By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - John Carter - a great movie.

I enjoyed it very much, it wasn't the best movie ever made but it was a perfect "popcorn" movie

I'll give it a B-

The absolute best thing about the movie was the "dog"... he was freaking hilarious :D

If it isn't turnbased it isn't worth playing   (mostly)

And shepherds we shall be,

For Thee, my Lord, for Thee. Power hath descended forth from Thy hand, That our feet may swiftly carry out Thy command. So we shall flow a river forth to Thee And teeming with souls shall it ever be. In Nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritūs Sancti. -----The Boondock Saints

Around the Network

I am pretty sure that I will check it out now that regular people are saying it is decent. Either way I will take my kids to see it since I am sure as kids they will enjoy it and we will see how it goes. Anything and everything is great after watching Chipmunks: Chipwrecked! If I had to sit through one god damned minute more of that I swear I would have thrown myself off the balconey.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

spurgeonryan said:
I am pretty sure that I will check it out now that regular people are saying it is decent. Either way I will take my kids to see it since I am sure as kids they will enjoy it and we will see how it goes. Anything and everything is great after watching Chipmunks: Chipwrecked! If I had to sit through one god damned minute more of that I swear I would have thrown myself off the balconey.

Thank God my kids have grown out of that stage.

My 14 yr old loved John Carter.

My younger one had to ask few questions during the movie - so be ready to for that.

i also really liked john carter, hope more movies are made from this ip.
since percy jackson is getting a sequel , this movie stands a chance to get one as well.

percy jackson did not cost 250 million to make, plus another 125-200 million to advertise. I cannot believe how many commercials i have seen for this movie.

    The NINTENDO PACT 2015[2016  Vgchartz Wii U Achievement League! - Sign up now!                      My T.E.C.H'aracter

the movie was not that good, the best part about the movie was the dog. The dog was straight up awesome!

Around the Network

It was based off an old novel which sci-fi movies have drawn upon for inspiration for decades. This left John Carter feeling unoriginal when in fact its source material is as original as the genre can get, the film was just 100 years too late. It had just enough cheesy Disney charm to carry it, but some of the actors' performances were so flat and forced that I just wished it would end earlier at times. I found myself caring more about the space dog as opposed to Carter and the princess who fell straight out of a Vogue magazine.

Also for a film that cost 250million you'd think the special effects and CGI animations would be far more polished. Some of the jumping and action sequences saw the palm of my hand be collected by my forehead.

Still it might seem I'm heavily criticizing it, but overall it was an enjoyable experience. Arguably around 2.5 or 3 stars I'd put it at. Also need to point out, don't take really young children to see it, my god there was shitloads of blue blood and an amputation and decapitation sequence. Reminded me of older videogames where the parental lock would change the blood from red to green or blue.

Marks said:
It was actually good? The previews made it look like a complete shit dime a dozen action/hero movie with a horrible looking plot.

But you actually give it your word?

That plot might seem horrible now since it's what Sci-fi has drawn upon for over a century. A Princess of Mars is a very old novel.

Based on previews of the film it appeared well below the quality of Star Wars and Star Trek and other good sci-fi flicks: Alien franchise, Terminator franchise etc.

Not sure what movie the parent poster saw, but I watched a god awefull movie on the weekend that was also called John Carter. Mediocre to bad acting, story that is just a little too ridiculous even for a sci fi flick with aweful dialogue.

HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
HesAPooka said:
RVDondaPC said:
This movie was horrible. I watched it with my brother this weekend who worked on the movie and he agreed it was god awful. We literally talked for hours after the movie was over about how bad it was. The acting was terrible. The Character development(or lack there of) was bad. It was soap opera acting at it's worst. The only two good actors in this movie were Willem Dafoe and Thomas Haden Church and they were both CG characters. It was shot terribly. The lighting and set dec was awful in many scenes. The action was mediocre and for a $200 million movie, it's bad. The CG and character animation was amazing though. It was the only element of this movie that was even close to top notch. I don't think Disney even had a budget to score this movie. They spent all their money on a year of reshoots and realized how bad it was that they just took generic theme music from their archives and added it to the movie. I reckon this will be the last time Disney let's an Animated film director and a TV actor, steer the ship of a $200 million live action movie.

If you don't know anything about movies though, you might be able to enjoy it. Sometimes I wish I didn't know anything about movies.

Brad Bird, Ghost Protocol. 

