Print Page | Close Window

Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER

Printed From: Official RAZZIE® Forum
Category: INFO. FORUMS & POLLS on 2012 RAZZIE® Choices...
Forum Name: Special Forum Discussion: JOHN CARTER
Forum Discription: Member Discussion & Add'l INFO on the Film...
URL: http://www.razzies.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=5814
Printed Date: November 23 2014 at 5:46pm


Topic: Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER
Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Subject: Forum Members' Discussion of JOHN CARTER
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 7:07pm
NOTE: THIS IS a "MEMBER-STARTED" FORUM...

HAVE WE FOUND 2012's ANSWER to GREEN LANTERN?
 
 
DESPITE BEING BETTER THAN THAT GREEN DUD, JOHN CARTER MAY ACTUALLY BOMB HARDER THAN
LANTERN DID! YESTERDAY, IT FLOPPED AT THE BOX-OFFICE, AND WITH GOOD REASON: IT'S OVER-LONG, OVER-BUDGET, UNDER-WHELMING and HAS SOME OF THE MOST NON-EXISTANT 3-D YOU'LL EVER SEE. AND IT's a MASSIVE BORE TO BOOT!
 
JOHN CARTER MAY NOT BE THE WORST MOVIE OUT THERE, BUT IT'S SUCH a HUGE DISAPPOINTMENT (AND A MEGATON BOMB!) THAT I THINK IT DESERVES A FORUM HERE!
 
http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2155066112/tt0401729">John Carter Poster
The movie that put Diz-
knee in the red!! 



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Replies:
Posted By: Grounder the Critic
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 9:19pm
Saw it, it was decent. Could have been worse though.

-------------
Pictures move, do they?


Posted By: Film Reel Redemption
Date Posted: March 10 2012 at 10:38pm
Judging by this film's progress (financial and critical), Andrew Stanton appears not to have made the successful transition to live action as fellow Pixar director Brad Bird did last year...

-------------
You see in this filmmaking world there's two types of people my friend. Those with the knowledge of film and those who think they do but really don't.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 10:36am
R.T. (48-52%): "While the movie looks terrific and delivers its share of pulpy thrills, it also suffers from uneven pacing and occasionally incomprehensible plotting and characterization".

http://rogerebert.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20120307/REVIEWS/120309985 - .


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 10:39am
From now, I'll separate the reviews from pros to amateurs.
[TUBE]n2sMOKZ4ngY[/TUBE][TUBE]BbP0yE6roOY[/TUBE][TUBE]BLhRyIfkc80[/TUBE][TUBE]3MGDkO7VOUE[/TUBE]


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 10:40am
[TUBE]P8L3batRKz0[/TUBE][TUBE]ar6WY7ZAr14[/TUBE]

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 3:39pm
A few quick thoughts that would feel out of place in my take.
 
1.) There's some serious uncanny valley: In one scene, a bunch of baby martians hatch and they're some of the creepiest creatures to ever appear in a Disney movie. They're ugly, they have an annoying, creepy screech, and it appears that we're supposed to find them "ugly-cute".
 
2.) The 3-D in the Wrath Of The Titans trailer was better: Yes, the sequel to the movie that defined horrible post-production 3-D hackjob conversions has better 3-D in its trailer than a $250 million Disney movie. The only scene in John Carter that I noticed 3-D was the scene with the white ape, and it was a rip-off of the scene in Trannies Three where LaButthole and Josh Duhamel swing off Starscream's eye.
 
3.) The acting is meh: Other than Taylor Kitsch, who's bland, and Lynn Collins, who has some of the most hilarious facial expressions since Jeremy Irons in D&D, the acting isn't very bad.
 
4.) The special effects were good, but not great: They're not bad, but compared to the Transformers movies (which actually cost less!!) they don't stack-up.
 
