JOHN CARTER OF TRAILER

Well, that looks...bland I suppose.

But it features the long-awaited return of Delgo!

Yeah, a very underwhelming teaser.

Brings to mind Prince of Persia a little bit too much.... but I'm down. I had no idea the cast was that stacked, though. Good lord.

And if there's one movie that will make my father out-geekgasm me, this is it. 

Pretty underwhelming. The decidedly non-alien look of Mars kinds drains the inherent awe & fascination of the concept itself. I don't see this trailer giving anyone a reason to see this movie. Bummer.

I've been meaning to check out the books, and I will, but this looks weak thus far. The Thaarks or whatever the four armed, green-limbed aliens are, look terrible at this point. I want to like this so here's hoping it gets better.

I... I thought the entire film was motion-captured.  I'm so confused.

I can't help but feel they are trying to hide as much of the sci-fi stuff as possilbe in the early marketing. The only hint you even get that there is anything truly alien is the one  second shot of the Thark.

Also, how soon before the interents start screaming about how John Carter is ripping off Avatar?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mattioli 

I... I thought the entire film was motion-captured.  I'm so confused.

Same here.

Feels like a cross between Prince of Persia and The Lost World and Sherlock Holmes remakes.

Or does it?

Are they determined to market this film like shit right from the start?

Well, that was nonsense. They dropped the "of Mars". 

So basically this is "John Carter of Palm Springs with Bad CGI". 

I don't know, this teaser doesn't really sway me one way or another, I suppose. Kitsch looks good, but I'm sorry to say Collins looks a bit transvestiteish in some shots (surely the makeup departments error, with caking her face with red/orange makeup). Like the Peter Gabriel song, though.

you can polish a turd all you want....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

The conspiracy theorist in me can't help but think this marketing scheme (and title truncation) is because of post-GREEN LANTERN paranoia on Disney's part.

The title truncation really did seem like a reaction to the failure of Mars Needs Moms.  I wouldn't be surprised at all is the lackluster reaction to The Green Lantern was a factor in keeping John Carter's marketing vague on the spacey stuff and focusing more on the 'appealing' Avatary (read: generic) material.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Renn Brown 

Are they determined to market this film like shit right from the start?

They seem determined to hide from the public this is a pulpy science fiction film. It's actually bizarre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by seacup_79 

I can't help but feel they are trying to hide as much of the sci-fi stuff as possilbe in the early marketing. The only hint you even get that there is anything truly alien is the one  second shot of the Thark.

 

Also, how soon before the interents start screaming about how John Carter is ripping off Avatar?

Probably be the same idiots that claimed that Solomon Kane ripped off Van helsing and Vampire Hunter D.

I now understand why they changed the title.  John Carter of Mars brings to mind a huge four-armed warrior race, alien beasts and otherworldly terrain with massive planetoids hanging in the background.  John Carter brings to mind... this.  It just looks so generic.  Like, SyFy movie-of-the-week generic.

Finding Nemo is actually my favorite Pixar film, and while Wall-E doesn't completely work for me, it doesn't suffer for lack of imagination.  This, however, feels no where near as immersive as either of those films.  I'm not ready write the film off entirely, but this feels like a bad combination of a director still finding his live-action sea legs and a studio that wasn't prepared to make the kind of investment that a John Carter of Mars film requires.  

I do not get all the negativity about this.  'They seem determined to hide from the public this is a pulpy science fiction film?'  Really?  Because in the trailer I just watched there were several seconds of GIANT FUCKING SKY SHIPS, a four armed creature holding some sort of gun, and a herd of charging alien creatures.

You people are seriously crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fafhrd 

I do not get all the negativity about this.  'They seem determined to hide from the public this is a pulpy science fiction film?'  Really?  Because in the trailer I just watched there were several seconds of GIANT FUCKING SKY SHIPS, a four armed creature holding some sort of gun, and a herd of charging alien creatures.

..in what is apparently Utah.

Why can't Mars look like Utah? It's not like it looked like the *real* Mars in some of the various John Carter illustrations over the years. Color me still excited for this, even in light of the title shortening.

Joshua Miller, The Trailer to John Carter looks...Awe-Inspiring!  I...Love the look of the Tharks.  I cannot wait to see...John Carter...MARSch  9th 2012!

Just so everyone is clear: This is not Pixar. It's Disney. They are going to great lengths to let people know this in the press.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Art Decade 

..in what is apparently Utah.

 

As if everyone wouldn't be bitching had they gone full greenscreen for the 'locations.' 

I'll take shot on location and subtly modified in post (that first aerial shot of the rock:  covered in little windows and stuff).

A little color grading might have helped.  Unless different areas of Barsoom looks really different from each other and everything isn't just "movie red."

It's been a while since I've read Princess of Mars.  How was the planet described?

Once I heard this was coming out in March I figured it be bland garbage. Then they dropped the "of Mars" in the title and now they released this boring looking trailer. If this is good, I'll be surprised.

Yawn.

This is gonna let me down big time. Thanks for robbing ALL my enthusiasm for this particular property, Disney.

Man, I walked into the AICN thread.

I sort of think the vaguely outlandish Mars we see in the trailer is better than a the full-on excessive alien flora/faunafest that was Pandora. I do agree that the trailer itself is shit, since it gives no indication that the movie is set on Mars at all and the imagery would seem really nonsensical to someone with no knowledge of the property -- but it is just a teaser and I do think the footage itself looks good, and possibly even great. I don't get the negativity on this one.

And really, who cares about the title? As far as I'm concerned the shorter a title the better, especially in a blockbuster landscape dominated by movie titles that would be more effective as tongue-twisters.

