John Carter

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

How does everyone here feel about John Carter of Mars? I went and saw it essentially the day it opened in New Zealand and I thought it was fantastic, I then arrived home to IMDB to see people had been rooting for the film to flop for who knows how long and that the Rotten Tomatoes score was in the 50s.

 

[Mark Toia]

Im yet to see it, My son skyped me yesterday and said it was fricken awesome dad!!!!

 

[Paul Russell]

Our kids yawned a lot.

 

[Lliam Worthington]

I thought the effects were fantastic, but the script was weak, laboured and cringeworthy. Space opera, not quite at it's worst.

My son, not generally as hard to please, was very disappointed with the action scenes and said films like this remind him of WWE.

Once I saw the mars based humans races were separated by Red vs Blue... it was a long way back from there...

 

[Craig W. Bickerstaff]

Once I saw the mars based humans races were separated by Red vs Blue... it was a long way back from there...

What's wrong with Red vs. Blue? Most Political systems essentially come down to red vs. blue, I think even the revolutionary war was red vs. blue.

 

[Marc Wielage]

It's actually pretty close to the original Burroughs novels. Unfortunately, I think a lot of audiences have seen so much of this done before, in movies like The 300, Lord of the Rings, Avatar, Star Wars, and a million other films, it's hard to get past the "been there/done that" aspect -- even though Burroughs actually created many of these ideas almost 100 years ago. If they could have made this movie 15 years ago, people might have been amazed by it.

I didn't like the opening sequence that "explained" why the various Martian races were fighting the war, because it felt like we were being spoon-fed the story too much. The structure of the original novel is much more direct: guy out west gets chased by Apaches, goes into a cave, gets overcome by gasses, wakes up on Mars... and the action begins. There was way too much preamble to me, and a lot of stuff added that wasn't in the novel. Once you get past that, there's some interesting stuff, and it's nice to see the 4-armed Tharks visualized and done well. But the stuff added and changed, like the whole thing with the "magic locket" and all that, plus the hokey dialog, kinda made me wince.

The reviews aren't great; the NY Post gave it a particularly bad one. I don't think it's quite that bad, and I think writer/director Andrew Stanton is a brilliant guy, but what are you gonna do... the audiences don't seem to be going for it.

 

[Phil Holland]

I grew up on these books and enjoyed the hell out of it. Some of the best character VFX brought to the big screen to date.

 

[Mark Toia]

People are so hard to please these days... )))

 

[Lliam Worthington]

Ha! One dimensional in 3d... funny line that )) Cheers Marc. The review is harsh, but accurate for mine.

What's wrong with Red vs. Blue?

I think it's a simplistic device that unfortunately encumbers the film instead of aiding it.

Please know, I'm a huge fantasy fan Craig (read and collected for 35 years) so this is not a case of mainstream snobbery or anything. I wanted to love this film. And there were elements I did love, largely the Tharks, and seeing some Alien landscapes - though I actually wished they could have pushed the envelope a lot further here too with 300 mill, and spent a good deal less time and money on pointless and stalting exposition.

But for my own tastes I prefer my fantasy darker, grittier and in all fairness, more sophisticated.

Game of Thrones is much more my style when it comes to well drawn characters and political machinations.
For action, Asian cinema understands and utilises (though by no means exclusively) the story telling inside of action sequences that I also prefer. I felt old Hollywood did this a lot better. And more modern genius's like Lucas, Speilberg, Jackson and Ridley Scott are masters of it. King Kong got some flack, but boy that T-REX fight for mine has to be the best giant creature battle ever put on a screen. Though I'm a big fan of the original (and all of Ray Harry Hausen's work for that matter)

But anyhow, JC is Disney and an adaption. And that's ok. We all have different tastes and needs. But for me if your going "lighter" so too speak, I really think you need a much wittier script than JC delivered, and actors with the charisma of Robert Downey Jr or Harrison Ford to then be able to truly pull it off.

