An Unplanned Late Night Viewing of John Carter Produces Utter Enchantment and Some Realizations.

26 comments

• Jack, having not read A Princess of Mars until after having seen and fallen in love with John Carter the movie, I’m pretty much in total agreement with you that the changes made by Stanton (and the other screenwriters) were sound choices from a dramatic/storytelling perspective and had as much to do with my enjoyment of the film as the appeal of the fantasy world and characters Edgar Rice Burroughs created. Keeping in mind that I haven’t read any of ERB’s other John Carter stories (yet), I actually think the film does a good job of creating something that is more in keeping with modern moviegoers’ expectations and sensibilities while still capturing the relationships and personalities of ERB’s characters. For example, although the movie doesn’t give as much attention to John Carter’s compassion for animals as ERB did in A Princess of Mars, it still came across in the scenes where Carter saves Woola from being beaten (at the cost of his own freedom) and tries to send him away from the charging horde of Warhoon. I think the only one of Stanton’s creative choices that bothered me (and I’m curious to know how Michael and other ERB fans felt about it) was the decision to change the keeper of the secret of Sola’s parentage.

  Certainly , another creative team might have been able to produce a more faithful adaptation of ERB’s stories that I still would have enjoyed, but I don’t think it would have touched me on the same emotional level without including at least some elements of the changes Stanton’s version made to the characters of John Carter and Dejah Thoris. Of course, I’m looking forward to Michael and other ERB fans pointing out the assets of the original story that I may be missing.

  Lastly, Michael, when we’re discussing John Carter and Mars, might it not be considered a good thing to “see red.” 🙂

• Jack, thanks for the detailed explanation of what you see as the deficiencies of Burroughs that were remedied by Stanton. It will take a while to digest and others may jump in before I do. I’m officially asking that when others jump in, we try to keep this civil and dont heap scorn upon each others’ ideas. My hope is that we can break this down a little bit and go through it in a way so that those on both sides might gain some insights that aren’t there to begin with — rather the just jumping on people and having it become a foodfight.

  Maybe I’m wrong — maybe it would never go that way. But judging from my own emotional reaction to some of the assertions in your piece, I’m pretty sure that some other ERBists who aren’t as restrained as I am might see red at it — and I’m just asking for a civil tone, as you (Jack) have maintained in yours.

  Also, just so you (Jack) understand — I think that you, like Stanton, don’t “get” fully a lot of what was good in Burroughs. You’ve done Stanton a service in articulating it as well as you have. But now you’ll start hearing some response from the other side, who see other things in the ERB than what you are seeing.

• Michael, you came to the movie with decades of being an ERB fan and expectations of what a movie of ‘A Princess of Mars’ would be like. I’m sure you and many other Burroughs fans have read it so many times it’s in your DNA by now.

  I read the book for the first time a year and a half ago. So I come to the story with not even a trace of nostalgia.

  Like most, I was blown away by Burroughs’ imagination (that he wrote this in 1912 is astonishing). He was a born campfire storyteller, spinning one amazing idea after another. For all the wonderment though, he misses a lot of opportunities to make the most of what he’s come up with. He tells the story instead of letting it play out between the characters.

  One of the things I found deeply frustrating with the novel was that Burroughs never misses a chance to make things easy on himself as a writer –and how this also extends to Carter as a character.

  Within the first few chapters we’re told upfront that Carter is immortal, then he finds a goldmine which is great, then none of that matters because -whoosh- he’s on Mars! He knows immediately that he’s on Mars and totally belongs there, and soon after falls in love at first sight with the princess –a feeling he’s never had because in all the thousands of years he’s been alive, he’s never been in love before.

  Show me a man who’s never been in love, and I’ll show you a man who’s never lost anything or been hurt. How much could he have possibly been risking up till then?

  It’s all very convenient and too easy for Carter. He doesn’t really have to work for anything. He might have to fight a bit, but that’s not going to be a big problem for him, right? Burroughs felt such a failure in his own life at the time that he gives his hero every advantage, and in so doing robs the story of much of the dramatic impact it could have.

  I love that John Carter, the hero who unites the warring factions of Mars, started out as a Confederate Cavalry officer of some distinction. It’s an interesting bit of character detail. It indicates a sadder but wiser man. Someone who’s been around a bit, and learned from his mistakes. You know, because he fought on the wrong side.

  In the book it’s just one more interesting detail. Burroughs is in such a hurry to escape the reality of his own life, that he never slows down enough to figure out what the reality of Carter’s life situation might be. To be fair, he could get away with that in 1912. 2012 not so much.

  The Civil War means something different to us than it did to people a hundred years ago. We have far more knowledge about it than they did. Unlike them, we have access to Ken Burns’ documentary, all the letters the soldiers wrote home, the various books on the subject written, etc. We’re more honest with ourselves about it.

  So yes, Carter is a broken veteran of a terrible war. He doesn’t view battle through ERB’s rose colored glasses (opinions that he changed when he covered WWII), but as we know actual Civil War veterans did. This grounds him in a recognizable reality with which to contrast the fantasy coming later.

  Giving him a wife and child on Earth is also important. It shows what he was fighting in the war for. The Carter of the novels presumably fought because he thought owning human beings was a valid business practice. I think the book even says “the slaves loved him.” That’s not a valid heroic reason to fight for the South. Not for most people at any rate.

  The distinction between the book and the movie for me comes down to between LOVE AT FIRST SIGHT versus A LOVE STORY.

