Tuesday, August 2, 2016

Mars Attacks John Carter!




I'm not sure why the recent John Carter film was not a big hit.  I thought that it was a pretty enjoyable adventure with some fun action sequences and interesting character and set design.  Was it the direction, the leading man, or just unlucky cinematic timing? It's too bad, I would have liked to have seen some more installments in the franchise.

14 comments:

Cary Comic said...

Most movie-goers under the age of 25 probably think sci-fi didn't exist prior to 1977. So, they probably think JOHN CARTER was just a steampunk rip-off of same.

David Welsh said...

The first thing would be the title. "John Carter" sounds like a biopic. It should have said "of Mars" like all the books do. Bad choice on Disney's part.

Sonofjack Well said...

I've heard the title theory before, and I think there is a lot of merit to that. The title I would have chosen is "A Princess of Mars". Even still, I'm with you, Ross. I loved the movie. I've heard others in comic stores talk about how terrible it was, and I just don't get it. I thought it had all the elements for the start of a great science fiction/adventure franchise. In particular, I thought they cast the perfect actress to play Dejah Thoris. It's sad because I waited for decades for a John Carter movie, and now I doubt if there will be another for decades to come.

I like today's cover, but who is this woman John Cater calls his "true love"? It sure doesn't look like Dejah Thoris, and as all ERB fans know, she is John Carter's one and only true love....

Bob Greenwade said...

You refer, of course, to the 2012 film "John Carter" starring Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins. I personally preferred the 2009 film, "Princess of Mars," starring Antonio Sabato Jr. and Traci Lords (yes, that Traci Lords). The former film may have had better visuals and fancier special effects, but I found the introduction of plot elements from later in the series confusing (even though I didn't recognize them as such at the time). The earlier film -- one of the Asylum's "Mockbusters" -- held true to the plot of ERB's original novel, and made it work in a way that kept interest solid.

Anonymous said...

Another reason the 2012 film is so unjustly ridiculed is that a lot of people might have confused it with the b------ized version that Syfy Channel did as a weekly TV series, back around the turn of the Millenium!

As I (painfully) recall, the series was like a cross between STARGATE: SG-1 and the Sam Jones version of FLASH GORDON. But, with none of the child-like charm of the latter. And, definitely _without_ any of the sweat and brains put into the former. Especially, during the RDA years!

Richard Fuller said...

Boy, age is a give-away on descriptions of movies. I was a teenager when the 1980 Flash Gordon movie came out and I'd never describe it as having any child-like charm, nor was it described as such back then.
I've always felt movies at that time such as Flash Gordon (1980), the diabolical Lone Ranger film (1981), Tarzan of the Apes (1981) and Annie (1982) were all part of some strange idea in Hollywood that 'pulp' characters of sorts were now in demand to be revisited again, after the success of Superman, and comic book heroes were still regarded as horrendous (clinging to the backlash still on Adam West's Batman, hence why there was no Batman movie back then, tho one clearly had been proposed in comic book ads).
But as in each film, they were virtually camped up, played over the top or steered in a different direction (as into what we always wondered about them, Tarzan and Jane having sex in the jungle and what-have-you).

The early '70s Waldo Kitty cartoon, as well as a skit on the Carol Burnett show, seemed to imply figures such as Robin Hood, Prince Valiant, Lone Ranger, Batman, Tarzan and so on were what people were wanting to see then, like when we get hit with baby boomer nostalgia today.
Nevertheless, I enjoyed the John Carter movie of a few years back much more than I did the Flash Gordon movie of 1980.

Anonymous said...

I'm afraid Mr. Fuller is right, namesake. Besides which, that one-season wonder you described was actually a loose _adaptation_ of Flash Gordon (SG-1 plot lifts, and all)!

No wonder Sonofjack is so peeved with you. You're giving all us anonymice a bad name.

Ed said...

Great job! I love seeing the Mars Attacks guys. They crack me up!!

Sonofjack Well said...

Wait! Who am I peeved with?

Konsumterra said...

internal sabotage - dysney so big factions screw each other for best release dates - own marketing dept were adding to failure spin when it was doing better than most claimed in press

$284,139,100 world wide profit $250 000 000 cost

Bob Greenwade said...

It's looking like I may be the only reader here who didn't care for the 2012 version.

Simreeve said...

Bob Greenwade said...
"I personally preferred the 2009 film, "Princess of Mars," starring Antonio Sabato Jr. and Traci Lords (yes, that Traci Lords)."

Although it still wasn't quite true to the book with regard to traditional Martian costume...

^_^

Cary Comic said...

@Richard Fuller: to paraphrase Sean Connery in the conclusion of THE HUNT FOR RED OCTOBER?

"Sometimes, a little camping up every now and then is a healthy thing."

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

@Carycomic: couldn't have paraphrased it better, myself.

Support STF: The Lost Issues!