5.) The Razzie prospects are low: The only nominations I see this film maybe getting are Worst Actor for Kitsch (mainly because he's in Battleship) and Worst 3-D (if we bring it back),


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 5:49pm
I saw it and I thought it was amazing. Everything from the story to the visuals to the music, all moved me. Andrew Stanton has done a wonderful job with his first live action film, and it going to flop because of disney's piss poor marketing. In no way was this movie boring or disapointing (screw you SchumacherH8ter)  and it was much much much much much better than Avatar.

I despise you SchumacherH8ter for starting this forum.

PS: So many people actually thought this movie looked terrible because of poor trailers, not many people had high expectations, that disapointment aspect is not true at all.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 6:14pm
I've been wanting to do this for awhile now: whatsthepoint, permit me to introduce you to moviewizguy. moviewizguy, meet whatsthepoint.
 
Now....problem one with this movie is that it is 2012, not 1912. When Edgar Rice Burroughs was bouncing between novels about Tarzan and John Carter, Mars was pretty big in the public consciousness. Percivall Lowell was still hanging around, beating the drum for the notion that a dying civilization lived on Mars. War of the Worlds was only a decade old and still being widely read and we weren't aware that Mars wasn't a very pleasant place to grow up yet. Folks in my age group were on the tail end of the generations that thrilled to Carter's exploits. But the demographic for this movie has mostly never heard of John Carter. In fact, most of them have probably never heard of Edgar Rice Burroughs. We can add in that it's original release was haulted by reedits and it is was dumped into theaters in March, not qualifying as a summer release. It will find an audience because there isn't much else to see out there right now, but the guess here is that by June, nobody will remember that this movie was ever in the theaters.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 6:25pm

I will remember it was in theaters, am I not a person. Also John Carter was not the edited, the final cut is the final cut.

Also it doesn't matter about the time period, as long as you can make people interested, they will go (may I remind you that the top movies at the box office as of lately are all rated rotten by rotten tomatoes). Marketing is marketing.

PS: Kind of a random response.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 6:42pm
Obviously "whats" likes this film and will defend it energetically....if he worked at Disney he would be a lonely man. The folks there are just hoping it doesn't turn into the financial catastrophe they are fully expecting. If numbers from the first weekend are any indication, it isn't going to make back much more than about 20% of the $400 million that execs predict it will need to break even. Here is a link to an article that confirms my statements:
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/john-carter-disney-s-quarter-billion-dollar-movie-fiasco.html - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/john-carter-disney-s-quarter-billion-dollar-movie-fiasco.html


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 7:31pm
I think one other point should be made here. While it is not uncommon for outsiders to present themselves on our forums and fire away at various regulars here with signficant venom, we have a long standing tradition of  interacting with each other with a very civil and respectful demeanor. Occasionally we may take a good natured shot at one another, but it is always in a spirit of good humor and never mean-spirited. (There have been rare exceptions, but exceptions they are.) We may well make our cases and express our opinions with passion, but we have always tried to frame our arguments in the context of the subject, not personalities.
 
With this in mind, "whats," I find your shots at Schumacher to be decidedly out of bounds. I, for one, think an apology from you to him would be very appropriate, along with a pledge to keep your future remarks within the spirit of the decorum we have always enjoyed on this board.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 7:46pm
Um overseas? Disney actually gets a lot from foreign markets, when compared to other companies. 

Also yeah I'm sorry about that SchumacherH8ter comment, but you what do you expect when you're on forums where people are blasting you day and night, with remarks like Moron.

Originally posted by saturnwatcher

Obviously "whats" likes this film and will defend it energetically....if he worked at Disney he would be a lonely man. The folks there are just hoping it doesn't turn into the financial catastrophe they are fully expecting. If numbers from the first weekend are any indication, it isn't going to make back much more than about 20% of the $400 million that execs predict it will need to break even. Here is a link to an article that confirms my statements:
 
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/john-carter-disney-s-quarter-billion-dollar-movie-fiasco.html - http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/02/21/john-carter-disney-s-quarter-billion-dollar-movie-fiasco.html





-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 11 2012 at 8:48pm
Apology accepted.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 12 2012 at 2:46pm
http://movieswithmitch.squarespace.com/reviews/2012/3/12/john-carter-review.html - .