  Have you ever experienced love at first sight? I have, and the experience was very powerful –internally. Externally, nothing much happened. And while I could tell people about how intense my feelings of love were (and I did, often, and unceasingly) –nothing much played out dramatically in real life. No matter how strong the emotions I felt were though, it didn’t make for a compelling story to share with others.

  I’ve also fallen in love. It wasn’t immediate. There were ups and downs, give and take, reversals, missed connections, troubles, doubts and self denials on the way. Eventually there’s a realization and surrender to one’s feelings. That’s a story.

  The novel is a case of love at first sight, with how hopelessly internal it all is. It’s like a dream (which is also of course, internal). The movie is a tale of a man falling in love, with Dejah Thoris and the planet she represents.

  The novel is about a man who has a destiny on another world. The movie is about a man who finds his destiny on another world. The outcome is the same –a man with a destiny on another world– but one is a journey and the other is a journey of discovery. The hero in the latter has to work harder for every victory.

  I’ve said before I thought Carter being immortal was a really dumb idea. Burroughs never explains it, and to me if feels like one thing too many. It turns what I find interesting (a human having superhuman adventures) into what I find dull (a superhuman having superhuman adventures).

  I was wrong though. Like much of Burroughs’ ideas it’s fantastic. What isn’t ideal was his placement of it. He frontloads it into the beginning of the narrative.

  Upon watching the movie again over the weekend, I realized that of all the planned adaptations of ‘A Princess of Mars’ Stanton’s is the only one that uses Edgar Rice Burroughs as a character. Isn’t that odd? At the time I thought that element was meant as just a nod to the writer (as well as coming directly from the novel). But that’s not it at all.

  At the end of the movie, this exchange occurs:

  NED: I was just… bait?

  CARTER: No, you’re far more than that. I really do need a protector. That is, if you’re willing.

  They hug. Carter steps into the crypt and turns back.

  CARTER: Goodbye, Ned. Oh, and Ned: Take up a cause. Fall in love. Write a book. It’s time I went home.

  A couple things. At the end, Carter knows that Mars is his true home. He never plans to return to Earth. Better though, that knowledge was hard earned. It wasn’t just given to him.

  The conversation with Ned also hints at what’s to come. In the commentary on the Blu-Ray Stanton definitely indicates “Edgar” (he says Edgar not Ned) would be back in a sequel. In my naivete I assumed that meant Darryl Sabara would return in the role.

  I don’t think that’s the case though. It seems more likely the next time we see Edgar he’ll have aged to about forty, making him outwardly older than Carter –whose body has been kept in perfect suspended animation in the crypt.

  Neither of the characters are expecting this turn of events, so it’s a shock. But now it’s a surprise solidly grounded in story logic, humanity and emotion. Burroughs’ creativity is given a chance to play out dramatically instead of just being offered up at the beginning with no explanation forthcoming. That makes the payoff far more emotionally poignant.

  See, I don’t think Stanton was a little tone deaf. I think he’s a definite Burroughs fan who understands the appeal entirely. However, on top of being fans he (and Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon) also understand the story on another level. As dramatists.

  They know having a lot of brilliant ideas and a loose narrative isn’t enough. You have to have a structure that will hold up. You have to take those ideas and then weave them seamlessly into a story where they show up and seem natural, surprising and yet inevitable.

• Jack,
  First of all, please note that I said “a little bit tone deaf” ….you left out “a little bit” when you asked me to justify it. . . . . Just sayin’! 😉

  Secondly, there is a whole context to this discussion and I hope you’re following it all, because I said those things as a way of softening the much, much harsher criticism that was coming from my “interlocutor”, the inimitable MCR, who had blasted Stanton unconditionally in the comments I was responding to.

  And thirdly — it’s in a comment on an article I wrote that goes to great lengths to praise the movie and its charms. . . .

  But — yes, I do think it’s a little bit tragic in that Stanton’s “take” on the appeal of Barsoom is fundamentally different from the “take” that “true ERB fans” have. What do I mean by this? Stanton by his own admission first came into contact with Barsoom through the Marvel comics. He was specifically attracted to the images of the Tharks. Again by his own statements, we know that it was the world of Barsoom, the cool creatures, and the grand scale of the adventure that all appealed to him.

  He then read the books. He found John Carter “too vanilla”, “too Prince Valiant”, too much “I am the hero” — these are all quotes from Stanton that I pretty much know by heart, and all of them can be traced in my book. What I’m calling “true ERB fans” tend to have a very different “take” on John Carter. We see him as a poignant figure, trapped in time (he can’t age — think about the implications of that), lost on Earth and drawn to Mars, who — when he arrives on Mars — immediately feels that he is in the place he is meant to be, that this is his destiny — an through him we (the ERB fans) feel drawn to Barsoom, which over time, as he tries to bring together the warring factions, becomes a kind of Camelot (bringing together the warring tribes was what Arthur did — it’s very similar). That whole sense of destiny extends to his love of Dejah Thoris … she is his first and one and only true love . . . . .and through her he finds his place and destiny on Barsoom.

  Stanton didn’t “get” much of that. He just felt John Carter was a little boring, and Dejah Thoris was too much of a damsel in distress (he is quoted as saying things about Dejah that are fundamentally at odds with the actual Dejah as portrayed in the actual books, especially A Princess of Mars.)

  So Stanton reconstructed the core inner workings of the story. He re-imagined John Carter as a broken Civil War vet who had been hugely damaged by the death of his true love wife, and beautiful daughter. He was defined by that tragedy. Stanton’s Carter doesn’t come to Barsoom as a kind of spiritual destiny kind of thing — he is kidnapped there by a Thern device — and his entire reaction to Barsoom is diametrically opposite the reaction the ERB’s John Carter has. Instead of it being a place of destiny for him, it’s a prison. He is an unwilling participant there, and for most of the movie he is obsessed with getting back to Earth (made possible by the Thern device invented by Stanton) — whereas ERB’s John Carter never once yearns to go back to Earth.

