# Film: John Carter (2012)



## Anthony G Williams (Sep 14, 2012)

Well, I finally got around to seeing Disney's notorious "flop", based on the first of the century-old _Barsoom_ novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs. Just in case there is anyone who is unaware of the basic plot, it concerns an American soldier who had fought in the Civil War of 1861-65 who finds himself suddenly transported to Mars - but a Mars unlike the one that we now know. It has a breathable atmosphere and populations of both humans (or humanoids - they have some non-human characteristics in Burroughs' stories) and Tharks; giant green six-limbed beings, intelligent but primitive. Their name for their planet is Barsoom. To be fair to Burroughs, little was known about surface conditions on Mars 100 years ago and the existence of a canal-building civilisation on the planet was widely believed even by serious astronomers (ironically, their opinion shifted against this idea around the time the _Barsoom_ stories were first published).

I read the books as a youngster, far too long ago to recall anything much about them other than the intriguing nugget that the apparently "human" women laid eggs rather than giving birth to babies. I do recall being struck by the energy, enthusiasm and inventiveness of the tales, plenty by themselves to carry along young and uncritical readers, even though I knew at the time that these stories were now firmly in the "fantasy" category as Mars was really a dead planet. They made for great escapist fiction: what lad wouldn't want to be reborn as a super-warrior on an alien planet, fighting for a beautiful princess? I needn't say anything else about the plot, as that sums it up well enough for this review.

The film received a very mixed critical reception when released and its financial failure led to the resignation of the head of Walt Disney Studios. So I was curious to see whether I agreed with the critics or the supporters and watched it with an open mind.  I was prepared to like it, but I have to say that on balance I agreed with the critics. The structure of the film is messy and sometimes difficult to follow and the pace is frantic, skipping rapidly through a series of improbable events without much explanation. In the battle scenes I was usually unsure of who were the "good" and "bad" humans as they looked and dressed much alike; I could never distinguish between the "good" and "bad" flying machines they used either. The character-building is weak to put it mildly, with Taylor Kitsch as the hero making little impression (someone with more screen presence, like Chris Hemsworth who made such an impressive Thor, might have made a difference) although Lynn Collins is fine as Deja Thoris - unlike most actresses, she has enough muscle to make the sword-wielding seem feasible. The strength of the film is, as one might expect, in the visual spectacle: the Tharks, the strange flying machines, the dramatic-looking cities (including a moving one), and the fighting. Lots of fighting. The overall impression I was left with was of much jumping and dashing around and whirling of swords.

To be fair, the film-makers had the usual problem in adapting a decidedly outdated novel: do they try to make sense of it for modern viewers, or do they stay faithful to the novel and produce something which is frankly rather ludicrous? On this occasion I think they tended towards the latter end of the spectrum. It was just about watchable for the spectacle, but left me unengaged and unimpressed. This was intended to be the first of a trilogy, but that now seems highly unlikely to materialise.

Incidentally, those who like the basic plot idea might enjoy reading a more modern and realistic (if such a term can be appropriate for this kind of fantasy) approach to the same theme, not set on Mars but on an initially undefined world: this is the seven-book _Gandalara Cycle_ by Randall Garrett and Vicki Ann Heydron, published in the 1980s. I have reviewed the first three novels on this blog in December 2011 and July 2012, and they are great fun - undemanding escapist entertainment.

(An extract from my SFF blog: http://sciencefictionfantasy.blogspot.co.uk/)


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Sep 14, 2012)

Thanks for sharing, Anthony.

It's kind of sad that it turned out this way. At least I know I can rest easy nixing it from my "To Watch" queue.


----------



## ctg (Sep 14, 2012)

I really, really liked it when I watched it earlier this year. The movie is great fun in my mind and its strange that adventure movies are frown upon these days. I for one would have liked to see this cult film soaring in the sky and producing other movies as this one is far better than any other films that has been made from the same subject.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Sep 14, 2012)

I enjoy adventure movies - provided they are done well. This one didn't hit the spot for me.


----------



## Foxbat (Sep 14, 2012)

I enjoyed it for what it was but wouldn't go out of my way to see it again. I'd give it 5 out of 10.