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 14 2012 at 6:29am
http://www.examiner.com/movie-in-richmond/movie-review-john-carter -


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: March 14 2012 at 10:43am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While JOHN CARTER certainly would qualify as a 2012 RAZZIE® Contender if we looked only at Box Office vs. Production Budget ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm -
For those curious about the Industry's take on this film, here's a http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-john-carter-flop-20120313,0,1528115.story -




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 15 2012 at 6:28am
[TUBE]ISQqaMMGJc8[/TUBE]

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 1:15pm
There are times when an actor is in a bad movie and an average one in the same year and only gets nominated for the former, and other times gets nominated for both. Since some of the actors in this movie have other movies coming up, which do look like Razzie material... I'd say this movie's loss could make it a contender.

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: Vheid
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 1:43pm
A 200 milion dollar loss... Does this mean that it might become the biggest box office bomb of all time? Because Cutthroat Island, the current film biggest bomb, only seems to have losted 147 million dollar (adjusted for inflation) according to wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biggest_box_office_bombs - link

If that's the case, I think that it may even deserve a spot on the nomination-ballot for worst picture...

Originally posted by HeadRAZZBerry

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: While JOHN CARTER certainly would qualify as a 2012 RAZZIE® Contender if we looked only at Box Office vs. Production Budget ( http://www.boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=johncarterofmars.htm - is not significantly low enough to justify its being given an Official Forum. So this Member-Started discussion will have to suffice. 

For those curious about the Industry's take on this film, here's a http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-et-john-carter-flop-20120313,0,1528115.story -


Posted By: oiram
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 2:21pm
Here's my thoughts:
 
No, I don't want John Carter to be a major contender. The only nomination I might agree with is Taylor Kitsch for Worst Actor (He's also set to star in Battleship and Oliver Stone's Savages), but even then, I'm still iffy on the idea.


-------------
Elizabeth Hartman and Judith Barsi are more talented and beautiful than Scarlett Johansson and Chloe Grace Moretz. Fact.

Worst Supporting Actor: Brendan Fraser/Gimme Shelter and The Nut Job




Posted By: GTAHater767
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 2:24pm
I vote NO on the RAZZIE John Carter proposition. Audiences and critics apparently don't mind the film itself, and if One For the Money, Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance, and A Thousand Words have anything to say, it's that John Carter isn't hated enough. Yes, I understand that the Los Angeles Times thinks it's bound to lose 1/5 of a Gigadollar, but at most, it should receive a Governor's Special Award just like From Justin to Kelly got for worst underachievement in dancing in the 2003 RAZZIES. It shouldn't receive any mainline nominations, let alone Worst Picture.
 
EDIT: I've also come up with two ad campaign scripts for this proposition based on the previous three posts.
 
"Film critics at the Los Angeles Times say John Carter is doomed to lose 1/5 of a Gigadollar at the box office. It smashes the previous record of 16 years; Even with inflation considered, Cutthroat Island only lost 147 Megadollars. Furthermore, many stars of John Carter have more projects scheduled for later this year that the RAZZIES expect will be bad enough for them to target, and the John Carter proposition provides more opportunity for nominations. Vote YES on Prop John Carter and show Disney the error of their ways."
 
"John Carter has about half-and-half approval rating with critics on Rotten Tomatoes. Many films from the winter of 2012 have earned their RAZZIE prospects, starring such actors as Eddie Murphy, Nicolas Cage, and Katherine Heigl, all with more troubled careers than the stars of John Carter. RAZZIE voters can't afford to let such films as A Thousand Words, Battleship, One For the Money, and The Three Stooges dodge nominations for the sake of nominating Carter. Vote NO on Prop John Carter. The RAZZIES have bigger fields to harvest!"


