"Six New John Carter Pictures Released" Topic

Love 'em, or hate 'em, six new John Carter stills have been released.

link

And the new trailer is due this Thursday DEC 1.

Woola looks nice but I think he will be the most interesting thing in this movie.

Dejah Thoris looks over-dressed…

The only problem I have so far is that the landscape isn't very Mars-like.

Woola looks too cute and too much like a pug.

Agree, the landscape looks "earthy" not Martian….

"Over-dressed" Yep:

COOL pics, but…

- Dejah Thoris does look rather overdressed, but perhaps that's some kind of battle armor she has on.

- A nice representation of Woola, but he does have that "Ewok factor" (i.e. "marketable cuteness") going for him. The novel stated that his head somewhat resembled a frog's.

- The landscape does look more like the American Southwest and not the surface of Mars/Barsoom. That's a disappointment.

On the plus side…

- COOL airship! That would be it's bow. Various other views of it can be found on the 'net.

- Woola. Despite his "cuteness", he's an interesting creature from a great story.

- Tars Tarkas.

I still have rather high hopes for this movie. I can't wait to see it! I also predict that the movie will rekindle a vigorous interest in Victorian Sci-Fi gaming.

I'm afraid my hopes for this flick have been replaced by ever-increasing dread. I suspect the recent Conan flick will stand high in comparison when all is done.

However it turns out there should be a load of licensed stuff coming our way………still hope the film is good. Been waiting a long long time for it. Wonder when they do Elric?

As amazed as I am to say this, the pictures of the characters, airships and monsters look exactly the way I imagined them when I first read these books as a kid. I am now VERY MUCH looking forward to this film!

I won't be going to see this, but I'm hoping for some nice airship toys.

Hmmm, you imagined naked people wearing clothes?

I actually have hopes for this insofar as it being a success at the theaters. Got a copy of the TSR 'Warriors of Mars' rules that might be worth a bit more if it does.

Actually it would be nice to see a good adaptation. Watched the 2009 'Princess of Mars' not long ago. The storyline was actually pretty true to what I remember, but the production values were poor. Although I thought the airships weren't that bad a visualization.

Hope Disney doesn't muck it up.

It's Disney. You don't seriously expect nudity in a Disney film do you?

Of course they've put clothes on them!

All you nay-sayers do realize that this is Andrew Stanton behind this pic?
Writer of:

Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3
Wall-E
Finding Nemo
Monsters, Inc.
A Bug's Life

The man has Oscars and Oscar nominations to his name. Granted, the above aren't live action films, but anyone in the creative entertainment world knows that the real secret behind any film being a success is the story— and this man knows story. Whether it's animated or live is insignificant to the fact of the writing behind it all.

And did you really think you were going to get a nude Deja-Thoris outside of a porno flick? On paper, it's exotic. On film, it's merely erotic. Any serious production was going to put clothes on the character.

I've had my doubts about the location shots, but in the end, I know I'll no more care about that than I will about the fact that Kirk seems to have a life and death fight in front of the same set of rocks, despite supposedly being on planets light years apart.

It's John Carter. It's Mars. And it's finally on the big screen in a big way.

I'm stoked.

Tars' face looks too 'human' for me. The landscape looks wrong. Deja should be near naked – in fact as should Carter.Woola does not look at all ferocious. It's a shame Disney got this, as yes it will have high production values, but they will disney-fy it, and that will, whilst still making an enjoyable film, ruin it many other ways.

*sigh*

Disney was the wrong studio to do this, they are seriously messing it up. First Tars Tarkas and the flyers (and the sets), now Woola.

At least DT is red in this shot.

Do you folks actually think that a movie with all of the Martians in the buff would ever be be made?
With the possible exception of a Flesh Gordan type parody?
Do you think those are the most important aspects of the books?
It might still end up blowing (at least for gamers) but I would wait until actually seeing the movie myself before making that declaration.
C'mon, it is Barsoom, I NEVER thought I would see it made into a movie.

Ken Russell could have made it. But the lack of nudity isn't *that* important. Their representations of the important characters – Tar Tarkas and Woola, for example, are failures.

