Planet Wonder: What happened to the wonderful story of John Carter of Mars?
Well, to start, Disney messed with the title.
The recent movie, Disney’s John Carter was a failure, or at least that’s what the pundits would have you believe. There will not be a sequel.
Now, to some of this, the “failure” of the film is a real head-scratcher. Yes, the story was a mixture of more than one of the Barsoom books, but that didn’t make me any less interested.
I found the story compelling, and close enough to the books to be in no way offended. The special effects were wonderful, the action excellent, and the description of the near-superman powers of John Carter were well done.
So why did it fail?
With a budget of $250 million, with good actors, a decent story, and excellent effects why didn’t this movie make it?
Some are saying the title had a lot to do with it (writers, take heed). A more appropriate title might have been “John Carter of Mars” which would have gone some ways to waking up people who had not read the classic novels that this was both a sword and science romp.
Read the rest, and note the comments — the John Carter fans’ are on “comment patrol”:
23 comments
I for one, appreciate MCR’s comments 🙂
From my point of view, it seems like Stanton is playing the “objective bias” card. He downplays what he dismissis by shifting focus on what he believes could be improved or changed.
It is just a sad fact, that for all the blame one can put on the poor marketing, that doesn’t make up for the paperthin characters in a jumbled, unengaging and badly paced storyline. That part is all Stanton.
MCR
Thanks for the reasonable tone, which leads to an enjoyable exchange of views. We aren’t going to agree on this, but I see where you’re coming from and, as we have both noted – there’s enough there to read his comments in a variety of ways. You seem to give him the least charitable interpretation, and I’m on the other end of the spectrum. We each have our reasons. Let’s call it a dead thoat and don’t beat on it any more.
Peace
Let me respond to Dotar OK guys?
First: ” First, let’s start from the back — you say he was dismissive of ERB. I know the quote you’re referring to — but it feels like you’re cherry picking. Listen to his whole long introduction of the project to journalists (I quoted it in a previous comment)…..it’s all about ERB and in fact his implied criticism of Frazetta (which isn’t really a criticism in that particular quote) is just that it’s a shame Frazetta’s “iconic image” is better known that the source that inspired it.”
Well there was a lot of comments he made where he dimissed ERB. It didn’t seem he ever missed a chance in an interview to criticize Burroughs either because of the format he was writing in, the idea that every chapter ended with “the biggest batlle you ever seen” as Stanton kept telling interviewers (most of them don’t by the way) or that there was room for improvement. Now I’m not saying Burroughs’ work was perfect-far from it. He made mistakes and his writing did have its flaws. But so does Stanton’s. That’s what has annoyed me more-that it’s OK to dismiss Burroughs for his shortcomings, not Stanton.
Second I did read his comment to that group of reporters. Now I guess it loses something in not being live but I didn’t read any comment there that proved Stanton liked the books. It was a dry recitation of facts that anyone could have gotten off Wikipedia. Yes he admits he liked the comics and that’s fine but what exactly did he ever like about the books? He never could in any interview I read say what he ever enjoyed about them or give Burrougsh credit for anything that was right about them.
Second: “As for Frazetta — I hear him saying it’s an “iconic painting” without irony; I hear Harry saying “he loves Frazetta but…..” and then I hear him talking about how he felt that Frazetta’s work may not be timeless …. it may be particularly relevant to a moment in time that has passed — and that he has to come up with a look that is fresh, etc ,etc….. ”
I didn’t expect the film to resemble Frazetta’s work nor did I want it to. I had doubts when Robert Rodriguez was planning on doing John Carter of Mars and wanted it to look like Frazetta that it would be hard to capture that look. And I understand the desire for directors to make a film follow their vision-even if it leads to bad ideas. But saying something is :”iconic” doesn’t mean you’re a fan of it. Gone with the Wind is “iconic.” Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band is “iconic.” But I know people who don’t like those projects, yet people do know them. Again I guess it’s just reading the statement. Stanton admits it’s iconic, he doesn’t say he’s a Frazetta fan. And seriously you’re back up is Harry Knowles? Sorry can we get a more reliabe source than that-or someone who wasn’t drooling over Stanton? (I know that’s sarcastic but honestly Knowles would have liked this movie no matter what.)