-------------


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 6:59pm
The film itself is probably not a Razzie contender, but if we gave an award for Worst Idea For a Movie, it would have to be the leading contender. Did anyone at Disney really expect contemporary audiences to remember the John Carter character, or buy into the idea that life is possible on Mars? That kind of thing thrilled readers in 1912, but in 2012 we have learned a couple of things.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 20 2012 at 8:43pm

I think the main reason that this was such a mega bomb was that Andrew Stanton expected everyone to know what John Carter was. This article here* mentions several gaffes he made and the reason why Disney gave him so much money. Brand isn't enough, you have to give people who aren't aware of the source material a reason to watch. Does anyone think that more people would've seen 21 Jump Street in its opening weekend based on its brand alone?

 
*Link: http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html - http://www.vulture.com/2012/03/john-carter-doomed-by-first-trailer.html


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: March 21 2012 at 5:09am
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: I actually think the film's biggest problem, aside from it being based on an obscure century-old novel (elements from which had already been cadged by countless other movies) was that it was horribly marketed. Starting with their removing the word "MARS" from the title, almost every decision about how to sell this movie was inept. As was mentioned above, simply the name JOHN CARTER as a title meant nothing to 99% of their target audience. Add to that the fact that almost every promotional item for the film made it look like it was ripping off creatures and situations from other movies (when in truth it was the other way around) and the fact that their leading man was an unknown/untried actor who brought nothing to the film or its marketability, and you have a perfect storm of crappy decision making and movie marketing. I've heard from those who've seen it that the film itself is actually not that bad, yet the campaign for it made JOHN CARTER look lame... 




-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: MiguelAntilsu
Date Posted: March 21 2012 at 7:44am
I am against putting this into consideration for Worst Picture.  If you account for its worldwide gross, then you would notice that its net loss is only $80 million, not $200 million.  Furthermore, I don't see how a film with a Tomatometer rating of 51% is going to stand out among low ratings like "One for the Money", "The Devil Inside", and "A Thousand Words" when it comes to choosing the candidates for Worst Picture.  Plus, there are bigger potential disasters on the horizon like "Wrath of the Titans", "The Three Stooges", "Battleship", "That's My Boy", "The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 2", and "The Biggest Movie of All Time 3D" if it comes out this year.  The odds are not in "John Carter"s favor here.


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 21 2012 at 11:53am
To make money, a movie has to double its budget and advertising costs. That's why Disney is saying it may lose $200 million instead of $80 million, Miguel.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: March 21 2012 at 8:53pm

I can't believe some of you people. Who the f honestly thinks this picture should even be considered for the Razzies? I don't see why this thread was approved in the first place?

Being a bomb (also that 200 million loss is not the final number, that is only Disney) is the worst excuse to have a picture be nominated. It it did get nominated, it would only add a blow to the Razzie's being credible. This is the worst Hollywood has to offer, not the biggest money-losers Hollywood has to offer.

Besides looking at the poll is flat out embarrassing. A film shouldn't be looked at based off it's box office, but by how much you enjoyed it.


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 22 2012 at 11:08am
Have you even bothered to read the posts in this thread, whats? So far, nobody that has offered an opinion has expressed the affirmative view that it should be seriously considered for Worst Picture.
 
Head Razz merely offered the question as to whether or not a film that bombed this bad at the box-office should be considered. It apppears that the consensus is no.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: March 22 2012 at 4:51pm
And yet I shrug everytime I see that poll and find that the whole It is a Razzie/ It is Not a Razzie vote is almost identical.

I just hope it gets no Razzie nominations (I really don't think it's that likely). I could understand when Green Lantern was up for consideration, but if JC somehow manages to get nominated, I would puzzled as to why.