The lack of nudity makes absolutely NO difference as to whether it is good or not, nor do the bitchy opinions of a bunch of crusty gamers. I am with Parzival 100%-- Stanton has given us a bundle of classics already so I will expect him to do no less on this one as well.

why the sigh – because my opinion differs from yours and I expect something else? I'd rather have a non-pc, made to be friendly to children version of the film that is closer to the book. Not saying it will be a terrible film, but it's Disney, it's highly likely the story will be altered to get across some moral story or point that wasn't in the book. Yes Stanton has give us good CHILDRENS stories, very good. For me the fear is they are going to 'kiddify' this. No problem with no nudity – although it's not such a problem this side of the pond as it is in the US, but I don't want the violence watered down, as the brutality of life as it remains on Mars is a key factor in my opinion. It'll still undoubtably be an enjoyable film just maybe with more than a few liberties taken.

Still guns good boobs bad eh? (JOKE):-)

No, the sigh is because you are making assumptions that are not based on evidence but on a preconceived notion that Disney=bad, Stanton=kiddie, and that grit & nudity somehow equate with "good" filmmaking ( in which case, Showgirls is a cinematic masterpiece). You are also acting as if the John Carter novels are some sort of realistic literary triumph on the order of Richard III rather than an over the top pulp adventure series whipped together to earn some ready cash. Let's be real, here. I love ERB, but he wrote popular schlock for a buck. With skill, yes, but still schlock, in the most positive sense of the word. Being true to his vision would be to create a film that attracts the largest possible audience to sell as many tickets as possible, and that's about as far as his vision really went. If anything, I expect Stanton will outdo ERB rather than fall short.
As for the gg,bb stuff, well, the one kicked you guys out of here, while the other collapsed your government on at least one occasion. Maybe it's a tie?

Nice.

All you nay-sayers do realize that this is Andrew Stanton behind this pic?
Writer of:

Toy Story, Toy Story 2, Toy Story 3
Wall-E
Finding Nemo
Monsters, Inc.
A Bug's Life

The man has Oscars and Oscar nominations to his name. Granted, the above aren't live action films, but anyone in the creative entertainment world knows that the real secret behind any film being a success is the story— and this man knows story. Whether it's animated or live is insignificant to the fact of the writing behind it all.

All geared to children…

Talent is one thing, but if one is writing beyond his/her area, they better not hold back over squeamishness. I don't expect Mr. Stanton to write Pulp Fiction, not Mr. Tarantino to pen Toy Story, though kudos to those who want to try something different, but since Disney is funding the production, and if it isn't Desperate Housewives, it's going to be bowdlerized in some manner.

Onscreen nudity isn't eroticism, eroticism is what's done with that nudity, though to a giggling schoolkid it won't mean a difference. It isn't so much that grit and nudity is "good" filmmaking, but the preconceived notion that anything from Disney and Stanton geared towards kids will be a masterpiece. Simply dismissing the quality of some work due to it being pulp and assuming that the film version would be an improvement is why one was treated to the recent Conan film.

Somebody pointed out that Woola resembles the version in the comic book series out now. If the movie story also parallels the comics then there are major changes, starting with a shoot out in a bar.

All geared to children…

Have you actually seen those movies? They're not for children, though children can watch them, and naturally love all the "cute" characters. The story lines, however, are not childish at all, but involve the interactions among largely adult characters dealing with adult concepts and themes.
Look at those films again:
Toy Story: A classic buddy movie
Toy Story 2: Kidnapping, betrayal, friendship and the ephemeral nature of childhood (no kid understands the "When She Loved Me" sequence, but every adult does)
Toy Story 3: "When I became a man, I put away childish things." St. Paul. About growing up, and change, and passing love along to the next generation. Again, no child understands the final sequence with Andy, but every adult does— and every mother in the theatre is crying her eyes out.
Wall-E: About rampant consumerism, the dangers of the Nanny state (yes, indeed, even if not intended), and, of course, the nature of love. No child gets that at all.
Finding Nemo: About the love of a father for a son (it also taps into The Hero With A Thousand Faces and the Christ story), and being willing to let your child experience independence despite the dangers of the world. Again, not a kid's theme at all.
Monsters, Inc.: Choosing between the expectations of work and society for a greater good, and for the good of the innocent individual. Not a kiddie theme there.
And lastly, A Bug's Life is in fact a comic retelling of Seven Samurai!

And in all of the above films, the visual, cinematic, and cultural allusions are all far above a child's understanding. There are jokes based on AA, Patton, The Godfather, James Bond, The Dawn of the Dead, religious cults, secret societies, Cool Hand Luke and more— all soaring over a child's head, yet immediately recognizable by adult viewers.