Yeah, but it's not like John Carter of Mars is anything close to a tongue-twister.  It actually rolls off the tongue really well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by neoolong 

A little color grading might have helped.  Unless different areas of Barsoom looks really different from each other and everything isn't just "movie red."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Admittedly, I'm more familiar with the Frazetta imagery than the books but, as a moviegoer going in green, I'm looking at that & thinking "This is supposed to be Mars? The sky is BLUE, for Pete's sake!". It's absolutely fantastic that they used real locations that'll be extended with greensceen but without some sort of reddish tint, it just looks like Prince Of Persia 2.

Apparently, the film is a labour of love by it's creators so they've got the benefit of the doubt but, man alive, is that trailer underwhelming.

This sense of being underwhelmed by the trailer for the live-action debut of a Pixar director isn't new.  I actually felt the same way about the teaser for MI4.  It's actually kind of a relief.  Lots of trailers for bad movies have trailers that send expectations skyrocketing only to fail to deliver.  I'll just be naive and think of this as a good sign, since I'm very much looking forward to both films.

That would've been fun!

So...

has anyone heard from Kerry Conran recently?

Let's keep in mind the fact that they have another 8 months to tweek the film and finish the FX.  This is a teaser trailer, nothing more.  That said, I think they should have waited another month or two before showing us anything.................as most of what we see here are non-FX shots.  It is an underwhelming teaser, but they have plenty of time to "wow" us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by S.D. Bob Plissken 

Let's keep in mind the fact that they have another 8 months to tweek the film and finish the FX.  This is a teaser trailer, nothing more.  That said, I think they should have waited another month or two before showing us anything.................as most of what we see here are non-FX shots.  It is an underwhelming teaser, but they have plenty of time to "wow" us.

So what you're bringing to the table is..."time runs in a linear fashion"?

Astounding.

I'm just saying a bit of perspective is in order.  Some people are making it sound like the movie is coming out this fall and will have shitty FX.  Personally, if I were Stanton, I would have waited a little longer to release footage that was a bit higher in quality and showcased what is actually unique about the film.  I think they would have been better off just showing random images instead of trying to give us a trailer that gives a glimpse of the story almost nine months out from its release.  It's wrongheaded and smacks of WB showing footage from Green Lantern too early.

Jeez, 9 months of post is left? Hell, 9 months before it's release Alien 3 took place on Earth (sic)! I guess opinion on the final look of the film is moot then.

8 really.  This sucker doesn't hit screens until March 2012 and I'm sure they will be tweeking it up until the last possible second.

That looks nothing like I expected a John Carter Of Mars film to look like. Nothing at all. And it might seem presumptuous to judge just from this, it doesn't feel anything like it. It's either a pretty desperate bait and switch or the movie is going to be a disaster.

Huh... it's a March release?  I never took note of that.  I just assumed it would be a summer movie.

March is a great time to open it I think. 300 and The Matrix did very well in that month.

As for the Teaser well it could have been worse. A lot worse. I remain curious but certainly not sold at all on it at this point.

What a letdown. I like pulp and outlandish concepts and sci-fi and do love Stanton and think that Kitsch has something, but this looks like a major shit sandwich. A comparison to Prince of Persia is inevitable and that looked way better. Not great, but visually way more interesting, with a better chemistry between the leads.

I like that they've shot it on location and will hopefully do some environment enhancement in CG, but other than the odd quick shot, this looks like the untouched footage before any CG work has been done. Environment-wise, there's almost nothing here to indicate it takes place on another planet. But maybe that's Disney's goal. They dropped 'Mars' from the title and it looks like they're trying their best to hide that aspect in the trailer as well. I think the general public will just be really, really confused by this.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by stelios 

That looks nothing like I expected a John Carter Of Mars film to look like. Nothing at all. And it might seem presumptuous to judge just from this, it doesn't feel anything like it. It's either a pretty desperate bait and switch or the movie is going to be a disaster.

...and therein lies the issue when adapting literary works.

People have imagined their own versions based on the descriptions supplied by the authors and end up being disappointed when it doesn't match up..

IMO, having read all the Burroughs JCM books years ago, the Mars shown in the teaser does not look like what I had pictured it as....just as "the look" of  LoTR wasn't exactly as I had imagined it. (but pretty damn good, none the less)

I am also old enough to remember a time when there was no actual human technological presence on Mars, beaming back pictures...."those pics don't look like Mars....it just looks like Death Valley"

There's a difference in something not being exactly what you pictured in your mind, and something not being as it was described. LOTR looked pretty much as it was described, regardless of what you saw in your mind's eye. This looks very little like what the books described. It's clearly the work of someone who is too timid to embrace the pulpiness of the source material, and settling for Disney bland.

Here's what I don't get: why does it have to be pulpy? Not everything needs to look like Flash Gordon or Star Wars. I realize that the books were massively influential in terms of pulp science fiction, but why can't there be a different take on it visually? In all honesty, I like the dry, dusty look Mars has; it doesn't look bland at all to me. Nor does it look like Prince of Persia or Conan. Honestly, the wide shots of Mars remind me a little bit of the devastated Earth seen in Andrew Stanton's previous film (do I really have to name it?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Spider 

Here's what I don't get: why does it have to be pulpy?

Why? Because with this particular property, the pulp-iness is a very large part of why it works & is so fascinating. Does an adaptation of The Shadow require a noir texture? Not necessarily, but the character works best within that world & tone. The pulp-ness gives the world of JCoM an intriguingly bizarre, sexy, & serious character that otherwise would seem silly & laboured. Watching a non-pulpy JCoM film would be like drinking a fine wine after it's been sitting in a car on a hot summer day.