As to most political systems... errmmmm.....

Again, I see things a little differently.

Best Wishes

Lliam

 

[Lliam Worthington]

People are so hard to please these days... )))

I know some people right? Fuckers aren't they

 

[TonySegreto]

I saw it a couple nights ago as well (advance screening ha). I liked it in general, but I don't know if thats just the part of me that wanted to see the books visualized. Honestly the books are so black and white, so much harder, violent. It was strange seeing the Disney twist on everything, the goofyness, avoidance of real violence, none of the characters were that scary. The books leave a lot to imagination, but the things Burroughs expands upon, it seems they didn't expand upon much in the film. Half the time I was watching the movie I was thinking two things 1) Edgar Rice Burroughs was a frickin genius. To think he wrote this story in 1912 and the rest of the series is insane. and 2) Motion blur in 3d action scenes is pretty intolerable, as you loose pretty much all detail and your eyes struggle to keep up with the action.

I think its another movie that is trying to please everybody. Which is fine, but if your trying to please fan boy adults who have read the books as well as little kids going to watch a 3d movie, both are going to be left longing for something.

I'd see it again.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I want to see it, but appreciate it is what it is, nearly 100 year old Sciencefiction story, said to remain true to the story. Of course it is going to look stayed alongside modern story development, and amazing compared to a number of stories preceding it. The red vs blue thing might look stayed in today's terms, but would have been a credible cultural writing method in it's day, and maybe as a side swipe at the devisive culture. Now days we are more "sophisticated" with films like The Matrix, "are they terrorists or are they freedom fighters" but remember still, in the matrix there was a green hue, and in the real world a blue, and the original villans stood out by wearing suites.


Re-Edit:

1) Edgar Rice Burroughs was a frickin genius. To think he wrote this story in 1912 and the rest of the series is insane.

Exactly, that is why I want to see it.

 

[Sid Idris]

First hour was quite dull however it did somewhat redeem itself by the end.

 

[Erich Ocean]

Saw it on Friday, IMAX 3D with my three boys. They all liked it, and while I think there was room for improvement, it wasn't a waste of time.

Needed better directing during the action sequences, and (a lot) better art direction. The story was solid for what is was: a myth. Almost textbook, actually.

I really hope they'll continue the series, despite people pissing on it. The movie was much better than I expected given the trailers.

 

[Mark Allen]

It felt like a lot of movies you've seen before. Eventhough, I've been told, this story is what all the others stole from - what I think the real problem was that I didn't feel a lot of heart in the story. It looked great (though I wasn't a fan of it being 3D at all). The Tom Hanks movie BIG is one that proves you can tell a familiar story and make it matter... as big as this film was, I just felt it never mattered.

 

[Matthew Richard Harris]

I flat out loved the movie, and also had my best 3D experience to date. AMC Century City Imax Digital screen in LA ($20 a ticket) has to be the best, sharpest, deepest 3D i've seen yet.
Also the glasses weren't motorized and only lost about 1/3 of an f-stop.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

I got to see it, WoW, that is the best scence fiction movie I have seen for a while, real dense stuff in there. If this goes along with the book instead of being a remote copy that's great, for somebody of that age to have such an advanced mind, puts a whole new light on interpretation of his latter work. We live in a age where we have seen so much and can build on it, but this man wrote this as a virtual child in science fiction terms, way beyond what was out there and his times. My hat off to him. Better than Starwars by far, real sciencefiction in terms of density. If Starwars is supposed to be directly influenced by this, it is a real shame. The original Starwars looked a bit stereotyped, I am lacking the right words for it, and latter on too much for children, but John Carter looks like it was written with very deep knowledge by an adult. We have a movie show over here that down played this film as yet another space opera offering nothing new, but those reviewers don't seem to understand little about physical intelligence which the mind accesses in action films, or watching the poetry of motion on the sports field, as one example out of many, their mind seems closed off to many things. It is all higher intellectual drama this and that, not understanding the plot development and scripted flow of emotion, action and consequence (reaction). This film is not another Starwars but is what it is, an original well before it's time in movie terms, so it at least deserves to be judged as such.

