John Carter vs John Carter, and Defending Dejah Thoris
Over the weekend at the John Carter Facebook Group there was a thread discussing the merits of the original John Carter character vs Stanton’s version, and also some talk about Dejah Thoris — warrior princess vs Edgar Rice Burroughs’ version. I would like to share it here as I think it’s interesting to hear how these discussions go on a very different forum, where everyone is basically there because they do, in fact, like the movie and see merit in it.
Here it is.
This question is mainly addressed to thev Ladies on the group,but nen can answer if they wish.Did you find JC as a widower as in the film version more compelling than JC as a single man as in the book version of the story.Or were they both equal but different?
38 comments
Nick wrote:
“but in your eyes he made Carter a metrosexual, so the film is garbage regardless of anything else.”
Yeah that’s right Nick. Stanton made him a metrosexual and that’s why this film is garbage. Ignore the bad script, the abysmal supporting characters, badly editied action scenes. It’s all because Carter has a soft heart (which he did in the book you refuse to read out of laziness) and a dead wife that was unnecessary to the plot that I thought this film failed. Oh brother. I haven’t seen such a lame explanation outside of IMDB. Seriously Nick how much more BS excuses can you cough up?
“I think Stanton makes entertaining movies. Why does that bother you so much?”
Well why does it bother you that I don’t bow before the Great God as you do? That I don’t care for Stanton or his movies. Yet it seems to bother the hell out of you. You can’t stand it can you? Someone not bowing down and having no problem dissing the Great Stanton’s films. Yeah I don’t think he makes entertaining films. I wouldn’t have cared if he hadn’t decided to piss all over one of my favorite books. You want to know why it bothers me? It bothers me that such lack of respect can be put on a pedestal by people like you who bow down and believe whatever BS a man does. That’s why it bothers me. That a complete lack of respect is worth defending. You want to continue believing whatever BS Stanton says or does fine, have at it.
MCR: “If the film can stand on its own then great-as did Jaws or The Shining. Sadly Stanton’s John Carter didn’t.”
You’re irritated that a hero from a beloved text was given a wife, has a sensitive heart, and appears in YOUR eyes to be mopey and whiney. Stanton could have made the most well-written, well-acted, well-filmed and well-designed film of all time, but in your eyes he made Carter a metrosexual, so the film is garbage regardless of anything else.
MCR: “Oh I see. So it’s OK for a director to trash another person’s work since your too lazy to pick up a book?”
It’s America. I guess so.
MCR: “And yet every post of yours has been defending this guy like a religous zealot. What exactly has Stanton done that was ever wrong in your opinion Nick? So far the man hasn’t done anything wrong. For someone who can’t admit that a person can make mistakes it comes across as idol worship, which is what you’ve been doing all this time.”
(Insert roll-eyes smily face here). I could nit-pick some things in the film, just like I could in any film I like. I enjoyed the freaking film. I think Stanton makes entertaining movies. Why does that bother you so much? If and when I ever get off my lazy butt and read John Carter, maybe I’d understand your wrath better. But I haven’t. It bothers me none that John Carter had a wife. I don’t think he was mopey. I like the design of the characters and sets and vehicles. Move on man.
Alrighty then. – I think the link works.
Let me know if it budges your dial-o-meter.
Never betray a deal
Nick wrote:
“I’m sure you think your comment is hysterical, but it makes a mockery of how hard it is for movie makers to visually create a made-up world, especially a world that’s only existed in the minds of ERB fans.”
It also existed in the mind and writings of Edgar Rice Burroughs. It wasn’t just in the minds of the fans. And I’m sure most of them never envisioned John Carter as a moping widower or the Therns as shape shifters or Zodanga as a moving city. All of that came from your infallible Stanton.
“How about the Tharks? I think their animtion and facial expressions are better than any I’ve seen to date. They sure as hell beat Avatar’s creations. Gollum is the only animated “real” character that seems as real and natural as Carter’s Tharks.”
Yeah sure they did. Too bad as characters they were poorly done. Why did Sola act they way she did? No explanation from Stanton. How did Tars Tarkas become ruler of the Tharks if he’s as clumsy and foolish as he appears? It doesn’t matter how well-done they are visually, they were badly written characters.
“Another thing, you seem to base a movie’s greatness on whether or not it’s true to the source. ”
I don’t think Iv’e said that either. If the film can stand on its own then great-as did Jaws or The Shining. Sadly Stanton’s John Carter didn’t. Take away how badly he botched adapting it all that’s left is a movie with confusing plot twists, an unappealing lead character and middling supporting characters.
“. I don’t read many books. I like going to movies”
Oh I see. So it’s OK for a director to trash another person’s work since your too lazy to pick up a book? Now I have heard it all.
““Worship” is too strong a word, butt I do “appreciate” Stanton.”
And yet every post of yours has been defending this guy like a religous zealot. What exactly has Stanton done that was ever wrong in your opinion Nick? So far the man hasn’t done anything wrong. For someone who can’t admit that a person can make mistakes it comes across as idol worship, which is what you’ve been doing all this time.
MCR said, “Like butt ugly tatts, Mopey Carter and one man fliers from Speeder Bikes R US.”
I’m sure you think your comment is hysterical, but it makes a mockery of how hard it is for movie makers to visually create a made-up world, especially a world that’s only existed in the minds of ERB fans. Because of brilliant character/vehicle/set designers like Ralph McQuarrie (Star Wars….speaking of which, McQuarrie didn’t have the difficult task of trying to design characters and ojects based on somenone elses long-in-the-public writings…McQuarrie was guided by Lucas of course, but nobody walked into Star Wars envisioning what Darth Vader or a Millnium Falcon would like), sci-fi film-makers like Stanton have a near-impossible task of impressing audiences. I happen to like the fliers, but whatever.
