Just saw John Carter...

Black Barney wrote: The interesting part? The movie is rated "G." That means the violence isn't what is being advertised.

The Hunger Games is rated PG-13 in the US.

MPAA Rating: PG-13 for intense violent thematic material and disturbing images — all involving teens.

Christ, I panicked when I saw Barney's post. There's no way that movie could be a G without literally removing all the balls from it.

It's rated G up here in Canadia. We're not as nuts as the MPAA or whoever rates your movies down there but I'm sure that means it's not as violent as I hope it is.

From what I've heard of the book, there's some part where someone dumps dangerous killer insects on someone else to kill them? There's no way they can keep that in a G movie, right?

If that's true then it means they have really adapted the screenplay heavily and it SOUNDS like they've done a good job. I'm really curious to see it.

Black Barney wrote: I dunno, the hate against movie critics always confuses me. I think it's cuz people think they make them feel stupid?

No of course movie critics are not more intelligent than you. Do they know more about movies than you do? Of course they do. Are they able to better tell if a movie is good or not than you are? Of course they can. Both a relative and absolute basis. They've seen way more movies than you and know, for the most part, what makes a great movie.

The part that people mix up is that they think movie critics are trying to tell you what's entertaining or enjoyable. They are not. Can movie critics tell you if a movie is entertaining or enjoyable? Not really, because they're not you.

You and I part company here, Sir. I don't hate movie critics but I don't worship their opinions either.

If a movie speaks to me and moves me in some emotional way, then it is both good and enjoyable. If it fails to do that it is neither. I don't need a critic to tell me that the movie was great but I just didn't "get it".

This I suspect is the basic difference in our view points on this topic. It explains why you care about the Oscars and I couldn't care less. It also explains why I preface my little blurbs with the phrase "Tow Jockey" so everyone knows it's just Joe Shit the Ragman telling you what he thought about a movie.

Barney, please rename yourself to 'the sheeple'. Only a fucking tool would care about Movie Critics as much as you do. Try being an individual one day. I love the fact you jerk off over Finding Nemo and Wall-e but because the media decide to turn on Stanton you do too. You should get a job as one of those hollywood ass-suck reporters.

John Carter is a flop in the same way Waterworld was. Followed the exact same narrative too (the media were hyping it as a flop before it came out.)

Hunger Games could be good but I'm not seeing it based on the idiotic hype. I never heard of the "Hunger Games" until two weeks ago yet now the media is trying to tell me it's bigger than Harry Potter and Twilight. Talk about bullshit suck the herd in marketing.

Skellie, nothing you say means jack until you get a friggin avatar.

The Hunger Games book is fine -- kind of a post-apocalyptic book for teenage girls. I am sure the movies will be good. And, in my opinion, the book is better than Harry Potter or Twilight.

I also liked Waterworld (but not the Postman), so there is that.

I agree with Chasch, it's sword & planet pulp. BUT it's very good sword & planet pulp. There's a touch of a Flash Gordon feel in places "the ninth ray", but in the context of the genre they've really underplayed that and it's not intrusive at all. You just accept it and enjoy the movie for what it is: a film adaption of the novels that's every bit as well done as Jackson's Lord of the Rings films. And it has it's action highpoints: one scene that sticks m my mind is the Calot taking out a Thark in on of the big fight scenes. Whoosh! And he's gone. It's sure as hell worth seeing on the big screen. A work colleague said he's going to see it a second time, I hope to see it again next weekend.

repoman wrote:
" I would be interested to know if in say a year from now the movie actually turns a profit once overseas, domestic, dvd, and licensing rights are all tabulated."
I would be very surprised if it doesn't. It may not prove hugely profitable due to it's shaky start but I strongly doubt that it'll lose money.
" The whole media pile on"
That's the cause, too many morons who know nothing about it's history, and the pile on bandwagon mentality.

Black Barney wrote:
" I know I won't regret not seeing JC."
Sure you will Barney, we'll see to that! Mwahahahaha!!
" Repoman, your paranoia of a media conspiracy against JC aside, don't you think the professional movie critics are worth a damn?"
On the whole no. I think you need to find one whose taste aligns with yours. Failing that, threads on F:AT do a much better job.

repoman wrote:
" I don't go for "media darling" movies just because they are media darlings."
Absolutely. John Carter: no mention on the radio that's always on at work. The Hunger Games: seems like every five fucking minutes.
The sheep will flock to see it.
" Media does take cues from itself and once a narritive gets rolling in one direction they are LOATHE to alter it."
THIS. They create a self-fulfilling prophecy. Maybe it's the media writers who are the damn sheep.

Black Barney wrote:
" Do they know more about movies than you do? Of course they do. Are they able to better tell if a movie is good or not than you are? Of course they can. Both a relative and absolute basis. They've seen way more movies than you and know, for the most part, what makes a great movie."
Doesn't necessarily follow. I was in a house share once, one of whom was a professional reviewer. He really disliked Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and was talking about what he'd say in the review. He changed his mind when someone reminded him, "think of the intended audience". I was pointed to a review of The Invisible Man television series, where they mocked the poor make up because they could see his nose in the first episode. That told me that the fuckwit writing it had never read the novel. It's clear from comments about John Carter that many of the professional reviewers are similarly uninformed about it's history.

Mr Skeletor wrote:
" Hunger Games could be good but I'm not seeing it based on the idiotic hype. I never heard of the "Hunger Games" until two weeks ago yet now the media is trying to tell me it's bigger than Harry Potter and Twilight. Talk about bullshit suck the herd in marketing."
Yes, that's the main reason I'm very much put off it. Such hype has an adverse effect, it makes me suspect that they know it's a bad film and they're trying to drive as many people to see it in the first weekend before word gets out to avoid it.

Chasch wrote: " So here's the last bit of prodding, BB. "
Jeff White wrote: " I'm gonna prod just a bit"
Guys! Don't you know only our Ken gets to prod Barney! Go to it Ken! Prod him 'til he submits!

I thought the movie was awesome but I really didn't understand the plot. Especially the medallion, the antogonists' goals (Therns?), and the body double connection and the ending. If someone could give me a short synopsis of the plot I would appreciate it. Shame the movie is losing a lot of money because I would like a sequel.

By the way, I'm a 43 year old male and cried a little at several points in the movie. Anyone with me on that?