John Carter: the new Blade Runner...

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Wednesday, September 5, 2012 17:12
VIEWED: 11583
PAGE 4 of 5

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE

CHRISISALL

Thursday, March 15, 2012 6:07 PM

The Morricone soundtrack was classic.

The Mal-like Chrisisall

JOHNNYREB

Thursday, March 15, 2012 9:57 PM

Blade Runner was one of the best and most influential movies put to film!!!!!!!

It inspired Bale's Batman and the Matrix! It introduced future noir! It asked the question: What does it mean to be human? Do humans recite poetry and avenge loved ones? Do they aspire to be gods? Or do they shoot unarmed women in the back while the run? Do they pass out drunk on the couch and date rape their girlfriends? Do they bludgeon people with pipes or play chess and show off? Do they risk it all, not just for life, but photos? Photos! At the end Harrison Ford muses (in the original with a voice over) "I don't know why he saved me..." That's the human confused by this, people! Was Deckard an android himself? How did Gaff know to leave a unicorn, just what Deckard dreamed? How did Roy Batty know to call him Deckard in the final hunt where the hunter becomes the hunted? You don't know. What does it mean to be human? These androids weren't bio-something-or-others on a chasis. They were flesh and blood through and through. John Carter looks like a sack of ca ca next to Blade Runner. (Plus I'd so bone Joanna Cassidy.) BAH!

Take my love. Take my land...

OONJERAH

Friday, March 16, 2012 3:04 AM

Blood of Heroes

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, August 18, 2012 3:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ImNotHere:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zeek, Blade Runner has quite a bit going on, on several different levels. There's the main question & theme - what
Also, much copied since (the Earth-based prologue on the extended cut of Avatar, anybody? -

Agreed. I wondered if anyone else caught that, but the questions remains....is it a rip-off or a tribute to that film?

SGG

does it mean to be human? What constitutes being "alive", having worth? And what's a life worth? And who decides?

There is that (although the book does it rather more subtly - the 'big question' of the film is moot in the book: who cares whether or not you're a real human if everything you value is artificial?)

Select to view spoiler:

...and the VK test in the book looks suspiciously like a test of religious conformity, which is something lost in the film

Its also great eye-whisky* - beautifully shot, haunting and atmospheric. Also, much copied since (the Earth-based prologue on the extended cut of Avatar, anybody?)

I think thats why it stands multiple viewings - forget the plot, soak up the atmosphere.

(*like eye candy only not as sweet, less suitable for children and something of an acquired taste)

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, August 18, 2012 4:27 PM

Waterworld was more a public relations disaster than anything else. The movie was not as bad as people made it out to be. Blade Runner did not get the recognition it gets today because it WAS different than anything of it's time. The visual style notwithstanding, Blade Runner had a particular rhythm, a kind of film noir effect going for it. So the comparison was not made because of BR's style so much, but rather, the lack of vision moviegoers and some critics had during it's original release. The pacing and storytelling rhythm was quite unique for a major release back in 1982.

I dare say that John Carter may have been misunderstood, but it's more likely that the Disney marketing machine erred in the set up and presentation of it's $200 million dollar movie. They incorrectly thought that having their trademarked name, and that of Pixar's Andrew Stanton, would be enough to get people in the theatres - wrong! No, John Carter is a good film. Pacing, story and, surprisingly, the acting was top notch. I seem to have this cringe affect whenever I hear Disney made it. I was pleasantly surprised with the original Pirates of the Caribbean. My brother, of all people, convinced me to go. He said Johnny Depp, how bad could it be. Who knew. And so, I went to see John Carter with some reservation.

Still though, I could help but wonder about the title, John Carter, so I looked it up. I still wasn't convinced. Then I saw a trailer, not bad. I thought - a trip to Mars, a princess who needs saving (where have I heard that before), Edgar Rice Burroughs? WTF? But I said, why not? I convinced my son to tag along. And I had a good time, suspended my belief and everything. It is a cross between Star Wars, Cowboys vs. Aliens and the Three Musketeers. There was the possibility of seeing horses and spaceships? A theme I'm particularly fond of. I'll have you know that the audience in the theatre where I watched John Carter was enthusiastic and even applauded at the end. Now when do you ever see a movie audience applaud a movie?

SGG

Virginia, Jump!

TWO

Saturday, August 18, 2012 5:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I dare say that John Carter may have been misunderstood . . .

Most modern blockbusters have the exact opposite problem of John Carter of Mars, in that they don't try to make sense at all. Michael Bay is a terrible filmmaker, but at least that dude knows the value of just being like "fighting robots! Go!" And that's it (no really, that's often all there is).

John Carter opens with twenty plus minutes of information that is only there so that it can be of (not so compelling) use later, if that. This whole unleashing of relevant information is something that only a few movies of a certain kind can get away with . . . You know, like mysteries! Where information and plotting and the puzzle actually matter and provide propulsion for the story. They certainly don't belong in a swashbuckler epic that spends the middle hour on character.

The John Carter prologue feels like a filmmaker obsessed with everything in his story making sense and losing track of the actual emotional sense. The movie plays like puzzle that has been pieced together by logic. And John Carter needs traditional drama. It's not a mystery. It's sci-fi swashbuckler designed for everyone. http://badassdigest.com/2012/04/08/film-crit-hulk-smash-hulk-vs-the-jo
hn-carter-script/

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

ECGORDON

Saturday, August 18, 2012 6:14 PM

I've seen John Carter three times now, and I've liked it more each time. I bought the Blu-Ray and it is a spectacular transfer. The only problem this film has is that while its story is outdated and most are not familiar with the source material, for the average movie viewer it will seem completely derivative. But what they think it copied it actually inspired.

