So ... did you watch it in 3D?

The last movie I saw in 3D was Thor (I think) and I kinda regretted that. I felt as though it detracted from the movie, to be honest.

I'd be willing to watch this in 3D if it's a good idea, though.

FAX

I did watch it in 3D. We were on a time crunch and made the one o'clock show, so no choice on the 3D. I saw some occasional blurriness but I wear Rx glasses for near sightedness and didn't wear them because of the 3D glasses. The story actually lends itself to wide open spaces and lots of stuff flying around so the 3D wasn't intrusive. And the glasses were made like over sized Ray Charles sunglasses. I guess the kids at our High School have been wearing them around as a goofy new trend.

Ah ... thanks, Mr. listopencil.

So, basically, what I'm hearing (or reading, actually) is that it's okay in 3D?

I've seen several 3D movies that simply weren't all that great, to be honest ... Alice comes to mind ... and the 3D in Thor was very distracting and pointless. Avatar, on the other hand, was good. I have this theory that, if the director doesn't shoot with 3D in mind throughout the production, the result can suck. It's like an IMAX film that wasn't shot in IMAX.

To be effective, they need scenes with lots of depth-of-field, for example. Not just shots of falling objects and car parts and birds and things flying toward your face. In my opinion, when they shoot with lots of depth-of-field and/or engaging, active backgrounds, 3D is actually very interesting and can contribute to the story telling. If they don't ... well ...

FAX

Saw it, loved it. We paid for 3d, but the movie was not in 3d so all of us got free passes.

Loved the dialogue actually, it was generic, but funny. Like the slap to the back of the head. JC did well other then flexing in awkward situations while talking and trying to be John Wayne..

I have no interest in the movie really, but is the book worth a read? I know its really old. Does it hold up well?

It's a period piece. Definitely a different style of writing than you would find today. The phrasing and word choices are distinctly not modern. I enjoy it myself. I recommend that you download the e-book for free, "A Princess Of Mars". Give it a shot.

ROFL Great opening weekend.

?

I met my four kids in a nearby town Saturday. We were commemorating something so it had to be that day. I took them all to lunch but the older ones couldn't make the movie with us. The only movie I considered other than John Carter was The Lorax. Kind of funny that they were #1 and #2 this weekend with a big drop off afterwards:

http://boxofficemojo.com/weekend/chart/

The theater was FULL of little Lorax fans, by the way.

30 mil

If I remember right, the last projected opening numbers were around $25 million, and some people thought that was generous, so it exceeded expectations. Be interesting to see what the drop-off is next week.

Heh, it's funny, 30 mil is a lot of money and probably one of the biggest openings of the year so far. But because the movie cost so much to make, it's viewed as a flop. That's still quite a few tickets sold. There was a time when 30 mil would have been blockbuster status. Another interesting stat I saw was that a large percentage of ticket buyers were older or over 40. I guess the premise didnt appeal much to younger audiences.

There's no way the movie gets even close to making its money back. If it tops $100M I'd be surprised but not shocked, but I doubt it goes over $120M total. All things considered, though, given how badly the movie was thought of (I get the feeling the studio just finally facepalmed and threw it out there), I think they'd be pleased if it made $70M.

Overseas money is a big factor now in Hollywood.
Posted via Mobile Device

.

Does a movie company account for future DVD sales and rentals when predicting what a film will do in its lifetime, or is it strictly numbers from the theater? I ask because this looks like one of thos emovies that could potentially do well with in home rentals and such.

They really dropped the ball with the marketing on it, starting right from the beginning leaving mars out of the title. Why would anybody who doesn't know what it is go to a movie called "John Carter". Just the name sounds boring. Which is why if it did skew older, I'm not all that surprised. You're not going to draw in teenagers with something that seems vanilla, whether the movie itself actually is or not. Still, it was not nearly as soft an opening as I expected. The question now will be the drop over the next few weeks. That all depends on word-of-mouth. In the end, though, I'd also be surprised to see over 100m domestic, too. Which might cover their panicked marketing blitz from the last month or so.

Disney's in a bit of a tailspin right now at the theaters.

That's no theory. It's pretty near fact. Conversions are bad, even the expensive ones done by Disney for Alice and John Carter. I pay the premium only for content created at a premium like Avatar and Hugo (live action 3d in them, shot in 3d.)

So i finally saw this today. My overall thoughts are it was good, but nothing great. The story and characters just fell sort of flat for me. I liked the action, and thought it was pretty well made overall, it just was missing something. Whatever something is.