As for the fanboys Stanton has been dimissive of them from day one. He seemed relieved in that interview with Geoff Boucher last year that he didn’t have to go to Comic-Con not to mention his comment that people don’t go to sci-fi films (which was really laughable when he said as Rise of the Planet of the Apes had just opened at number one with glowing reviews) when talking about why HE changed the film’s title (before he started claiming the marketing department was responsible. I guess with MT Carney gone he could blame them for that). It just seemed that he had no interest in that audience which actually was probably more familiar with the material than the tweens and family audience at Disney’s D23 Expo where they did preview the film. That does sound like another failing of the marketing but at the same time Stanton didn’t do much to help change that.
Again I guess you’re right-it depends on how you read his comments. OK you can go back to attacking me 🙂
MCR wrote
Well, I don’t see it quite the way you do but it could be that I’m too immersed in the world of Hollywood film-making, and have sat in on too many meetings with too many directors, and so I’m a tad bit more forgiving. First, let’s start from the back — you say he was dismissive of ERB. I know the quote you’re referring to — but it feels like you’re cherry picking. Listen to his whole long introduction of the project to journalists (I quoted it in a previous comment)…..it’s all about ERB and in fact his implied criticism of Frazetta (which isn’t really a criticism in that particular quote) is just that it’s a shame Frazetta’s “iconic image” is better known that the source that inspired it. So ….I think you have to weigh all the quotes about ERB, and consider that a guy who was at the pinnacle in animation chose to spend 5 years of his likely 25 year productive life as a film-maker to bring ERB to the screen — and I land on the side that he wasn’t dismissive of ERB.
As for Frazetta — I hear him saying it’s an “iconic painting” without irony; I hear Harry saying “he loves Frazetta but…..” and then I hear him talking about how he felt that Frazetta’s work may not be timeless …. it may be particularly relevant to a moment in time that has passed — and that he has to come up with a look that is fresh, etc ,etc….. MCR ,every single director in Hollywood says the same damned thing over and over again in different ways and if you consider the psychology of it — of course they do. These are guys at the top of the creative pyramid — the top film directors of today occupy the place in society that Joyce and Hemingway and Faulkner did previously. (Not so say we don’t have great authors today — but film is the medium that galvanizes the imagination of the world, not just the literary elite.) If they undertake an adaptation and are going to spend five years of their life on it, of course they are going to emphasize in their schtick that they are making it their own, that they are making it current, that they are changing it for the better for the current audience–otherwise they are just doing paint by numbers and why would a GREAT ARTIST spend five years of his or her life doing paint by numbers? I hear it even at my (admittedly much lower) level in the industry any time it’s an adaptation that the director is going, or a re-imagining of a classic genre even if there is no literary work to adapt. So …. all I’m saying is, yeah, he said those things that tend to emphasize what he, the “auteur” of the film, brought to the material. But how could you expect otherwise? He wouldn’t be where is without a huge creative ego and belief in himself. That is not exactly a defense of Stanton and please don’t call it that — it’s just more of a somewhat weary acknowledgment of what I see around town here every day. It could have been a lot worse.
As for dismissive of “fanboys” — I dunno. He says he doesn’t want to do “fanboy fantasy creatures” which I take to mean excessively “fantastic” (and hence not believable) rendering, as opposed to trying to make them real. He certainly did try to make the Tharks real and I haven’t heard too many complaints. But …..yeah, maybe that was indirectly dismissive of fanboys. On the other hand — I’ve heard him go on and on about himself as a fanboy of this material …. how he was tracking its progress as a fan and just hoping it would get made, etc etc. So–again — is it cherry-picking.