How about the Tharks? I think their animtion and facial expressions are better than any I’ve seen to date. They sure as hell beat Avatar’s creations. Gollum is the only animated “real” character that seems as real and natural as Carter’s Tharks.
Another thing, you seem to base a movie’s greatness on whether or not it’s true to the source. I don’t read many books. I like going to movies. When I saw Hunger Games, I judged its merits only by what I saw on screen. And maybe because of that, I was un-impressed. Characters weren’t fleshed out. When the African-Amercican girl meets her fate, I yawned. I knew nothing about her and her death didn’t bother me much. Friends later told me the scene was powerful for them, ’cause they knew a lot more about her from the book. Good for them. I’m just watching the film.
Same with Carter. I had no baggage of expectations watching the film. Same with Lord Of The Rings. You heap tons of praise on LOTR, and most of it is justified. But I found it ten times more confusing than Carter. Saying that, I still like the films. The 1st one is very good, the 2nd one is great…mostly ’cause of Gollum, the 3rd one so-so…too much fighting and action…it all ran together and got boring for me. I didn’t read Iron Man’s comic source, but I agree that the movies are very well done. For me, Spiderman 2 is the best super-hero film. It’s my understanding the Spiderman films remain true to the comics.
“Worship” is too strong a word, butt I do “appreciate” Stanton. Moreso, I appreciate John Lasseter, and have seen every Lasseter-related animated film. But I also go to films made by the Coen Brothers (speaking of adaptions, “No Country For Old Men” is great, but I have zero idea how it adheres to the structure and tone of the novel….and I frankly could care less if it does). If a film’s directed by Martin Scorsese, Clint Eastwood, Paul Thomas Anderson, Gore Verbisnki, Peter Jackson and Christopher Nolan, I’ll be interested in seeing it. Stanton isn’t on any pedestal in my life.
I go see movies and I like them or don’t like them. How they relate to a book source, if there is one, isn’t something I think or care about.*
* The Hobbit movies will be an exception…the book has all sorts of wonderful imagery and I’m guessing Jackson won’t live up to what it’s my mind, but I hope I’m wrong.
Nick wrote:
“Nemo” was me…”
Well at least that solves that mystery.
“They don’t like that Stanton made a softer and fluffier John Carter. That’s 100% fair. I haven’t read all the Carter stories, so I can’t say how badly Stanton butchered ERB. I’m just a fan of movies. ERB seems like a tremendous story-teller and obviously has an incredible imagination. ”
More like whinier and mopier. Also what’s stopping you from reading the books? One thing that I can’t understand is why people can’t or won’t read them? Is it some fear that you’ll see that the books are better? Or understand why some ERB fans weren’t happy with Stanton’s film? Yes ERB had an incredible imagination and those books are there to be enjoyed.
“To them, people like me are called “Stanton worshippers” (funny, because some fans of ERB talk about his writings like they were divinely carved in 2 slabs of stone). I don’t worship Stanton, but hard not to marvel at Toy Story 2, Bug’s Life, Finding Nemo and Wall-E. All are very creative, smart, and filled with originality.”
And you wonder why people call you a Stanton worshipper? Saying it’s “hard not to marvel” at his work or that they are “creative, smart and filled with originality” doesn’t exactly build a strong case that you’re not a Stantonite (the easier term). That’s like a person saying they don’t worship the Beatles and then saying how amazing their songwriting was and listing Sgt Pepper, Revolver and the White Album as masterpieces.
“….the hardest part is trying to figure out a screenplay and story that serves the source material well AND attracts a big enough audience to jutify $200+ million. And making it even tougher than that, is having the intention that the John Carter film will be the 1st of a trilogy. ”
And yet how many filmmakers have succeeded at it before? The aforementioned Peter Jackson did. The people behind Harry Potter did it. Even movies like Iron Man did it. They all managed to retain the feel, the soul and the story from the source material, something Stanton didn’t even bother to do. Those films also managed to get an audience into theaters beyond just the fan bases. Stanton failed at that and while the defense is always the marketing, the fact that the film’s word of mouth failed to translate says a lot in that department. As for being the opening chapter, that was again a failure to think about it before hand. For every LOTR or Potter there’s a Golden Compass, Last Airbender or Green Lantern. Stanton should have thought about that. Instead he was so busy planning a franchise that he failed to make a good solid stand alone film. Even Burroughs left A Princess of Mars with an ending that could be read as either a complete story or had a hook for another adventure. But as has been mentioned Stanton had zero interest in adapting the books. His ideas were so much better. (Like butt ugly tatts, Mopey Carter and one man fliers from Speeder Bikes R US).
See more quotes for you to laugh about. Have fun!
“Nemo” was me…a lame attempt at talking about ERB in the same manner MCR and a few others talk about Andrew Stanton.
MCR and others’ biggest criticism of “John Carter” is that Stanton did a poor job of adapting ERB’s writings. They don’t like that Stanton made a softer and fluffier John Carter. That’s 100% fair. I haven’t read all the Carter stories, so I can’t say how badly Stanton butchered ERB. I’m just a fan of movies. ERB seems like a tremendous story-teller and obviously has an incredible imagination.
While I haven’t read anything on this site that criticizes ERB or his writing (nor do I think there should be), I’ve read numerous comments by MCR and others painting Stanton as a hack, calling his movies cliched, mediocre and unoriginal. To them, people like me are called “Stanton worshippers” (funny, because some fans of ERB talk about his writings like they were divinely carved in 2 slabs of stone). I don’t worship Stanton, but hard not to marvel at Toy Story 2, Bug’s Life, Finding Nemo and Wall-E. All are very creative, smart, and filled with originality.