Id give it a B. Not even close to Avatar or Dances with Wolves.

just saw this the other day. pretty good. I can't say it was great but its definitely worth the price of admission and the price of a 8 dollar soft drink with a 12 dollar bag of popcorn. And I ate about $20 worth of high powered weed so that helped.

actually... $50 seems a bit high. the trailers showed off all of the worthwhile effects anyway. I don't regret seeing it but it could have been so much more. Still, it was 100's times more entertaining than the Conan movie that came out last year.

i'd give it 6/10

I'd agree. I don't think it was great, and I'm not even sure it was good. But it was enjoyable. Likewise, when I think of the sword-and-sorcery of my youth (Krull, Beastmaster, etc.,.), none of it was good but it was enjoyable. :)

I think the plot/writing could've used a little work, to get us more involved in Carter's character. There were some hints tossed (he doesn't believe in war, his wife was obviously killed while he was out fighting, etc.,.) but they could've gone into it in a little more depth. Also, since none of the leads were "name" actors, it was probably a little harder for the viewing audience to get into them (despite how much I'd like to get into Lynn Collins). And, while the effects may have been costly, some of them still looked a bit cheesy. Honestly, the film gets extra credit for being what it is (the ERB story that started it all). If it were "just a fantasy film" I'd give it a 6/10, but because of where it came from it gets bumped to a 7.5/10.

yea, it did remind me of all the cheesy stuff i used to enjoy as a kid....Buck Rodgers, Flash Gordon, etc.....

They probably could have sped it up more....there were a few scenes of expository dialouge that just dragged the thing down.......But i loved the action and adventure. It was old fashioned which i liked. None of the modern day quick cutting, slow mo, sped up camera work that gets annoying.

Disney announced today they expect to LOSE $200 million on the movie, placing it among the worst busts of all time.

So, probably no sequel. :(

Jesus, how old are you?

just turned 83

Ya think?

Poor, star-crossed Riggins.

They are losing a shit ton of $$ on this thing. Guess the whole section of the population that never heard of this was bigger than they thought.

Saw it, it was okay. I enjoyed it but it was not particularly special or anything.

I guess I don't really understand how it could have cost $250 million to make. That's what did them in.

I wondered that as well?? It didnt look anymore expensive than your typical summer CGI blockbuster.

Its not a bad film, it certainly doesnt deserve all the negativity its gotten, but i guess thats what happens when something expensive flops.

It is what it is: a fairly entertaining cheesy sword-and-loincloth film that happens to be the original of the genre. It's already made $180M worldwide in 3 weeks; it's not the film's fault it cost so much to make.

Watching it now. I've heard that it's bad and know it lost upwards of $200 million. It's one of the main reasons that Disney bought Lucasfilm.

Also, I have a new personal interest. Something about the trailer they showing on Starz.

:D

You made this post 9 minutes ago.

I can only assume you've turned it off by now.

LMAO

It's still on because I had to pause for a beer and a shot of whiskey.

:D

Tim Riggins should retire

Its not outstanding, but neither is it as bad as the media would have you believe.

It wasn't a bad movie. It wasn't great, either.

But it served one purpose - it exposed another generation of young readers to ERB.

My daughter saw this movie with me after I begged her. "I read all the books when I was your age! It's a Disney movie, too!"

Immediately after seeing the film, she started downloading books to her Kindle. She's read 5 or 6 of them in total now and wants to read more.

I fell asleep shortly after I turned it back on. It wasn't bad but I've got a bit of a cold and I'm worn down from sleep training a 3 month old.

I'll watch it again, for sure. The scenes with Bryan Cranston were somewhat amusing and it's too bad there weren't more.

It was a decent movie for what it is. I was just expecting some entertainment and that's what it provided. Nothing more but also nothing less.

So, I finally got through the entire movie last night. What a freaking mess.

First off, there are like FIVE antagonists in the film:

1. The people who murdered John Carter's family
2. The Union Calvery
3. The Tharks
4. The Thern
5. The Zogdangan

It's just TOO much to follow in such a short period of time. The Thern were especially ridiculous. Immortals who help species to destroy their own worlds as sport? Matai Shang specifically states they don't actually get involved, yet in later scenes, he's extremely involved, directing and guiding Sab Than.

The film would have played much better if Carter was a Union soldier in Arizona that stumbled upon the gold mine and medallion. No unnecessary backstory about his family's murder or being a Confederate, etc. The Thern were absolutely unnecessary, as was the subplot between Tars Tarkas and Tal Hajus, where it was really unnecessary to see the latter beheaded.