----------



## williamjm (Sep 16, 2012)

ctg said:


> I really, really liked it when I watched it earlier this year. The movie is great fun in my mind and its strange that adventure movies are frown upon these days. I for one would have liked to see this cult film soaring in the sky and producing other movies as this one is far better than any other films that has been made from the same subject.



I had low expectations going in, but I liked the film. It did have flaws, I agree with Anthony's comment that the structure was a bit of a mess particularly at the start when they couldn't seem to decide how to start the film and offered a half-dozen opening scenes on different planets and set many years apart. I thought it was an enjoyable adventure film, I thought Taylor Kitsch was good in the lead role and they managed the rare feat of having CGI comic relief that wasn't annoying (it probably helped that it couldn't speak, George Lucas should take note). I liked the pulp SF setting, it's a bit unfortunate that the original material has been used as inspiration for so many SF films over the years that going back to the original could feel a bit cliched.


----------



## J-Sun (Sep 17, 2012)

I agree with those who say it's a flawed movie and with those who enjoyed it anyway. It in no way deserves to be a special "bomb" - there are so many movies so much worse that do so much better. But not that I mean that as damning with faint praise - I actually had fun with it, to my surprise. If you're looking for a great movie or the definitive sacred treatment of Burroughs, then this isn't it, but if you're just looking for something often Burroughs-ish and fun (and really visually appealing), then this will deliver.


----------



## iansales (Sep 17, 2012)

It was a far better film than *Prometheus*, but it's Prometheus that will be getting a sequel. John Carter's big problem was not that it was a bad film - it's not, it's very good one - but that it was a) badly marketed, and b) an adaptation of a story that has been mined by cinema and tv sf for a century. There were a couple of longeurs, but the script was cleverly done - I particularly liked the nested structure - and the film looked gorgeous. It's been sadly under-rated by most, and criminally attacked by some.


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 17, 2012)

I think a lot of the problem was just generational. Nobody is really interested in a 100+ year old story. I know this is overly simplistic, but most people today simply have no knowledge of Edgar Rice Burroughs, let alone John Carter. A shame really. The books are fun to read, but you have to check your 21st century baggage at the door.


----------



## iansales (Sep 17, 2012)

clovis-man said:


> I think a lot of the problem was just generational. Nobody is really interested in a 100+ year old story. I know this is overly simplistic, but most people today simply have no knowledge of Edgar Rice Burroughs, let alone John Carter. A shame really. The books are fun to read, but you have to check your 21st century baggage at the door.



Except the film wasn't early twentieth century. They had cleverly updated it for a modern audience. Unfortunately, while they could remove the sexism, they couldn't remove people's memories of all the bits of the story that have been used in other movies and tv programmes...


----------



## Dante DiBenedetto (Sep 17, 2012)

iansales said:


> Except the film wasn't early twentieth century. They had cleverly updated it for a modern audience. Unfortunately, while they could remove the sexism, they couldn't remove people's memories of all the bits of the story that have been used in other movies and tv programmes...




I think he was referring to the fact that _Prometheus_ is from the widely wildly popular *Alien* franchise, and _John Carter_ is a story that most younger people have never heard of.


----------



## Mary Hoffman (Sep 17, 2012)

I tried to watch it on DVD and gave up after about forty minutes. Four beginnings? Didn't that go out with Walter Scott? The writers had forgotten the essential importance of telling the story. And what there was was so predictable. It deserved to bomb.


----------



## iansales (Sep 17, 2012)

Dante DiBenedetto said:


> I think he was referring to the fact that _Prometheus_ is from the widely wildly popular *Alien* franchise, and _John Carter_ is a story that most younger people have never heard of.



The Alien franchise is more than thirty years old, and the last film in it was released 15 years ago.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Sep 17, 2012)

iansales said:


> The Alien franchise is more than thirty years old, and the last film in it was released 15 years ago.


They still get shown quite frequently on TV, though, so there's a fair chance that today's youth will at least know about them. Who would know about ERB except SF geeks like us?


----------



## iansales (Sep 17, 2012)

Fair point. Though Tarzan is even better known than Alien. And there have been a few recent crossover comics series with John Carter and Carson of Venus (not to mention the 1970s John Carter Marvel series) - so comics fans will know of him.


----------



## Anthony G Williams (Sep 17, 2012)

Right. I must admit that comics are completely unknown territory for me.


