Monday 19 March 2012

The Agony of What Could Have Been: John Carter of Mars

I have one request: before you read any further, please read all of it until the end. It's quite a long read, but I really hope it's worth the time.  There are a few controversial opinions in here. Don't just read the preview and decide not to bother clicking on.  It's very important you read the whole review, or none of it - though naturally I'd be thrilled if you read until the end.


I write this blog because I feel like I have something worthwhile to share with the world. It seems everyone and their dog has a blog these days, so it's understandable that some consider the currency to be about as valuable as a Weimar Papiermark. But there are days when the sense of self-consciousness is overridden.  There are some things you just have to yawp from the rooftops, screaming at the stars, begging for someone to listen, for the message to be heard and understood.  This is one of those occasions.

John Carter is one of two things on the internet: it's either a hyperinflated, safe, cynical, lifeless flop destined to be considered along the likes of Ishtar and Heaven's Gate, or an unappreciated future classic unfairly dismissed by the media worthy of joining the ranks of similarly originally maligned films like Blade Runner and The Thing.  Ever a man to instinctively side with the underdog (even though the underdog, in this case, has a $300 million budget: there's a turnup for the books) I figured that this is a classic case of schadenfreude against the Evil Disney Empire, a meme which got tiresome before I was on the 'Net.

But then again... I figured, perhaps the critics have a point?  The advertising campaign for the film has been nothing short of horrendous.  Burroughs fans obviously don't need to know who John Carter or Dejah Thoris or Tars Tarkas are, but the masses don't.  Trailers for, say, The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring do a great job of not only appealing to the Tolkien fans, but hooking non-Ringers in with a straight outline of the plot and basic ideas of the characters, with a few "greatest hits" clips for flavour.  What's more, there are some parts of the trailer that were actively baffling, not to mention misleading ("Earth is next!" - that line's not in the film I saw, although the threat of the Therns is implied).

Complicating matters is the fact that many of my friends, colleagues and acquaintances are bending over backwards to promote the film.  I'm not kidding, just about everyone loved this film, on the forums, on the message boards, mailing groups.  I was concerned that I might be turned off the film by simple hype aversion, as happened with Firefly and A Song of Ice and Fire - both of which I enjoy in parts, but not nearly to the extent of my compatriots.  So even going in as I always do, with the best will in the world and desire to enjoy the film, that fear that my friends and colleagues were delusional - and that if I enjoyed the film, my gushing review would create the same problem for those still undecided.

So I'll say some things, and again, I implore you: if you've read this far, please read the rest, so you can understand where I'm coming from.  I saw John Carter.  I understand why it's doing so poorly.  I think this is a perfect illustration as to why directors like Andrew Stanton rarely get the chance in this era.  This is a tremendous missed opportunity.  I didn't like it.

And hopefully when you finish reading, you'll understand why I say these things.



The Boy
Critics who treat adult as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.
 - C.S. Lewis, "On Three Ways of Writing for Children" (1952) 
I have never listened to anyone who criticized my taste in space travel, sideshows or gorillas. When this occurs, I pack up my dinosaurs and leave the room.
 - Ray Bradbury

It was only when watching this film that I came to something of an epiphany. The above quotation is near and dear to my heart, as a nice shorthand rebuttal to anyone who deigns to impose their myopic worldview about adulthood and maturity. The second is from my dear, wonderful sister, who only a few days ago shared it with me, yet it's something that speaks to my being as if I read it as a child.

Then I wondered, what's really the difference between my adult tastes and my childish tastes?  The more I assess the things I liked, the more I wonder if there's a difference at all.  As a child I enjoyed such "adult" fare as Dickens, Asimov, Clarke, Salinger, Keyes, Hugo.  As an adult, I discovered "childish" works like that of le Guin, Brian Jacques, London, and works by authors I enjoyed as a child.  All in between there are supposed "boy's adventures" like The Lost World with glossaries that would give Clark Ashton Smith a run for his money - can you name many other children's books that throws around terms like mental inertia and cerebral paresis? - and alleged "adult" works which I felt I could've enjoyed as an eight-year-old.

