John Carter “The River” 60 Second Spot — Where was this during the Super Bowl?


Here is the 60 Second John Carter Spot that aired during the premiere of The River on ABC. This is the first actually “new” spot seen since December 1st — it incorporates new footage, music we haven’t heard, a new set of cards for the storytelling. Sure wish this had played in front of 100m people on Sunday rather than 10m tonight, but it was something. More!


  • No, i am not going to agree to disagree with oyu, you are completely mad!

  • No I’m not high but you’re about to have a heart attack if you don’t calm down. This is why I asked Mike to remove my comments-no matter what someone gets upset.

    If you look back at my comments here I did not say that Burroughs’ work wasn’t silly. Heck most of Tarzan is silly-how many lost civilizations are there in Africa? He was capable of it as anyone. But you know what, that’s the fun of his work-it is silly. It’s fun entertainment, not Sophie’s Choice.

    The issue seems to be is that you don’t like the fact that I called Stanton’s ideas silly or my comment that it was OK to criticize Burroughs for being silly but not Stanton. And I stick to that-it seems no matter what it’s OK for everyone-even ERB fans-to admit ERB’s work is silly and criticize his shortcomings but not Stanton. And no I don’t hold Andrew Stanton to some high standard-but it seems you do. That’s all I’ve heard for the last 3 years anytime anyone has questioned or criticized his handling of this movie-he’s a “genius.” He’s won 2 Oscars. He comes from Pixar. If there’s anyone holding him to some high standard it’s the people constantly pretending he’s infallible. So if I’m criticizing Stanton or calling his ideas “silly” it probably has to do with the fact that I don’t have the same high opinion of him that it seems everyone else does and that his changes, his “improvements” seem silly, especially coming from someone who is infallible. Now that’s my personal opinion. I don’t expect everyone to agree with it.

    So there. I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree. But next time don’t take everything so seriously. And sorry for calling you a hypocrite.

  • YOU are being the hypocrite, you are the one criticizing stantons silly ideas, but not burroughs silly ideas.

    you are the one that is saying its okay for burroughs to have silly ideas but not stanton! You are holding Stanton to a higher standard than burroughs!

    are you high?

  • No I read it. I just don’t agree with it. As for criticizing “silly ideas” it seems OK to criticize Burroughs for his silly ideas but not Stanton? Whose being the hypocrite really?

    Beyond that Mike if you’re reading this just go ahead and remove my comments before this gets even more nasty. Clearly Eric can’t stand for someone to question Stanton and I would rather maintain some peace than cause him or others to get upset.

  • you are totally ignoring what I am writing arent you?

    and you are criticizing . . . silly ideas . . . .

    you know what, I cant talk to someone who is such a hypocrite!

    silly ideas . . .

    there is no such thing as a silly idea, Edgar Rice Burroughs proved that again and again with his work!

    Did you read the pellucidar series? Caspak? ANY of the Tarzan books?

    I am done with you!

  • If it’s not important than why is it in the movie? Most screen writers usually say if it isn’t important to the story you’re telling to cut it out. Otherwise the director or editor will do it anyway.

    Also what should I be a fan of? Bad cliches and silly ideas? Because that’s most of what Stanton’s changes have sounded like.

  • You know, spaceballsmay have been a parody, but its plot and characters acted appropriate and consistant in their world. That is to say, despite the jokes and the ridiculous nature of it, the planet was in danger! there was lives in danger!

    Just because they used the concept of stealing air in a film that was inherently a parody doesn’t mean there is anything wrong with the idea.

    And ID4 was not the pioneer of the idea of sucking a world dry and moving onto the next.

    And that is not what is important about this, what is important is that the Therns do everything because they love control, they want to maintain that control of barsoom.

    I dont think there is any pleasing you MCR, you shouldnt be such a fan that you hate everything different.

  • Actually the logical explanation sounds like someone spent too much time watching Independence Day-the whole idea of plundering a planet and moving on to the next one. Or Spaceballs where they were stealing Planet Druidia’s “fresh air.”

    Where’s Dark Helmet when you need him?

  • Of course he can, and while I do not think this is the best path I think that there is a logical explanation if you have actually followed the promotional material.

    The therns are a native barsoomian race, they control the population. It is their plundering of worlds that is sustaining barsoom, possibly stealing the atmospheres of worlds.

    Helium is advancing technologically (this has been stated in promotional info), and making discoveries that can help sustain barsoom.

    This would take control away from the Therns, thus explaining the therns agression towards Helium, giving the helimuites ancient enemies the means to destroy that which threatens them!

    Near the end John Carter will defend the newly constructed atmosphere factory against a thern assault, and in the struggle accidently be sent home.

    Gods of mars begins when the Therns bring John Carter back to mars, because well . . . they are mad at him and want to stab him

  • Yes “Earth is next” and it will be conquered/destroyed by shape shifting Therns! I’m amazed so far that no one has defended that. I guess Andrew Stanton can make bad choices.

Leave a Reply