TAG TEAM REVIEW: JOHN CARTER - Page 5

I dare you to discuss how it didn't suck!

I sympathize with those who disliked the movie. This back and forth is reminding me of conversations I had about REAL STEEL, a movie whose story problems killed it for me, but seemed to just not bother other people, even though they wouldn't necessarily disagree with my points.

That kid teaching the robot to dance was a problem for me. A big problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

I dare you to discuss how it didn't suck!

Can we got back to honest-to-god discourse about the film, folks? This debate about whether or it sucks or not is counter-productive. Why does it suck? That's what I'd like to know.

If anything, it's an interesting film because there seems to be such a fine line between the people enjoying it and the people disliking it. Both sides concede a lot of points, which at the very least tells me it's a provocative March release. 

It's one of those thing where if it takes until an hour or so after the film for me to start thinking about its flaws, I figure the film did its job in holding my attention and entertaining me, warts and all.  If I'm sitting there while I'm watching it thinking, "Oh that's a terrible angle," or "Geez, he can't act," or "This plot doesn't make any fucking sense," then I'll bag on it.  I've had pretty ragged films win me over with their enthusiasm and style, and I've had more polished films make me check out after 45 minutes.  It's all about how much the film engages me.  And yeah, some films completely irrationally hit my sweet spot and I'm willing to be a little more kind.

Psh, I posted that shit on the first and second page of this thread, ain't nobody countered it, Timz!

Nothing in this goddamned thing works. Right now, it's perched at a level slightly above "I hated it."

CLIFF NOTES VERSION

The villains are dull and unthreatening. The story takes a somewhat simple tale and complicates it needlessly. John Carter is a walking billboard, not a character. Deja Thoris is busy, not interesting. The visuals are rote, forgettable. The action peaks too soon. As good as Cranston is, the cast is loaded with TV actors, and it shows. The Therns are too stupid to be an all-powerful race that watches over everyone. Carter's family backstory is a waste of time. There's no sense of place in Barsoom, it does not feel like a real place, where characters do anything beyond fight. Carter is super powerful and can slay entire armies - unless you put him in chains. The ending is ten minutes too long. There's too many magical doohickey bullshit to explain what you should trust the audience to just accept (re: traveling between Mars and Earth).

Or, more? Okay.

It's not funny, despite admirable stabs from the likes of LAUGH RIOT JAMES PUREFOY. The movie has a questionably timid view of sexuality, giving Deja these amazing abilities, and equally objectifying her and Carter's bare bodies, then trapping her as an unwilling bride and then a damsel in distress. We don't know much about Carter, but the film wastes time giving character depth to people like Tars Tarkas' daughter, not by actually challenging her, but by just heaping some revelations onto her. The movie's beginning is a disaster of prologues, introductions, and abbreviated action scenes. Woola receives no Chewbacca-at-the-end-of-Star-Wars honor. Carter's leaping ability becomes a pretty weak visual after the tenth time, and it happens another eighty times. The scene with Carter murdering an entire army as we flash back to his dead family is hilarious, particularly as he sees his dead family, he sees the house in ashes and burned to the ground and he STILL dramatically kicks the door down.

I don't know. I guess I could go on. Maybe mostly about how this film just isn't really about anything, in addition to all these goofy flaws and poor creative decisions.

I say this while listening to the score, btw. My heart is not completely black.

Christ, Gabe. You win. The movie's terrible, and those of us that enjoyed the hell out of it are simple-minded morons. You win the internet today. Now go have a drink and relax.

Where does this attitude come from that anyone who chastises this movie hates the people who liked it? I've never said anything like that.

I will have that drink, though.

Setting aside the fact that I did enjoy it for a second, the part I'm trying to understand about the film's detractors' point of view (and I say this respectfully) is how the film can't be appreciated even at base "fun escapism" level. I think the filmmakers' passion for the source material comes across and I think the technical craft and artistry are fairly apparent as well. Doesn't always help a film (Daredevil), but in this case it did heighten my enjoyment that there was a little reverence for the book there. I got the impression they enjoyed the playground they were in. 