----------



## iansales (Sep 17, 2012)

If you look on Amazon, the last couple of years have seen a number of omnibus editions of John Carter comic adaptations.


----------



## clovis-man (Sep 17, 2012)

I think my point was that the "mainstream" audience will have no reason to be familiar with Burroughs' Mars tales and therefore no motivation to see the movie. More folks on the street will have knowledge of Ellen Ripley than John Carter.


----------



## Metryq (Sep 22, 2012)

The movie had many of the forms, but nothing of the substance. It felt like a paint-by-numbers production. "Okay, we did that, and that, check, check, check." The books were packed with decorative language and superlatives and people making long-winded speeches while facing off for battle. All in all, not bad for a book that really can't be made into a movie. John in the heat of battle surrounded by a rampart of fallen warriors was right out of the book, though. I can appreciate the alterations made in an attempt to elevate the stories above simple escapism/action, but they didn't work.

The one gag that made me laugh out loud was when Tarkas smacks Carter on the back of the head for leading the army into the wrong city.


----------



## Connavar (Sep 22, 2012)

Tarzan has no problems selling as film,animation,comics.   It doesnt matter ERB isnt as known as he was when he was one of the bestselling authors in the world.  The film could have been hit no matter its quality.  

It had flaws but it updated John Carter first book well and was enjoyable film.  

Anthony dont dimiss books you dont remember, i have read Princess of Mars first time only this year before i saw the film even and i thought it was a wonderful,vivid,timless quality to its adventure.  It still strong,fun read today.  Its not serious SF but wonderful sword and planet.


----------



## kshRox (Sep 22, 2012)

I liked John Carter.
It didn't take itself too seriously, was campishly fun and visually stunning.


----------



## The Holy Drunk (Oct 24, 2012)

It was a film based on property that has been strip mined for nigh on a century. They then removed Mars from the incredibly vague poster, because you wouldn't want young sci-fi fans turning up, and the trailer is dominated by the arena battle which to my young(ish) movie going brain only suggests Attack of the Clones.

Reading up on the process it was made, it almost seems like the Disney exec behind it was assassinated with this flop, a few weeks before it was released various Disney people connected didn't even give token support or praise for the film in interviews no doubt designed in part to advertise the damn thing.


----------



## clovis-man (Oct 24, 2012)

The Holy Drunk said:


> It was a film based on property that has been strip mined for nigh on a century. They then removed Mars from the incredibly vague poster, because you wouldn't want young sci-fi fans turning up, and the trailer is dominated by the arena battle which to my young(ish) movie going brain only suggests Attack of the Clones.
> 
> Reading up on the process it was made, it almost seems like the Disney exec behind it was assassinated with this flop, a few weeks before it was released various Disney people connected didn't even give token support or praise for the film in interviews no doubt designed in part to advertise the damn thing.


 
So I take it you didn't care for it.


----------



## The Holy Drunk (Oct 24, 2012)

clovis-man said:


> So I take it you didn't care for it.



Fair to Middling.

It is the marketing and general car crash surrounding it I find horrifying.

As to where the Gross National Product of Luxembourg went in producing it, I remain baffled.


----------



## cyrusDCmonster (Oct 28, 2012)

i personally enjoyed John Carter a lot.  i blame disney and it's crappy marketing for the films bad business, if this was another Pirate movie with Johnny Depp they would've done a better job marketing the movie, but a sci fi film on mars, why bother.  screw them!


----------



## Gumboot (Nov 18, 2012)

iansales said:


> It was a far better film than *Prometheus*, but it's Prometheus that will be getting a sequel. John Carter's big problem was not that it was a bad film - it's not, it's very good one - but that it was a) badly marketed, and b) an adaptation of a story that has been mined by cinema and tv sf for a century. There were a couple of longeurs, but the script was cleverly done - I particularly liked the nested structure - and the film looked gorgeous. It's been sadly under-rated by most, and criminally attacked by some.




I think the film's failure can be dumped squarely on the feet of marketing, and I think the director and Disney deserve to share fault for that.

I thoroughly enjoyed the film, but I think a big part of why I enjoyed it so much is that I was aware, going into it, how influential the books had been to sci-fi and fantasy - George Lucas in particularly shamelessly mined them for "Star Wars".

Knowing in advance that it was the "original" of many of these classic tropes enabled me to appreciate and enjoy the story for what it was, instead of being one of those people who watches "Casablanca" and complains about the cliche dialogue.