Just because a movie is accessible to children on certain levels doesn't mean it is no longer adult on all the other levels— or even primarily adult at its core.

I submit to you that, in fact, Stanton's work up till now has been fundamentally adult-oriented in theme and depth— and in fact, shows a far greater thematic depth than ERB's entire Mars series, combined. He's more likely to bring depth to John Carter of Mars than take anything away.

I suspect that part of the problem is the absurd notion that a G rating means a kiddie film. That's Hollywood idiocy, not reality. (Many great classic films would today only pull a PG rating, if that— including works by Hitchcock, Ford, Huston, et al.) Tacked on to this is the equally silly idea that animation is reserved for kiddie works, which still seems to linger despite solid disproof across the board. (I blame marketing types, actually.)

As for the rest, I do not assume that Disney means quality (nor did I so state)— they put out plenty of schlock. But Disney is hardly a recipe for bad filmmaking at all, and Stanton's track record is more than positive when it comes to quality filmmaking for adult audiences.

As to your example of the Conan film, you missed my point entirely— indeed, the Conan film proves my point. They went for all the nudity and violence and "look" of the source material, and what did we get? PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP. That was an "adult" film, and it stank. Why? Because nobody who worked on it understood or cared about STORY.
Stanton does; he's proved it.

As for what the characters "look" like, well, we don't actually know what they are supposed to look like, do we? ERB was a writer, not an illustrator. The painting above, in fact, was created around fifty years after the book was first published. It is an interpretation of what the various characters and creatures look like, by an artist— and there have been many such interpretations over the years. One is as valid as another's, assuming they've read the books— and all readers will naturally have their own visual idea of what the words describe. It's the nature of the beast, as it were. Whose beast is the correct one? NO ONE'S. There is no "wrong tank syndrome" to pursue here, because there is no "correct tank" to begin with. There is only artistic interpretations. Yours may differ, but then, can you actually create yours and turn it into cinematic art?
Somehow I doubt that many here (or anywhere else) are up to that task.

"All geared to children…"

Ah hell, Parzival said it all, and better than I would have! But I have to say that I was planning on writing the EXACT same first line when I came to comment.

All geared to children…

Have you actually seen those movies? They're not for children, though children can watch them, and naturally love all the "cute" characters. The story lines, however, are not childish at all, but involve the interactions among largely adult characters dealing with adult concepts and themes.

Films geared to children have always had elements added for older folks, since they're the ones who end up sitting with the kids – I could point to many a Disney production going back to the 1940s.

I suspect that part of the problem is the absurd notion that a G rating means a kiddie film. That's Hollywood idiocy, not reality. (Many great classic films would today only pull a PG rating, if that— including works by Hitchcock, Ford, Huston, et al.) Tacked on to this is the equally silly idea that animation is reserved for kiddie works, which still seems to linger despite solid disproof across the board. (I blame marketing types, actually.)

No the problem isn't Hollywood's flawed rating system, but the insistence that all modern flicks be geared towards the broadest possible audience and resulting in stifling of creativity – compare with the good creative stuff from the 60s/70s. I certainly wouldn't show any of the above to preadolescencts. Since you've gone off pontificating, I'm not disagreeing with you on animation, as there were plenty cartoons going back to the earliest flicks that were intended for mature audiences, not referring to nudes, but are now considered childish and have been edited by the PC police.

As to your example of the Conan film, you missed my point entirely— indeed, the Conan film proves my point. They went for all the nudity and violence and "look" of the source material, and what did we get? PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP. That was an "adult" film, and it stank. Why? Because nobody who worked on it understood or cared about STORY.
Stanton does; he's proved it.

That PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP was a result of ignoring the source material, especially having a male model as the lead. That Stanton has only worked on kiddie fare and Disney is holding the purse strings is why I won't be expecting inspiration from Frazetta's art and lacking edginess and not for it's own sake.

You prefer family fare, that's fine, but some of us learnt as a child, is that one of the appeals of being an adult is the privilege of watching a good film at the movie theater without screaming brats in the audience and it's bad enough parents tow young'uns to such fare for whatever reason.

@Parzival – point taken, but 'As for the gg,bb stuff, well, the one kicked you guys out of here, while the other collapsed your government on at least one occasion. Maybe it's a tie? '

maybe, but certainly in the case of a tie breaker, I know which one I'd rather not have to go without and which are more fun to play with ;-)

Parzival, I tip my hat to you.