As for John Carter, how hard must it be to recreate the insane vision that ERB put on paper?! What should Mars look like? What should the spaceships look like? What should Dejah, Woolah, Tharks, Therns, Zoodanga, swords, costumes, tattoos look like? Complicating matters is that Star Wars, Avatar and countless other films have already portrayed spaceships and alien characters. Not to mention that fans of the books have combinations of images they’ve dreamed of since childhood, and all the fantastic art that’s depicted Carter over the last century. And that’s not even the hardest part….the hardest part is trying to figure out a screenplay and story that serves the source material well AND attracts a big enough audience to jutify $200+ million. And making it even tougher than that, is having the intention that the John Carter film will be the 1st of a trilogy.
I went back just a few pages on this site and pulled some quotes. Most are so absurd that I laughed. Good stuff:
Tom C: “Of all of Stanton’s good pointers, beliefs and rules to go by, he sure did a 180 and went the cliché-ridden, bland lame-action family adventure road.”
MCR: “As for the rest of the story considering how poorly written the rest of the characters were…”
MCR: 2+2 didn’t add up to 4 here. Instead they added up to a poor plot that made no sense; characters doing things that was incomprehensible…and Macguffins so poorly defined that they became uninteresting or gimmicky. A movie has to make sense.”
MCR: “The only thing Carter seemed to want to “scratch” was to get back to his cave of gold. He had no spine, no arc to care about.”
MCR: “What wonder? Utah? The film failed to invoke wonder both visually and with the story Stanton decided to tell.”
MCR: “So in short yeah Stanton can talk the talk. But he clearly needed lessons on how to walk.”
MCR: “Maybe Stanton should have had more driving lessons or an actual tutor in the car with him.”
MCR: “…the result was this – a mess made by a man whose arrogance overrode any intelligent thought or concern about his lack of respect and whether or not he should have gotten in the car.”
MCR: “Stanton’s whiny Mopey Carter with his useless backstory, shape shifter Shang, wimpy and klutzy Tars Tarkas almost beheading Carter in his clumsiness…”
Tom C: “Stanton utterly butchered the story and crapped all over any concept of character development. The movies is as romantic and sexy as having root canal performed. If you think that John Carter was entertaining, then you’re easily entertained.”
MCR: “Honestly I didn’t like it. It took what could have been an interesting premise-and a promising opening 20 minutes or so-and added too many bad concepts, tired gags and cliched plot twists.”
MCR: “Am I biased against Stanton? I’m biased against bad or mediocre filmmaking.”
MCR: “He should have just stayed with his true calling-animation-and left John Carter of Mars to someone else who had the skills and respect for the material.”
MCR: “Stanton’s Carter wasn’t a real human being-he was a pieced together cliche without any real feeling or humanity to him.”
MCR: “All Stanton did was make Tars Tarkas a wimp with bad comedy bits and turned Woola into the Road Runner.”
MCR: “Dejah was the only one who had any human emotion in this film.”
MCR: “Stanton took the characters who all have inner strength and made them weak men. I guess he thought that would show them as human and make them more relatable but in truth it just made them unlikable…”
MCR: “I mean Stanton fubared all of the characters to some extent but Tars Tarkas was the most annoying next to Carter.”
MCR: “But Stanton had no problem putting out a John Carter dud that tarnished the legacy of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter of Mars!”
MCR: “Stanton drove up the budget because of his inability to discover that his Pixar method didn’t work. He drove up the budget because of constant reshoots. He drove it up just because no one at Disney could stand up to him.”
MCR: “…the animation in John Carter did not look that expensive. Heck it was about on the same par with films like Wrath of the Titans, Thor or even Cloud Atlas.”
MCR: “What did Stanton give us? Utah, over exaggered jumping scenes, Shape Shifter Shang, moving Zodanga, lame Red men tattoos. Maybe if Stanton hadn’t been so determined to have his own misguided concepts eat up the effects budget more could have been done with the Tharks in terms of design and screen time.”
MCR: “Stanton’s artistic choices in the design…the boring look of Barsoom, the butt ugly tattoos, the one man fliers looking like ROTJ’s speeder bikes, the idea that the Heliumites and Zodangans can only be told apart by their colors, the silly solar panel wings on the air ships. The look of the flm just never was that compelling or that unique looking.”
MCR: “Stanton bungled adapting it, he made a boring looking Barsoom and he stuffed the film with unoriginal story ideas from other films and books.”
MCR: “This Andrew “Damaged Goods Hero” Stanton I’m talking about. Originality left the building when he entered it.”
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Feels kinda prankish to me. I don’t see any evidence that he’s actually read an ERB book, do you?”
Rereading it no. As pointed out by Abe S. the tattoos and space ship remarks make it clear this guy-or girl-never read the books and instead is just believing whatever Stanton said.
“Try it out as a case study in how to engage with “bashing”….try it, you’ll like it.”
All right Yoda. I’ll give it a try. 🙂
If you’re going to attempt to prove something is poor get your facts straight. As mentioned there is no spaceships in the books (unless you have confused the air ships and one man fliers). None of them have tattoos either. Also dismissing John Carter as a “emotionless, unrealistic warrior” proves you haven’t read anything written by Burroughs. John Carter has emotions. He shows them quite a bit in A Princess of Mars, from sympathy in his refusal to allow the Tharks to shoot Woola after he’s injured fighting the white apes; to feeling homesick as Dotar pointed out; to jealousy over Dejah’s engagement to Sab Than, the list goes on. Carter is not a one dimensional character, despite what you and Andrew Stanton seems to believe. If anything he has more emotions that Stanton’s Carter does-a broken man who doesn’t care for anyone except himself? Does being self-centered mean he has more dimensions.
Also how is he unrealistic? He gets injured, makes mistakes, jumps in without thinking. He’s not Superman. In fact Stanton’s Carter is more hard to believe. Early in the movie Powell claims he’s an expert swordsman. Yet he gets it knocked out of his hand a lot. His jumping abilites are exaggerated to an absurd degree. He also shows little intelligence. It takes him 10 years searching for a medallion and then finally he decides to trick a Thern after he threw it away to start with? It doesn’t make him seem all that smart-or destined to become the Warlord of Barsoom.