-------------


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 22 2012 at 5:56pm
As I mentioned on the last page, the only nomination I can see this getting is Worst Actor for Taylor Kitsch, and that's only because he's also going to be in Battlesh*t.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: March 24 2012 at 2:30pm
[Post deleted]

-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: March 24 2012 at 4:53pm
I came back from seeing it. I thought there were parts where it got drawn out describing Martian society, but it sure wasn't something that "broke the mold" for me (like the original Star Wars in 1977). I do believe this is the 21st Century equivalent to the Liz Taylor Cleopatra -- lots of cash spent, you can see where the money went on screen, but it will probably take decades to break even. 

Head Razz is right that the marketing team really sucked dead elephant dicks. As a kid who grew up reading the original Burroughs books, what I saw on the screen was a let-down (just as I was let down by the Johnny Weissmueller movies/Ron Ely Tarzan Movies/TV shows). But then, I also read Lowell/Wells/Bradbury books, I was fascinated seeing Mars in my telescope, thinking that Ray Walston was up there. But, that's how I felt as a kid. 

Nowadays, youngsters have no clue about the original Burroughs books. Maybe this would have made more sense if Bob Clampett had found the financing to do his animated John Carter feature back in the 30s/40s.


-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 25 2012 at 6:00am
Joe, folks like you and I grew up with the John Carter stories and we had the luxury of suspension of disbelief. But the world has changed a lot and these days, it is pretty hard for sci-fi to stay out in front of science. If you want modern audiences to buy into your story, Mars is now too familiar to work.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: JoeBacon
Date Posted: March 25 2012 at 11:50am
Here's a clip of Bob Clampett's proposed John Carter cartoon he worked on back in the 30s. Frankly, it probably would have been more interesting if he had been able to get the backing to do this in the 30s. He would have beaten Disney to make the first animated feature. Oh, what could had been...

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




-------------
2014 Pic: LEFT BEHIND Actor: NICHOLAS CAGE Director: VIC ARMSTRONG, DAMN THIS SHOULD WIN EVERY RAZZIE!!!!!


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 25 2012 at 12:16pm
Bob Clampett was great....Beanie and Cecil is still absolutely classic


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: March 25 2012 at 12:21pm
Agreed. The less said about The New Adventures Of Beany And Cecil the better.

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: March 25 2012 at 12:27pm
Yes, but the originals were filled with biting satires...priceless stuff

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: May 19 2012 at 6:51pm
I just saw this film and have to say this: I think people are out to get Taylor Kitsch. This man can't get himself a break, with John Carter and now with Battleship. The film itself was fantastic. I rarely have the feeling of overwhelming joy like I did when I saw John Carter. The story was mesmerizing, and after the credits rolled, I immediately regret not watching it in theaters. I suspect the experience would have been even better and more immersive. If films like John Carter are ignored by the audience, this is probably why we can't have good films.


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: May 20 2012 at 4:30pm

Moviewizguy I am in agreement with you. John Carter was fantastic.


Posted By: jesse685
Date Posted: May 20 2012 at 6:17pm

I thought it was too.



-------------
"If you can't make it good, make it 3D!" Peter Travers, Rolling Stone
F**k Yeah/WTF Were They Thinking Awards Results Live-Tweet @jesse685


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: May 22 2012 at 7:05pm
Time to rip into John Carter. Before I do though, I'll note this: It's easily the best movie I'm reviewing this week. Especially since the rest of this week's movies all get F's!
 
The first scene where John discovers he can jump well is handled well. I actually got excited for it. The special effects are handled well here as well. The Tharks look great. Some of the action scenes are good like the end fight. And, I'd be negligent if I didn't mention that Woola, John's alien-dog thing, is the best character in the movie. He deserves a better movie to be in than this.
 