Bottom line — I think there is probably enough variety in the statements he made that, depending on your perspective, you can reach either conclusion. My conclusion is …..he fell in love first with the comics and that shows; he did read the books and liked them but never quite encountered the books quite the way those of us for whom it was “books only” did; he thought highly of his own creative skills (as the director of Wall-e and Nemo he had some reason to think highly of those skills) and was frank about stating what he thought he brought to the party, alongside ERB and others who imagined Barsoom before him, and wasn’t shy about asserting that his was an important part of the creative mix. Do I fault him for that? As an ERB fan, maybe a bit. But hell, he’s a director, he wouldn’t be a director if he didn’t think that way. So I cut him some slack.
Reading that comment from Aint It Cool News Pascalahad posted it did read as if he was dissing Frazetta. He also seemed dimissive of “fanobys” as well. I don’t want to start another round of “Slammin’ Stanton” but does he respect anyone? Seriously? He was dimissive of the fans, the “fanoboys,” Frazetta and ERB so you do wonder.
Dotar, here is the quote I was referring to, in this set report:
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/53465
“Stanton acknowledged that, but said he didn’t want “fanboy fantasy creatures.” He wanted believability, which is why he look to Earth’s warrior tribes for inspiration on the Tharks.
I said I understood and agreed there needed to be a solid real world grounding or else the fantasy would just look like fluff, but just speaking as a fan I’d miss some of the Frazetta influence on the design of the world.
Stanton loves the Frazetta work, too, but said by now he feels the look is cliché and has been over-used in pop culture.
Direct quote from Stanton: Had somebody made this movie around the era of Frazetta it probably would have been a bullseye, but now you’d think I’d just be making a Molly Hatchet album or the side of a van.”
I remember thinking it felt pretty dismissive.
Pascalahad wrote
HRH Rider wrote
Here is the actual quote from the “edit bay interview” that is, I think, the source of “myth” that Stanton is contemptuous of Frazetta. If there is another quote — please share. It’s a myth because his point is not to dismiss Frazetta as “van art” per se — but rather that it’s a shame that in 2012 people are more likely to know something about the Frazetta paintings than they are likely to know something about the original book.
I mean — a) he pulls out a Frazetta painting and shows it to the journalists, and b) he calls it an icon without irony. I just don’t see how that disses Frazetta in any way — he’s just pointing out that it’s sad people know the painting but not what inspired it.
Here’s a longer quote so you can study it in context. And you can read the interview here.)
“A “dim bulb”, really? Is this section an intolerance contest? If that’s the case, I’m not willing to play.”
Intolerance? That’s certainly an … interesting take. Let’s see, now, shall we? JC meets a Martian youth with fair skin who leaps almost as high as himself, and can’t guess at the child’s origins? Carter can astrally project himself anywhere in the universe, yet he has to follow a kidnapped Dejah Thoris to Jupiter in a space ship? JC loses track of Fal Sivas’ telepathically controlled ship, yet the idea of trying to contact it telepathically never enters his head? Well, Carter always said he was a fighter and not a thinker.
Don’t get me started on David Innes mistaking Dian the Beautiful for a Mahar.
Such blunders on the hero’s part are one of ERB’s endearing characteristics, but trying to replicate such events in a movie would make the audience hoot in derision.
A “dim bulb”, really? Is this section an intolerance contest? If that’s the case, I’m not willing to play.
Dotar —
Thanks for the link to the Kruger script. I’ve only read a few scripts (Towne’s original “Greystoke” and the rewrite, several Mars scripts (Pogue, Gale, and whichever one had John Carter of Vagina), but don’t how to properly “read” a script, if you take my meaning. But I must say, the Kruger script manages to be a cliched mess from almost the first word!
Pascalahad said —
“I think the comparison with Conan is great, and valid. Milius did not adapt faithfully any of Howard’s novels, yet he made (what I would call anyway) a great movie.”