So before you criticize someone’s work actually take the time and read it. Even with all of my criticisms with Stanton’s film I did see it.
(How’s that Dotar? Also FYI I got my Vinylmation Tars Tarkas figure. Considering the lack of merchandise for this film I’m surprised you haven’t mentioned them. Just thought I would pass it along.)
Crust wrote:
Link, please? I’m sure if we put the link up, you’ll get some takers….!
Tattoos? WTF?
That either got pulled out of the deepest nether region of Nemo’s nether region
or he stumbled across my barsoomian spinoff and mistook it for actual ERB.
Xipeuh’s skin was not the maculated complexion that typified most warhoons (who’s breeding programs forgo aesthetics) suggesting that he was of other origin. It was similar to the olive green that was uniform among most hordes, but darker in color.
Xipeuh’s dark green skin was covered with tattoos that depicted disturbing scenes of extreme violence.
Death by combat and secret assassinations, but even more sickening were the acts of sadistic torture that revolted the senses. Even more hideous was the fact that these were not a product of a deranged diseased imagination from some demented artist but in fact illustrated and immortalized real crimes perpetrated by none other than Xipeuh himself. Sixty seven jeddaks had fought there way to power and afterwards succumbed to combat during the 2000 year existince of Bal Sag’s tribe but always had there been but one chief torturer.
To the laughter and applause of packed arenas Xipeuh had practiced and perfected his craft and acknowleged no master.
The zodangan looks at the tattooed feet of Xipeuh and blanches in horror. He retches then looking upwards peers into the eyes of a devil. Pupils black and fathomless well out and engulf his consciousness.
By the way ….
I rant about Disney/JC because I am distraught that no one will read my story and tell me how horrible it is.
“Nemo” went belly-up on this one. There are no “spaceships” until book 8, and no tattoos at all. John Carter has emotions, as demonstrated in quotes from the books in this thread, and is a prototypical superhero, not an “unrealistic warrior”. Someone needs to read the books before stepping forward with an authoritative tone. Or at least offer more modest criticism of novels which he seems to not have read.
It’s fine if people want to celebrate the movie and describe what they appreciate about Stanton’s work, but demeaning ERB in the process is unnecessary. Not one fan of ERB is under the impression that his works are perfect. Meanwhile, many ERB fans believe that Stanton gave us an unnecessarily fast-and-loose adaptation. That is their opinion and they have a right to it. As has been noted elsewhere, even very close adaptations elicit similar patterns of differences of opinion. To each his own. I thoroughly enjoy Stanton’s film, but I also want to see another, closer take on Barsoom.
If you are into dying planet melancholy, I recommend Jack Vance’s Dying Earth
series.
Eyes of the Overworld, is the most humor laden sci-fi I’ve ever read.
Feels kinda prankish to me. I don’t see any evidence that he’s actually read an ERB book, do you? That would be my first question. This sounds like he’s read some of Stanton’s interviews and is repeating that, plus displaying affection for the film. But if asked, and if he shows that he’s really read ERB, maybe I’m wrong.
Try it out as a case study in how to engage with “bashing”….try it, you’ll like it. 😉
Nemo wrote:
:”I always thought ERB was a over-rated. His Carter stories are at times thrilling and I give him credit for thinking up a few novel ideas that were pretty unique for the time, but overall I find his Carter stories have a serious lack of creativity. Worse, his work is inconsistent. I don’t understand why so many praise his work. It’s gratifying that Andrew Stanton was given the chance by Disney to sort through ERB’s ramblings and make a powerful, cohesive film where we truly care for all the characters. Instead of an emotionless, unrealistic warrior, Stanton makes the man someone I can relate to. ERB’s descriptions of spaceships and characters were adequate and at times visionary, but never seemed fully fleshed out. Stanton and his team of artists did an incredible job of enhancing ERB’s world. And then expanding greatly on it. I particularly like the tattoos that Stanton’s team envisioned. The ones in ERB’s book sounded butt-ugly.”
OK Dotar. You expect me-or any serious ERB fan-to take this Stanton worshipper seriously? How much more of a pedestal has this guy built for his “God?”
Impositions constrain and define your life.
You dole out lucre for a theater seat, a soda, and a greasy tub of popcorn.
A weekend surrogate for grand adventure.
REBOOT – JC is your avatar in a hyper-dynamic enviroment that captivates the senses.
He is a bad ass and a whole lot of other adjectives that I am
currently to lazy to look up on an online thesauris.
STANTON- JC is your avatar in a shrunken enviroment.
He is a whiner and a whole lot of other adjectives that I am
currently to lazy to look up on an online thesauris.
REBOOT – JC is an avatar that takes you on an emotional roller coaster ride.
STANTON – JC is an avatar that a lot of movie-goers care not to relate to.
I would like to put a longer more eloquent comparison list but I got constraints ….
Finally …. random asinine hater babble.
I hate the scene were Woola chomps down on Matai Shang’s arm and only
disables his power bracelet.
Woola’s three rows of shark like teeth should have chomped his arm clean off.
Afterwards copious amounts of blood spurting thru the air as a screaming
Matia Shang gets tossed around like a rag doll.
Have a good day!
I always thought ERB was a over-rated. His Carter stories are at times thrilling and I give him credit for thinking up a few novel ideas that were pretty unique for the time, but overall I find his Carter stories have a serious lack of creativity. Worse, his work is inconsistent. I don’t understand why so many praise his work. It’s gratifying that Andrew Stanton was given the chance by Disney to sort through ERB’s ramblings and make a powerful, cohesive film where we truly care for all the characters. Instead of an emotionless, unrealistic warrior, Stanton makes the man someone I can relate to. ERB’s descriptions of spaceships and characters were adequate and at times visionary, but never seemed fully fleshed out. Stanton and his team of artists did an incredible job of enhancing ERB’s world. And then expanding greatly on it. I particularly like the tattoos that Stanton’s team envisioned. The ones in ERB’s book sounded butt-ugly.