Then it hit me: my tastes haven't changed.  I just became more discerning through longer experience and accumulated knowledge.  When I go back and read some stories, I find them just as enjoyable as I found them upon my first encounter, sometimes more.  I appreciate the historical significance of Dumas and Stevenson now more than when my knowledge of the time period was comparatively smaller.  I've been lucky, in that most of the books I've read were pretty darned good, but when it comes to the ones which I no longer enjoy, it's usually because I realise how I was tricked and manipulated by formula.

Formula's a problem for me, because if you're too careless with it, I quickly get resentful.  The famous "story arc" is an example, this idea that a character has to change fundamentally over the course of a tale, as if it's the only form of character development.  If done poorly, it feels forced, perfunctory, artificial: the reluctant warrior who must be forced into fighting for a true cause, the doubtful hero who fears he isn't good enough, the selfish anti-hero who sacrifices his happiness for the good of the cause. I used to think this sort of thing was important, but if it's just added in because "there needed to be an arc," then it quickly turns me off.  The best authors either provide a character who needs no such arc, or undergoes the arc in a way that isn't insulting and tiresome.


The Book

So we come to Edgar Rice Burroughs and A Princess of Mars.  I'm a Burroughs fan, naturally, but I'm not nearly as well versed in his wider works as I'd like to be.  Rather than Tarzan, Pellucidar or Venus, my favoured Burroughs cycle is that of Caspak, which Amicus memorably adapted into The Land that Time Forgot (scripted by Michael Moorcock!) and The People of Time Forgot. That said, I read and greatly enjoyed A Princess of Mars for the reason I enjoyed Olaf Stapledon's Star Maker: the ideas. The society of the Tharks, the fauna of Barsoom, the mystery of Issus, the politics of the Martians, the aether-based technology, the solar system - I ate that up. Yet unlike Star Maker, A Princess of Mars had characters, each of which were strong enough to be instantly recognizable, yet nuanced enough to surprise.

From the moment I encountered Tars Tarkas and Sola, I knew that these were the characters I would love.  Sure, I like Carter himself, Dejah Thoris, Kantos Kan and Woola (come on, who doesn't love Woola?), but there's something about the maligned sensitive soul in a brutish society that speaks to me, the desire to be more than just a savage beast that lives for blood and death. So naturally, the two most compassionate Tharks on Barsoom fascinated me, especially Sola.  The character dynamic between herself, Carter and Tars was the strongest and most compelling part of the story for me.

Travelling through Barsoom, discovering the strange life and new civilizations, wouldn't have been nearly as rewarding without characters to invest in.  Yet even given their comparative brevity and apparent simplicity, these characters felt real.  Dejah Thoris felt like an imperious princess of incomparable beauty and grace... who was also a real woman, with emotions, pride, hopes and fears.  Kantos Kan felt like a dashing, devil-may-care warrior who was also a real man, headstrong, brash, impulsive.  So the same can be said of Sarkoja, Tal Hajus, Tardos Mors, Dak Kova, Sab Than...

So yes, I enjoyed the book quite a lot. Perhaps ill-advisedly, I read the book just before going to the film: combined with prior knowledge of the changes, I felt prepared to go to Andrew Stanton's Barsoom.


The Film


Prior to John Carter, I had seen only two Stanton films: Wall-E, and Up.  While I may be controversial and say the films are far from perfect - I feel Wall-E would've been a masterpiece if it ended at around the forty minute mark and wasn't dragged down by an insultingly ham-fisted and redundant second half, and the villain in Up was forced and entirely unnecessary - I still feel they are immensely well-crafted, thoughtful and worthy pieces. In an age where we have Immortals, "Star Trek," Clash of the Titans and Prince of Persia cluttering up the multiplexes, these films are neither pretentious, pandering vanity projects nor cynical, calculated, soulless tie-ins.  I'm not enamoured with Pixar's work to the point of considering their films perfect by any means, but they are clearly experts at their craft in the way Disney, Bluth, Bakshi and Miyazaki were in their prime.  So while I was intrigued to see how Stanton would handle live action, I wasn't at ease either.  I read the interviews where he stated a desire to get away from Frazetta, which naturally didn't sit well with me at all. Then the trailer came out, and the marketing for the film has been soundly thrashed for good reason.  And then the media leapt on it, and I started to lose my patience.

