John Carter (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Film Forums] >> Favourite Films



Message


The Hooded Man -> John Carter (14/3/2012 10:51:10 AM)

I know it's divided a lot of opinions but for me it was one of the best times I've had at the cinema for a long time. It was great to see a blockbuster with heart rather than, to paraphrase Ain't It Cool, cash grabs by committee like Pirates of the Carribbean and Transformers: Dark of the Moon.




Whistler -> RE: John Carter (14/3/2012 11:49:11 AM)

I had no real expectations going in, but I left feeling thoroughly satisfied. It's not perfect by any means, and it doesn't feel very original despite the source material out-dating all sci-fi films it seems to rip off, but it entertained me solidly for two hours. And even if we have different opinions, I did rather enjoy Dr. Kermode's latest rant [:D]




MartinBlank76 -> RE: John Carter (16/3/2012 1:12:29 PM)

Very entertaining indeed, and I am hoping that even though the US take currently looks lacklustre, hopefully worldwide it will do well enough for a sequel. I want John carter to get his ass back to mars!




Darth Marenghi -> RE: John Carter (16/3/2012 2:47:57 PM)

I found it a thoroughly entertaining swashbuckler, and didn't really see any major issues with it. Didn't really get why Stanton felt Taylor Kitsch was the only man for the job, but he did a decent job. Willem Defoe was wonderful as Tars Tarkas, Lynn Collins fantastic as the Princess of Mars herself - nice touch of making her a scientist and a fighter when the role could have easily been a stereotypical damsel in distress. Like The Hooded Man said, it's packed with plenty of heart and it's a shame that Disney hamstrung the film's chances of success with its diabolically awful marketing.




Gimli The Dwarf -> RE: John Carter (17/3/2012 11:43:52 AM)

Very entertaining. I'd love to see some more films in this series. One of the best big blockbusters in a while.





OPEN YOUR EYES -> RE: John Carter (17/3/2012 1:28:07 PM)

Would you say the Films main detriment is the fact there have been numourous Sci-Fi films since the books release (1917) that have taken snipets from the John Carters World ? ie Star Wars,Star Trek,Avatar etc




Gimli The Dwarf -> RE: John Carter (19/3/2012 1:56:12 PM)

I didn't mind the familiarity. I've never read the books, but if this is an accurate adaptation then it's easy to see how so much sci-fi has been influenced by the tale.






st3veebee -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 12:00:41 PM)

This really is a better film than it gets credit for. Awful publicity it must be said tho.





Skillgannon -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 1:53:16 PM)

Personnally, I loved it. Thought it was a little slow to begin with but soon picked up once on Mars.
Kitsch was fine in the lead role but it was Lynn Collins who stole the show.

I would be very happy for a sequel although, my gut says it won't happen




MartinBlank76 -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 1:54:38 PM)

It sounds like Disney has already thrown the towel in on this one which I dont understand. Yes, it cost big money to make but 200 million worldwide in its first two weeks aint that shabby is it?




shool -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 1:55:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Skillgannon

Personnally, I loved it. Thought it was a little slow to begin with but soon picked up once on Mars.
Kitsch was fine in the lead role but it was Lynn Collins who stole the show.

I would be very happy for a sequel although, my gut says it won't happen


Very doubtful for a sequel I would say. See below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200




Spaldron -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 3:47:21 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: shool


Very doubtful for a sequel I would say. See below.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17442200




Was just about to post that link, looks like its turkey time for Disney.




Timon -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 3:50:12 PM)

The headlines are very sensationalist though. It HAS made $200 million worldwide in over 2 weeks, it's just because the studio reportedly spent $100 million on a cack marketing campaign.

It's lost money, but it's not the turkey certain hack publications are running with. Sahara lost sheds loads more than Carter did.

The problem with articles like this is people will now dismiss it as a 'shit film' because it's lost money, when it's really a decent movie. I feel bad for Stanton, I think he did a decent job. Maybe this will get the 'Shawshank' revival... but I doubt it.