Visually, the film was amazing. The Tharks looked extremely real as did the airships (loved the retro design). But the subplots only made the story more convoluted and when the final scene requires a voice-over, you know you're watching a bad movie with problems. It's really a shame because there's a good movie in there somewhere, had the right people produced and edited it.

And finally, Michael Giacchino's score completely underwhelming. So many cues sounded like LOST cues re-purposed. There was no central theme, no theme for Carter or the Tharks or the citizens of Helium (another poor choice - helium? Come on). It was just music for music's sake and didn't enhance the scenes.

I have to give this film 1.5 stars out of 5 and that's only because of Taylor Kitsch and the CGI team.

So I was supposed to know who John Carter was before this movie?

The big problem wasn't that those people and plots were unnecessary, it's that there wasn't enough time to develop them. So in the end, they seemed superfluous.

The Lord of the Rings trilogy was the epitome of this.

This 3-hour movie actually took place over the course of 3 books. They shouldn't have tried to cram it all into one motion picture.

:D

Me, my 8 year old, and my 6 year old all got bored in the first 30 minutes and found ourselves with Legos.

My 8-year old got bored as well.

My 10-year old immediately started downloading the books. She actually isn't as fond of the movie now as she was, primarily because of how much better the books are.

Wish I had seen this in the theater.
 

I just watched this movie, and I actually enjoyed it. I didn't see it in the theater because I just didn't think Kitsch could pull off the starring role in a big budget movie.

But I thought he did well. This movie took me back to when I was a kid with Star Wars and Indiana Jones. According to Box Office Mojo it made almost $283,000,000.00 worldwide.

And Lynn Collins is pretty hot.

easily one of the worst films of the past 10 years. I have absolutely no clue what the Disney studio exes were thinking when they greenlighted this shit. And the budget was well over 200 million too! So glad it bombed.

Not even close.

Ha, I'm not sure what you were expecting. But you must not have seen a lot of movies if you think John Carter was one of the worst films of the past 10 years. I thought it was fine for what it was, and I enjoyed it. There are loads of much worse movies out there in the last decade. Loads.

Easily one of the dumbest and worst films of the past 10 years and I've seen TONS of films since I'm a big film buff.

The story, acting and direction were AWFUL.

What was so good about John Carter? Honestly there wasnt one thing that was redeeming about it. Even the cgi was iffy at best

You're quite the addition to the forum. Your takes are unparalleled.

worst films I've seen since 2003 in no particular order

Crash
John Carter
Battleship
Clash of the Titans
Spiderman 3
Gangster Squad
Bad Boys 2
Transformers
Indiana Jones 4 (probably the worst)
Revenge of the Sith

I'm not counting all the Eddie Murphy, Jack Black, Martin Lawerence or Adam Sandler films. Those are films you know what you're getting into which is why I boycott them

I've watched this film several times since my initial scathing review and I've really enjoyed it. The biggest issue was that there were so many sub-plots to decipher, which was next to impossible with a single viewing. After watching the film as many as five time, I know see and understand the genius behind it.

Disney's biggest mistake with this film was marketing. They kept changing the title and rushing Andrew Stanton. What they should have done was to put together a 10 minute short film to explain the different cultures on Mars and how an "outsider" would affect their planet (or something along those lines) and run it before one of the Marvel film (along with releasing it online).

The bottom line for me is that it's just way too much information and back story for a single viewing.

Yeah, if you haven't read the books ( and I've only read through part of the first), it doesn't make as much sense.

They should have also kept the "Of Mars" part of the title (or kept the "Princess of Mars" title from the book).

I liked it. It's not nearly as bad as people made it out to be. I've noticed critics like to attack movies based on budgets a lot. It's like they get the knives out ready to attack whenever something with a big budget flops.
Posted via Mobile Device

It didn't lose money but it didn't earn any money.

I've spoken to several people that advised Disney to do something more with the trailers, with the title, with the overall marketing but they refused to listen.

Unfortunately, it happens.

Good God, I just watched the trailer linked in this thread for the first time.

:facepalm:

What a horrible choice in music, the edits, etc. Wow, just awful.

You apparently haven't seen Paranormal Activity 4.