  To those who were enraptured by the journey of John Carter and his gradual sense of spiritual fufillment as he makes his way in his place of destiny, Barsoom — the Stanton version with John Carter resisting Barsoom at every step of the way and trying to get home to his cave of gold is a huge and painful departure from the original. Yes, on the surface it’s the same — John Carter is an earthman on Barsoom experiencing adventure after adventure — but the beating heart underneath the surface is completely different, or at least feels that way to many.

  For me, Stanton’s decisions produce a sense of wistfulness about what might have been, but I tend to be respectful of his right to make the choices he made, which — one could argue — were choices which updated the story in ways that could be justified. No one in the Pixar ‘Brain Trust’ objected to what Stanton had done with John Carter . . . . . . but people who were really in love with the books do tend to feel Stanton was “tone deaf” to the charms of the books when he made these choices.

  Also one final note. As it turns out … you were siting with me the night I first saw John Carter and when it was over I told you that I liked it, and the next day I wrote a very positive review of it. Here’s a deeper truth about what happened as I was watching it. When the lights went out and it started and I realized I was seeing Barsoom on screen — it was very emotional, after all these years of waiting and imagining. The opening prologue on Barsoom might have been a mistake for people not familiar with the source material but for me — it looked and felt like the aerial battles that had played in my head all these years, and so I was drawn forward. Then came the scenes on Earth, and they were fine . . . then John Carter arrived on Mars, and it still felt like ERB. . .. right up to the point where he is loaded onto a Thoat by Tars Tarkas . . . .

  Then it cuts to Helium and the scene there. This felt both familiar — and a little different. I wasn’t sure exactly why, although later I would piece together that it might have been because the books (the John Carter stories, anyway) are told in first person. . .. .but whatever the reason, it began to feel a little different at that point. And from that point on it began to diverge from my expectation of how it would feel. Yet that divergence to me seemed to have been well planned, was well thought out, and coming from the guy who made Wall-E an Nemo, I just felt like maybe he was smarter than I was and had his finger on the pulse of today’s audiences . . . . .

  But in spite of all the Barsoom context that was created, it didn’t quite “feel like John Carter” until the final act when he was fully committed. Then he was John Carter, and then it felt like I was watching the stories I had read.

  I’ve often asked myself — was I overly charitable in my first viewing and the review I wrote — or was I properly able to distance myself from all my preconceptions and hangups based on my lifelong love affair with the books. I’m not sure what the answer is. I’m still trying to figure it out, twenty viewings later.

  Anyway, that’s a long answer, but I hope it clarifies how I can be supportive of the movie, as I have been, and still gently note that Stanton was, in the eyes of ERB faithful, a “little bit tone deaf”.

• Michael D. Sellers wrote:

  “And yet, tragically as it turns out, he [Stanton] was a little bit tone deaf and/or dismissive of what true ERB fans consider to the true charms and magic of the ERB original. He didn’t fully “get” the ERB appeal that caused him to become the most popular author on the planet. Because of this he was quick to jettison aspects of the original that, had he held onto them and worked with them, would probably have resulted in a better film.”

  I’d be interested if you could give examples of where you feel Stanton was tone deaf or wasn’t tapping into what you’d considerable integral to Burroughs’ appeal. Thanks muchly.

• Yes, I probably did exaggerate by saying “chock a block”, but I do enjoy the the landscapes. I think that adding certain low key flourishes and enhancements to real landscapes gave it a certain “believability” that might have been missing if they were all just cgi backgrounds. Would I like to have seen a few more shots with cities perched on the edge of a dried out ocean bottom falling away below them. Yes, I would have like to see that. Should Korad have been more like an abandoned and run down ancient Rome, than clay desert huts, yes again. But I still very much enjoyed what I was given and it didn’t ruin the movie for me. I knew when I was on Earth, saturated technicolor, and when I was on Mars, a hazy yellowish color tint.

  Also, when I said it doesn’t have to be the books, I meant it didn’t have to be the books chapter and verse. I agree with Michael and Pascalahad that actually about 70 to 80 percent of the story beats are there in the movie.

  MCR I am sorry that I was so blunt for dramatic effect. Not going to play your game though. I am not trying to change your opinion about the movie, but you are always trying to change everyone else’s opinion if they say they enjoyed it. You know from previous posts that I am not a Stanton worshipper. I break it down like this. The majority of the faults with JC not being more of a success are 90% Disney marketing and promotion. The things that are wrong with the movie are 90% Stanton’s choices. Is it the best adaptation of the books that could have been made, no, it certainly is not, but it is a very enjoyable ride to me that is extremely well done for the most part. Judge Dredd was loved by all the fans of the comics because it was so faithful to the source, but it died an ignoble death at the box office because it didn’t have some human element to engage people. And, maybe you do and maybe you don’t , but you assume to know an awful lot of what is inside people’s heads about their creative thought processes and their internal motivations. And it always comes out to, surprise, back your agenda.

• “Choosing to do a strange, perplexing movie is one thing; choosing to do a movie on material you “hate” is something else. And for Stanton, one movie equals 5 years, whereas for the others you cite, it’s a two year commitment. ”

  I never said anything about the time limit, even though Kubrick had been considering something along the lines of Eyes Wide Shut back in the 1960s only not to. And he began writing EWS in 1994, 5 years before it came out, so yeah sometimes directors do work a long time on a movie. Heck he worked and developed Full Metal Jacket for 7 years and by the time it came out Oliver Stone made Platoon and he was seen as being behind the times.