See, here’s where we get into the tricky place of attempting to assess a film through the lens of personal taste and history. (Any critic who claims to be objective is either lying or deluded.) I hated the Milius Conan — murky photography, an unnecessary origin story that became just another cliched revenge tale, ludicrous barbarian “philosophy” by way of Atilla the Hun. Had hoped for greatness, having thought Milius was perfect for the film. How do I feel about the movie now? I’m less negative about it but still don’t think it approaches good, let alone great. However, age has lent it certain charm, a grit missing from other similar movies. Plus it has real movie blood instead of CGI splatters.
“I was too pretty upset while reading some Stanton comments, especially regarding him loving A Princess of Mars in spite of the John Carter character, or his visible contempt, and even rejection, of Frazetta’s work. ”
Again, here’s another point where two people (you and me) read things completely differently. I never got the impression Stanton dissed Frazetta’s work, merely his worry that mainstream viewers would think of airbrushed panel vans rather than the primal otherworldliness that Frazetta’s art embodies. As for Stanton loving the Mars books in spite of the John Carter character — ERB’s JC is a pretty dim bulb. Reading the books as a teen his actions were fun; reading as an adult I’m more appreciative of the world building rather than the too fabulous Mr. Carter. JC is probably the least interesting (to me) of ERB’s heroes.
Oh, for the record, I loathed “E.T.,” thought “Vertigo” was Hitchcock’s most boring movie, can’t understand why everyone I know loved “Gosford Park” and thought the only good thing about “Breakfast at Tiffany’s” was that George Peppard was the spitting image of Doc Savage from the magazine covers.
Thanks a lot for the link!
I think the comparison with Conan is great, and valid. Milius did not adapt faithfully any of Howard’s novels, yet he made (what I would call anyway) a great movie. As in John Carter, the hero (that could here also be labeled “the top of the food chain”) was made “relatable” by adding a vengeance subplot (the same device used again in the last Conan, but this time to no avail).
To me the Conan movies coexist with the books as separate entities too. I’m very fond of Howard’s writing style, as I am of Burroughs’ (I loooove Almuric, that sort of combine both!). Reading a Conan story by Howard is unlike reading a story written by other writers about Conan, and different from reading a Roy Thomas/John Buscema comic book. It’s especially great since we have now the unaltered versions of Conan’s stories to read.
I was too pretty upset while reading some Stanton comments, especially regarding him loving A Princess of Mars in spite of the John Carter character, or his visible contempt, and even rejection, of Frazetta’s work. But I still think he made something remarkable as a filmmaker, as Milius did in its days. Conan the Barbarian (1982) aged well, and I think it will be the same with John Carter. But it’s true only time will tell, and that it could actually go both ways.
What I think John Carter did, most importantly, is to put Barsoom on a map for the general audience. Whatever the fate of the movie, it exists, it will be shown, and perhaps have a legacy. Who knows, perhaps those who will discover the books now will grow up with the desire to put it on the screen again, in a different, perhaps more faithful way. There’s the Dynamite comic book (for how long?), and the Marvel Comics one. Barsoom adaptations can only grow from here. Fingers crossed.
For Pascalahad:
Here’s the best I can do for the moment: http://www.erbzine.com/mag36/3694.html. It’s the Kruger script supposedly for the Kerry Conran version, even though based on the test reel it doesn’t really match up to the script-in the reel John Carter is in the Civil War in the script he’s a modern day Ops soldier. A site called My PDF Scripts had the other two but it’s currently having problems and the scripts have been taken down. Maybe Dotar can post them on here if he has them. It might be interesting to have that discussion of what could have been after everyone reads them.