One of the most frequent refrains I read in regards to the film's lack of "originality" due to decades of films mining the material.  "It doesn't matter if the book came first, the film didn't, so Star Wars/Avatar/Conan the Barbarian/Prince of Persia are, in fact, "first," and John Carter is, in fact, derivative of those films."  To this argument, I say... don't. Just don't. If that made any sense, then people would've dismissed Star Wars and Raiders of the Lost Ark for repeating the successes of Flash Gordon and Secrets of the Incas - only in this case, the earlier films did come first.  It's a non-criticism, a glib, meaningless dismissal which seems to ignore decades of films which could be considered derivative of each other, yet aren't.

So I went into the film, fully expecting the little voice in my head to say "calm down, grit your teeth, it's just an adaptation, don't worry about it." And I had cause to gripe: there were changes.  Changes I disagree with, changes I felt weren't necessary, changes I think made the film less than it could have been.  Anyone who's read my blog knows just what a tremendous stickler I am for fidelity to the source material, so prepare to be shocked as I say that even considering the divergences from the novel were pretty big... I enjoyed the film so much that I didn't even acknowledge them.  They were there, but everything was so well done, committed with such surety and confidence that this was the right way to go, that I couldn't help but go along with it.  I went in there ready to hate the Therns, Dejah Warrior Princess, Reluctant Anti-Hero John Carter and the myriad alterations.  But Stanton, Chabon and everyone involved were so earnest and determined that they made sure that even a pedantic literature aficionado like me didn't even notice.

 I really wish Samantha Morton's Sola got more screen time.

That is what a good adaptation is all about.  When changes are made, they are not done because "the studio mandated it," or "because this is more cinematic," or "because it was stupid in the source material and needed changing."  They are because "this is necessary for the story I'm trying to tell, in the way I'm trying to tell it."  I missed Sola teaching Carter the Martian tongue, but the alternative is effective enough.  I was bothered by the lack of attention given to the Warhoon and the atmosphere plant, but it's understandable not everything could be squeezed into a 2-hour film.  I didn't dig the inclusion of the Therns at this point, but at least they weren't made from whole cloth.  The fact that everybody's wearing clothes is a damning indictment of 20th century's misplaced compunctions about nudity - all the more hilarious considering this is from a story written in 1912 - but it's something we have to deal with in this crazy world.  The use of blue blood to make the violence more palatable (evidently something about the colour red causes moral guardians to squirm) is a decent enough way to get as much brutality as a PG-13/12A could get.

That's not to say I agree with the choices.  I really missed the nuances of Sola's back story and Thark society, the poignancy of Woola's devotion is diluted a tad, and I don't think the Therns were woven into the story well enough.  Carter's arc is probably the weakest element, being predictable and pointless. I don't know whether it's because I gave the film the chance, or because Stanton & co did a good job condensing, but even these things didn't dull my enjoyment.  I don't expect all Burroughs fans to be as accommodating: no doubt there's someone out there who cannot love the film due to the changes, or who wasn't sufficiently drawn into the film.  I can respect that, and I can understand Barsoomians who wanted more.  I know I wanted more: I would've been happy to sit through a three-hour film.  But given all possibilities, this is far better than I expected.  It may not be the Barsoom Burroughs fans have been waiting 100 years for, it may not be the closest adaptation possible, it may not be as good a film as it could have been.  But to me... it was enough.  I'd definitely like to see if some enterprising fan-editor does a "purist's edit": I think it could be done.

Going through all the things I liked about the film would take forever.  Taylor Kitsch was pretty far from the John Carter in my head, but he worked.  The Tharks are a good deal less broad, imposing and alien than the beings in my imagination, but their personality and design more than made up for that: certainly Tarkas, Sola, Sarkoja and Hajus were more or less pitch-perfect.  The creatures, settings and designs were nothing short of spectacular, especially Zodanga and Helium. Woola was awesome, of course.  Purefoy's Kantos Kan was immensely enjoyable in the few scenes he appeared.  All the other characters save Dejah Thoris were well-acted and portrayed.  The Princess of Helium, on the other hand, was one of the most delightful surprises: Lynn Collins brings a perfect mix of the godly and the womanly to the role, a feat I never thought could be done.  It's just a shame Sab Than was about as weak as I found him in the book, acting as little more than the whining lackey of the Therns, but it's hard to criticize fidelity to the source material in this case.