Rgirvan44 -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 4:51:20 PM)

At the end of the day, the movie was fun, but that was it. It doesn't have the staying power to be seen as a classic I think. Some nice moments, some nice acting, but nothing to really set it apart from other blockbusters.

I certainly think it is sad it didn't find an audience, but at the same time, I am not going to use the box office failure to declare it as some sort of unseen cult classic.




MartinBlank76 -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 5:26:29 PM)

Is this move by disney not just adding to the stench of failure that already hangs round the movie? Its not exactly helping matters any. A mate of mine who knew nothing about the movie other than I said it was good, noticed this move by disney today and took it as it as not worth going to see.

As for the marketing campaign the same mate knew nothing about the film but had saw the poster and thought it was something to do with cavemen. I really dont think all those other mars films flopped just because the word mars was in the title.




Rgirvan44 -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 5:29:00 PM)

It sounds like Disney are washing their hands of the whole thing. Would suspect background politics we are not privy to are coming into play.




MartinBlank76 -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 5:36:53 PM)

Is that not cutting their nose off to spite their face? They may be able to rescue something from it if they try to reposition the marketing now, or even in advance of the dvd campaign. No sense adding more to the bad vibes around it. I still think 200 million in two weeks is decent enough. Did they really think it was going to be avatar? It will probably end up like the likes of prince of persia and tron legacy, 400 million or so worldwide from its theatrical release and is that really flop territory, even with the budget and especially with dvd still to come? I dunno, I feel sorry for poor ol unloved John Carter (of Mars)!




Darth Marenghi -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 5:59:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

It sounds like Disney are washing their hands of the whole thing. Would suspect background politics we are not privy to are coming into play.


It's clearly been the victim of a regime change at Disney - and we can only imagine the kind of conversations that have been happening since the tracking numbers came out.




Nexus Wookie -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 8:05:51 PM)

They're saying this film is the biggest flop ever, and Disney have suffered a loss of 200 mill, maybe they should put more money into marketing the damn thing. Did they think people would flock to the cinema as they did Avatar? Its a shame really because John Carter of Mars (the original novel) is responsible in part for scifi blockbusters like Star Wars and Avatar.




rich -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 8:32:19 PM)

The marketing was a big failure and this studio exec sounds like huge asshole. Something this will break even at least.




Nexus Wookie -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 8:34:51 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rich

The marketing was a big failure and this studio exec sounds like huge asshole. Something this will break even at least.


Huge asshole is an understatement....a REALLY huge asshole is more fitting! [:D]




Sutty -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 8:48:28 PM)

It is a sad state of a affairs when a movie that makes $200 million in its first two weeks is considered a failure. Much like when Superman Returns ONLY made half a BILLION dollars at the box office, some so called experts said it was a flop. Absolute bollocks in my opinion. And it is a shame because what this attitude will eventualy foster is an outlook whereby unless a movie starts smashing records then it is a failure. Only movies such as Avatar, Titanic (both distinctly average flicks overall but found an audience - particularly Titanic - that could connect with them in very personal ways) and Lord of the Rings will be deemed successes. The more this happens the less likely that new up and coming directors will get their chance at the big movies, because unless it makes a billion bucks the head honcho's will get rid. Sadly, John Carter is unlikely to expand on its already found audience at the cinema and possibly wont be seen by many until dvd now.
There will come a time, and very soon, that only "event" movies or movies with gimmicks such as 3D will get mainstream releases. Middle budget movies will become obsolete, perhaps non existant, and with it originality and new ideas will die. Because lets face it... why take the chance?




Cool Breeze -> RE: John Carter (20/3/2012 9:36:54 PM)

I thought this movie was..ok.

I usually avoid 3d showings of movies at the cinema cos i dont really like it and think its just a money grabbing gimmick.However there were no normal screenings anywhere near me so i opted for the 3D showing at my local.

God i hate 3D.It just makes characters on screen look like cardboard cut outs.And certain action scenes looked blurry.

As for the actual film itself.It was decent but nothing special.It was a little hard to follow i places (Just what were Mark Strongs people really up to and what the hell were they really?).Kitsch was ok but looked a little short and scrawny to be a warrior.He needed to have a Chris Hemsworth style physique to really carry this role off.