As for meeting on the road I’m not against that. Let me say this though about separating the film from the book. The comparison that seems to have popped up is John Milius’ Conan the Barbarian. As a film I think its a good movie-great in many ways and far superior to the Marcus Nispel turkey. But as an adaptation of Robert E. Howard it’s a bust. Here’s the thing though, Milius never hid that he wasn’t a fan of Howard’s work when he got the job. He admitted to being a fan of Frank Frazetta’s artwork and that shows in the movie. So I never got as upset about it as some Howard fans did. With Stanton he kept telling everyone he was a huge Burroughs fan-even though he never seemed to miss an opportunity to point out their flaws as if he was the “superior” writer. I just felt the film wasn’t made by someone who was a true fan of ERB but someone who saw it as a career boost. Possibly Stanton thinks he’s a fan but it did not come through in the movie and his interviews backed that up. I don’t know if that explains why I’m skeptical of defending Stanton or not.
But since some don’t want intolerance on this board I’ll put the brakes on this. I don’t want to be the reason people stop coming here. But let me say this: If you don’t allow an alternate viewpoint from time to time people will stop coming because they will feel they can’t post anything without being attacked or having their opinions dimissed by the herd. I personally like having these discussions with fans of ERB. But I don’t want them to stop.
There I said my piece.
Sorry to interrupt 🙂 but I would really be glad to know where you can read those abandoned screenplays of A Princess of Mars.
Anyway, back to the topic. After a month and a half, I begin to be able to differenciate A Princess of Mars from John Carter, I guess it’s part of the healing process. I consider them now as two different entities altogether. I hope, MCR, that you can go the same way. John Carter is really an alternate universe from the book’s, some of it similar, most of it not.
As a cinematic object, John Carter is objectively far from perfect, I agree. But on a subjective level, I really appreciate it in the end. Lynn Collins is a blast in the part of Dejah Thoris, but do you realize how difficult it was to achieve this balance? The Xena Warrior Princess archetype is one of the most used these last years, from the Pirate flicks, to King Arthur, to Your Highness, to Alice in Wolderland (and Snow White to follow??). For Dejah Thoris to stand out from the crowd, to me it’s no small feat. When you go past the horrible exposition, there’s an awesome movie in there, and I hope it will have a legacy.
Peace everybody, I might be mistaken, but I think you will meet along the road.
Paladin wrote
MCR loves ERB and so do I. I keep hoping I can break through and find common ground. It’s a little Don Quixote-ish, I know, but I know he’s a good guy. But your point is well taken.
Well my intent was that the “double” analogy referred (only) to the 50% critics rating and 75% audience rating. Unfortunately, on that basis — it’s a double.
The next question is — what was it in terms of the real creative value when you filter out the mindless hostility of many of the critics? I would definitely give him a triple as far as actual creative achievement. I carefully did not address that in the portion of my comment that dealt with the “double” analogy.
Dotar and MCR-
Do you two guys have any idea how many readers of this website you are going to permanently lose if you keep up this bullshit line of pointless bickering? People are going to stop commenting. MCR is the proverbial rotten apple who can spoil the whole barrel. Utterly dogmatic. Your patience, Dotar, is admirable, but tolerance of intolerance is never a good idea.
And, Dotar, I’m not sure it’s wise to let MCR bait you into revealing that you score Stanton a double. As webmaster, it’s fine to present your problems with this movie, but I believe you should be cautious handing out final scores at such an early juncture, not when so many fans think Stanton actually did hit a homerun. [personally I think this film is consistently underrated – as time will tell – a standup triple]
Dotor Sojat wrote:
“So just be a little patient …. that series is my best efforts to make sense of the whole thing and there is plenty of blame to go around. You will not feel in the end that I’ve apportioned enough of the blame on Stanton, but hopefully you’ll see some value in the attempt to look at everything realistically.”
I am looking forward to the next entry and respect your viewpoint and trying to give us a realistic look at this film.
Dotor also wrote:
“Stanton delivered movie which scored 50/50 with critics, which for a sword and sandal sci fi adventure is acceptable and good enough — when coupled with a 75% positive audience rating.”
That’s still a 50 percent split there. Especially when you look at scores for films like Avatar and even Revenge of the Sith. Those films rated higher than John Carter. As for the 75 audience rating why didn’t that translate into word of mouth? If 75 percent of the audience loved this film why then did it fall so rapidly at the box office?