There are parts in the film which are so well done, shivers ran down my spine.  I got chills, man!  Carter's first steps were just like how I imagined them, right up to the incubator and first encounter with Tars Tarkas.  Then there are the set pieces like the airship battle, the charge of the Warhoon, the first sighting of Helium.  The beauty of this film!  When JC rallies the Tharks to ride to Zodanga, I damn near leapt out of my chair  - and that's no hyperbole.  I don't exaggerate about things like that.

Looking beyond relation to the books and visuals, the film did a great job of bringing something more than spectacle.  There's a scene in the middle of the film which, while a smidgen manipulative, is nonetheless just subdued enough to have maximum impact, even if the actionhounds will no doubt want to see JC going wild on the Warhoun without harrowing flashbacks.  The commentary on imperial expansion, tribal conflict, frontier ideologies and manifest destiny is happily retained in the adaptation, and there for viewers willing to look for it.  Plus you have the usual foreshadowing and Chekhov's Guns in effect adding cinematic stanzas.  All well-made, excellently executed, good stuff all round.

 Everyone loves Woola, as well they should, he's the best pal a Jasoomian could ever want!

The film has been compared to Avatar for obvious reasons. I think it's unfair: this is a much better film than Jake Sully's wacky adventures. It's certainly superior to a great number of films I've seen over the years.  Better than every Harry Potter film I've seen.  Better than the Narnia adaptations.  Better than Thor, Tintin, Transformers. Although I should probably wait a bit and watch it again (and again, and again: I plan on taking multiple family members and friends). I'm confident in saying that, flawed as it is, I think it's comparable to the better fantasy films I've seen.  I'm talking Conan the Barbarian and, yes, The Lord of the Rings trilogy.  This film can hang with them, no problem. 

I would even go so far as to say it's on the level of Star Wars.  That's right, I said it.  Now, before you get your pitchforks, keep in mind that I don't hold Star Wars to quite the same echelon as others do.  I saw it quite late in childhood, perhaps affecting my reception to it, but I certainly felt thrills, a sense of wonder, and fascination with the world that was created.  It was great, sure, but it wasn't one of the defining narratives of my childhood either.  There are mythic archetypes aplenty to be sure, but they're obvious mythic archetypes straight out of Campbell without much twisting and altering: pretty standard stuff.  Not to mention a lot of the really great stuff was just lifted from earlier films in the first place.  What I'm saying is that watching John Carter, I felt the exact same sorts of emotions as when I first watched Star Wars.  As a 27-year-old, who's endured countless atrocious adaptations, repugnant remakes and ridiculous re imaginings. That has to count for something.

If John Carter isn't a success, then frankly... I don't know if that's what we deserve.  If we as a people reward the likes of Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest, Transformers: Dark of the Moon and bloody Alice in Wonderland with $1 billion in revenue while letting good films down, then perhaps that's our just desserts.  But the sheer hypocrisy of decrying John Carter while eagerly awaiting the eighth Batman film, a prequel to a beloved franchise which already has four films, and one of the most obvious licences to print money in the history of cinema absolutely perplexes and infuriates me.

It's not perfect.  It's not the best adaptation.  But it's good enough for me.



The Future
So, what happens when a major studio actually takes a chance, rather than spending money on a sequel to a tired franchise with no creative vision? We pounce on it. We mock it. We turn it into a joke as a self-fulfilling prophecy. I’m not a box office prognosticator, but I am genuinely worried about the box-office returns on the film – but those numbers are so uncertain precisely because it’s not a safe bet, precisely because it’s an”out there” choice. I think that producing John Carter was a very brave move from an institution that we tend to mock for being staid and conservative, and I just find it odd that we are so quick to preemptively punish that sort of bold creativity and risk-taking, especially when we claim that’s exactly what we want.
 - Darren of them0vieblog

Let's go back to what I said earlier.

I saw John CarterI understand.  It wasn't my Barsoom: only I could realise my personal vision of that weird, wondrous world.  But this was Stanton's Barsoom, and it was a Barsoom I could recognize.  I saw John Carter leaping through the sky; I saw Dejah Thoris in her power and beauty; I saw Tars Tarkas in his dignity and might; I saw Sola in her nobility and strength; I saw Woola in his devotion and courage.  I saw the spires of Helium, the streets of Zodanga, the pillars of Thark, the depths of the Issus.  I saw airships soaring on the aether, white apes on the rampage, the Ninth Ray blazing through the night.  I recognized everyone even before they were introduced, which is all I can really expect from any adaptation worth its salt.