I know. I enjoyed the series of books as a teen. I'm a fan of this type of science fiction and it was grueling for me personally to see how the film was handled. I feel as if somebody stumbled into a diamond mine, grabbed a small dirty bit of dust, crammed it into their asshole then wore it proudly around town for six weeks. Frustrating and disappointing.

I thought this movie was great. Of course, because of this forum I went in completely expecting it to be awful. I've seen it 3 times now and each time I catch something I didn't catch before.

calling it the worst movie of the last 10 years? This shouldn't even be on the list of the worst 50.

Disney lost the rights, so now there might be a sequel.


http://www.prweb.com/releases/2014/10/prweb12253636.htm


Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. announces that the movie, television and merchandise rights have reverted back to the company. Walt Disney Pictures held the rights and produced the movie JOHN CARTER in 2012. Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. will be seeking a new studio to continue this seminal Sci-Fi adventure.
“John Carter of Mars was the creative stimulus behind such movie classics as Superman, Star Wars and Avatar,” said James Sullos, President. “Edgar Rice Burroughs was the Master of Adventure and his literary works continue to enjoy a world-wide following. We will be seeking a new partner to help develop new adventures on film as chronicled in the eleven Mars novels Burroughs wrote. This adventure never stops. Along with a new TARZAN film in development by Warner Bros., we hope to have JOHN CARTER OF MARS become another major franchise to entertain world-wide audiences of all ages.”
About Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.
Founded in 1923 by Edgar Rice Burroughs himself, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc. holds numerous trademarks and the rights to all literary works of the author still protected by copyright. The company has overseen every adaptation of his literary works in publishing, film, television, theatrical stage productions, licensing and merchandising. The company is still a very active enterprise and manages and licenses the vast archive of Mr. Burroughs' literary works, fictional characters and corresponding artworks that have grown for over a century. The company continues to be owned by the Burroughs family and remains headquartered in Tarzana, California, the town named after the Tarzana Ranch Mr. Burroughs purchased there in 1918 which led to the town's future development. For more information, please visit EdgarRiceBurroughs.com.

Good news. There is such a wealth of storytelling in those books. I'd love to see the series done well.
<script status="whitelisted" id="yarip-default-script" type="text/javascript">var yarip = { $: function(xpath) { var arr = []; var xr = document.evaluate(xpath, document, null, XPathResult.ORDERED_NODE_SNAPSHOT_TYPE, null); if (xr) for (var i = 0; i < xr.snapshotLength; i++) { var e = xr.snapshotItem(i); if (e && (e.nodeType !== 1 || !/^yarip-/.test(e.id))) { arr.push(e); } } return arr; }, run: function(fun, xpath) { var arr = this.$(xpath); if (arr.length > 0) fun.call(this, arr); } }</script><script status="whitelisted" id="yarip-element-script_www-chiefsplanet-com_0" type="text/javascript">yarip.run(function (array) { for (var i = 0; i < array.length; i++) { var element = array[i]; console.debug("Found element:", element); } }, "/html/body/div/div[@class='page']/div/div[1]"); </script>

It just became obvious to me that the "Planet Hulk" storyline was a clear homage (or ripoff) of the John Carter series...

Was just on TNT so I finally saw it. Now I'm sad it's all we got. What horrendous marketing.

So you're saying it wasn't bad? I'm not sure I understand what you are getting at.

I thought it was a very good, if not great, film.

Terrible marketing, bad title.

I thought it was good. And the victim of some of the worst marketing I've ever seen. Start with just calling it "John Carter" (yeah, that'll grab people's attention) and then move on to the trailers.

It wasn't great, but it could've been the start of something great.

It was supposed to be a trilogy and the last I heard (Memorial Day weekend of 2014), Andrew Stanton and Disney haven't completely shut the door on it yet but Stanton is busy preparing Finding Dory.

Posts a few above ours say Disney lost the rights in October.

Ah, thanks.

So did somebody else obtain the rights or is it just in limbo now.

FWIW, when the promo is shown on Starz/Encore, the underscore is me

I'll take your word for it since I will never hear it. heh

LMAO

Actually, it was pretty funny the first time I heard it. It was November 2012, the TV was down super low because I was feeding my three month old at the time. I was excited to see the movie, saw the trailer and heard what sounded like familiar music. I hit the record button on the remote and the longer the promo went on, I started to freak out. "Holy crap! That sounds like my cue but different! Did I rip someone off? Oh, please, no, I hope I didn't inadvertently rip someone off!".

Later that night, I replayed the recording and realized that I didn't rip anyone off - it was an alternate version of the cue with no percussion.

:D