Also Dotor wrote
“We would have seen a 50++M opening weekend and $200m domestic; the reviews would have been somewhat better (because all the negativity did affect them),.”
See I don’t buy that. I’m sure most people remember Titanic? Or how about Avatar? It seems there was a lot of negative press about the budgets of both, yet that did not effect the reviews. Granted some reviewers did mention the budget but not all of them.
Dotor also wrote:
“But he’s (Stanton) not the dolt you seem to have pegged him to be.”
I never said he was. I do think he allowed his past success to go to his head and that his ego did get out of control. I mean you can blame Rich Ross, MT Carney and the rest but their not the ones who ran up the budget trying to achieve some sort of perfection. As for his handling of the story, it just felt to me that the cliches and changes he made to this story that didn’t work don’t mesh with his reputation that so many used as a defense for his handling of this film. I didn’t see the Pixar “genius” but someone who made bad decisions in his handling of this story.
Now to go on the record, not everything I felt was a total bust. I thought Lynn Collins was excellent as Dejah Thoris and liked how Stanton played up her scientific background. I loved Woola. I thought the action scenes-except for the finale which was badly staged and edited-were amazing and choreographed. I thought most of the supporting cast was fine.
But there was enough there that didn’t work-most of it Stanton’s attemps to “improve” the story that he thought Burroughs was weak at that left me flat and feeling that Stanton had dropped the ball.
Finally:
“By the way– have you read the other John Carter of Mars screenplays? The ones we would have been saddled with if Paramount had produced it? Or Disney in the 90?s for that matter? I can send some of them to you if you like. Read those and maybe you’ll appreciate Stanton a bit more.”
I’ve read 3 of them. The Ted Elliott-Terry Rossio script which I actually liked. It was closer to Burroughs even though it had some problems; the Bob Gale draft which was terrible (it was like he watched the 1980 Flash Gordon and decided to copy that, poorly) and the infamous Ehren Kruger script which I didn’t care for. As for the rest no I haven’t. If you others I wouldn’t mind reading them.
MCR wrote:
Well, I think there is a difference between articles that I link to, and articles that I author or someone on our team authors. There is some value in my view to the fact that different writers, writing for different publications, come to the same conclusion about Disney’s mishandling and including them here is, I think, valid and not repetitive in the way you think precisely because these are different voices. If I were getting on here and saying the same thing again and again in our JCF-authored articles, that would be one thing — but I’m not doing that. As you know my effort to actually figure out “what really happened” is coming out via the series of Special Reports (http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/04/analysis-john-carter-the-flop-that-wasnt-a-turkey-how-did-it-happen-part-1 and those are not headed in the direction of the simple-minded “it’s all on Disney” that you object to. So just be a little patient …. that series is my best efforts to make sense of the whole thing and there is plenty of blame to go around. You will not feel in the end that I’ve apportioned enough of the blame on Stanton, but hopefully you’ll see some value in the attempt to look at everything realistically.
MCR also wrote
First of all, “changing the narrative” from “That big Disney bomb” to “an under appreciated sci-fi classic” is part of what I’m trying to do here, and what the Facebook group and others are trying to do. You seem to be trying, with your comments, to change the narrative from “that big Disney bomb” to “that Andrew Stanton debacle”. So that might be one way of illuminating our difference.
Without getting into subjective analysis — the objective analysis is that Stanton delivered movie which scored 50/50 with critics, which for a sword and sandal sci fi adventure is acceptable and good enough — when coupled with a 75% positive audience rating — to work out to be a successful release if the studio does its job of promoting it well enough to get that all important opening day and opening weekend audience to come out. So while Stanton didn’t hit a home run — he definitely met his end of the bargain from a purely studio/filmmaker perspective. These kind of numbers (51% critics, 75% audience) are as good or better than any number of “hit” action/sci fi movies.