So not bad but nothing special.




Gimli The Dwarf -> RE: John Carter (21/3/2012 2:20:19 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Rgirvan44

At the end of the day, the movie was fun, but that was it. It doesn't have the staying power to be seen as a classic I think. Some nice moments, some nice acting, but nothing to really set it apart from other blockbusters.



Fun it was, but certainly no worse than some of the films that have gone on to make a billion or more. For me it was certainly one of the more memorable and entertaining blockbusters of recent years, very much looking forward to seeing it again.




DONOVAN KURTWOOD -> RE: John Carter (21/3/2012 1:50:08 PM)

enjoyed this a lot, an entertaining two hours! Probably liked it a bit more than Avatar and it was mercifully shorter.




The REAL Bozz -> RE: John Carter (21/3/2012 2:23:37 PM)

This will be a borrow for me. I'm sure my bro will buy it when it comes out. The trailers never did anything for me but I like the cast so I'll see it for them.




Cool Breeze -> RE: John Carter (21/3/2012 9:55:11 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

enjoyed this a lot, an entertaining two hours! Probably liked it a bit more than Avatar and it was mercifully shorter.


Have you rediscovered your love for the cinema DK? With this and MI:4,you didnt wait for the Blu ray like you normally do.




Qwerty Norris -> RE: John Carter (21/3/2012 10:50:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty

It is a sad state of a affairs when a movie that makes $200 million in its first two weeks is considered a failure. Much like when Superman Returns ONLY made half a BILLION dollars at the box office, some so called experts said it was a flop. Absolute bollocks in my opinion. And it is a shame because what this attitude will eventualy foster is an outlook whereby unless a movie starts smashing records then it is a failure.


I think the issue here though is that a films takings have to be comparable to its budget. John Carter had a huge budget of around $350 million in total once you take in production costs & marketing (that's a figure larger than The Dark Knight and on a par with Avatar). For that alone, it MUST obtain a healthy box office to be deemed a success - it's economical suicide otherwise.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty
Only movies such as Avatar, Titanic (both distinctly average flicks overall but found an audience - particularly Titanic - that could connect with them in very personal ways) and Lord of the Rings will be deemed successes.


That's obviously your opinion. But both those works not only drew from very well known sources (being a real life disaster or a celebrated work of fiction), they were marketed properly by the studios who financed them - something Disney spectacularly cocked up in JC's regard.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty
The more this happens the less likely that new up and coming directors will get their chance at the big movies, because unless it makes a billion bucks the head honcho's will get rid. Sadly, John Carter is unlikely to expand on its already found audience at the cinema and possibly wont be seen by many until dvd now.


Andrew Stanton directed at its time the most successful Pixar film to be released & it was one of the biggest earners of all time at the box office. WALL-E did pretty well too. I don't see your logic here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sutty
There will come a time, and very soon, that only "event" movies or movies with gimmicks such as 3D will get mainstream releases. Middle budget movies will become obsolete, perhaps non existant, and with it originality and new ideas will die. Because lets face it... why take the chance?


Nonsense. The comedy genre tends to be the most profitable genre of mainstream cinema and as long as people want to laugh, you'll see far more of them in the multiplexes than big-budgeted special effects works. The box office failure of JC is a wake-up call to the studios who gamble on a $200 million project - NOT the ones with relatively modest overheads.






DONOVAN KURTWOOD -> RE: John Carter (4/7/2012 6:25:40 PM)

Got my 3D blu ray in the post today,. just about to rewatch this awesome movie. Had a quick flick through and it looks fantastic in hi-def.




DONOVAN KURTWOOD -> RE: John Carter (4/7/2012 6:26:41 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Cool Breeze


quote:

ORIGINAL: DONOVAN KURTWOOD

enjoyed this a lot, an entertaining two hours! Probably liked it a bit more than Avatar and it was mercifully shorter.


Have you rediscovered your love for the cinema DK? With this and MI:4,you didnt wait for the Blu ray like you normally do.


Only just seen this! I've definitely been to the movies more times this year than in previous. It's been a great year for movies so far!




Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.15625