Lynn Collins is kinda stiff as Dejah, a Martian princess. She has some funny faces though. The screenplay is surprisingly bland when you consider that one of the writers has a Pulitzer. The film has one of the biggest non "mo-crap" examples of "uncanny valley" in recent memory with the Thark babies. They look ugly and their cries are scarier than some horror movie villains.
 
Taylor Kitsch gives one of the blandest performances in ages. He seems rather non-plussed about seeing a giant green alien. He's not as bad as he was in Battleship, but that's not saying much. I thought that he was decent in that sh*tty Wolverine spin-off though. The 3-D here isn't at the same level as Clash Of The Titans, Green Lantern, or Last Airbender, but it's close. The pacing here is even worse than in Three Musketeers. It's two hours 12 minutes, but feels closer to three hours. But almost all the blame can be laid at Andrew Stanton's feet. His direction is realy crappy and he "helped" with the marketing that killed the film.
 
Why was Ciaran Hinds in this? Why does it feel like he's in everything? Grade: C-
 
Next-up: The Vow!


-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: May 23 2012 at 5:45am
I give John Carter a Bt  (it was awesome). A much better movie than you make it out to be (At least in my opinion).

Also Stanton being involved in the marketing, is only a rumor, and I thought his direction was quite fine.


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: May 31 2012 at 5:22pm
I just saw it.

To answer the poll... No, it shouldn't be nominated for Worst Picture. Worst Actor? Maybe. Taylor Kitsch wasn't that bad, but I'll wait until I see BATTLESHIP to decide. Worst 3D? Although I didn't see it in 3D, the shots seemed like they must've looked good. But those who actually see it in 3D have to decide.

Is this the world we live in? Why is it that the highest grossing movies tend to be the best and the not that bad, while the worst and the not that good (like this) are the flops? This is a masterpiece compared to most live-action Disney movies. It sends a wrong message.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: HeadRAZZBerry
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 12:45pm
RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Here's a http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/movies/2012/05/how-did-battleship-escape-the-john-carter-flop-furor-.html -



-------------
Ye Olde Head RAZZberry


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 01 2012 at 1:16pm
That theory is very interesting and most likely true. Like the article said (and HeadRAZZ also said in this Forum) the problem for JOHN CARTER was the title. Although you can't trust the younger generation to know about the old source material, hearing the title BATTLESHIP at least you have some idea of what it's about. Also, their trailers had probelms. The one for BATTLESHIP played up similarities to TRANSFORMERS, but the one for CARTER showed some of the details that audiences would assume were ripped-off* from other movies (mainly PRINCE OF PERSIA) making it look less exciting.

*I know, the book was written in 1912, but you have to know the risks. If you're worried about adapting something 100 years old, knowing that it's likely to look unoriginal, then don't adapt it.  




-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 5:48pm

It wasn't that, most people say the trailers weren't very well done. In turn however most people I know of said they were pleasantly surprised as a result since they thought it was going to suck. 


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 02 2012 at 6:45pm
Good point.

As of right now, the movie has grossed back its budget worldwide. Unless you focus on domestic grosses only, this is no longer among the biggest flops.
Originally posted by SchumacherH8ter

Why was Ciaran Hinds in this? Why does it feel like he's in everything?
He's a character actor.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 05 2012 at 8:00pm
John Carter wasn't Razzie material, but it was at best a rather complete waste of 2 hours of my life and on the whole, utterly forgetable. A tip of the hat here to SchumacherH8ter for a spot on review.

-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: whatsthepoint
Date Posted: June 06 2012 at 12:43pm

Funny because SchumacherH8ter''s review doesn't even reflect the public's opinion of the film. At least that's the opinion I got from reading all of those highly positive Amazon.com reviews of the movie (which waits it's score at 4.5). Sure Amazon is only a website, but a lot of people buy from it, and obviously most customers who purchased/saw the movie were more than pleased.

Also I'm glad I saw it in theaters. Seeing it on DVD again, reminded me of underrated it really was. Not forgettable in the least.