I understand why it's doing so poorlyThis article highlights the only explanation that makes any sense to me.  Conan the Barbarian is instructive, since it also had a largely panned marketing campaign, and it also failed: in contrast, Clash of the Titans had a massive campaign with some good shots & quotes (Liam Neeson's "Release the Kraken!" being widely cited as the only reason to see the film).  I'd be hard pressed to pick between Conan and Clash in terms of quality, but John Carter blows them both out of the water. As for the poor ratings: simple. People are stupid. When people start to claim that John Carter's overseas performances can be explained because non-Americans are less interested in plot than Yanks and so are willing to be more forgiving if you don't speak English - quite how this accounts for the film's success in the UK and Australia, which, ahem, speak English - well, one need only look at the success of Transformers in the US to see just what a load of codswallop that "argument" is. Yet this argument is bewilderingly commonplace: either it's too convoluted, or too full of "mumbo-jumbo and wacky made-up words." Pretty sure that's exactly what people were saying when Star Wars first came out.

I think this is a perfect illustration as to why directors like Andrew Stanton rarely get the chance in this era.  This is clearly a labour of love.  Every frame, every second, every pixel, sound, tone, was crafted with someone who loved A Princess of Mars.  And you can bet Hollywood hates that.  They have a history of hating genuine invention: always go for the safe choice, the easy choice, the profitable choice.  Don't take chances in case they don't pay off, and especially when it appears that the "safe choice" isn't really that safe at all.  This is only two years after Avatar, in the same year The Phantom Menace was re-released in 3D, in a period where cinema takings are at historic lows, using source material that has been mined relentlessly since practically the dawn of cinema itself, funded by a studio notorious for spotty live-action films and infamously constrictive.  Despite the budget, John Carter was a risky project, which is why it's astonishing it was made at all.

This was a tremendous missed opportunity. I say this, because it looks unlikely that the film will start a franchise - even though it is far from the disaster lazy and disingenuous reporters claim it to be. 21 Jump Street got $35 million in the same period of time John Carter gained $30 million, yet it's being hailed as a success: is the margin between Ishtar-level failure and success really so narrow? I pray I'm wrong, that they're wrong, that the rabid and devoted Edgar Rice Burroughs fans and new-found theatregoing fans fuel enough energy and excitement for a film that deserves success.  Other reviews have stated that this was enough: it was a self-contained story made so strongly that it doesn't need a sequel. But after watching John Carter, I definitely want to see Stanton's Gods of Mars, Warlord of Mars, Swords of Mars. I know Stanton can do it.

I didn't like it.  I say this, because I loved it.

I really hope this doesn't ruin anyone's expectations.  I just compared this film to freakin' Star Wars, you know?  That's quite some hype there.  But really, what's the point of having a blog if you can't say what you want to?  I realise I may have led people on with "I didn't like it," and I'm sorry if I annoyed you unduly.  It just seemed the best way to convey the pleasant surprise I felt when I realised that I was totally giving myself over to the film.  I'm always wary about gushing about things I like, but this time... I think it's worth it.

Go see John Carter.

39 comments:

  1. Interesting. You liked it a great deal more than I did, though I did like it. I'll post my own review sometime this week, but I must admit, after reading yours, I may need to re-evaluate my own feelings about this film somewhat.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I suspected this would be the case, James, but I won't begrudge your review even if it was negative. I just can't believe that I can be so hot and cold about The Lord of the Rings adaptations, yet loved this film. To be frank, I think it's because Stanton is just a better director than Peter Jackson, and Michael Chabon is a better screenwriter than Boyens/Walsh. I look forward to your review!