----------



## Gumboot (Nov 18, 2012)

cyrusDCmonster said:


> i personally enjoyed John Carter a lot.  i blame disney and it's crappy marketing for the films bad business




You can't entirely blame Disney. Andrew Stanton (the director) was given almost unprecedented creative control over the film, and he's squarely at fault for the initial marketing.

The problem is, Stanton is a massive, massive fan of the books. They were a cornerstone of his childhood. Now, that in itself isn't a problem - Peter Jackson was much the same with "The Lord of the Rings" - but where Stanton went so catastrophically wrong is he assumed the works were as beloved and iconic to everyone else as they were to him.

Look at the original teaser trailer for the film:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8xblwyKtfo

It's totally vague, telling us virtually nothing about the film.

You know what teaser trailer it reminds me of:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYkHD9y8EqI

Star Wars - Episode I: The Phantom Menace

The teasers are strikingly similar. The reason the Phantom Menace works is because it features iconic elements of the original trilogy that are instantly recognisable. Before I knew what a horrible, horrible film it was, I can remember seeing that trailer and getting cold shivers the moment that theme motif played.

For Stanton, the iconic images and ideas of the John Carter books were in the same league. I have no doubt he expected audiences to get cold shivers the moment the guy uttered "Just a moment, Mr Burroughs", let alone when the Princess pronounces "John Carter". The ships, his appearance, everything about it is "iconic" to Stanton. What he failed to grasp is it was meaningless to anyone else.

That method of advertising can be incredibly powerful and effective, if the audience recognise it. But it's also incredibly risky, because if they _don't_ recognise it, the trailer backfires, becoming a meaningless mess.

The alternative is the play it safe for a more traditional trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oni72Fl7xaw

This trailer for the 1998 adaptation of _Les Misérables_ made it absolutely clear that it was adapted from a very important story, and that anyone who didn't recognise it _should_ recognise it. This was followed up by emphasising a very high-profile cast of highly respected actors.

This tells the audience, even if they've never heard of _Les Misérables_, that they're looking at the adaptation of a storytelling classic; a famous and beloved story. That will convince people to see it.

You'll note the John Carter teaser makes no mention of its origins, makes no mention of the pedigree of the filmmakers, and almost seems to _avoid_ revealing what is actually a very, very good cast.

The full theatrical trailer is just as bad, if not worse, making the same mistakes.

It was some time around here that Disney realised the marketing campaign was bombing - badly - and they had the makings of a historic flop on their hands. So they took over the marketing and did what any self-respecting studio does; they hashed together an even worse trailer, designed to appeal to the lowest common denominator, full of spectacle and explosions and zero substance.

Interestingly, a number of fans of the film seem to understand how to market something like the John Carter films better than the filmmakers themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BxeHQY1NuM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wK64fLSFM5M

Interestingly, while the film utterly tanked in the US, its international sales weren't quite so horrific and it has actually made a profit, although a very small one thus far.


----------



## cyrusDCmonster (Nov 25, 2012)

it's a shame it didn't do so well, i'm holding out hope they make more, but i doubt it.  Disney are the main culprits here, but i agree Andrew Stanton shouldn't be let off the hook for his role in the marketing, which was shocking all around.

i found i've sat and watched this movie about 8 times since it came on dvd.  i think it may be my favourite movie released this year.


----------



## MontyCircus (Jan 24, 2013)

I think the main problem with it was the name.

*John Carter*.  Makes me think of Jimmy Carter.  Who wants to see a movie about him?

Saw it on cable and it was alright.  Recommendable.  Which makes it one of my top ten of the year actually.


----------



## Rodders (Jan 26, 2013)

I bought this yesterday. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I bet it's not as bad as people think.


----------



## GWakeling (Jan 26, 2013)

Rodders said:


> I bought this yesterday. I haven't seen it yet, but I'm looking forward to it. I bet it's not as bad as people think.



Some people loathed this film, but I actually thought it was a very fun romp! I haven't read the books, but I like some of the species differentiation, and all told, I enjoyed it. Hope you do to!