I don't mind that people dislike it, but if someone calls it crap, I won't be afraid to defend it.


Posted By: moviewizguy
Date Posted: June 06 2012 at 3:29pm
Here's an interesting article about John Carter. The writer doesn't think the film itself is brilliant, but he provides some interesting points as to why it's not a bad film:  http://io9.com/5894393/the-fact-the-lorax-is-a-hit-and-john-carter-is-a-flop-makes-me-want-to-stab-everybody - http://io9.com/5894393/the-fact-the-lorax-is-a-hit-and-john-carter-is- a-flop-makes-me-want-to-stab-everybody


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: June 06 2012 at 3:33pm

I don't care about reflecting the opinion of the public. I do care about expressing my own opinion and my opinion is that John Carter wasn't a very good movie.



-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: June 06 2012 at 6:29pm
http://cinematicmethod.com/dvd-round-up-safe-house-john-carter-journey-2/ -
Originally posted by moviewizguy

Here's an interesting article about John Carter. The writer doesn't think the film itself is brilliant, but he provides some interesting points as to why it's not a bad film:  http://io9.com/5894393/the-fact-the-lorax-is-a-hit-and-john-carter-is-a-flop-makes-me-want-to-stab-everybody - http://io9.com/5894393/the-fact-the-lorax-is-a-hit-and-john-carter-is- a-flop-makes-me-want-to-stab-everybody
One complain about the article: the writer mentioned their Rotten Tomatoes scores, but only among top critics.


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: saturnwatcher
Date Posted: June 13 2012 at 7:54pm
Originally posted by whatsthepoint


Funny because SchumacherH8ter''s review doesn't even reflect the public's opinion of the film. At least that's the opinion I got from reading all of those highly positive Amazon.com reviews of the movie (which waits it's score at 4.5). Sure Amazon is only a website, but a lot of people buy from it, and obviously most customers who purchased/saw the movie were more than pleased.

Also I'm glad I saw it in theaters. Seeing it on DVD again, reminded me of underrated it really was. Not forgettable in the least.

I don't mind that people dislike it, but if someone calls it crap, I won't be afraid to defend it.
The most irrelevant possible collection of reviews you could offer would be those of the people who purchased it at Amazon. How many people do you think purchased the DVD unless they saw it and liked it in the theaters? However, I went to Amazon and checked the most recent ratings. The DVD received 5121 reviews. Out of those, 917 gave it 4 out of 5 stars, 1235 gave it 3, 1280 gave it 2 and 1289 gave it 1. I'm not sure in what universe that averages out to 4.5, but close to 60% of the respondents rated it 2 stars or less.

ADDENDUM: There was more than one link for this DVD at Amazon. Curiously enough after going back and taking another look, I found several different review ratings. The one I cited above remains the largest sample, which tends to lead me to trust it as the most accurate of purchasers' opinion. However, I find this a curious credibility issue with Amazon's ratings.


-------------
Nine times out of ten, in art as in life, there is no truth to be discovered, only an error to be exposed.--H.L. Menken


Posted By: Vits
Date Posted: July 14 2012 at 2:41pm
Skip to 04:06.
[TUBE]M3-wRGv-sl8[/TUBE]
Any thoughts?


-------------
You can follow me http://www.twitter.com/@Vits_Chile - @Vits_Chile


Posted By: SchumacherH8ter
Date Posted: October 15 2012 at 1:02pm
The AVClub did a Commentary Tracks of the Damned entry on this. Apparantly, Andrew Stanton went mad with power and spent money on frivolous things. LINK: http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-carters-commentary-track-showcases-three-film,86634/ - http://www.avclub.com/articles/john-carters-commentary-track-showcases-three-film,86634/

-------------
I'm the Goddamn Batman.-All-Star Batman And Robin #2
https://twitter.com/Scott_DAgostino
Upcoming reviews: http://www.razzies.com/forum/topic7513.html



Print Page | Close Window