  In this case my claims were that directors make movies for whatever reason. Spielberg had no comedy experience before 1941 and yet he wanted to make it. Since then he’s admitted it was a fiasco. As for Lean he was reportedly so devastated by the reviews of Ryan’s Daughter that he didn’t make another film for 14 years, so you have to wonder if he didn’t have second thoughts about having made it. The amount of time spent developing the movie and shooting it wasn’t the issue. The issue was making a film for the wrong reasons, which is what Stanton did.

  You want to keep up that it was because he was a fan of something. How about it was because he was so damn desperate to prove himself? To make his big live action debut? Hell he could had just as easily made John Carter of Mars an animated film but no, he had to prove he was Spielberg, Cameron, Kubrick, only better since he had the Pixar Method and that never fails. Yes this is being sarcastic but why would he if he all he had was a lukewarm “affection” for the books want to make them? Let’s not forget the only reason that Stanton even claims he thought of doing a John Carter movie was that Mark Andrews pitched something along the lines of John Carter of Mars (and we know how much he HATED the books based on his dismissing them as children’s books on his blog). Why is it not possible that Stanton thought “hey that’s a good idea” and then heard that Cameron was making Avatar, which began pre-production in 2005 (and was outlined in the mid-90s) and began actual shooting in 2007? I know Pixar is in the middle of some hermetically sealed bubble but I’m sure that news that the man who made the biggest movie of all time was making a film similiar to whatever Andrews pitched probably did cause Stanton do doubt until he remembered “oh yeah there was some comic book I loved in the 1970s…Carter something” and voila! His movie-with his bad shape shifters, moving cities and other nonsense-was back on since as we know there was no Harry Potter fanbase to protest or please. No author to deal with an estate and company that only was too pleased as long as Disney’s check cleared the bank to allow him to do what he wanted.

  That’s almost as “credible” as your defense that Stanton made this movie. And yeah he might have worked his butt off but that still doesn’t excuse the results.

  So there’s my rebuttal. Not a perfect response but hey I never made the debate team. 🙂

• In response to

  “Why would anyone in his position spend five years of his life doing an adaptation of books he “hated”….. You really know that’s way over the top, right? You were just being funny in your unique way?”

  MCR wrote

  Who knows? Why did Kubrick-with all of his talents-spend years making Eyes Wide Shut, his worst movie? Why did Spielberg spend time making 1941? Or why did David Lean, a master filmmaker, make Ryan’s Daughter? Directors make movies and sometimes they are blind to why they make them.

  In this case, where’s the proof that Stanton loves the books? We know he hated the character of John Carter.

  My first response:

  “There you go again!” 😉 Come on, you can do better than that. You’re conflating some very different things. Choosing to do a strange, perplexing movie is one thing; choosing to do a movie on material you “hate” is something else. And for Stanton, one movie equals 5 years, whereas for the others you cite, it’s a two year commitment. I’m willing to wager you can’t find a single credible quote about any of the movies you cite, or any other major adaptation, where there is a credible report that a director “hated” the source material of the movie he made. You just need to let go of this one.

  And as for ” where’s the proof that Stanton loves the books?”

  Why is there need of such proof? I’m not claiming he loved them. Here’s what I think: I think he got exposed initially through the Marvel comics, liked them but not for the reasons that we ERB book-lovers fell in love with the books, then read the books, liked them up to a point (didn’t hate them, didn’t love them), and always carried around an affection (not hatred) for the world of Barsoom based more on his appreciation for the comics than for the books — with most of his interest being in the civilizations and cool creatures and not in the characters of John Carter and Dejah Thoris, which never resonated for him. I’d be curious to know — do you disagree wit this (everything after “Here’s what I think”).

  Whenever I pick at you for going overboard, you seem to miss or reject my point — which is that I’m not urging you to abandon your critical point of view or convince you to Stop Worrying and Love Andrew Stanton — I’m just urging you totemper it with a dash of the reason and fairmindedness that peeks through every now and then when you’re not spitting nails. I think you really have interesting things to say and you’ve moved the needle on my own opinions more than once. But — for me, at least — when you go “over the top” you undercut your own argument because instead of getting me to focus on good points you’re making, you distract me from those good points with overblown hyperbole.

  The reason I’m pushing you on this is because I think there really is an interesting and meaningful discussion to be had about Stanton’s curious relationship to the source material. He liked it enough to choose it as his first live action endeavor; he liked it enough to basically lobby Dick Cook to get the rights and greenlight it; he liked it enough to spend five years working his butt off to make a movie that he and many others consider to be–whatever else it may or may not be — a legitimate adaptation.

  And yet, tragically as it turns out, he was a little bit tone deaf and/or dismissive of what true ERB fans consider to the true charms and magic of the ERB original. He didn’t fully “get” the ERB appeal that caused him to become the most popular author on the planet. Because of this he was quick to jettison aspects of the original that, had he held onto them and worked with them, would probably have resulted in a better film.

  How does all that fit together? Is it possible analyze it and think about it without focusing white-hot hatred on Stanton. For dear old MCR, evidently not. And I think that’s a shame.

  If I had to go into a debate about something, I would definitely want you on my side, but I would also want you to tone down your tendency to so overstate your case that you risk undermining it.

  But that’s just me.

• GREAT post. And a very open-minded, fair post.