So … the way I see it, Disney’s inept promotion created a situation where Stanton, if the film was to succeed, really needed to hit a home run, in fact a grand slam home run, and he didn’t – he hit a solid double. Your view seems to be that he struck out horribly and I don’t agree with that. The critic and audience response clearly indicates that there is much about it that resonated. But there is nothing about the Disney promotion that can be said to have been artfully or successfully done. Nothing — Disney promotion did strike out horribly. If Disney promotion had just managed to hit a “double” the way I feel that Stanton did, the combination would have been enough that we would be having a very, very different conversation. We would have seen a 50++M opening weekend and $200m domestic; the reviews would have been somewhat better (because all the negativity did affect them), probably 60%++which would have gotten the all important “fresh” rating at Rotten Tomatoes; foreign would had ended up close to $300 for a global total of $500m and all the talk would be about it being “on the bubble” for a sequel.
Also — if Stanton had managed to hit a home run instead of a double — even with the bad Disney promotion we would still be in the same zone, meaning around $500m global gross. Even with a 30m opening weekend — if Stanton had scored 90% with critics and90% with audiences the word of mouth would have carried it to $200m/$300m. But he fell short of getting this figures.
You’ll note that I’m consciously not offering a critique of what he could have done to get those numbers. I’m not ready for that yet — what I’m trying to do is just approach it from an analysis of where the failures were as indicated by the business outcome, and looking at those aspects of that outcome that are attributable to the film itself, and those that are attributable to the promotion of the film.
MCR wrote
But he’s not the dolt you seem to have pegged him to be. He made some choices I would not have made but that doesn’t make them automatically bad choices. There was a real risk in making some of the choices I think would have worked better, and I’m willing to acknowledge that. When I, for example, believe that having the Thern medallion was a mistake because it enabled Carter to be focused on going back to his cave of gold rather than focused on making his way in his new world and new circumstances — I’m conscious that failure to devise a technology to explain the transport to Mars might have hurt the film. I think there were solutions ….I just think that creating the medallion had unintended consequences on the story. I think that Carter’s arc and as you call him his “Moping” quality could have been handled differently — even if the dead wife and child stay in the story — and a more compelling Carter created even if he was a bit different from the one in the book (who, I think, would have been a tough sell to 2012 audiences without some modification). My point is … I think Stanton had a really tough series of decisions to make, he made some good ones, others I would have done differently — but the relentlessness of your critique is that he made one horrible decision after another; he is a cliche ridden hack who couldn’t have done a worse job if he tried. I think that’s over the top and you need to give it a little bit of a rest, and/or at least frame your comments in a way that is not so condescending, as if all the answers were just soooooo obvious than anyone except Stanton-the-dolt could have figured it out.
By the way– have you read the other John Carter of Mars screenplays? The ones we would have been saddled with if Paramount had produced it? Or Disney in the 90’s for that matter? I can send some of them to you if you like. Read those and maybe you’ll appreciate Stanton a bit more.
Peace….;-)
If I come up with new complaints is that OK?
I’m joking. Let me respond and if you don’t like what I have to say you can wave the “moderator” wand and erase everything I have said.
First I did not mean to take advantage of your openness or willinginess to allow opposing viewpoints. That’s commendable. That said it seems of the articles that does end up linked here seems to repeat the same story ad nausem: That Disney screwed this movie for whatever reason (bad marketing, abysmal studio heads, some Oliver Stone like conspiracy against Andrew Stanton). My thought about this is one: Yes Disney screwe dit up. They did a terrible job with this movie in more ways than one. But what if that isn’t the entire story? It seems that most people don’t want to consider the idea-the possibility-that the movie could be the problem. I know that’s not a popular opinion here. To some it seems Stanton has made the greatest film ever made. But if was that great wouldn’t it have overcome the poor marketing, the split-down the middle critical reception or the apparent lack of interest from the audience? I do believe it was reported that after MT Carney left and the marketing shot up that the more people found out about it the less their desire to see this film rose. What does that say about the movie that Stanton made?