Films geared to children have always had elements added for older folks, since they're the ones who end up sitting with the kids – I could point to many a Disney production going back to the 1940s.

Ah, so you haven't actually seen the films. I thought as much. If you had, you would know they aren't "geared for children" and never were intended to be.

But, even so, just because something is created for children (or adolescents) doesn't mean that it is any less sophisticated or skillfully done than something created for adults. Your assumption that "elements added for older folks" is the norm reveals a rather common misunderstanding of the difference between true creativity and "marketed" thinking. "Elements added for adults" does happen, but it's usually obvious, typically crude (in theme, execution, or both), and rarely does such a work rise to the quality of art. Stanton's films are not examples of "throwing something in to keep the dads awake." They are inherently adult at their core. If they deal with child-like things at all, they do so from an adult perspective— the recollection of childhood, or the experience of watching children grow— neither of which are childish perspectives.

You do realize, of course, that ERB's works are inherently geared toward young male readers— in fact, adolescents? Stanton's comments elsewhere that the Barsoom novels were "comic books before there were comic books" is spot on. This is not War and Peace by any stretch. Far better that such a film be made by someone who appreciates adolescent adventure fantasies rather than someone who seems to think they need to be "tarted up."

why I won't be expecting inspiration from Frazetta's art and lacking edginess and not for it's own sake.

So, Frazetta wrote the book did he? No, he didn't. I already addressed this point. Frazetta's art is an interpretation (as are Michael Whelan's covers), not the definitive depiction of any of the characters or creatures which Edgar Rice Burroughs imagined. In fact, ERB may not have liked Frazetta's depiction at all. In fact, here is the actual dust jacket art from the 1917 edition of A Princess of Mars:

EDIT Image link does not appear to work. Same picture, at another website: erbzine.com/mag4/0421.html

So, tell me, is Deja Thoris "overdressed"? How about John Carter? Consider that for some 50-odd years images like these were what readers of the novels saw in their heads— most would probably have looked at Frazetta's art and said, "No! That's not John Carter! And that's not Deja Thoris— that's a harlot, not a princess!" So, who's interpretation is "wrong" in this case?

So you are basing your vision on something that is not actually ERB's work, and your criticisms on something you haven't even seen.

That PURE UNADULTERATED CRAP was a result of ignoring the source material, especially having a male model as the lead

Don't mistake VISUALS for STORY. The movie wasn't crap because the lead was a male model— the movie was crap because the STORY was crap. Good grief, look at Arnold Schwarzenegger in The Terminator, T2: Judgment Day, and Predator. He's little more than a male muscle model in those films, and his acting approaches crap, but the films work because the STORY works— despite Arnie rather than because of him!

STORY trumps everything else. A great movie is a great movie and a great filmmaker as a great filmmaker, regardless of genre. Andrew Stanton is a great filmmaker.

You prefer family fare, that's fine, but some of us learnt as a child, is that one of the appeals of being an adult is the privilege of watching a good film at the movie theater without screaming brats in the audience and it's bad enough parents tow young'uns to such fare for whatever reason.

No, I prefer good movies. I do not care what the rating is, because the rating has little to do with anything else— although in my experience, the R-rated movies tend to be the ones that go over-the-top with visuals while ignoring story, especially in the adventure genre. (Immortals, anyone?)

As for "screaming brats" in the audience, R-ratings don't prevent idiot parents from dragging them in anyway. I've seen (and heard) babies in the arms of clueless nitwits who have decided that explosions, gunfire, blood, screams and grotesque, frightening frenetic imagery is perfectly acceptable stimuli for their little one, and hang the others in the audience if it isn't. So don't blame cultural idiocy on the filmmaker, blame it on the inconsiderate idiots who are actually responsible— the parents.

Really, the only total nudity should be at the start when Carter is transported to Mars. As far as visualizations I do prefer many of the Frazetta concepts, but they are not full nudity.

As far as story goes, I concur that Toy Story etc had good stories, but then the director doesn't write the script does he? From what I have heard they are mashing together the first three books, which are not really that heavyweight stories, to make a single film. Surely that is going to make the story even more lightweight – unless they change the story, and the indications are already that they have made some unnecessary changes (ie. the gunfight I mentioned.) So it could end up not bearing any similarity to the stories, just a story that happens to be using some of the characters. Not sure if that is so great a result even if it does look nice.