Different strokes, I know. I totally respect that. I just feel like the film's got a lot to offer genre fans. Then again, I'm also the guy who says to vote with your wallet so... maybe not?   

All I know is that I felt like I spent fifteen minutes in that cave with Carter, Deja and the little light show. That tends to sap the "fun" out of such things.

I apologize to Andrew Stanton, I don't mean to be on the warpath here. I liked Wall-E.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gabe T 
 the cast is loaded with TV actors, and it shows.

When those shows include The Wire and Friday Night Lights, that may not be a bad thing.

Yeah, these days it's hardly an insult to call someone a "tv actor".

And I wasn't picking on ya Gabe, you just seem awfully militant about this movie. I can't really refute you point by point other than to say many of the things you hated, I enjoyed, as did the audience I was with (and of course, audience reactions are totally anecdotal evidence, I realize). I will say I was in a great mood when I saw it, just coming from a terrific late saturday lunch, outdoors, on a gorgeous spring afternoon here in the Atlanta area. I was thoroughly entertained by the thing, and considered it $17.00 well-spent.

Gabe, unfortunately has a terrible taste in some movies. He was crowing on about how escapist and "metal" Ghost Rider 2 was, just because it punched the right buttons for him, the same way John Carter did for me. JC is still a much, much better film technically. But that's just the most recent example I can think of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jacob Singer 

And I wasn't picking on ya Gabe, you just seem awfully militant about this movie

That's what I don't, the virulence behind some of the negative reactions to this.  It's like the film is just offensively bad, and with The Lorax sitting out there, I just can't see how Carter is the one getting the scorn heaped on it.

I liked the movie, but obviously it's all about levels of interest and expectations. There aren't many people around here who had any interest in/expectations for THE LORAX.

Meanwhile, there are a lot of people around here who think all of  Andrew Stanton previous films are classics. They were expecting more.

The only other problem I have with John Carter (aside from...not being a...3 Hour Pulp Science Fiction Spectacular), was that showing his family dying didn't add anything, and just left him more morose than he should have been!  Sam Jones, understood this...Perfectly in Flash Gordon!  I definitely will be buying John Carter on dvd as I thought it was a...Fantastic Film!

I think half of the movie is really fantastic (in this case, the part right in the middle), which mirrors my experience with Wall-E (absolutely love the first half, could really do without the second half).

Also, duke fleed, get yourself a bluray player man!! It's 2012, high definitions is the way to be!

Have people read this?

http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html
 

Fascinating read, and really lays out the fundamental reasons this movie hasn't done well. I must be very much out of step with the times, though, because that teaser still gives me goosebumps. Fucking love it.

Wait, this movie brought in $70 million overseas? I don't think Disney is complaining too much about a hundred million dollar opening after all the flack the film has taken stateside.

I hate to be a Box Office Wanger, I just hope this somehow makes enough money to justify Stanton moving forward with his planned sequels, which will inevitably involve Woola's heroic death at the finale of part two, leaving the audience in tears. I want to see that shit!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov 

 

Fascinating read, and really lays out the fundamental reasons this movie hasn't done well. I must be very much out of step with the times, though, because that teaser still gives me goosebumps. Fucking love it.

Count me in the 'loved the first trailer' camp. I almost would've preferred to have gotten the movie that first trailer promised than the one we got.

Seems like a near-impossible thing to deliver. Would require inappropriate amounts of ambient tracking shots of Martian wasteland and forelorn glances. Not saying it wouldn't be better, just unlikely in our modern climate. They should have also made use of that Gabriel cover, damned if that song isn't a killer.

I like the cover of the Arcade song, I don't think that tone is a part of the problem.  I think the biggest issues are the impossibly generic name, the cheap, generic look of it(Cowboys and aliens meets Prince Of Persia) and the fact that they forgot to put in a big fat title card that said "FROM THE GUY WHO MADE WALL-E, AND OH YEAH.  MOTHER FUCKING FINDING NEMO!!!!"