MCR
You haven’t called Stanton a “boob” because that term isn’t strong enough — not because you’ve held anything back. 😉
Look, there’s an interesting point buried in this back and forth. You (MCR) think that when you lambast Stanton, eviscerating him in effect, you’re only directing it at him and the person you’re exchanging with shouldn’t “take it personally” — and when they do, you start invoking that — “look, you treat Stanton like a God” thing you like to say, as if they can’t hear any criticism at all without rushing to his defense. Meanwhile, the person you’re dealing with might be perfectly okay with reasonably voiced criticism of Stanton but when you do it the way you do — they feel that they too are under attack and it does in fact become personal. Try to get this concept and absorb it — when you go over-the-top with your bashing, YOU are the one who’s making it personal because YOU are the one insisting on a view so strident that there is no room for discussion or difference of opinion.
The thing is …. I think you’ve provided a very important voice here and so I don’t react too much to the constant excessive level of hype and stridency …. but I just can’t help weighing in and trying to convince you to be more civil.
And by the way — this whole conversation to day is perfectly civil……..nothing at all wrong with it. But this is a “meta-discussion”, not an actual discussion of the issues, so I’m not sure it counts on the bashometer. 😉
It must puzzle you why, for example, Prince of Persia which is sort of like John Carter and came and went with no one getting passionate bout it one way or the other, but John Carter unlike PoP has these adherents who REALLY REALLY like the movie. Despising it as much as you do (although as Crust pointed out, your actual review was a lot more balanced than what you put out here), does the fact that there are these people who really like it the way it is drive you nuts? It would me.
Nick wrote:
“I’m no expert on Tolkien and LOTR, but there ARE a Tolkien purists who thought Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings greatly under-represents the books.”
You’re also no expert on Burroughs and John Carter of Mars and as you’ve seen there ARE Burroughs purisits who thought this movie under-rerpresented the books. It’s not some uncommon event among fans of various books and movies. I’ve meet fans who feel JK Rowling was under-represented in the Harry Potter films and even Batman fans who felt Nolan didn’t do justice either. There all just opinions, nothing more.
“And earlier, I said, “…the implication by ERB purists…”. The word “implication” is key here. I could pull a lot of quotes of yours on this site that basically say Stanton is a boob who doesn’t know how to design, write, adapt, direct, and story-tell. For someone who likes Stanton’s work and “John Carter”, it’s not a stretch for someone to think you feel the same about a Stanton fan.”
I don’t think I’ve called Stanton a boob yet anyway. As for thinking I feel the same way about a Stanton fan the only thing I can tell you is to stop taking it personally. I saw this same attitude back on IMDB before it became a flop troll central. Anytime anyone took issue or criticized Stanton there were people there taking it personal, like I or someone else had insutled them personally or their God or beliefs or point of view. My criticisms and “bashing” are aimed at him, not you or his fans. And as he’s shown Stanton doesn’t really care what I or any ERB purist-or even regular ERB fans-think about him. So why should you?
Pascalahad, I hope you’re right. That’s be awesome to see another take on John Carter.
MCR, I’m no expert on Tolkien and LOTR, but there ARE a Tolkien purists who thought Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings greatly under-represents the books. I have an uncle who falls into that category.
And earlier, I said, “…the implication by ERB purists…”. The word “implication” is key here. I could pull a lot of quotes of yours on this site that basically say Stanton is a boob who doesn’t know how to design, write, adapt, direct, and story-tell. For someone who likes Stanton’s work and “John Carter”, it’s not a stretch for someone to think you feel the same about a Stanton fan.
Nick wrote: “Kind of off-topic, but does anybody think it’s possible or realistic that a John Carter film could ever be made that adheres EXACTLY to the tone and story of the books…and still attract broad and large enough audiences to make money?”
Yes, a hundred times yes.
Peter Jackson wanted to make some rather drastic changes to The Lord of the Rings, including putting Arwen at the Battle of Helm’s Deep, and Aragorn battling Sauron himself in the climax of Return of the King, not a troll. Each time he went back to the books.
Burroughs’ A Princess of Mars is still relevant today, and for good reasons.
MCR Wrote
Hmmmm…..I would have thought that after my 738 comments here (MCR u r in second place with 302) the fact that I’m not one to use sarcasm very much would have carried the day on that one. I just frankly thought the passage clearly showed JC NOT being whiny, but on re-reading it I guess you focused on the homesick part, while I was focusing on “my sense of humor reasserted itself”…part.
Well, I don’t think the actual words “overly sensitive dumbasses” is likely to create a hit on the comment threads, but I have to tell you that when I read the comment saying that the way you guys beat up on Stanton makes anyone who doesn’t agree with you feel like you’re saying/thinking that, my first reaction was — right on! Because, that’s the subtext that emerges when you make your comments in such an over the top manner. Think about it. There is a way to state an opinion and leave room for the other person to not feel that their opinion is regarded as worthless, invalid, or just plain stupid. But when you go to such extremes with your position, then the takeaway is that you feel it is JUST SO OBVIOUS that anyone who doesn’t agree is ….. well …. a dumbass.
So … I think that was a valid comment but no, I don’t recall you or Crust actually directly calling someone a dumbs. 😉
MCR, I checked out your site yesterday. Well done.
I dug far enough back into the archives to read your review
regarding the movie.
I had the impression that your review at your site was far kinder
then what you have typed at this site.
Furthermore …
I happened to stumble across a 14 page thread consisting of
people typing their opinions regarding the movie.
I would say that opinions are evenly divided.