Now yes I admit I’m more interested in seeing Edgar Rice Burroughs’ reputation and legacy promoted through any means. But now anytime someone mentions John Carter it’s not going to be “Oh that wonderful series of books” but rather “That big Disney bomb.” That’s what bothers me-that this series is now overshadowed by the fact this film tanked at the box office. And whose to blame for that? Disney for bad marketing or Stanton for not making a good movie? How do you feel about that?
But to maintain some peace I will refrain from now on “slamming Stanton.” But I still feel that there needs to be more of an even balanced to this that just “Disney messed up, Stanton is a genius.” Because yes they did and no he isn’t.
A word for Disney-BOYCOTTED. Any movie project with that hated word attached is now DOA to me. Sort of like any post by ‘MCR’. I just skip over them, pal. We got it, you don’t like Stanton, etc, etc. Please have mercy on folks who are not aware of your personal problems and shut up.
Michael, I couldn’t have put it better myself. And may I just add, can the negative articles about John Carter come up with something other than it’s a “flop”?! They ignore worldwide box office (because the US is the only people who count in the world, apparently). Talk about redundant! It’s the negative articles that are all clones of one another.
MCR Wrote:
Dear MCR,
You’re putting me in a really difficult position. As much as I’m willing to entertain all views, it is also a fact that I do consider the film to be a worthy adaptation; I do believe it was underserved by Disney; and while I have various criticisms I would make of Stanton’s work I believe that overall he did an admirable job. Within that context, this site is meant to provide a boost to the process by which I hope and believe the film will be gradually “rehabilitated” and take its place, where I believe it should, as a worthy sci-fi adventure film and one that reflects positively on the legacy of Edgar Rice Burroughs — and it is that legacy, moreso than the film, that I am vitally concerned with — as I know you are. That doesn’t mean I won’t’ entertain opposing views; it does mean, however, that I won’t allow every single positive article about the movie to be hijacked in the comment section by your opposing view — which you have stated again and again and again ad nauseam. It is as if you are on “patrol” to make sure that not a single positive reference to Stanton will go unchallenged. The problem is — given my objective as described above, while it’s okay to have divergent opinions it is ultimately not okay for every positive article to be relentlessly pummeled by your one-note criticism of Stanton. You are relentlessly souring anything positive that was being achieved toward my goals of helping rehab the movie for the reasons described above. It goes against my own values to wave the magic “moderator” wand and make your comments go away … but I feel that you are taking advantage of my openness.
Let me state it clearly: You have repeatedly and relentlessly made clear to readers here that in your view: 1) Andrew Stanton turned in an extremely poor effort, 2) You don’t like his “moping John Carter”, 3) You don’t approve of “Darth Shang”, and 4) You think the film overall is filled with cliche.
The foregoing points have been made adequately now. I am letting you know that I’m not going to just continue to let these same comments be made over and over and over again every time anyone writes favorably about the movie. I ask you to respect my position on this and voluntarily refrain from constantly repeating those same criticisms.
Respectfully,
Dotar
Bottom line is that Disney screwed up! I don’t agree with MCR’s assessment. In my utterly HONEST opinion I loved the film and I think Stanton did a fantastic job! No, it didn’t match the book, but it sure did keep loads of things that “Hollywood” would have changed unnecessarily, and it was a smart, NOT dumbed down story as well. So, to each his own when it comes to opinion, but those are my thoughts.
What Happened to the wonderful story of John Carter of Mars?
Andrew Stanton. That’s what happened sadly.
Also how close was this to the books? I guess PlanetWonder must not have read the books in a long time. As for the “compelling story” yeah when it wasn’t busy boring us with Moping John Carter and his “I want my cave of gold” nonsense, and Darth Shang and his “We’re here mostly to setup a sequel and serve no real point” Therns yeah I guess it was sort of compelling.
As for the rest it’s nothing new. We know the marketing sucked. Can’t these writers come up with something new other than “Disney blew it?”