I could see a number of hidden contexts that he was addressing in the book. The first exchange of salute at the arena (remotely starwars looking from a long shoot) was cringe worthy, and I think that they cut the return salute off for that reason, should have been more casual, and more awkward, hesitent and clumsy in return. There was another element that was not so great in the last part too. The three human leads were very reasonable for this, not just drop in attractions. I can guess at the real time situation from clues in the film (if they are clues) and origins.

This makes me very curious about the books and their author, and to finish my own novel. It too is cross context, being sciencefiction situated over three thousand years ago between old kingdom times and advanced earth related civilizations (saying little). I am not into writing space operas with princesses and prince charmings, though I have been contemplating writing a story situated on a planet way out between the galaxies with silky black starless nights, but that is more a live story. Hmm, actually this book crosses so many genres it does have a princess etc, but they are along for the ride. I like to write stuff beyond what any normal person has ever dreamt of before, with way dense concepts than special effects (plenty action still) in technology, plot, method and science, new style. I have a fifteen part series after that one. I have over a hundred stories in my head and can see them all filmicly and direct them. Absolutely amazing stuff to do.

re-edit:

BTW, was forced to see it 3d, and glad I did. The 3d effect is pretty good, often not too over exaggerated. This is where films get it wrong, unless it requires it, best to exaggerate a little rather than a lot.

 

[Joel Arvidsson]

I think it was quiet entertaining, and I was not expecting a super story. I have only watched one movie in 3D before since I did not like it at all. This time It was a little bit better but I think you should not shoot 3D with so much dof. It looked ok in wide shoots but not good at all in medium and close up. Then it feels more like 2.5D on planes.

 

[Radim Schreiber]

It met my expectations, but I wish I could have seen it in 2D. The 3D was overall good, but it didn't add whole lot for me. In fact it pulled me out of the story quite a few times. Looking at the 3D effect, analyzing why I don't like it so much. My glasses dimmed everything, and made colors look little pale. I would hope the 3D would add greater realism, but often it just distracts. The scale looks ridiculous, and the whole movie seemed very soft to me. Maybe I am used to looking at RED footage, but this was just blurry as hell. Motion blur was pure mush, pull focus seemed to be problematic quite often. Any reason why pull focus would be more difficult for 3D movies? And they spent how much money on this movie? $250mil?

I wish I would have read the books. The story and ideas are great, but I felt there were gaps in explaining the story, and too much attention was spent on unnecessary scenes, that didn't add to the story. Perhaps I would wish that there would be more frequent back and forth, mars and earth, to keep the story developing simultaneously.

Anyways, I liked it better than the new star wars movies.

 

[Wayne Morellini]

Radim and Joel, I can answer some of your questions.

Firstly Radim, I did not see many of these in the projection I saw, only noticing some pixel column vaiences on a scene or two. Motion blur, I did not take much notice of. Sometimes the projection configuration is to blame (also, not all projectors have the same capabilities).

3d, sometimes it was modest exaggeration, sometimes too much. The thing we have to ask ourselves, if we were in a war in the midst of hand to hand contact, would we cope? Some people cope better the more realistic it is (not many) like extreme sports people. It is not necessarily the movie.

Joel, you are right, the reason is that we see with increasing dof the further away we are viewing, and it looks unnatural up close. Still, certain scenes (like in the plains) where shifted up close, making them look like minatures. It is like colorization, a little bit extra makes it look good, a lot not good, unless it is a special effect. I have been researching doing display systems that preserve focus spread, allowing viewers to independently focus. Dont expect internal research like that if the camera company is warped and egotistical. Of the two prime systems I have come up with, one is definitely viable so far. Of the camera company engineers I've spoken to, things are not so good, they are terribly niave and lightweight on new technology design directions.