A Finding Nemo name drop alone would have added millions and millions to the opening weekend, I'm sure of it.

Calling it "John Carter and a Princess of Mars" adds $15-20 million out the gate, no doubt. I was ranting about this on facebook, and an old high-school of mine (well versed in sci-fi, total computer nerd and the like) says he had no idea that the movie had anything to do with Mars, and would therefore go see it next weekend. Really, there is a huge number of people who just have no fucking clue what this thing is about, beyond looking like an Avatar knockoff.

You guys should really read the link that Zhukov provided.  Stanton seems to be the one who didn't want to associate John Carter with his Pixar work, according to the piece.

Yeah, it's a fascinating read. He really sunk his own ship with this it seems, but that's what will happen if you give someone total control over something they're in love with. If you're blind to how anyone else sees that character, how on earth are you ever going to be able to sell it to them? This should have laid it's cards out on the table with the humor and adventure - although, no matter how you marketed it, it was going to divisive anyway. It's a shame, but Stanton just suffocated it with his love. 

I do however really love that Peter Gabriel track, but it is totally inappropriate for the film.

Yeah I read it, great read.  It totally paints him as his own worst enemy.  Not wanting people to think it's a kids film is total horse shit reasoning btw.  I don't know what I saw but 90% of it was so silly only a kid could truly embrace any of it.

From that article the blame seems to sit with Stanton, but the higher ups at Disney - including Lasseter - should have managed his influence on the marketing better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov 

which will inevitably involve Woola's heroic death at the finale of part two, leaving the audience in tears.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

Please tell this involves little baby Woolas appearing at the end. LOL.

Edit: Actually been wondering if instead of leading with that arena battle scene, they'd led with Woola's whole introductory sequence right up to where Carter kills that Thark with one punch. That may have sold the "vibe"/personality of the movie better.

Edit Edit: Wow, that article is amazing if true. I take back every bit of bitching out of the marketing folk I've done on this one. Poor bastards!

Zhukov, Interesting Article! I don't think the title had to be...John Carter And The Princess Of Mars, as the filmmakers could of used...John Carter: Warlord Of Mars, just like the Marvel Comic Adaption!  The director wanting to leave Mars out of the title does seem to be a strange decision considering that is where most of the film is set.  It is too bad that there will not be any further John Carter films, but I thought the film was excellent!

It seems like Stanton thought he could simply shift the animated filmmaking process over to live-action filmmaking and was thrown by the differences.  Which, as odd as it may seem, gives me a ton of hope for his next live-action film; if I could be this entertained by a clumsty first attempt, I'm eager to see what he can do now that he's learned some lessons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

It seems like Stanton thought he could simply shift the animated filmmaking process over to live-action filmmaking and was thrown by the differences.  Which, as odd as it may seem, gives me a ton of hope for his next live-action film; if I could be this entertained by a clumsty first attempt, I'm eager to see what he can do now that he's learned some lessons.

Except that he's likely to be in "Director Jail" as far as live-action goes for quite some time after this.

Or maybe just not given as much free reign as he was on this one.  While he may have been the director on Wall-E and Nemo, Pixar doesn't strike me as the kind of environment where a director is the absolute be-all end-all voice on a film.  It's incredibly collaborative, and Lassiter is always looming in the background.  Maybe Stanton needs that kind of environment for a live-action film, with a strong producer riding herd on him.  His visual instincts are certainly there, and he can nail story beats.

Poor Andrew Stanton. He flushed enough money to feed a small continent down the toilet, and for it he will be stuck making extremely popular Pixar movies for the rest of his life. Poor, poor Andrew Stanton.

That kind of sarcasm works a lot better when it's in direct response to someone making the point you're mocking, don't you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Or maybe just not given as much free reign as he was on this one.  While he may have been the director on Wall-E and Nemo, Pixar doesn't strike me as the kind of environment where a director is the absolute be-all end-all voice on a film.  It's incredibly collaborative, and Lassiter is always looming in the background.  Maybe Stanton needs that kind of environment for a live-action film, with a strong producer riding herd on him.  His visual instincts are certainly there, and he can nail story beats.

