, but it was like the director was afraid for push Kitsch, so his acting was average. I think it limited director Stanton's choices for camera angles, as he rarely pushed in on actors to rev up the emotional components that propelled the plotlines. Lynn Collins as Dejah Thoris was actually okay for me, I wasn't thrilled with her casting (plus it being a Disney film, I knew her wardrobe would be much more modest than the source material previously alluded to for her character), but she won me over for the most part, even with an accent that moved around from scene to scene. The 3D is pretty much a non-factor in this film, I put the credit/blame at Stanton's feet, so if you want to save a few $$$$, go for the 2D showing. I give it 2.5 stars, or a grade of C+.
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#9 of 65 cajunhillbilly



  • 1,722 posts
  • Join Date: Mar 24 2008

Posted March 10 2012 - 07:52 AM

I disagree. I thought the movie was great. It is exactly what I pictured Barsoom to be. Except for no nudity (in the novels I believe everyone was naked), I have no complaints. I thought the Tharks looked great, the 8 legged "horse" (can't remeber what Burroughs called those) were realistic and Iat the end it is left open for a seguel.

#10 of 65 mattCR


    Lead Actor

  • 9,996 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 05 2005
  • Real Name:Matt
  • LocationOverland Park, KS

Posted March 10 2012 - 08:15 AM

It's complete waste to see this in 3D.   Saw with my son in 3D.. don't do it.  I'm betting dollars to donuts it's a better film standard; the tint and scenes felt muted and not as comic-book bright as they should be, thanks in part to the shades.


Ask Me about HTPC! (Threads in HTPC / PMs always responded to)

This signature is povided by MediaBrowser 3 Trakt Plugin: Media Browser 3

#11 of 65 cineMANIAC



  • 1,799 posts
  • Join Date: Oct 03 2008

Posted March 10 2012 - 08:56 AM

The studios aren't going to persuade me to watch this film by showing me a trailer that looks more like a Pixar cartoon than a live-action film. I don't blame them for wanting to make movies that look like cartoons, as it seems they're the only ones making tons of money these days but it's getting harder and harder for me to make an effort to go to the movies anymore with this stuff. It's as if the only demographic that matters to them are middle-class 11 to 18-year-olds.


#12 of 65 RobertR


    Lead Actor

  • 9,418 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 19 1998

Posted March 10 2012 - 09:07 AM

I'll watch this because I read ERB last summer, and I want to see John Carter on-screen.

#13 of 65 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,644 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted March 11 2012 - 04:56 AM

Having read the first three volumes, I loved this one. Very true to the source material (mostly), the effects were great, the story well told. No complaints from me. The best ERB adaptation since Tarzan and His Mate.

My wallet cries me to sleep!
This post kills threads!

#14 of 65 Bryan^H



  • 2,571 posts
  • Join Date: Jul 03 2005

Posted March 11 2012 - 08:00 AM

Having read the first three volumes, I loved this one. Very true to the source material (mostly), the effects were great, the story well told. No complaints from me. The best ERB adaptation since Tarzan and His Mate.

Thanks man. I was kind of on the fence about this, but think I'm going to see it now. 2-D of course!

housekeeping 2.jpg

"She always does that, she just wanders away"




#15 of 65 EricW



  • 2,309 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 01 2001

Posted March 11 2012 - 03:24 PM

i'm surprised none of the trailers showed the pre-Mars John Carter (from what i recall he was a civil war soldier?).  the moment he gets warped would be a pretty good WTF trailer moment.  but i can only assume that the marketing department did not want to make anyone this could be anything close to cowboys vs aliens?

"now, if that's a fact, tell me... am i lying?"

#16 of 65 Al_S


    Second Unit

  • 452 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 30 2000

Posted March 12 2012 - 05:37 AM

I saw the 3D IMAX version and thought it was ok but not great. Some of the movie looked blurry to me. Maybe it was just me turning my head. I give it 2 stars because it was somewhat boring in some spots. The princess looked hot in some parts and then looked a lot older in others. I guess just different days of shooting. The dialog was off to me in some spots. Like the lead actor going for a laugh which lasted for half a second before getting serious again. It just seemed kind of weird to me.

#17 of 65 Patrick Sun

Patrick Sun

    Studio Mogul

  • 37,616 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 30 1999

Posted March 12 2012 - 06:44 AM

Here's a recut trailer (made from all the various commercial spots) that's much more coherent as to what to expect from the movie:
"Jee-sus, it's like Iwo Jima out there" - Roger Sterling on "Mad Men"
Patcave | 2006 Films | 2007 Films | Flickr | Comic-Con 2012 | Dragon*Con 2012