Quite a few remarks regarding Taylor’s “acting”.
Just type “john carter thread something awful” with google search
and it pops up top of page.
Have a good day!
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Wow, did you think I was being sarcastic when I said Carter in the book is the “perfect knight” and then quoted that passage?”
Sometimes its hard to tell when a person is being sarcastic. Smiley faces help 🙂
Nick wrote:
“Kind of off-topic, but does anybody think it’s possible or realistic that a John Carter film could ever be made that adheres EXACTLY to the tone and story of the books…and still attract broad and large enough audiences to make money?”
It seems to work for Harry Potter and The Lord of the Rings. Both stayed true to the material and the tone while attracting a huge audience.
“It gets tiring to hear how Stanton butchered ERB’s vision, and the implication by ERB purists that people like me who loved the film must be overly-sensitive dumbasses who don’t understand good moviemaking. Was there a similar backlash by Tolkien fanatics over Lord Of The Rings when Peter Jackson made all of his alterations? I heard that some of Tolkien’s family hated what Jackson did. I happen to think LOTR, the Two Towers especially, is great. Can’t Tolkien’s original vision AND Jackson’s interpretation BOTH be good? Can’t ERB’s/Stanton’s?”
I don’t think I’ve ever called anyone “overly-sensitive dumbasses who don’t understand good moviemaking.” Maybe I have. Dotar can you find any quotes similar to that?
As for LOTR Jackson’s alterations weren’t as drastic as Stanton’s. Frodo Baggins wasn’t a self-centered jerk who refused to go on the adventure. Sauron didn’t shape shift. Jackson didn’t throw out the plot of the books and made his own story that bore little to zero resemblance to the material. Nor did Jackson and his co-writers spend countless interviews bad mouthing Tolkien. Stanton and his cronies did. They never said anything positive about the books or Burroughs. At least Jackson had respect for Tolkien and his accomplishments.
As for both being good that’s a subjective opinion. I happen to think both the LOTR books and movies are great. That’s not the case with John Carter. The books are great, this movie was a disappointment and a botch job as far as an adaptation goes. So no it’s not going to happen.
1. Kind of off-topic, but does anybody think it’s possible or realistic that a John Carter film could ever be made that adheres EXACTLY to the tone and story of the books…and still attract broad and large enough audiences to make money? Would any studio spend $250+ million….and make no mistake about it, a John Carter movie truly representative of the book and characters would HAVE to cost at least that much….ever make the type of film that would 100% please people like Crustbucket and MCR?
2. It gets tiring to hear how Stanton butchered ERB’s vision, and the implication by ERB purists that people like me who loved the film must be overly-sensitive dumbasses who don’t understand good moviemaking. Was there a similar backlash by Tolkien fanatics over Lord Of The Rings when Peter Jackson made all of his alterations? I heard that some of Tolkien’s family hated what Jackson did. I happen to think LOTR, the Two Towers especially, is great. Can’t Tolkien’s original vision AND Jackson’s interpretation BOTH be good? Can’t ERB’s/Stanton’s?
Stanton/Disney put John Carter in the spotlight. Thousands of people like me, who weren’t very familiar with the character, discovered him and therefore ERB. That’s kind of a good thing, right?
MCR Wrote
Wow, did you think I was being sarcastic when I said Carter in the book is the “perfect knight” and then quoted that passage?
He doesn’t mope at all, nor does he whine. “For did not even Dejah Thoris despise me! I
was a low creature, so low in fact that I was not even fit to polish the teeth of her grandmother’s cat; and then my saving sense of humor came to my rescue, and laughing I turned into my silks and furs and slept upon the moon-haunted ground the sleep of a tired and healthy fighting man.”
Also, as a side note — it’s pretty interesting that this is the one moment where John Carter thinks of Earth at all, and the one moment where he feels a twinge of homesickness.
But whine? JC in the book doesn’t whine. Remember later on his solution is to just defer his personal interest in Dejah until he gets her back to Helium (which is interrupted by the Warhoon attack)…..but rather than press his case, he just–without pouting–says he will look after her safety and get her home without any expectation of her returning his feelings, etc.
Dotar Sojat:
“JC doesn’t mope in the book, does he? He’s the “perfect knight” …when she says he’s not fit to polish the teeth of her mother’s sorak, which about the low ebb in his quest for her favors, look how he reacts: ”
There’s a major difference to this “moping” (even though I don’t read it that way). Carter is lamenting his situation because he is alone among strange creatures and a woman who feels he is beneath her. He’s feeling lonely because he has no one to relate to and is isolated. In short despite his wandering ways he craves friendship and being around loved ones. Compare that to Mopey Carter. He basically gives everyone the proverbial finger and makes it clear he wants to be alone. He’s rejecting friendship and instead is too busy running around telling people he doesn’t care and the rest of the whining he does.
Crust, have you read APOM lately?
JC doesn’t mope in the book, does he? He’s the “perfect knight” …when she says he’s not fit to polish the teeth of her mother’s sorak, which about the low ebb in his quest for her favors, look how he reacts:
The other thing I find strange about your comment (and about Disney) is that while I don’t disagree that a number of choices seem to have been made with a female audience in mind, whoever made those choices in the story seems to have been a very, very different person with very different priorities than the marketers, who made no effort whatsoever to attract a female audience.
Also, you and MCR constantly use the word “mope”. Ah, but what’ the difference between “moping” and “brooding”…….?If you like him, it’s brooding. If you don’t, it’s moping. It must drive you guys nuts that there are people out there who actually liked the “brooding” John Carter……
Mind you, I’m not one of them. Whether brooding or moping …. I prefer the book version….. but not quite as forcefully as you guys.