I dunno.  A "Waterworld"-esque fiasco (though like Waterworld, I'm sure John Carter will eventually make money) where it seems like the entirety of the blame is being placed solely on his shoulders doesn't seem like the kind of thing where much of anyone is going to be taking a chance on giving him a live-action film anytime soon, much less with the kind of budget to accomplish those visuals and tell the kind of story he wants to tell.  If there were more "buzz" about the quality of the movie despite box office underperformance, then yes, but it's gotten middling reviews and was a punchline before the weekend was out.  It seems to be relatively well-received by most of those that have seen it, but that's about it.

And I don't know about $15-$20 million dollars, but I wholeheartedly agree that a "John Carter and the Princess of Mars" title would have gone a long way towards letting people know what they were getting.  Not to mention being far more evocative of the pulpy spirit of the film.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sebastian OB 

Poor Andrew Stanton. He flushed enough money to feed a small continent down the toilet, and for it he will be stuck making extremely popular Pixar movies for the rest of his life. Poor, poor Andrew Stanton.

Poor Andrew Stanton if Andrew Stanton didn't want to spend the rest of his life making Pixar movies.

There's no way the movie is going by the generic 'John Carter' in other countries, though, is there? Senor Carter or whatever? And the movie is doing very healthy business in the global BO. The more I ruminate on it, the more 'John Carter' strikes me as just a fundamentally disastrous name for a movie. I think it's easy to overstate how sophisticated marketing needs to be in order to reach an audience. And I don't think its possible to overstate how bland and generic 'John Carter' is as the title of something your trying to sell. Anyway, that article seems to suggest the marketing heads responsible for that change are no longer with Disney, and Stanton obviously wanted to keep it as John Carter of Mars. 

But if anyone digs up what the movie is actually titled in foreign markets, please let me know. This strikes me as interesting.

I think people just don't like movies in deserts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zhukov 

Have people read this?

http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html

DOH!

Are we sure that's not an attempt by the studio to pin the failure on Stanton rather than on themselves?

If that article is true, I'd say Disney is only blamed for being too passive next to Stanton.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Dickson 

Are we sure that's not an attempt by the studio to pin the failure on Stanton rather than on themselves?

It could be.  But at the same time, Stanton himself seems to be coming on strongly about him getting his way on this project.  Of course, that could just be everyone 'playing ball' with each other.  It'll be a long time before we really know for sure.

But we're generally so hard on marketing departments (with good reason, of course) that we're much more likely to wanna blame them even in the face of contrary information.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freeman 

Yeah I read it, great read.  It totally paints him as his own worst enemy.  Not wanting people to think it's a kids film is total horse shit reasoning btw.  I don't know what I saw but 90% of it was so silly only a kid could truly embrace any of it.

Particularly stupid since Stanton has gone on and on about how he fell in love with the Carter books as a kid. Kids were always going to be the ones to love this film the most. Always.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

Particularly stupid since Stanton has gone on and on about how he fell in love with the Carter books as a kid. Kids were always going to be the ones to love this film the most. Always.

 

Which I think is a huge problem. Kids deserve the best quality storytelling; elegant stories that are, at their core, very simple but get across over the distraction of cartoon sidekicks, jumping real good, and four-armed aliens battling it out. Pixar is phenomenal at consistently offering stories that kids can follow but which yield thematic and characterization sophistication for the older audience members. John Carter is not that type of feature. You get a kid who's savvy enough to see that this movie is a tangled fucking mess and they're not going to be as kind to it as some of the apologists here. They don't care about Stanton or about the vagaries of the marketing. They just know a bad movie when they see one and they're gonna be honest about it, too. At least the handful of kids I know who've seen it and aren't easily bilked have shown that much.