----------



## Abernovo (Jan 26, 2013)

I thoroughly enjoyed it. As a Science Fantasy action adventure, it does exactly what it's supposed to, in my opinion: entertain. A popcorn movie. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## iansales (Jan 26, 2013)

I think you're doing it an injustice. It's much cleverer than that. It's structured so it has two endings - a sad one, followed by a happy one. There's the three nested narratives. And the flashback scene during the battle with the Tharks...


----------



## biodroid (Jan 26, 2013)

Rodders, its a fun, entertaining movie with tons of effects, it has humour too. I also dont know why it was rated poorly, i loved it


----------



## mr kite (Feb 16, 2013)

Watched last night at last . 
And blimey ! I enjoyed it .
Is this how the new Star War films will turn out . ?
Not a fan of Star Wars ( must be the only Sci Fi I don`t like , oh and Blakes 7 ) 
But John Cater was a film that did`nt have that " Lets sell Toys " edge to it .


----------



## Rodders (Feb 17, 2013)

Yes, i definately enjoyed it. As you say, it was a fun romp and i'd definately watch it again. A shame it flopped.


----------



## biodroid (Feb 19, 2013)

It could have been as bad as Eragon the movie, but I think audiences aren't in that Space Opera kinda mind at the moment since The Avengers came out at around the same time. Maybe The Avengers hype destroyed this movies hype and people didnt bother to watch it. Battleship was also a good movie, I preferred it more to the Transformer movies, going on the Taylor Kitsch theme.

I also read a review that some crits were trying to compare it to Avatar which is wrong because they might have slightly similar feels they are 2 very different movies.


----------



## biodroid (Feb 19, 2013)

mr kite said:


> Watched last night at last .
> And blimey ! I enjoyed it .
> Is this how the new Star War films will turn out . ?
> Not a fan of Star Wars ( must be the only Sci Fi I don`t like , oh and Blakes 7 )
> But John Cater was a film that did`nt have that " Lets sell Toys " edge to it .


 
I reckon JJ Abrams is an intelligent director who understands the audience of the Star Wars kind. I think the new Star Wars movie will be more complex than John Carter and the budget will be bigger too, it's Star Wars, it has to be one of the biggest movies of the new decade.


----------



## Jeffbert (Mar 2, 2013)

Anthony G Williams said:


> Well, I finally got around to seeing Disney's notorious "flop", based on the first of the century-old _Barsoom_ novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs.


I wondered  why nobody had bothered to respond to my last post in the A Princess of Mars, the 1st John Carter adventure (post #64) thread, in which I offered my own critique of this film, just a day before this current thread was created.  I will not burden you with a quote, but ask that you follow the link & read it. 

BTW, I do like the discussion on this thread.


----------



## Robert C Adams (Mar 9, 2013)

I liked the movie. It was fun and maybe a little campy but not overly so. The marketing for it was really really bad though. I didn't even know who John Carter was until I looked up the name even though I read Princess of Mars when I was really young after finding a copy of it on a shelf of old paperbacks in the garage. I think if they had just called the movie *Princess of Mars* it would have got way more interest. It's too bad the movie flopped but I enjoyed watching it.


----------



## clovis-man (Mar 10, 2013)

Robert C Adams said:


> I liked the movie. It was fun and maybe a little campy but not overly so. The marketing for it was really really bad though. I didn't even know who John Carter was until I looked up the name even though I read Princess of Mars when I was really young after finding a copy of it on a shelf of old paperbacks in the garage. I think if they had just called the movie *Princess of Mars* it would have got way more interest. It's too bad the movie flopped but I enjoyed watching it.


 
This was pretty much my point in my first post on this thread. The problem was in large part generational. Who under the age of 35 or 40 would know anything about John Carter? Enough to spark interest in a movie about him?

Poor promotion of the film.


----------



## manephelien (Apr 6, 2013)

I quite enjoyed this for what it was, an adventure. A shame it flopped.


----------



## finbaa (Oct 12, 2013)

I worked on this film (in quite a low-level role) in both production and postproduction: It was supposed to be huge. I was looking forward to it from about four years before it came out.

So disappointed in the cinema. Everyone seems to be saying here that it was a simple film and what did you expect?

Here is what an audience has a right to expect from a huge budget film like that

Good acting
A non-ridiculous script (THE FIRST ITEM IS BEANS!)
Chemistry between the two leads
Identifiable characters

None of this was in the final package. Waste of time and money


----------