Having a man with a mysterious past is not necessarily a bad thing, but in most cases he’s not the main protagonist. I strongly believe in the need of having an “audience surrogate” in movies. In The Searchers, it’s Jeffrey Hunter’s character. In Star Wars, it’s Luke Skywalker, not Solo. In Pitch Black, it’s the female pilot, not Riddick. In Pale Rider, it’s the farmers. I think some interesting movies as of late missed the mark with the general audience because they lacked a good audience surrogate, among them The Chronicles of Riddick and Hellboy 2.
Batman is an interesting case. It’s hard to make him compelling past the origin stage. More often than not, the villain turns out as the main protagonists, because they’re the ones with a story to tell. To me, Christopher Nolan had this problem with The Dark Knight, which more or less relegated Batman in the background, letting the Joker and Harvey Dent take central stage, as if the entirety of The Dark Knight was to foreshadow Bruce Wayne’s fall in Dark Knight Rises, where there is definitely an arc for him again (another origin story in fact, as was tried in Batman Forever too, with Bruce Wayne doubting on the path to take).
Indiana Jones is another example of the “man with a mysterious past”. When he first appears, he seems pretty rude towards his associates; he is only sympathetic because of Harrison Ford’s past history with the viewers as Han Solo (as he would have been instantly sympathetic if Tom Selleck would have played him, because of Magnum). I try to imagine what would be my perception of Indiana Jones if that was my first exposure to Harrison Ford; I would have probably a hard time relating to him. His arc goes from arrogant to humble in the two first movies, and in the third he has to resolve his daddy issues (and being turned from tomb raider into “it belongs to a museum”). Nothing of note in 4, unfortunately. Having a son doesn’t seem to mean much to him, there’s no emotional arc at all between the two.
Andrew Stanton took a real chance with making the “man with a mysterious past” as the main protagonist from the get-go, but it worked in Raiders of the Lost Ark after all. At first viewing I had a hard time relating to John Carter, simply because I couldn’t understand what drove him into action. I still resent the “will you fight for Helium” scene between John and Dejah AFTER John basically sacrificed himself against the Warhoons. It still doesn’t make sense to me that he didn’t commit fully to Dejah at this point. Knowing his arc beforehand helped me to relate to him on subsequent viewings.
If the movie would have followed the book, instead of watching JC moping about his dead wife movie goers would have instead watched JC moping because DT is not
reciprocating his love. – Either way, lots of moping.
Most action movies are geared primarily towards male audiences.
To overcome the extortionate price tag someone decided that deviations
from the source mat’l was essential to get females to fill the seats.
Perhaps the writers knew that a dead wife/damaged goods would appeal
more to women so thats why they did it.
A warrior princess, yea lets do that, women like that.
A hot looking ambercrombie and fitch model to be the JC?
Wait a second, how bout someone who has facial expression and can
actually act?
What? Who cares if he can’t act. He looks hot.
Women will love it when he flexes, hire him.
A lot of scenes were geared towards generating sympathy towards the female charactors.
JC is being a whiny douche so instead of feeling sorry for him we feel sorry for DT.
The whole Tars Tarkus/Sola story is turned on its ear so thaT we feel sorry for Sola.
In the end we just feel sorry.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“The question is this: Can you cite any examples, not just from sci-fi fantasy, where the pattern Stanton chose was a) a good choice, and b) well-executed? Just curious where you’ll go with this one because it seems that you fault it generally as a tired, cliche’d approach. But do you think it can work? If so, when? Who has executed it well and why is their way of executing it so much better than Stanton?”
So I can go ahead and get beat up here’s my response:
Movies where the hardbitten loner “who unconsciously needs something else and ultimately finds it” is-and not all of them really “find it”:
Casablanca. But Bogie doens’t get Ingrid Bergman at the end. They still have Paris though.
The Searchers. Ethan Edwards is a hard bitten, cyncial loner. He finds his niece but doesn’t go in the house at the end. He’s destined to wander between the winds. Plus as a movie it makes you feel for the characters and manages to keep Ethan a mystery.
Yojimbo and A Fistful of Dollars. Both men just want money and gladly works for the highest bidder. They do end up saving the town from warring factions but not exactly because of some high “man’s got do do” mentality.
Batman. Then again we know why he’s a loner.
It can work when the story needs it. It can be seen in The Searchers as establishing Edwards’ hatred for the Commanches and his constant browbeating of Martin Pauley. Or explaining why a man dresses up as a bat. Also in the case of these examples the filmmakers themselves know how to handle it-either for black comic effect like Kurosawa in Yojimbo.
Of course this list can go on-but in the case of Dirty Harry or Taxi Driver its debatable whether or not they find anything. Harry gets justice but mostly just seems to love to shoot people.
Finally maybe its just the fact that John Carter is not the bland vanilla character Stanton thinks he is from the books and that turning him into this wasn’t necessary to the story. There are many movies where a character does the right thing or finds a purpose without moping about it. If you want a good comparsion of that watch Seven Samurai and then see how Kurosawa contrasts it with Yojimbo.
OK so tell me I’m wrong.
MCR Wrote
So here is my question for you.
You agree that the hero who is hardbitten, just wants to be left alone (consciously), but who unconsciously needs something else and ultimately finds it is a pattern that exists throughout recent film history. You point out that this is NOT the pattern (at least not in the extreme way Stanton formulated it) for various other sci-fi fantasy stories.
The question is this: Can you cite any examples, not just from sci-fi fantasy, where the pattern Stanton chose was a) a good choice, and b) well-executed? Just curious where you’ll go with this one because it seems that you fault it generally as a tired, cliche’d approach. But do you think it can work? If so, when? Who has executed it well and why is their way of executing it so much better than Stanton?
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“Huh? You don’t regard “will he/won’t he fight for Helium?” or “will he/won’t he fall for Dejah Thoris?” as plot elements?”