      Delete
  2. I wouldn't stress too much about your review my friend! We come here for your honesty after all!..I must admit seeing the Disney tag had me worried and backpedaling well before reading it!..I think the only Disney film I ever loved was Dragonslayer...And my that's rather long in the tooth these days.Hehehehehe..I believe that was an aberration at the time also but lingers to this day with a cult following of Dragon lovers. I was dreading the thought of John Carter to be honest, but perhaps like yourself I'll sit a little easier through a session and avoid the inevitable dummy spit at imagination unrealized.
    Cheers!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I like a great many Disney films (mostly pre-1950s with a few from beyond), but when it comes to the live-action Disneys, I only like the classic '50s and '60s ones. 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea and that ilk. I really hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

      Delete
  3. I thought it was awesome. Yeah, I missed the Atmosphere Plant and yeah, I missed the Thark backstory (which would have been more entertaining than JCs new backstory with Yankees), but still so much of the first three books was up there on the screen it CHOKED ME UP!!!!
    I think the reality is that the new studio cheif in charge at Disney wanted JC to fail. Remember this is hollywierd mentality. Its not enough that you win the old man's chair. You must make the old man fail. The new guy doesn't care about the money the company invested in the film. He just fears the studio exec who greenlit this film will be a success- which will diminish his own...Thus we get a worthy blockbuster size movie with True Art in it, that has a poor promotional effort and absolutely NO merchandising tie ins in an era when Merchandising is used to promote a film? Its not the audience which is stupid. Its the studio exec who decided to Ham String this film, and the silly arse media "journalists" who went along with his diplicity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The scary thing about these conspiracy theories is that they have precedence. I can definitely believe that there's some sort of whispering campaign going on. Notice how Disney barely even attempted damage control when the tracking numbers came out? Somebody in the company doesn't want JC to succeed, and is willing to cost the company money to prove that point. Hollywood types are crazy at the best of times.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, this right here. The new guy has nothing to gain from the movie's success and nothing to fear from its failure, so he essentially washed his hands of it. It's the only theory I can imagine why there aren't Woola plush toys flooding every toy store across the land.

      Delete
  4. Bravo, Al. Your passion for Burroughs's shines throughout this piece.

    I don't have faith in Hollywood to produce films worth my time any more, but this seems a rare exception...and the director is being punished for it. I couldn't believe how many people (including Spoony[!]) wanted this film to fail, as if John Carter, and not the sequels/prequels/endless comic book adaptations mentioned above, were an avatar for the bloated studio system. To have an adaptation where the director and screenwriters actually cared about the source material is so rare these days; even with the budget, this seems like an underdog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks Michal. I think this is a definite case of a team which genuinely loved the source material. I can't count the number of supposed adaptations which are completely by-the-numbers, lifeless, pointless wastes of time, but it's easy to tell them apart from the ones which were made with genuine love.

      Delete
  5. As usual, well said, Al. For once, a major studio did an adaptation right. Not perfect, but right. Unfortunately, I'm afraid there won't be a sequel for the reasons you list. (And no merchandising? WT*?) I mourn the lost opportunity.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. This is what more adaptations should be like.

      The lack of merchandising is absolutely unfathomable. If it's because Stanton wanted to sell this as an "adult" movie and not just for children, then why did he make so many concessions to ensure children could see it? And then, if Stanton had power over not just the film and marketing, but the merchandising, how in blazes did Disney give him control over one of their biggest sources of revenue? It's utterly baffling.

      Delete
  6. I was jazzed to see it and now I stupidly jazzed to see it. I think I've even gotten my wife excited to see it. Now I've just got to see it on an IMAX screen before it's gone, which I fear it will be far too soon.
    It's been interesting (and depressing) reading the various prognosticators who were gunning for this movie months ago instead of actually giving it a chance. Then there were the critics such as you mentioned who called it out for its plethora of names, races, etc. as if that made it too hard to follow. Frustrating.

    And Keith, indeed, how is a Disney movie doing no merchandising?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. To be frank, I had serious misgivings myself, but after the disaster that was The Wrath of Zym, I was desperate for anything based on classic pulp literature to succeed in any way possible.

      Delete
  7. I saw it this evening and my reaction to it is exactly the same as yours, Al. I was skeptical of this production but the movie itself was so good.

    I really loved it but there is one thing that has nagged at me and that is that, as a Disney production, Dejah Thoris would necessarily join the ranks of the Disney Princesses. Can you imagine it? Snow White, Sleeping Beauty, Princess Jasmine and... Dejah Thoris?

    I shudder at the very thought. I think I'd rather drink a cup of hemlock than see that happen.