  Like Kevin in the comments section, I was swept away in my first viewing. I caught on to the love story instantly and felt the John/Dejah chemistry on my first viewing. For me, it was all quite magical. I also immediately felt the connection between Tarkas and Carter and found Sola to be a character I cared for and rooted for. The character development, in my opinion, is very well done. I’ve seen the filme 6 or 7 times. And EVERY time at the end, when we know Carter is going back to Barsoom….but we then realize the film is over, it really IS disappointing to me. I SO badly want to see what happens next with Carter.

• “Do you think I’m way wrong on this? Do you think that there are Hollywood adaptations right and left that are far more faithful to the original than John Carter?”

  Well let’s see. Mario Puzo’s The Godfather had a bunch of subplots removed but the heart of the story-Don Corleone and his sons-remained as did much of the major sequences-from the Don’s shooting to Michael’s killing of Solozzo. Peter Jackson removed Bombadil, the Scouring of the Shire and pumped up Arwen’s role and the action scenes but the major story and characters of The Lord of the Rings were there in his trilogy. The Silence of the Lambs? Practically intact with only minor tweaks done to condense the narrative. Even a movie like Iron Man updated the origin story to Afghanistan but the rest? In tact, more than most comic book movies. So there are examples of movies that reach that 90 percent faithful level and still work on their own as great movies that reach a mass audience. Something that John Carter didn’t.

  Now there are movies that don’t but sometimes they can either be good on their own-Kubrick’s The Shining or Spielberg’s Jaws-or are just failures, from Dune to countless Tarzan movies. John Carter is a failure in that respect just as much as it does as an adaptation. It doesn’t work as either a faithful version of A Princess of Mars nor on its own. What it seems is that you-and I don’t mean you but people in general and especially the Stantonites-either don’t care or just used to bad movies failing to adapt the books their based on. Is that it? Are we-ERB fans especially-just used to it that it shouldn’t matter? I guess where it bothers me is that most bad adaptations are made by people who were just doing their jobs, hired to direct or write the script, not claiming they are “fans.” Like Stanton, Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon, who made it clear what they were fans of and it wasn’t ERB.

  “Why would anyone in his position spend five years of his life doing an adaptation of books he “hated”….. You really know that’s way over the top, right? You were just being funny in your unique way?”

  Who knows? Why did Kubrick-with all of his talents-spend years making Eyes Wide Shut, his worst movie? Why did Spielberg spend time making 1941? Or why did David Lean, a master filmmaker, make Ryan’s Daughter? Directors make movies and sometimes they are blind to why they make them.

  In this case, where’s the proof that Stanton loves the books? We know he hated the character of John Carter. They were too episodic for him. There was no depth to them. He could never say anything positive about them or give ERB credit without turning around and badmouthing them. Stanton was never a fan of them. He was a fan of a comic book he read as a kid and that’s it. The fact that he deluded himself into believing he was a fan was one of the sad things about this whole affair. Point to an interview or specific time he ever said anything positive about them. Show me other than his generic “I’m a fan” statements. We know what he was a fan of-arrogant egostic Andrew Stanton, not Edgar Rice Burroughs. I think once people accept this then as Steve suggests we can start hoping for that director who does love the books and respect them to show up and get that 90 percent faithful John Carter of Mars movie made.

• MCR wrote

  Just to frack some more…yeah OK it isn’t the book. So why bother then using the book names of the characters? The location, the animals? Why not just do what Cameron and Lucas did and come up with their own names and story since clearly that was all Stanton did since he had zero respect for them.

  Sigh. It would be interesting if there were some kind of computer program that would make it possible to insert a movie and a book it was based on, and have it crunch the content of both and come up with a “Faithfulness Quotient” so that we could have some objective frame of reference for discussion of adapted films and whether they are, or are not, relatively more or less faithful to their respective literary sources. I think one of the problems that many of us have with the MCR View of John Carter is that it appears to us to greatly overstate the degree of unfaithfulness to the original of John Carter in comparison to other films adapted from literature. You seem to have a sense that John Carter would rank at the very low end of all literary adaptations in terms of the “Faithfulness Quotient” . . . . . while most of the rest of us seem to feel that it may not be at the top of the list of faithful adaptations, but it isn’t anywhere near the low end either. If I had to give it a number, grading “on the curve” in comparison to other literary adaptations . . . .I would rate it in the 75th or 80th percentile, meaning it is more faithful than 75 or 80 percent of Hollywood adaptations of literature. I wish it had been 95 or even 100 . . . .but I’m glad it wasn’t 25 or 30, whereas you seem to a) not accept that kind of rating, and b) are certain that it must be in the bottom 10 percent of films made from literature in terms of faithfulness to the original. I just think you are applying a standard that is hopelessly idealistic…..you are holding Stanton to a standard that doesn’t exist in Hollywood. And I don’t say that as a Stanton fan — just as an observer of Hollywood and what happens when they adapt a piece of literature. Do you think I’m way wrong on this? Do you think that there are Hollywood adaptations right and left that are far more faithful to the original than John Carter? Or are you willing to admit that this is a basic “fact of life” as far as Hollywood is concerned — directors meddle with the original when they do adaptations?

  MCR

  this movie could have been faithful. It could have been but not according to you Bob and the Stanton worshippers. It was beyond human ability to be faithful. No it wasn’t. It was beyond Stanton’s ego and his hatred for the books to be faithful. It was possible just not to Stanton and his lackeys and the worshippers of this film.

  Awww. Come on, man. I’ve earned the right to not be labeled a “Stanton worshiper”. Take it back! 😉

  Your credibility suffers when you go so wildly over the top as to talk about Stanton’s “hatred of the books”. What happens when you write stuff like that? I sort of see you sitting there, steam coming out of your ears, a scowl on your face, beating the keys so hard the computer almost breaks . . . . really? “Hatred of the books.” ??? You know that’s an exaggeration. Why would anyone in his position spend five years of his life doing an adaptation of books he “hated”….. You really know that’s way over the top, right? You were just being funny in your unique way?