That movie came out last year, it's budget was $145 Million and it starred Tom Cruise. On top of that it was produced by JJ Abrams and part of a billion dollar franchise. How much ship steering do you think Brad Bird was doing? 

On a side note I just looked up what his next project is going to be on wikipedia. And it was a $200 million live action disney/pixar movie about the 1906 San Francisco Earthquake(Which sounds awesome). However it says that Brad has been working on rewrites to scale down the scope of the film(Which normally means budget) and it has also been suggested that the postponed start date is because Disney is concerned about the budget of the film. I mean if Disney is giving shit to Jerry Bruckheimer on the Lone Ranger which stars Johnny Depp and is directed by Gore Verbinski(Who ironically won the oscar for best animated film this year) for its budget, there is no way they don't trim this one down or replace Brad Bird with someone else or at the least cast an established movie star with a great supporting cast to help carry the film. 

Well I've seen every movie Brad Bird has made and I've also seen every movie JJ Abrams has ever done, and they each have their own very distinct way of directing which is appearant from their movies. Watching JJ abrams movies is like watching a spielberg movie. They both love to move the camera around a lot from side to side or up and down. Brad Bird on the other hand is a completely different amimal and it's clear he was doing the steering.

Just because you disliked John Carter (which I wont comment on because I haven't seen the movie) and it was directed by someone who previously had only worked on animated movies doesn't mean all directors can't make the transition is all I am getting at, and I think Brad Bird is a prime example. Ghost Protocol is one of the best reviewed movies of last year and certainly an amazing action film. 

Like I said before I haven't seen John Carter since it doesn't really appeal to me, but the reviews haven't been terrible, and to be honest I've been hearing a lot of postive things so far. 

As far as Brads next project goes lots of directors agree to trim down budgets in order to have more control over how the end project will be shot. Frank Darabont cut down the budget for The Mist down to 18 million from I believe 60 million so he could have the ending he wanted. Clint Eastwood often finishes project under budget as well, and wraps shooting early. Bird is a capable movie maker and knows what he's doing. He knows that at 200 million a movie has a far less chance of making a profit which makes him look bad, if the same movie can be shot for 145 in the end it will only make him look better when it makes a higher profit. 

Oh, and one last point. A little director by the name of Tim Burton also started his career doing aimation. 

First of all, the camera movement is none of the producers concern nor is it an actors concern. It's the directors and only the directors. So regardless of who's really making sure a movie will put asses in the seats, the camera movement will always reflect the decisions of the director, no matter who the producer is, so it doesn't mean anything.

Second of all, Clint Eastwood doesn't make studio films, he produces and directs all of his own films for the last 20 years, so that is why he comes in under budget, and that's a whole different situation. Frank Darabont also produced and wrote the Mist, and it too was not a studio film. Also the reason why he lowered the budget to $16 million to have more control, because the weinstiens are not dumb, a $60 million budget was way too risky. How much money did it make at the box office? $59 milion. I guess they made the right decision. Now Disney is being hesitant to take on that much risk. Not because Bird wants more control of his film. It's a studio film, not a directors film. BTW Do you know who produced Ghost Protocol? JJ Abrams, Tom Cruise, and Bryan Burk. They make live action movies, that make money. Do you know who produced John Carter? Animated film producers. There was no live action veterans over seeing that movie at all. I didn't even realize that until now. I'd have thought they'd atleast have one veteran live action producer on it, but instead they had all pixar animated movie producers. Disney was even dumber than I thought with John Carter.  

Third of all, I never said Animated directors could never make the transition. All I said is Disney wont let an animated director (and a tv actor) be in control of a big budget live action movie again. For obvious reasons. It's way too risky. You can't take risks with unknowns on movies that cost that much money. You will get burned and Disney will lose way too much money on John Carter, to ever let it happen again. As for Bird, he got in before the door will be shut. He's already made a live action movie(albiet with the help of people that know their shit). So atleast he has some bargaining chip to bring to the table. I actually haven't seen ghost protocol, but it looked pretty good from the trailers.

And last, Tim Burton worked in an animation studio. He didn't direct animated features. Burton is a live action director and has always been one. He didn't direct an animated film until Corpse Bride which was his 12th feature length film , and his only animated film. If he is your one guy to reference, then you don't have much of an argument. I'm actually thinking now the transition is even more difficult that I first thought. It could still be done, but there is no way a studio is putting up $200 million to find out. Animated movies and live action movies are two completely different things.