the art direction was insane. the costumes, the armors, the props, the dragonfly ships. it was like seeing the entire peplum golden age being digitally revived.only the worldbuilding was a bit lacking, but then again it was the same with the very first Star Wars and it could have easily been fixed with a sequel.instead we had a decade of infinite capeshit, SWsequels and boring brutalist DUNC. worst timeline.
>>219872671yeah the chick should have been naked. honestly i thought the civil war era stuff was cooler than mars
>>219872671frthis and prince of persia couldve had trilogies oh well
The Lucasfilm acquisition probably demolished any incentive Disney would have had for a sequel.
>>219873417it's crazy to think that Disney spend all the talent they still had in stock into aborted Star Wars replacements, only to do absolutely nothing of value with the actual Star Wars.
The setting had so much potential
>>219872671FUN FACT: in jail you are given a tablet and you can read any public record book for free. I knew a black dude who frantically read the entire John Carter book series. I'm surprised a scifi book with a relatively recent film would be old enough for the public record unless he specifically gave jails the right or the warden bought the rights or something, but the protagonist is literally a confederate soldier who ends up being worshipped for super human strength by ignorant aliens.And that's all in like the first chapter or so. I didn't read much of it.
>>219872671I saw it in theaters. It sucked ass. Quit coping OP
>>219873620the book series basically created the sci-fi pulp genre. after everybody plundered it somebody tried (too late) to go back to the original.
>>219872671name was stupidstory was stupidnames in the story were stupid
Many of the original books are now in the public domain. However the family of Edgar Rice Burroughs still owns the trademarks through their company, 'Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc.'. Anyone who wants to make a film based on it would most likely have to get permission from them.
Pretty bad movie, but also terrible marketing. I think it wouldn't have flopped if they leaned into "this is a 95 year old story that inspired Star Wars" instead of trying to make it some cool new scifi property
>>219872671It was the same story as avatar except in Arizona and fully clothed brown woman, and far less visually impressive.
>>219873885Most of it was filmed in Utah but some scenes were indeed also filmed in Arizona.
>>219873885a jungle is always more interesting in itself than a desert. the humans side of Avatar was boring as fuck, lame Matrix and Aliens rehashes.
>>219872671I saw this movie once and I remember it with extreme clarity. Shame it failed to get sequels.
>>219874063that's the feature of great designs.
>>219873885It's pretty crazy how many different locations in the U.S. can double for places around the world and even outside Earth.
>>219872671They fucked up by using John Carter alone in the title, the movie is really cool
>>219872671Great movie.The story was too convoluted for an average american.Also they use the names from the book and it's too much and silly.They should have used Mars, earth , the normal titles like prince king etc... Not barsoon and other silly names. It was simply too much for one movie.He has no chemistry with bigboob lady, who has an acting range of a galgadot.That being said , one of my favourite movies I never watch. Especially the scene where he goes breserk becouse sadness and grief.
>The decision to drop the “of Mars” was a little more complicated. Chabon remembers attending a meeting led by Disney’s new president of movie marketing MT Carney, who a New York Times article described as having “zero movie experience, coming from a New York marketing agency specializing in packaged goods.” She went through a list of 11 movies from the past 15 that all had “Mars” in the title – Disney’s own “Mission to Mars” and “Mars Needs Moms” (both costly duds), along with other movies like “Mars Attacks.” Chabon said that these were “movies that had in some cases had nothing in common with each other except for the fact that they have Mars in the title. Almost all of them were bad movies.”>“So, we’re taking Mars out of title,” Carney told the group. “It’s just going to be called ‘John Carter.’”as usual, women in offices ruin everything.
John Carter just sounds like the most generic, fake, Applebee's UPS worker boring dudes name ive ever heard. Doesn't evoke any sense of wonder or intrigue or fucking anything
>>219874395>"lets name it 'John Smith: The Movie"fuggin genius
>>219874035>the humans side of Avatar was boring as fuckbanality of evil.
>>219874532If it was good it wouldn't matter what it was named.
i'll never get over the fact they cast this bland boring friday night lights (tv show) actor as the lead in their 300 million scifi blockbuster. why did they do it
>>219872671Utterly disastrous marketing if you’ve ever looked into it. Disney dropped ‘of Mars’ because they were worried people would associate it with Mars Needs Moms, they dropped the Princess of Mars title because they thought it would alienate male fans and allegedly, Andrew Stanton was so detached from the average moviegoer he thought simply calling it John Carter would be more than enough and people would know who he was and able to sell tickets on name alone. Disney also got really precious about preserving the “shock” about the Barsoom name reveal. Utterly retarded. Imagine if they’d just run with something like:>The Chronicles of Mars: John Carter>John Carter & The Princess of Mars>The Barsoom Chronicles: John CarterOn a more wholesome note, apparently when Kermode asked Stanton about how much it flopped he said something to the effect of “I don’t really care, I made this for myself”. Great movie, pure passion project. I also wonder if ol’ Jim Cameron caused some problems because of the Avatar comparisons when it came out too.
>>219872787I fuck with Prince of Persia but actually, now that I think about it - I wonder if Gyllenhaal would have been better in Carter and Kitsch better in Prince
pretty much ended the white protagonist at disney, they would go on to lose billions of dollars with ugly brown characters
John Carter and the Princess of Mars
>>219872671John Carter's Ghosts of Mars
>>219874928Marketing doesn’t matter if something is actually good, and not a shitty copy of a movie that came out three years prior.
>>219872671>the worldbuilding was a bit lacking, but then again it was the same with the very first Star WarsThe world building wasn't lacking in the first Star Wars.
>>219874928similar situation to valerian
>>219872671it's because they called it John Carter. it sounds like a fucking basketball player. i remember seeing commercials for it on tv and having no indication of what it was about, which didn't really help. they could've leaned harder into the "based on a book from 100 years ago" thing to separate it from the hundred other attempts at fantasy/sci-fi movies that it appeared to be a rip-off of.
>>219876188avatar was a bald kid who could blow very hard before James Cameron.
>>219876278avatar meant a number of things in the 2000s, it was a very "online" word, and for people who didn't know what it meant, it's at least an interesting-sounding word. John Carter is the most Guy McDudeMan name in the entire universe, it really sucks as a name and I genuinely believe people just did not care to go see the movie for that exact reason, as was the case for me.
>>219872671For a second I thought that was Ghosts of Mars
>>219877167If a movie called “guy mcdudeman” had been good it wouldn’t have mattered that the name was basic
>>219877540yeah totally, there's no such thing as a great film that underperformed and mcdonalds sells 2.5 billion burgers a year because it's the best restaurant ever made. i think you might be retarded, sorry you had to find out this way.