• Just to frack some more…yeah OK it isn’t the book. So why bother then using the book names of the characters? The location, the animals? Why not just do what Cameron and Lucas did and come up with their own names and story since clearly that was all Stanton did since he had zero respect for them.

  I agree with Steve, this movie could have been faithful. It could have been but not according to you Bob and the Stanton worshippers. It was beyond human ability to be faithful. No it wasn’t. It was beyond Stanton’s ego and his hatred for the books to be faithful. It was possible just not to Stanton and his lackeys and the worshippers of this film.

  Also your claim “so what did you expect with Disney paying the bills.” So then we should blame Robert Iger and Rich Ross-two men who the Stantonites have made quite clear DIDN’T CARE-for this film for Self Centered Jerk Carter and his useless dead wife and kid? For Cliched Shape Shifter Shang? Moving Zodanga? The bad comedy relief Tharks? The dull look of Barsoom? I thought Iger and Ross didn’t care about this movie, that they were too busy selling their souls to the devil to get Marvel and Lucasfilm, so why would they have suggestions on how to make it? Now yeah Disney probably didn’t care, hell they don’t even care how godawful The Lone Ranger looks so quality is not a matter. But the rest of the problems with John Carter? Yeah sure. No one was expecting full on gore and Lynn Collins showing her goodies but how about the bad story telling, confusing opening and lackluster action sequences? Yeah I’m sure Iger suggested them. Bring some proof forward and we’ll start blaming him more than you already do.

  Finally concerning the Conran version. Has there been any truth that the Kruger script was for that film? I would think the script would had to been written or at least outlined ahead of time before concept work was to provide some idea where to go with the designs or what needed to be worked on. Even with that the Conran real had something that Stanton’s mess didn’t-an epic feel and a clear case that someone read the books. Not just vague memories of a comic book he once read.

• Steve Davidson wrote

  Take a look at that presentation clip done for Paramount’s sadly dropped effort and tell me that it doesn’t work AND tell me that it wouldn’t have made a better, more faithful presentation of John Carter and the novel(s).

  Um . . . .you might want to take a few minutes and read this beat by beat summary of the Ehren Kruger script for Kerry Conran’s John Carter of Mars. I’d be curious if you continue to be as optimistic about Kerry’s likely take on it. And by the way — I too like the pitch video he made. But check out the script.

  http://thejohncarterfiles.com/2012/05/detailed-summary-for-the-ehren-krugerkerry-conran-script-for-paramounts-john-carter-of-mars/

• The movie has to be the books, otherwise it would be called “Avatar”. But even if the beats are somewhat different, it IS the books. The past of John Carter is different, but his part as catalyst of change on Barsoom is there. Having a dead wife doesn’t ruin a thing in that regard, it offers an additional, temporary emotional beat to his character. Friendship with Sola, Tars and Woola? There. Romance with Dejah? There. Antagoism towards Zodanga and the Therns? There. Barsoom as a dying world? There. ERB himself? There.

  Even the Therns as superpowered individuals doesn’t necessarily change so much the story, as long as they are shown not to be the top of the food chain in Gods of Mars. And this time, John Carter goes voluntarily to Barsoom, to stay there forever, we all know that. Gosh… I never wished to have a sequel so much… 🙁

• IT isn’t the books, it doesn’t have to be.

  ahhh – but it could have been. Take a look at that presentation clip done for Paramount’s sadly dropped effort and tell me that it doesn’t work AND tell me that it wouldn’t have made a better, more faithful presentation of John Carter and the novel(s).

  The bottom line – despite the case made for poor marketing – is that Stanton sucked at live action film-making – the studio didn’t
  pull the plug like it probably ought to have – and it was self-admittedly based on the comic from Marvel, not the books.

  if you all think about it, its a good thing that it flopped as we WON’T be saddled with this incarnation going forward. In less than a decade we will probably see another attempt (paramount, favreau I’m looking at you) that will be directed by someone who does live action well, written by someone who has actually read the books and produced by individuals who have an actual interest in developing a franchise, rather than a studio trying to bury a licensed property in favor of wholly-owned properties.

  That’s what you people should all be pushing for. Honestly, whenever I see you calls for sequel, what I hear are people demanding Plan 10 From Outer Space rather than trying to get Destination Moon made….

• Bob … well said. I agree with just about everything except the bit about the backgrounds being “chuck a block full of little visual enhancements, little touches and vestiges of faded civilizations.” Believe me, I’ve looked for it and I find it in some frames — obviously when Korad is in the background there is something. And there are a couple of set piece shots during the thoat journey. But there are many, many shots that are just plain old Utah desert with no attempt to composite in even an unusual, non-Utah looking rock formation or two. That, plus the sky being monotonously blue all the time — when we’ve got shots from the real Mars showing much more variety in the sky, and it would cost nothing (in the context of a 250m film) to fix with subtle enhancements that add substantially to the atmosphere and the sense of being on another planet . . . . but it misses the point to quibble about this. That kind of nitpicking is really losing the forest for the trees, and although I’m guilty of it sometimes — at other times, like last night, I’m able to set it aside. The only reason I’m mentioning it here is because you went so far as to say anyone who can’t see it needs to get their eyes checked. My eyes are pretty good and I’ve inspected a lot of the frames very carefully, and I would stand by the position that a lot more could have been done. So there! 😉

  But your larger point is the more important one. . . . . if you relax and let it work its charms on you, those charms are considerable.