The main failings so far are the visuals don't work. The Tharks, the flyers, and especially Woola. I haven't checked, but does he even have the correct number of legs (I suspect not?) They could have done a much better job with the head.

The still with Woola shows six legs.

He is endearingly ugly, though.

While I have generally pictured calots as being longer-bodied (and generally bigger, remember these are the dogs of the Green Men) to accomodate ten legs, it is quite possible the animators tried ten and just couldn't make it work. That many legs on a mammaloid, even a loose-skinned calot, would be a challenge to make work to the standards we demand from CG these days.

Getting thoats right will be fun to watch, but they have, IIRC, a lot more body to pack legs under.

As far as story goes, I concur that Toy Story etc had good stories, but then the director doesn't write the script does he?

Stanton was the screenwriter for all the films I mentioned.
He directed Finding Nemo and Wall-E, and co-directed A Bug's Life.

So the answer to your question is that sometimes the screenwriter, director and producer are the same person.

Others who have successfully melded these talents include Joss Whedon, Quentin Tarantino, Lawrence Kasdan, and more. It is not at all uncommon, and frequently produces exceptional films.

As to Woola having six legs, I do suspect it is just as Farstar suggests— one can write about a ten-legged creature, but animating one (or building a puppet of the same) is an altogether different matter. And in the end, is a ten-legged creature of great significance to the story? Not really. There is what you want (a "perfect" calot, whatever that would be) and what is reasonably feasible and realistic-looking on screen, while still maintaining the alien nature ERB was going for in the first place. We need not to lose sight of the creature for the legs.

I want a creature that isn't there for comic relief like the mechanical owl in Clash of the Titans, like the ferrets in Beastmaster, like Gimli in LOTR, etc. I don't want unnecessary additions or alterations like the Elves at Helm's Deep, Faramir's cavalry charge on Osgiliath, the Mumakil, the Army of the Dead saving the day at Minas Tirith, Frodo and Sam ending up at Osgiliath (and having a Nazgul within spitting distance who makes absolutely no attempt to capture them), the whole Arwen/Elrond bit, etc, etc.

I am fully expecting (and dreading) some comic, puppy dog antics from this version of Woola.

As for animating ten legs: try harder!

Er…wow.

I am fully expecting (and dreading) some comic, puppy dog antics from this version of Woola.

Summarized in the original book by phrases like "devoted companion". The self-sacrificial and ever-faithful hound is just as much a cliche as the too-cute puppy antics. Both have been overdone in the past. Woola gets a pass on overdoing them to some extent because he is an early example within the Lost Worlds Romance genre. He wasn't written in homage to a genre standard, he IS the genre standard.

As for animating ten legs: try harder!

It may well be that the human brain cannot see a ten-legged mammalian creature in motion as "being right" no matter how hard an animator tries. Our brains are tricky things— we interpret what we see according to expected patterns which have been hard-wired into us by natural processes. When we look at something outside of our million-year programming, our instinctive reaction will be that it is somehow "wrong," and no amount of animation work can make it appear "right." That's fine if a moviemaker wants the audience to feel unease at the sight of a specific creature (such as a monster, dangerous alien, etc.), but not if the moviemaker wants the creature to be seen in a positive light, such as a loyal pet. A loyal pet can't "look wrong" to the audience and be accepted as the character it is intended to be. It can be exotic, yes, but it must also be "acceptable." Thus, there has to be some "endearing" element to its otherwise "ugly" appearance— hence the almost infant-like pug nose above— and it cannot be seen as "wrong" in the way it moves. Remember, a film is at most two to three hours in length, and the amount of time onscreen for a non-speaking animal is only a minor fraction of that length. So the audience has to be "sold" on the character from the moment it is introduced in order for them to accept it in its intended role with regards to the hero. As I said earlier, it's easy to write about a ten-legged creature and let imagination sell the image— it's not so easy to actually depict such a beast and have the depiction sell it. It may in fact be impossible, merely due to the biological expectations of the human brain.

Are the movie pundits references to the action in the new trailer as a "civil war" coming from the studio, or from broad ignorance of the original story, I wonder? Zodanga is not part of Helium, and the Tharks and Warhoons are separate nations as well.

The book has plenty of fights, and at least one really big battle. Quite the epic in 150 pages. This trailer hints at covering the salient points, but I suspect we'll lose the Warhoons in the shuffle. I suspect we'll also lose most of the Sola sub-plot, with the softening of Tars Tarkas coming from a source that requires less back story explanation.