The point is: it's as important, if not more so, for a kids' film to be as airtight in terms of quality of make as any adult or R-rated film. Complexity vs. simplicity is not the issue, but quality of execution. John Carter, like so many have said, aspires to too much sophistication to not be considered with an adult critical lense. Stanton, admirably, wanted it to appeal to kids and adults and the execution and fucked it up, apparently, because adults can't seem to defend the movie without using the dismissive, patronizing "it's about the kids" claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

Particularly stupid since Stanton has gone on and on about how he fell in love with the Carter books as a kid. Kids were always going to be the ones to love this film the most. Always.

 

Which I think is a huge problem. Kids deserve the best quality storytelling; elegant stories that are, at their core, very simple but get across over the distraction of cartoon sidekicks, jumping real good, and four-armed aliens battling it out. Pixar is phenomenal at consistently offering stories that kids can follow but which yield thematic and characterization sophistication for the older audience members. John Carter is not that type of feature. You get a kid who's savvy enough to see that this movie is a tangled fucking mess and they're not going to be as kind to it as some of the apologists here. They don't care about Stanton or about the vagaries of the marketing. They just know a bad movie when they see one and they're gonna be honest about it, too. At least the handful of kids I know who've seen it and aren't easily bilked have shown that much.

The point is: it's as important, if not more so, for a kids' film to be as airtight in terms of quality of make as any adult or R-rated film. Complexity vs. simplicity is not the issue, but quality of execution. John Carter, like so many have said, aspires to too much sophistication to not be considered with an adult critical lense. Stanton, admirably, wanted it to appeal to kids and adults and the execution and fucked it up, apparently, because adults can't seem to defend the movie without using the dismissive, patronizing "it's about the kids" claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joshua Miller 

Particularly stupid since Stanton has gone on and on about how he fell in love with the Carter books as a kid. Kids were always going to be the ones to love this film the most. Always.

 

Which I think is a huge problem. Kids deserve the best quality storytelling; elegant stories that are, at their core, very simple but get across over the distraction of cartoon sidekicks, jumping real good, and four-armed aliens battling it out. Pixar is phenomenal at consistently offering stories that kids can follow but which yield thematic and characterization sophistication for the older audience members. John Carter is not that type of feature. You get a kid who's savvy enough to see that this movie is a tangled fucking mess and they're not going to be as kind to it as some of the apologists here. They don't care about Stanton or about the vagaries of the marketing. They just know a bad movie when they see one and they're gonna be honest about it, too. At least the handful of kids I know who've seen it and aren't easily bilked have shown that much.

The point is: it's as important, if not more so, for a kids' film to be as airtight in terms of quality of make as any adult or R-rated film. Complexity vs. simplicity is not the issue, but quality of execution. John Carter, like so many have said, aspires to too much sophistication to not be considered with an adult critical lense. Stanton, admirably, wanted it to appeal to kids and adults and the execution and fucked it up, apparently, because adults can't seem to defend the movie without using the dismissive, patronizing "it's about the kids" claim.

3 times!

You're really passionate about this!  Hahahaha

He really wants to drive home the point that all of us apologists were easily bilked into liking deplorable movies, unlike children. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xion 
Mad waffle, mad waffle...because adults can't seem to defend the movie without using the dismissive, patronizing "it's about the kids" claim.

Jesus, you really didn't like this film did you? I'm not sure anyone has claimed "it's about the the kids", you seem to be foaming at the mouth over this movie. I'd think you were a troll by now if you didn't seem to make some sense.

I figure GabeT has been carrying the fire pretty much alone with the rest of you guys. John Carter is pretty much the type of movie I hate the most. That it's receiving all this apologia is sort of hard to ignore.

And yeah, I think some of you have been bilked. Definitely. Like children. That's the most flattering explanation I can come up with.

God forbid someone enjoys a piece of pop entertainment for their own reasons. But it's great that you're so interested in why someone might have liked it. If your anger was directed at something like Ghost Rider 2, I'd be inclined to agree with you, as that film made me hate people enjoying it with the power of a dying star.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xion 

John Carter is pretty much the type of movie I hate the most.

All due respect, but my god. There is an entire universe of films more deserving of one's ire. Exhibits A, B & C: