Film Critic “Hulk” Analyzes the John Carter Script

Michael Sellers Other Stuff

Over at Badass Digest, their film critic who goes by the moniker “Hulk” and writes in “Hulk-speak”, wrote this review which takes on the John Carter screenplay. Ol’ Hulk is not getting a particularly friendly reception at the John Carter Sequel Group on Facebook, which is where I found the review. I haven’t had time to fully digest what he says (still at my daughter’s wedding) but I notice that he makes one point that has always been something that concerned me, not about the script, but more about the editing — and that is the tendency to deliver an important piece of information but then cut IMMEDIATELY away to something entirely different before the audience has had a chance to absorb the important information that was just delivered. This happens with the revelation of Sola’s relationship to Tars Tarkas; it happens in the Temple of Iss; then “A Matter of Trust” is interrupted with the arrival of Sarkoja; it happens just after the kiss. I think this is one of the reasons, ironically, that the film “grows” on people; you don’t get everything on the first pass– on the second and third viewing you get more and more, and as you “get” everything, the story just grows in stature. This is a joy if you get past the first viewing — but it could be considered a liability, which is one of the points that Hulk is making. This is not a mean-spirited review — the author basically likes the movie, but he is trying to piece together why it has a 51% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. That said, I’m not offering this up with an endorsement — just an observation that it’s worth reading. I’ll offer my comments after the wedding hoopla subsides and I get a chance to read it carefully.

HULK VS. JOHN CARTER SCRIPT
via Badass Digest

JOHN CARTER “FAILED.”

… SO WHAT?

FAILURE CAN BE A STRANGELY MEANINGLESS THING. THERE HAVE BEEN PLENTY OF GOOD MOVIES THAT HAVE FAILED AND PLENTY OF BAD MOVIES THAT HAVE SUCCEEDED. THE ONLY THINGS THAT CAN REVEAL A MOVIE’S TRUE RELATIVE “WORTH” ARE TIME AND RESONANCE. BUT SADLY, THAT RARELY STOPS US FROM WRITING THE WHOLE STORY OF A FILM’S FAILURE OR SUCCESS AFTER A SINGLE WEEKEND OF BOX OFFICE.

HULK PRETTY SURE WE COULD ALL LOOK AT JOHN CARTER’S FINANCIAL OUTCOME AND DISCUSS WHAT BROUGHT IT ON. MOST OF OUR ANSWERS WOULD BE THOSE FILM BUSINESS-Y CONCERNS: THE SCHIZOPHRENIC ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN, THE WEIRD COMBINATION OF RELEASE DATE, QUESTIONABLE STAR POWER AND SOME CENTRAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE FILM’S IDENTITY. BUT DELVING INTO THOSE ISSUES DOESN’T HELP YOU MAKE A BETTER PRODUCT. THOSE ISSUES ONLY HELP YOU BETTER SELL A PRODUCT. AND IF THERE’S BEEN ANY RUNNING THEME TO ALL THESE HULK ESSAYS, IT’S BEEN THAT HULK IS PRIMARILY CONCERNED WITH MAKING MOVIES – I.E. THE PRODUCTS THEMSELVES – BETTER.

PLEASE KNOW THAT HULK TOTALLY UNDERSTANDS THIS ISN’T SOME REVELATORY OPINION OR ANYTHING, BUT JUST A MERE CASE OF RESTATING WHAT’S IMPORTANT. ALSO, PLEASE UNDERSTAND THIS POSITION IS NOT SOME ATTEMPT TO UNDERMINE MOVIES AS LEGITIMATE COMMERCE, NOR UNDERMINE THE WORK OF EXPERTS AND PEOPLE WHOSE JOB IT IS TO ENSURE THAT MOVIES DO WELL FINANCIALLY, NOR UNDERMINE THE WORK OF THOSE WHO ARE MEANT TO PROGNOSTICATE THE BUSINESS OF CINEMA ITSELF. IT’S JUST THAT ALL OF THOSE ELEMENTS OFTEN HAVE VERY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHETHER OR NOT THE FILM ACTUALLY WORKS.

SO THAT’S THE REAL QUESTION: OUTSIDE OF THE REALM OF MERE BUSINESS CONCERNS, DID JOHN CARTER ACTUALLY “WORK” AS A MOVIE?

… NAH. NOT REALLY.

… HONESTLY, HULK THINKS IT WORKED PRETTY BADLY.

BUT LET’S GO BEYOND HULK’S MERE OPINION, AND TURN TO THE 51% SCORE ON ROTTEN TOMATOES AS SOME SORT OF LARGER EVIDENCE. NOW, THIS IS NOT TO IMPLY THAT GETTING A HIGH ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE IS THE LONE INDICATOR OF TASTE AND VALUE. NOT IN THE SLIGHTEST. IN FACT, SOME OF HULK’S FAVORITE MOVIES HAVE GOTTEN LOW SCORES, USUALLY BECAUSE THEY WERE INTENDED FOR A… UM… LET’S CALL IT A MORE NARROW AUDIENCE. BUT WHAT A ROTTEN TOMATOES SCORE USUALLY TENDS TO BE A GOOD BAROMETER OF IS A FILM’S “WIDE-RANGING LIKABILITY.” WHICH IN TURN MAKES IT A PRETTY DECENT BAROMETER FOR HOW THE LARGER PUBLIC RESPONDS TO BOTH FAMILY FILMS AND PG-13 BLOCKBUSTERS. WHICH, LEST WE FORGET, ARE THE FILMS THAT ARE DESIGNED TO BE ACCESSIBLE TO MOST PEOPLE. SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE 51% NUMBER IN THAT VERY SPECIFIC WAY, IT BECOMES SAFE TO SAY JOHN CARTER FAILED TO CONNECT WITH A LARGE PORTION OF ITS INTENDED AUDIENCE.

SO NOW THE QUESTION IS WHY?

WHAT MAKES JOHN CARTER SO UNIQUE IS THAT IT IS THE RARE BLOCKBUSTER WHOSE STORYTELLING FAILURES ARE NOT THE RESULT OF LACK OF EFFORT, INTELLIGENCE OR CARE. IN FACT, THE FILMMAKERS, WRITERS, ACTORS AND PRODUCTION TEAM ARE MADE UP OF A GROUP OF FOLKS THAT HULK VERY MUCH ADMIRE. AND YOU CAN TELL THAT ALL OF THEM ARE PRETTY MUCH DOING THEIR DAMNEDEST TO MAKE THE FILM WORK (WHICH SORT OF ENDS UP BEING A PART OF THE PROBLEM, WHICH HULK’LL GET TO IN A MINUTE). BUT IN TRUE ACHILLEAN FASHION, THE FILM HAS ONE SINGULAR FLAW WITH THEIR STORYTELLING APPROACH, WHICH GOES ON TO UNDERMINE EVERYTHING ELSE ABOUT THE FILM.

Read the full article at Badass Digest

10 comments

  • “Like so many other less long and creative reviews, it was the same thing, not giving the film full attention resulted in missing the details that make it so great! ”

    What details exactly? Not noticing the useless dead wife’s name? Or Matai Shang’s disturbing trend to shape shift into women? Or that not even Stanton could explain the whole plot hooey about the Medallion or why Shape Shifter Shang said they were eternal yet could be shot? What details did we-the ADD viewers-exactly miss? Or what if most of us don’t have ADD and just thought the film was a poorly scripted mess, or suffered from Stanton’s “We’re doing it the Pixar way” method that fell apart on him and left him scrambling to try to piece it together. I guess we should be lucky that the film makes even some sense but serioulsy paying attention wasn’t the problem.

    (Sorry if this appears twice. Having some glitches!)

  • “Like so many other less long and creative reviews, it was the same thing, not giving the film full attention resulted in missing the details that make it so great! ”

    What details exactly? Not noticing the useless dead wife’s name? Or Matai Shang’s disturbing trend to shape shift into women? Or that not even Stanton could explain the whole plot hooey about the Medallion or why Shape Shifter Shang said they were eternal yet could be shot? What details did we-the ADD viewers-exactly miss? Or what if most of us don’t have ADD and just thought the film was a poorly scripted mess, or suffered from Stanton’s “We’re doing it the Pixar way” method that fell apart on him and left him scrambling to try to piece it together. I guess we should be lucky that the film makes even some sense but serioulsy paying attention wasn’t the problem.

  • For me, John Carter was so unique and so very different feeling from anything I’d ever seen before that I felt like I’d woken from a dream after the first viewing. I was riveted so I didn’t miss these key points like so many others seem to, but it took the second time to hit me how much I loved the film. For me, reading Hulk’s very LONG rambling about the film, I just thought he didn’t pay very close attention to it. Like so many other less long and creative reviews, it was the same thing, not giving the film full attention resulted in missing the details that make it so great! Anyway, that’s how I felt when reading his review. There are endless distractions and one has to truly make an effort to concentrate on anything these days. It’s an ADD world!

  • I agree with your comments the real problem is the critics did not understand it on one viewing.
    I have posted the following on the Hulks site:PS .The use of capitals drives me to drink. “I agree with some of your
    comments relating to Stanton not initially spelling out the motivation
    of characters clearly enough. Maybe this is why the film is better on
    repeat viewings. Having said that, the film is magnificent and will end up being a cult classic. It also deserves its sequels. There are 11 books in the series”
    .

  • “To cram all the events in a POM into a 2 hour move means there won’t be much time for character development either.”

    Well yeah you could have. Just eliminate the needless Therns, which would cut down or remove long dialogue scenes of explanation (like Matai Shang’s Dr. Evil speech or the Temple sequence, reduce the pointless dead wife and kid back story to focus on Carter in the present and you’re pretty much there.

    Then again this wasn’t A Princess of Mars on screen. It was Mopey Carter. Someone could have made a movie out of POM but that wasn’t Stanton’s intention.

  • Sure there was alot of explanations throughout the movie, but I believe they were neccessary in a flick like this. To cram all the events in a POM into a 2 hour move means there won’t be much time for character development either.

    As for the Warhoon battle, it gets the old heart strings every time(a lady at the theater openly wept). Stanton was trying to show how Carter’s pent up rage helped him take on an army. We already knew his motivations to avoid war after the wedding ring scene.

  • Interesting take, but from someone who REALLY liked the somewhat unconventional film that is John Carter, it’s almost insulting. Yet another critic who’s trying to tell me why John Carter is a seriously flawed film. I’ve been told it was marketed bad, it wasn’t structured properly, it wasn’t representation of ERB’s character, it has story problems…blah blah blah.

    Hey, we all have our opinions. I like it just the way it is.

  • He has some points, but it’s pretty clear that he’s against non-linear storytelling unless he likes that film – then it’s ok.
    Could JC have been told better differently? Possibly, but we’ll never know since this is the film we have. And not to harp too much on it”bad” storytelling is not why the film failed – in fact despite what this coward (who’d rather hide behind a funny name) would like to think even if they’d allowed him to write the script and direct it so it was as easy to follow as a children’s film it still would have failed due to marketing.
    Real filmmakers would never use as many absolutes in their discussion as he does. Real filmmakers know that there are many ways to tell a story and enthrall an audience – as this film seems to do with most that have actually seen it. To poo-poo Rotten Tomatoes and then use it as a reason why his student film-making sensibilities are right is dishonest and you can feel how badly he’d like to be taken seriously enough as a critic to get put into the RT ranks – I’m assuming he isn’t, of course.
    I could argue pretty effectively that the film he feels compelled to compare JC to is an extremely weak story,but all it would prove is that one person’s weak story is another’s great film.
    I’m not saying that JC hits every plot and emotional point perfectly, but I will argue that it gets many more right than it gets wrong and that’s why the film has such a following. Using his goofy hypothetical musings would he assume that if Finding Nemo had bombed at the BO (as it was somewhat assumed it would) would there be a fan base fighting against it being called a flop or would it just be ignored as audiences went on to the next film…?

  • Ugh… It’s just painful to read…

    All HULK criticisms vanish on second viewing, as you said Dotar. HULK would probably argue that you shouldn’t have to watch a movie at least twice to enjoy it. In that I couldn’t say HULK would be wrong, but it’s just this kind of movie.

    But as far as logic goes, the story of John Carter is far from impervious! Some of the logical flaws will surely be explained in the sequels-I-still-hope-we’ll-see though.

Leave a Reply