  Also . . . . . what we’re talking about also bears on the failed promotion. Disney needed to first understand the movie they had, and then design a promotional campaign that pitched it in a way that prepped the audience for the actual charms of the film. Instead they pitched it like a mindless rehash of something along the lines of Cowboys and Aliens . . . . . . .

• Thank you for that piece ! That is what I have been saying from the beginning. It is not the books, it doesn’t have to be, it is a very enjoyable and gorgeous version of the tales, told at a maturity level you might expect with Disney being the people that ponied up the money and gave it the greenlight. Nobody actually gave Kerry Conran, Robert Rodrigues or Jon Favre their money, so what did you expect with Disney paying the bills.

  It is subtle in the the performances, women pick up on the flirting that is going on between John and Dejah from the moment they meet, the effects are subtle, I’m sorry, but the landscapes aren’t boring to me, they are chuck a block full of little visual enhancements, little touches and vestiges of faded civilizations. If you can’t see how beautiful they are you should really get your eyes checked. If every battle in the movie had been like the books, against such ridiculus, incredible odds, that go on for hours, it would have been a cartoon. But we got one such battle in the movie, given emotional weight by the bit of the backstory and it’s meaning to John and Dejah’s future. When I saw the physical action of that scene, it was exactly the type of battle I always saw in my head when reading the books and it looked like Frank Frazetta did the story boards. I’m sorry if some people wanted every battle to be like that, but it got the image and the message across. He is a formidable foe.

  The movie doesn’t have to be the book. Considering who was paying for it, did you really think it was going to be Barbarella with blood and guts. We should thank our lucky stars it wasn’t a version of POM that was like what they have done to Jules Verne with the “Journey” versions of Mysterious Island or To the Center of the Earth.

  Was that version on Starz you saw the pan and scan one? Those theatrical format frames were so painterly composed and the P&S version I saw on Starz, threw that right out the window, It was so ugly it almost made me sick, and I was sure it would repel new viewers, not attract them to the movie.

  Don’t mind MCR. He is a knowledgible, smart guy and does some beautiful things on his great site, but here he is just a “hater”, really just a blind hatred of Stanton. But since it is just a completely knee jerk hatred, it is really irrelevant. He was so disappointed it wasn’t what he wanted, that nobody is allowed to say they enjoyed it or it is good fun. I say Frack You to that.

• My only prior experience with John Carter being the 1977 Marvel Comics adaptation, your “sleepy” rewatching of the movie is pretty close to my initial reaction when I saw it for the first time a couple months ago (also on Starz). I agree (if I understand you correctly) that the on screen romance, brought to life by the chemistry of Taylor Kitsch’s and Lynn Collins’ portrayals of Carter and Dejah Thoris, is what makes the movie so emotionally powerful. It’s also why my two favorite scenes, and the ones that had the most emotional effect on me, are Carter’s stand against the Warhoon and the last moments of the film when Carter finally returns “home.”

• MCR wrote

  So coming in without the bad opening with Self-Centered Jerk Carter telling Powell to kiss his rear makes it better? Or without the cheap shot of Future Mrs. Crispy Critter Carter haunting Mopey’s dreams? Again I guess without that Carter might seem less mopey. Still whiney as hell though about his stupid cave of gold and telling Dejah to get lost since nothing good will come from him fighting for her or her world.

  That’s exactly what I’m saying. What I’m saying is that you exaggerate the degree to which he is mopey because you are overly influenced by the beginning. That’s not your fault — that’s a thing about filmmaking. How you view the last 80 minutes is GREATLY influenced by what happens in the first 20 minutes. You responded so powerfully to the “mopey” carter at the beginning that, IMHO, you tend to project continued mopiness where it doesn’t necessarily exist. I’m not blaming you for that. I’m just saying that for Carter to be characterized as mopey in the way you do, you have to give a lot more weight to the beginning and less weight to the middle because in the middle he’s not that mopey. He has moments where he’s conflicted — but conflicted is different from mopey, and that’s evidence of his journey toward the light. I’m not saying you’re wrong . . . . but I am saying that if you break it down and analyze it your characterization is an exaggeration which reflects placing a ton of weight on the Earth scenes.

  I guess that happened before he kicked her off her thoat? Or waffled about staying with her after slaughtering Warhoons and having Josey Wales acid flashbacks? Sorry the pull wasn’t there as strongly as you suggest. And when it threatened to rear its head Stanton made sure to make Carter a moping jerk again and Dejah a poor runaway bride princess.

  Those two scenes were the exceptions and they’re a mess. Both were among the heavily reshot scenes and they are just muddled and not good. Speaking of wacky stuff, whose idea was it to have John Carter falling asleep on his thoat so that he had to be waked up by Sola? I really don’t get that. It sounds to me like an actor’s brilliant idea that the direector just went along with. The fact that they only show JC in longshot when he’s sleeping reflects, I think, the fact that Stanton probably figured out in post that it was a dumb idea but he neglected to shoot another version. (Although , since they did reshoots of this scene, they could have easily shot an insert with him awake)

  But that scene is just all over the lot.

  Moreover, using my brain that was on vacation last night, I continue to be mystified by the scene in her dressing room where he backtracks on the commitment he made before the Warhoon attack. I think that’s a situation where what was driving that scene was the moment at the end where he seems to go back to earth but didn’t . . . . I swear I think they were so in love with that moment that they reverse engineered the scene to get to that moment, without really considering that it made Carter look inconstant.