    So if the film does not generate enough money or interest to let that nightmare become a reality, I'm really okay with that. It is a beautiful film and nothing will take that away. A sequel would have been nice, the film becoming a runaway hit would have been nice, but I honestly couldn't face a world where John Carter and Tars Tarkas join Mickey and Minnie on parade through the streets of Disneyland.

    I'd rather die in the Warhoon arena.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There is a very weird disconnect imagining Dejah Thoris as a Disney Princess and seeing Tars Tarkas in the crowd at Disney, but frankly, I think the characters are strong and iconic enough that they deserve it. After all, Conan had to endure the indignity of the live arena show at Universal all those years, I think John Carter's a big enough guy to have one too.

      Delete
  8. I still think that "Fellowship of the ring" or "The empire strikes back" are far better. I have some real problems with this movie AS a movie. But I must admit, sir, that you write a very passionate, convincing and insightful article. And that's beautiful.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree on Empire, but I genuinely think this and Fellowship are comparable in quality, while much more enjoyable for me personally. I don't doubt you have real problems with the film, in fact I'm sure they're the same problems I have, but for whatever reason, the sheer joy and excitement dulled the pedantic desire to point out the things that were wrong.

      Delete
  9. I'm not so sure John Carter will be a flop. Despite the lackluster opening in the US the film is doing really good in foreign markets. The total so far is 180 million worldwide in only 10 days. Tron Legacy grossed 400 million worldwide and we are seeing a sequel for that film next year. I imagine alot of people that are on the fence about dropping $10 bucks to see JC will end up renting it for $1 and liking it too. I applaud Disney and Stanton for taking a chance and making a great film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We can only hope, Anon. If not, I guess we'll just have even more Pirates of the Caribbean to look forward to.

      Delete
  10. marcelo anciano19 March 2012 at 18:40

    God I loved this film, I just cannot understand why the hate that seems to have been picked up by the media. This, for me is exactly how to do a good adaption, it oozes a spirit of someone who loves the stories. Now, if only Howard could have the same...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Honestly, I'd be happy if someone would just do *an adaptation* of a Howard story instead of cobbling together their own fanfiction and hiring some screenwriters to make sense of their stupid ideas.

      Delete
  11. Hero of the Federation19 March 2012 at 21:24

    SIR! WE GET YOU; SIR!

    ReplyDelete
  12. You and I are in agreement on all the major points Al. I enjoyed the film and while I had a couple of problems, I did feel that I was seeing Edgar Rice Burroughs Mars. Oh, and I loved the Ray Bradbury quote, I'll be using that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Perhaps I'm just overgenerous after seeing the hash made of I, Robot and I Am Legend, but while I'd certainly not compare it to the likes of The Maltese Falcon or The Princess Bride in terms of fidelity, it's still far closer than I expected from the current Disney execs. I really love that Bradbury quote too!

      Delete
  13. As for the comparison between Star Wars and John Carter, the first time I saw SW, I went to see it hoping to see something that would remind me of John Carter of Mars, and it sorta did, sorta. But now, by God I have SEEN John Carter of Mars!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really can't believe how similar my first viewing of Star Wars was compared to John Carter, especially considering how pedantic I can be. It perplexes me how anyone can give this a half-star (like certain papers I've seen).

      Delete
  14. Disney deserves a fair amount of blame for the failure of John Carter. Their horrible ad campaign, which became fodder for late night comedians, left the masses cold and asking "Who the hell is John Carter?" before they took the kids to see The Lorax. The Dis looked desperate and made things worse when they rushed a new Avengers trailer out to theaters to help the Sat. and Sun. box office and proclaimed "We're #1 in Russia!" to get attention from Hollywood websites.

    Another problem facing the film is the Conan factor. A reporter for CNN said John Carter looked a lot like a Conan flick. The reviewer being interviewed said yeah, it is like a Conan movie. Getting lumped in as a quasi-sequel to a bomb from last summer didn't help. Again, Disney's ad campaigns could have done a better job of telling the casual movie audience who John Carter is and why it isn't just another Conan flick.

