Just saw John Carter...

Since we're still talking about it, I'm going to repost my review written near the beginning of this thread right after I saw it...which after all the discussion is still exactly how I feel about it:

Well I saw it on the weekend and it's ok. There IS probably 250 million worth of special effects and it's an epic story told on a grand scale BUT it's souless. It fails because you don't care about the characters. The only emotional attachment I felt was to that big 'ol alien puppy dog.

I couldn't have cared less about anyone else. It's dazzling eye candy though and that alone made me take another look at the old 1979 SPI board game John Carter: Warlord of Mars. What's that you say?! A-NOTHER board game from that era that only produced war and fantasy games!!! Why there seems to be more every day from the golden age of gaming.

I can't say the cardboard chits and paper map hold up well today though :-p.
So to recap....John Carter: wonderful eye candy with a convoluted paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

Black Barney wrote: lol, I never said it was bad!

You said it will have a bad script and bad characters.

S.

mikecl wrote: Since we're still talking about it, I'm going to repost my review written near the beginning of this thread right after I saw it...which after all the discussion is still exactly how I feel about it:

Well I saw it on the weekend and it's ok. There IS probably 250 million worth of special effects and it's an epic story told on a grand scale BUT it's souless. It fails because you don't care about the characters. The only emotional attachment I felt was to that big 'ol alien puppy dog.

I couldn't have cared less about anyone else. It's dazzling eye candy though and that alone made me take another look at the old 1979 SPI board game John Carter: Warlord of Mars. What's that you say?! A-NOTHER board game from that era that only produced war and fantasy games!!! Why there seems to be more every day from the golden age of gaming.

I can't say the cardboard chits and paper map hold up well today though :-p.
So to recap....John Carter: wonderful eye candy with a convoluted paper thin plot and souless characters = box office bomb.

I'll be curious to see how this contrasts with Wrath of the Titans.

Hatch, that's more than fair. I can't see everything and you're right that I am letting people that were 'meh' about the movie influence me not wanting to see it. I'm not going to play Operation Raccoon City for the same reason.

And doesn't RottenTomatoes say it's more good than bad? It's over 50% so more than 1 in 2 critics liked it.

Sag, wasn't I infering that from the trailer tho? I think I'm being taken out of context. Movies with strong characters and great scripts don't have trailers like that.

Why I liked the film:

Action films suck when they only document physical feats. But they work when there is enough of a plot to give the action a sense of urgency and purpose. And that tension and purpose needs to find its way into the protagonist. A convenient example is the first Bourne Identity film. The process of Bourne discovering who he is is bound to the overall plot, and the result is that the action has some intensity. The same thing with Die Hard. I'm sure there are plenty of other examples you nerds can call to mind.

John Carter had this too. He is an outsider by choice. But then you discover that his choice is is his way of coping with a profound loss. The film was a story of him rediscovering a cause (a person) worth fighting for, and allowing himself to commit to something (someone) again. There might be a bit more to it, but that's what I got in a nutshell. Though simple, there was enough plot and character to make the action compelling. Add to it some twists and surprises (like how all appeared lost in the penultimate scene) and some dynamic action, and you've got a solid action film. I think the film is even more than good given that there were some scenes that seemed hopeless turned around in an epic resolution.

Black Barney wrote: Sag, wasn't I infering that from the trailer tho? I think I'm being taken out of context. Movies with strong characters and great scripts don't have trailers like that.

Jesus Barney, SEE THE GODDAMNED MOVIE AND SPEAK FROM AN INFORMED OPINION!

Here's what you've said, in context -- "I haven't seen the movie, but I think it SUCKS because I saw an ad for it that I didn't like. Oh, and some people I don't know didn't like it."

S.

I don't wanna!

btw, I LOVE that you again write what I said OUT OF CONTEXT except this time added, "in context" first AND you put quotes on what YOU interpret I said as if I actually said it.

In all my trolling (and I'm a PRO), I don't think I've ever done that. It's hilarious. You should apply to FoxNews or something.

I don't think it's out of context. The comments you made are right in this thread. The context of what you said, though perhaps not the exact wording, was that you refused to see the movie because you thought it would suck based on poor marketing and what critics had said.

That is just what Sag put in his latest post. That is the context.

Stop being mealy mouthed. You have a baseless opinion. Big woop. Just admit it and move on.

Oh, and if your gonna make lame jokes about Fox News, please make the same jokes about CBC and ABC and CBS and NBC and CNN and MSMNBC and Time and Newsweek and The New York Times and the Washington Post and the BBC....

That way you can be fair and balanced.

fock, instead of submit, I hit Thank You! GODDAMMIT. Well, here's the gist (jist) of my response.

I'm not trying to be fair and balanced. I'm not a news network nor am i claiming to be fair and balanced and not being so.

What you said in your first paragraph, Repo, is exactly what I'm saying in this thread. What Sag said isn't. If you don't see the difference, then you're lost.

You guys with your stupid "baseless opinion" stamps are insane. I don't really care for Hitler* much. I've never met him. If I wrote a review of the movie, that would be a baseless opinion. If i talked about the cinematography of the movie, that's a baseless opinion. Me not wanting to see it because I don't think I would like it isn't a baseless opinion. I'm not telling other people not to see it.


I bet you are the type of guys that doubt science or question what doctors tell you.


*The Hitler card was played at 14:33 EST. This thread has officially gained Internet Argument status.

Black Barney wrote: I bet you are the type of guys that doubt science or question what doctors tell you.

Sidenote: Fucking rights you should question what doctors tell you. (At least question it until the 2nd and/or 3rd opinions say the same thing.) Some doctors are talking out of their asses.

True enough. I just got back from my appointment and the doctor said John Carter sux. I'm getting on the phone with my neurologist.

Black Barney wrote:
" Hatch, that's more than fair. I can't see everything and you're right that I am letting people that were 'meh' about the movie influence me not wanting to see it."
But Barney, you were the first one going 'meh' and you'd already made your mind up.
(Or is that 'baa' you evil tweenie tool of rotten tomatoes?)

" Movies with strong characters and great scripts don't have trailers like that."
Sure they do, here's one.

" nor am i claiming to be fair and balanced"
I think we can all agree that you're unbalanced...

I just saw it and I enjoyed it. I liked it much better than the Hunger Games.

My only question is why are these two cities so important to the whole of Mars for the Thurn to be manipulating things? Are these supposed to be the only two cities on the planet?

Uba, quite right, but they were at least able to make it a very good family adventure.

I was glad they at least kept him a Confederate cavalryman. However, I was pleasantly surprised that while on the run from the US soldiers he ended up throwing in with them and looking after the captain during the Apache encounter. I was only surprised because 'going native' is so common in films these days, it was refreshing to see the movie portray how encounters like that probably went down 90% of the time.