  But see …. you’re dragging me back into the “let’s analyze it to death” mode. And my point was that, truly, that’s now how random movie viewers watch a movie.

  The other point I was trying to make, but didn’t make explicitly, was that when you’re in that mode you’re much more open to stuff than you are in a theater where you have paid $12 or $14 bucks and are really looking for perfection. I think that even regular viewers in that mode are far more poised to be critical than people randomly coming across something on the tube.

• I’m sorry, I just can’t resist: so what you’re saying is that with your brain turned off, John Carter turns out to be a decent movie….

  Yeah, and I don’t take offense at it. Stories and dreams have a lot in common on a lot of levels. Is it possible that some of us are overthinking this when we become so hypercritical? Or, alternatively, are the smart ones who have figured out everything that’s wrong with it right, and if their point of view had been followed, it would have been a hit and gotten a far greater audience reaction? I’m not pretending to have the answer to that one.

• I never even heard of this movie until my friend brought it around for me to see,I was so shocked!! Totally fell in love with it!! Went out and bought the DVD 3 months ago and my whole family and I have watched it about 6 times since then… If I had known it had existed before I would have gone to the movies to see it..but I saw no advertising or promoting on it!!! Really sad they will be no sequel!! I would be straight to the movies if so

• Michael, now you get the enchantment that hit me the first time I saw it. I had heard it was terrible in the morning before seeing it that evening. I caught all the stuff you mentioned on the first go round and was totally enchanted. I feel sorry for the folks who can’t separate this from the books. I feel sorry for the folks who couldn’t follow it. And once again my negative opinion of most film reviewers has been reinforced.

• “In this kind of relaxed, no particular expectation state, none of that mattered.”

  No I guess when you’re about to go to sleep you don’t notice the flying saucers wobbling on strings. Or that Bela Lugosi is suddenly being played by a younger, taller guy with a cape over his face. Or the falling over tombstones in the cemetary. Doesn’t mean it’s a good movie-even though from a certain point of view it’s a great comedy-but I guess at 1 in the morning you’re open to anything. Even Mopey Carter.

  “I was really struck by the fact that John Carter didn’t seem nearly as “mopey” as he is sometimes accused of being. Let’s see if I can remember some specifics to justify this reaction.

  First, I started watching during the aerial battle when Sab Than is attacking Dejah Thoris and John Carter intervenes. So in this viewing at least, I didn’t see anything prior to this part of the story. ”

  So coming in without the bad opening with Self-Centered Jerk Carter telling Powell to kiss his rear makes it better? Or without the cheap shot of Future Mrs. Crispy Critter Carter haunting Mopey’s dreams? Again I guess without that Carter might seem less mopey. Still whiney as hell though about his stupid cave of gold and telling Dejah to get lost since nothing good will come from him fighting for her or her world.

  “I really felt the pull between the two characters, John and Dejah.”

  I guess that happened before he kicked her off her thoat? Or waffled about staying with her after slaughtering Warhoons and having Josey Wales acid flashbacks? Sorry the pull wasn’t there as strongly as you suggest. And when it threatened to rear its head Stanton made sure to make Carter a moping jerk again and Dejah a poor runaway bride princess.

  “Watching it and feeling these beats more strongly than in previous viewings, I found myself wondering how I or anyone watching this could feel that the kiss inside the gates of Iss, when it comes, is too sudden, or there hasn’t been enough preparation for it.”

  Maybe because they’ve been bickering at each other for the entire movie at that point without any emotion. Or even the deft touch Leigh Brackett, Larry Kasdan and Irvin Kershner brought to the similiar Han/Leia romance in The Empire Strikes Back. Heck there was more honesty and romance in Ford’s “I Know” line alone than all through Mopey Carter.

  “I’m not attempting to draw any grand conclusions — just sharing something that happened that moved the meter a little bit on my understanding of the vexing conundrum that is John Carter, a film that seems completely capable of disappointing on one viewing and bedazzling on another.”

  Yeah, maybe booze helps? Or being so tired that you don’t care how bad this film really was? I’m sure at 2 in the morning Twilight seems like Casablanca. But who wants to find out?

• I can’t remember any other movie I’ve seen when my opinion about it shifted 180 degrees like it did with John Carter. In the days after watching the movie I intially rejected, I guess my brain made unconsciously the splitting work between my anticipation of the movie and what ended up on the screen. I was confused for the longest time, to the point that I didn’t even know if I considered John Carter to be a bad or a good movie. I just couldn’t decide.

  It was a kind of mourning, evidently less serious than it would have been for a human being, but a mourning work nonetheless. Now I love the movie for what it is, an alternate take on the stories, great in its own way, and in the craftmanship displayed on both sides of the camera. And that didn’t diminish or transformed my love of the books, still intact, I imagine for life now.

  I had the same kind of experience. I wanted to watch just a portion of the movie to check some dialog, and I ended up watching it to the end with a smile on my face the whole time. There’s definitely magic here for me. I’m glad there seems to be also magic for a lot of people, and people that still have to discover the movie!

• I’m sorry, I just can’t resist:

  so what you’re saying is that with your brain turned off, John Carter turns out to be a decent movie….

• Hmmm, maybe it would have worked to call the movie John Carter of Earth – that would have garnered at least a little curiosity. Have you perused all the reviews at Amazon.com? They have run a consistent 82% 4 or 5 stars. It has been that high since the DVD came out. Interesting comments above about Clash and Wrath of trhe Titans. I think JC is much much better. It is good to leave the baggage behind when viewing this movie. I know too much about the books. So many odd aspects could be resolved favorably in sequels. Oh, and, It is good to fly!