TWO

Saturday, August 18, 2012 7:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by ecgordon:
I've seen John Carter three times now, and I've liked it more each time.

After three times you know John Carter's background story with his wife and family dying. The first time viewer only knows that late in the movie. Once explained you're then with Carter from that point on, no questions asked. We know why he is a despondent asshole in search of gold and we totally understand it. He's an asshole we'd empathize with. And we would implicitly understand that Carter's secret motive is to find love again, which is really the whole point of the movie. We would have dramatic stakes in his romancing of the princess if they established what happened to his family first. The way it's presented in the film for the first hour and a quarter, people might think Carter was screwing around on his living Earth wife.

The Joss Whedon script for "Serenity," where Wash lives, is
Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/two

THESOMNAMBULIST

Tuesday, August 21, 2012 10:07 AM

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:

Quote:
Waterworld was more a public relations disaster than anything else. The movie was not as bad as people made it out to be. Blade Runner did not get the recognition it gets today because it WAS different than anything of it's time. The visual style notwithstanding, Blade Runner had a particular rhythm, a kind of film noir effect going for it. So the comparison was not made because of BR's style so much, but rather, the lack of vision moviegoers and some critics had during it's original release. The pacing and storytelling rhythm was quite unique for a major release back in 1982.

I dare say that John Carter may have been misunderstood, but it's more likely that the Disney marketing machine erred in the set up and presentation of it's $200 million dollar movie. They incorrectly thought that having their trademarked name, and that of Pixar's Andrew Stanton, would be enough to get people in the theatres - wrong! No, John Carter is a good film. Pacing, story and, surprisingly, the acting was top notch. I seem to have this cringe affect whenever I hear Disney made it. I was pleasantly surprised with the original Pirates of the Caribbean. My brother, of all people, convinced me to go. He said Johnny Depp, how bad could it be. Who knew. And so, I went to see John Carter with some reservation.

Still though, I could help but wonder about the title, John Carter, so I looked it up. I still wasn't convinced. Then I saw a trailer, not bad. I thought - a trip to Mars, a princess who needs saving (where have I heard that before), Edgar Rice Burroughs? WTF? But I said, why not? I convinced my son to tag along. And I had a good time, suspended my belief and everything. It is a cross between Star Wars, Cowboys vs. Aliens and the Three Musketeers. There was the possibility of seeing horses and spaceships? A theme I'm particularly fond of. I'll have you know that the audience in the theatre where I watched John Carter was enthusiastic and even applauded at the end. Now when do you ever see a movie audience applaud a movie?

I have to say I agree with you here Shiny. Nicely stated.

I just caught John Carter a week ago and I thought it a really enjoyable film. Old fashioned in it's narrative style but thoroughly enjoyable. As far as the comparisons with Bladerunner go I guess I can see what Big C is getting at. Though I'd suggest it compares closer to Tron (1981) than Bladerunner. However all those films share one thing in common which is an impressive visual style. Some of the 'design' for John Carter was epic and almost in a total sub genre of it's own. I loved those winged flying/sailing crafts! Absolutely beautiful. A sort of iSteampunk :D

I do feel sorry for Andrew Stanton though because I think he did an excellent job and clearly undertook a lot of hard, hard work to getting this realised but for some strange reason the Zeitgeist decided long before it's release that is was to be a failure.

However sci-fi films tend to alienate an audience unfamiliar with the genre: Bladerunner, Tron, Dune, Brazil, SERENITY and now John Carter.... It sort of comes with the territory.

I wouldn't be surprised if in thirty years time we get a sequel :D

°...Well here I am.°

SHINYGOODGUY

Saturday, September 1, 2012 10:11 AM

Hey Sleepy,

I agree wholeheartedly with your take on misunderstood sci-fi films. I also like your list of films, Bravo my friend.
For the general public, an unfamiliar sci-fi movie is risky business for the studios and producers. The studios that backed Star Wars were extremely nervous (no really known actors,except for Alec Guiness and an unknown story) until people actually went to see it and word of mouth (remember no internet) spread like wildfire. The first true blockbuster was born.

The Matrix was another unknown quantity, but what helped it was the advent of "Bullet-time." That got the juices flowing among the sci-fi geeks (such as myself) and, of course, they drag their friends along who wind up loving the film. The original Tron was a technical marvel at the time that pushed the boundaries of our senses. But it also had a very simple story, wonderful premise and the irrepressible Jeff Bridges going for it. Sci-fi geeks were in sci-fi heaven. One of the reasons why I was so bummed about Tron Legacy is that it completely lost the simplicity of the original and took itself too seriously. Imagine never having Tron involved till close to the end and then making him a henchman. Blasphemy! Gone was the User worship, gladiator-like reverence that made Tron a sci-fi cult classic. What were they thinking?

I, for one, appreciated the storytelling aspect of John Carter. My only criticism, at first blush, was the confusion over who was fighting who at the beginning of the movie. It wasn't clear to me who were the bad guys and throwing all those names around didn't help. But once I got that straight, I was hooked. I too loved the winged flying battleships. It reminded me of the Viking ships from the old classic swashbuckler movies. Getting back to the storytelling, I really liked the way they revealed why this man wouldn't fight for any cause. I thought that part was well set up. That is usually my pet peeve with many of today's movies - improper scene and story set up. Stanton did, I think, an excellent job (except for that opening sequence with the Helium and Zodanga warriors). I also enjoyed how they moved the story along about the Goddess Isis and the different names of the planets. I was unsure about the Thurns. Granted they were evil, but what was their purpose. I know they weren't gods because Carter proved they could be killed, but rather they relied on magic.

I sure do hope that they don't take 30 years to make a sequel. BTW, I read somewhere that Disney plans to revisit the Rocketeer. I'm a sucker for classic movies, especially sci-fi and action adventure.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT PAGE