#18 of 65 JeffO


    Stunt Coordinator

  • 143 posts
  • Join Date: Jan 16 2006

Posted March 12 2012 - 09:51 AM

My review: First, I need to say that I've been a fan of these John Carter books for over 20 years, so the director had a ready made fan - if done well, but also he had the chance for creating a strong critic. I'll refer to the actors by their character names, because I don't remember all the actors' names. I saw the movie twice in normal 2D, so can't comment on the 3D conversion. Pros: The acting ranged from good to much better than that (with one exception noted later). Dejah Thoris was excellent - completely believable as a strong woman and daughter first, scientist second, warrior third. In the books, I pictured her a little younger, but the actress captured the role. John Carter portrayed a stranger on a strange planet well, especially the physical aspects. He demonstrated character intelligence along with physical prowess. Kantos Kan stood out in a small role. The voicing of the Tharks (the green Martians) was filled with believable emotions. John Carter and Dejah Thoris' romance was completely believable. The sparks between them were intense, smoldering even. They were in love. The special effects were noteworthy. While I put this relatively low in importance to long term interest of a film (I've no interest in plenty of great special effects movies from the past if they were only special effects movies), the special effects were 100% immersive. The Tharks were part of the movie, not an obvious CGI tack on. Barsoom was unique in its look. I especially loved the wheel controls on the flyers, beautiful. Unlike any other futuristic looks I've seen. Sort of a futuristic images a reader in 1912 could conceive. There were many small details that created the world. Woola (the Martian dog) was loyal and fierce, and lovable - just like in the books. ***For readers of the books, many other small things were included, such as laying the hands on the right shoulders (the Martian handshake). The one scene of John Carter surrounded by a literal pile of enemy bodies is right out of the book. Cons: The pacing dragged a bit at times. A little too wordy in the middle of the movie. Editing out two or three minutes would have helped. Another action scene of two or three minutes instead would have been better. There were plenty in the books. The dialogue was a bit unbalanced. Much of the dialogue seemed appropriate for a 1868 Earthman on another planet, which I appreciated. Unfortunately a few sentences here and there sounded as a modern person would say them, jarring with the remainder of the dialogue. Matai Shang, the chief antagonist, was too flat. His emotions and reasoning did not come across well. When he was on screen, I wasn’t entertained. ***For readers of the books, there were unnecessary plot changes. Some fit or were okay (John Carter’s past life, Tars Tarkas’ family), but the largest error was making Matai Shang and the Therns the kind of villains they became. Powers behind the scene, fine, but the director went too far off course. The Zoganda/Helium and intra-Thark conflicts were enough. I’ve noticed many people positively commenting on the movie score. I’m the kind of person who rarely notices a score, concentrating on the visuals, story, and dialogue primarily. The score didn’t stand out one way or the other to me, so I can’t comment. Excluding my knowledge of the books, as a stand-alone movie, I give John Carter an A- rating. I’ll definitely be buying the DVD for my collection. I loved the world Andrew Stanton and the actors created. Considering the book, I’d drop the rating down to a B+, due to unnecessary plot changes which overly complicated the story, most especially Matai Shang. Unfortunately the opening weekend take makes it look as if we won’t be getting a sequel. This movie created world needs a sequel. As an aside, upon my recommendation, my parents went to see John Carter. I was told my mother, who hadn’t read the books, gave the movie an A- rating, while my father, who had given me the books, was thinking a B/B-, primarily due to plot changes.
TV DVDs wanted: TJ Hooker (seasons 3-5), The Fall Guy (Seasons 2-5), Scarecrow and Mrs. King, Father Dowling Mysteries, Queen of Swords, Smurfs, and Charlemagne (1994 TV miniseries)

#19 of 65 Russell G

Russell G

    Fake Shemp

  • 9,644 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 20 2002
  • Real Name:Russell
  • LocationDeadmonton

Posted March 12 2012 - 10:20 AM

Nice review JeffO, and I agree pretty much completely with your pros and cons. I remember reading an interview with Stanton and he mentioned needing a clear cut villain in movie for people to identify with. I'd disagree having seen the film. the world was interesting enough as is, though I do like the guy who played Shang.

It's funny about some of the character changes. I understand why the film makers did them. What's "funny" is some critics are saying the characters are one note and lack depth. Compared to the source material they have epic depths in the movie!

anyways, I liked it, even though I had to see it in 3D due to no 2D showings in my town and not being able to literally see 3D with my one eye. People have mentioned the 3D looking weird. This was the first 3D film I've seen where it didn't play like a flat film with sun glasses. I have no lens on my left eye and just see a blurry mass of colours and shapes out of it. With he current 3D, I get no depth at all, but the film does "register" so that I see, as I said, a dark tinted 2D movie. This one though would split up whenever the camera panned around in the frame. If people with stereoscopic vision are noting a weird break up, I wonder if the 3D process went bunk on this?

My main nit pick with the film is they should of cut the first 5 minutes. It was completely unnecessary and I'm sure as people see the film they will know what I mean.It struck me as a studio choice as opposed to a story telling choice, Stanton should know better and has shown better in his other films. Everything else I can live with, and in fact really enjoyed. I'd give it a 4/5.

My wallet cries me to sleep!
This post kills threads!

#20 of 65 dfergie



  • 11 posts
  • Join Date: Jun 19 2007

Posted March 13 2012 - 08:28 AM

I saw this Friday at a Real3D theater, quite enjoyable, the 3D had no popout moments but wasn't that bad... 4 out of 5 from me also (and I read the books in the 70's) ...

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users