Not really since there was no suspense to the outcome of either. Instead they were more useless changes to the plot. The charm of A Princess of Mars to me was that John Carter fought his way threw Hell and back for one thing-the love of Dejah Thoris. There was no trickery on her part or any ambition other than to save her. His becoming Barsoom’s savior came later and would have been fine if the central relationship had been more of the focus here. In fact the major reason he led the Barsoomian Navy into the Valley Dor was to rescue Dejah. It was love. Stanton missed that in his shallow view of the material-cool aliens, hot martian babes-approach.
“But the idea of the hero having a conscious desire (back to my cave of gold) that is in conflict with his unconscious but ultimately overriding desire (find meaning in life and someone/something to believe in, fight for) is hardly unique to Stanton”
Actually it seems to be if you compare it to other fantasy/sci-fi stories. Luke Skywalker might have been reluctant but after his aunt and uncle’s deaths he was ready to leave and become a Jedi and fight the Empire. No moping there. Harry Potter was willing to sacrifice himself to save his friends and destroy Voldemort. He could have just turned his back and said “its not my problem.” Frodo Baggins could have just told Gandalf to bugger off. Instead he took the ring and the trip to save his beloved Shire. Even as mixed up as they were The Avengers all had the same goal to save the Earth. They bickered but it was the same goal.
Stanton’s choice as I said made it hard to like or care for Carter for a vast majority of this film. You can say its 50 years of movie making and that Stanton isn’t unique in his decision to go with this but it still failed to make the character-and the story-connect beyond Stanton’s superficial view of the novels-bland hero, cool aliens, hot babes.
“You really are just a bit too hard on Stanton….but then we know that— and we know you think I’m waaaay too easy on him.”
😉
MCR wrote:
Huh? You don’t regard “will he/won’t he fight for Helium?” or “will he/won’t he fall for Dejah Thoris?” as plot elements?
The thing about your constant denigration of the “grieving widower” and calling it things like “self-absorbed jerk” flies in the face of at least 50 years of cinema history which has, as you note, turned this motif into a cliche. But the idea of the hero having a conscious desire (back to my cave of gold) that is in conflict with his unconscious but ultimately overriding desire (find meaning in life and someone/something to believe in, fight for) is hardly unique to Stanton, nor is it an approach to be disdained and cast aside as automatically “cliche”. If that were that case, many, many movies that are regarded as good, would be regarded as “derivative, cliche-ridden”, etc as you characterize JC.
Someone could just as easily take the ERB fall-in-love-with-the-princess-at-first-site approach and call it cliche, archaic, etc.
Truly, how many love story motifs are there? a) Love at First Site, b) Meet cute, hate each other, gradually fall in love, c) best friend then lover…..what else is there?
You really are just a bit too hard on Stanton….but then we know that— and we know you think I’m waaaay too easy on him.
“It just wouldn’t play to a modern day movie audience.”
Reading that part makes me sad, and I’m convinced it’s wrong. The problem is that, to be “politically correct” nowadays, you have to make men and women equal, mentally AND physically. There is no place for chivalry anymore, that’s why an heroin today can only be “strong”, “independent”, “kicking men’s asses”. That’s what plagued the Pierce Brosnan-era “James Bond” post-Goldeneye. From that point on, he was only surrounded with women that didn’t give a damn about him, that didn’t needed him to help them. No wonder Daniel Craig’s Bond mostly revels in cruelty and violence, and not chivalry at all. That aspect of the (cinematic) character is gone.
It’s not because a woman can’t fight on equal foot with men that she isn’t strong. One can argue Dejah is that much stronger when she makes that impassionated speech before the Tharks, at a time she thinks she is all alone, because whatever the Tharks decide to do with her, she won’t be able to physically defend herself.
There is place for chivalry in this world, as it was for the longest time. Women still dream of their Prince, however cynical they may want to appear. We as men still dream of protecting the woman we love. We need that dream, and Hollywood has largely turned away from this. But as all things go in full circles, one day chivalry will be back on screen. I hope it will, anyway.
Dotar Sojat wrote:
“But I don’t agree that the grieving widower “ultimately doesn’t plan an important part of the plot or the chars her of John Carter.” Huh? It’s the central issue in his character and a major plot driver.”
Does it? The death of his “family” had no bearing on the Thern subplot or the war between Helium and Zodanga. It’s not like this became The Fugitive or even The Outlaw Josey Wales where the death of the spouse or a child becomes a driving engine for the hero to go out and either get justice or revenge. The rest of it was a poor choice concerning character development. Turning Carter into a grieving widower basically made him a self-absorbed jerk and hard to relate to. He didn’t care for anyone or anything-so why should I care about him or his quest if he doesn’t care.
MCR, that’s a pretty mild response, all things considered.
I agree — as a male, the romantic fantasy of finding his perfect match from another world is deeply satisfying in a “wish-fulfillment” way that the movie scenario doesn’t quite deliver. And both John Carter and Dejah Thoris, in the books, are plenty real so that the “wish-fulfillment” feels real. No doubt about that.
But I don’t agree that the grieving widower “ultimately doesn’t plan an important part of the plot or the chars her of John Carter.” Huh? It’s the central issue in his character and a major plot driver. If he were not so drained from being a widower, it seems unlikey he would be so tiredly focused on getting back to his cave of gold….moreover, his love for the late Mrs. Carter is a major part of the block in his progression with Dejah Thoris. It affects everything.
The other thing is … “damaged men they can save”…..well, yeah. I think that’s a fair point.
It seems interesting that two of the male respondeds prefer the novel’s Carter while the female posters liked Mopey Carter and his Josey Wales back story. Maybe it is the idea that the male reader likes the idea of a strong man who finds his heart with Dejah while women like weak men. Or rather I should say damaged men they can save.
You know my response-the novel Carter and his discovering a woman to lay down his life, heart and sword to me is more compelling than some grieving widower since it’s become a tired idea and ultimately doesn’t play an important part of the plot or the character of John Carter.