    The good news is Hollywood tries to make a film based on pulp heroes once or twice every twenty years. Remember Doc Savage in the 70s, The Shadow and The Phantom in the 90s? This means we should see a film version of The Spider in 2032.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gah, "the Conan factor" should NEVER be used in a negative sense. Thanks, Hollywood. Truth be told, I think this was the case even with the 1982 film, and whatever one thinks of either film, the idea of the "big dumb barbarian" is probably the biggest hurdle Conan had to overcome. So John Carter being compared to Conan is, infuriatingly, a Bad Thing these days.

      Can't wait to see The Spider and whatever ludicrous tragic backstory they concoct to explain why he fights crime...

      Delete
  15. John Carter is now officially known as "the biggest flop (or bomb depending on the broadcast) in the history of Hollywood" after Disney leaked they've lost $200 million on the film.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. After less than two weeks, it seems mighty premature, not to mention self-defeating: why in God's name would Disney choose to lose money by broadcasting this? "Leaked" my eye.

      Delete
  16. I was on a fence wether I wanted to see this movie or not until I read this review. Absolutely beautiful. Although I haven't read the original books, I've been eagerly awaiting a movie that was made with devotion and love, which is *not* the impression I got from the trailers.

    Also, I find it absolutely dusgusting how the media is shooting down this movie. I read an article earlier on the BBC saying it was "the biggest flop in history" and "panned by critics".

    It's a conspiracy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Cheers Laurens, I only hope I haven't led you on with it, and that you enjoy it as much as I did. It is pretty clear that this film was made with much love and care, although I'm starting to wonder if the suits got their way after all with some key elements...

      Delete
  17. I think we see this one about the same. It's a shame there likely won't be a trio of films to celebrate ERB's creation, but at least we have this one. It's a good movie, not a great one, but then those things have little to do with popularity anyway.

    Rip Off

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can only hope someone, somewhere down the line decides to take up the mantle. John Carter should, by all rights, be as adapted as Tarzan or Sherlock Holmes, and you could have any number of adaptations of the same book that are entirely different. Perhaps the acclaim from the fans might inspire some enterprising filmmakers to do their own take in an animated film (which is probably the "cheapest" way to do JC, all things considered). Maybe we won't see a live-action one for a long time, but I can see a CGI film or even traditionally animated one.

      Delete
  18. Thought it was very well done. Captured ERB's spirit on most points. Too bad it hasn't done better in the box office.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Went to John Carter. It was all as you say Taranaich. I felt all that too and saw what you saw. After years of reading such marvel, and waiting...time of my life that film.

    ReplyDelete
  20. While I can't agree with your statements that Stanton is a better director or Chabon writer (here I'll say 'adapter') than Jackson, Walsh and Boyens, I couldn't help but cheer through your review of the film, the book, and the plot between Disney's marketing dept and the "critics" to destroy this amazing piece of work.

    You've read my review of JC and so you know that I loved it. I had very low expectations because of similar films that just didn't turn out quite right for me (the most recent Conan, for example) and this really blew me away. I don't remember right now if I mentioned on my site that I actually saw this 3 times that first week (within 5 days, actually). I saw it with different people each time and each time my appreciation for the film grew. I cannot wait to see it again on DVD.

    Your comparison to Star Wars does not surprise me at all and rings very true for me. I grew up in the Star Wars era and those films, like the LOTR films, have become a franchise that I hold above anything else. But that being said, the excitement and sense of wonder I felt for John Carter was so reminiscent of my feelings about Star Wars that I am right there with you. There is a kindred spirit that these John Carter shares with Star Wars.

    It is a shame you had so much hype about Firefly because it is a very special show, but I understand how sometimes hype can just get in there and cause different reactions sometimes.

    Wonderful post, so appreciate your passion.

    ReplyDelete
  21. From everything I'm hearing, I suspect that if this has been released a decade ago, we'd likely be hailing it as a rediscovered classic by now. I wonder what will happen to movies like this as we find ourselves trending more and more into a world of instant gratification, digital distribution. Will word of mouth continue to generate 'hits' after the fact, or is the opportunity already lost?

    Regardless, I need to make an effort to get out and see this while it's still on the big screen.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I'm glad I read this. Thanks for sharing. I have sort of a side comment--I noticed the blue blood in the movie, but didn't think of the reasons behind it. But as soon as you pointed out that it would have been more violent if the blood were red...that's SO true! The things we don't know about ourselves! :)

    ReplyDelete