John Carter -- Screw the Fanboys!

[Geek King]

No Spoilers, just my [aggrivated] opinion.

I keep seeing these terrible reviews for John Carter, and I can't help but wonder what movie the fanboys saw. The movie I saw was pretty damn good, but the critics seem to think it was the next installment of Attack of the Killer Tomatos. Was it a perfect recreation of the Burroughs masterpiece? Nope. But if you are honest with yourself, most of what got changed would have come across as incredibly cheesy, or even insulting, in light of modern knowledge.

This was a fun bit of Victorian pulp adventure that does a good job of capturing a 100 year-old book for an audience with a century's worth of science between it and the source material. The problem is it is not getting a fair shake from a small group of fanboys who, after all this time, still can't understand that no book is going to convert perfectly into a 2-hour movie. Like so many things attempted in fandom, it is the very fans of the thing killing it. It really pisses me off, having watched it happen time after time.

Seriously, I saw this movie with some Burrough's fans and some folks not familiar with the original work. Both groups loved the movie for what it was. If you have the chance, go see it for yourself, and throw out the whines of a vocal minority.

[fireheart]

I saw this film as well (after I saw that it received mixed-to-positive reviews in the US) and I LOVED it. The visuals were good, the actors did a pretty good job and once you got past the slightly confusing details at the beginning, then it was worth a watch.

If the fanboys wanted the book to be accurate, then Disney wouldn't have picked it up. Why? Because apparently the natives of Barsoom were naked in the books

[auntiem]

My SO it so excited to see this movie - he is a big fan. I have to admit that I haven't read it, but I trust his judgement. He is fully aware that it will be condensed to 2 hours and is done by Disney so I think he is prepared.

We did see one of the actors of the film on Graham Norton and they showed a great clip so I have to say that even I'm excited to see it and I generally hate CG heavy movies.

Also, this is my pet peeve - most "movie critics" really have no idea what it take to get a movie made. This one apparently was like Lord of the Rings - a great book, but how do you make it into a movie?! Wasn't this particular movie in process for a very long time?

For what it is worth, Ebert likes it - and he is generally like me about CG.

[Dilorenzo]

Well, I look at it this way. There's maybe one critic site I trust (their three stars means "still worth seeing, just not a masterpiece" - NOT 50%, as some others have it), and the others I discard. After all, the "Top Critics" on Rotten Tomatoes, for example, have The Boondock Saints at 17%.

[AnaKhouri]

I enjoyed it for what it was: an action movie. Burroughs wrote pulp novels, so it's not like I was expecting a deeper meaning. They did make some changes from the book(s) but I didn't think they detracted from the story. I loved what they did with Woola, who was my favorite part of the book.

I think much of the budget probably went to self-tanning lotion for the Red Martians.

[cashierbex]

I hate when all the fanboys get so butthurt about a damn movie. If you think its so terrible, make your own damn movie and see how it works out for ya.

[Seraph]

and yet, they just announced they're probably looking at a $200 mil loss for this movie. Ouch.

I hadn't heard about this movie until last month. Just kinda came out of left field, honestly. O_o

[RealUnimportant]

and yet, they just announced they're probably looking at a $200 mil loss for this movie.

That's just how the film business works - the original Star Wars trilogy has officially never shown a profit.

[Rapscallion]

I'd been looking forward to the movie for some time. I admit that I enjoyed it, but I think they tried to put too much into it from the nine books (the last two weren't by Burroughs himself).

Sort of fell over itself in adding too much, but it was a fantastic visual spectacle and reminded me of books I loved when I was ... three decades younger. Some good visual comedy moments as well.

Rapscallion

[Etna]

I enjoyed it. The only think that made me go, wait a minute, was when they were flashing teeth in a smile at one point. That is a challenge on that planet! I can't help my attention to detail sometimes.

[fireheart]

I enjoyed it for what it was: an action movie. Burroughs wrote pulp novels, so it's not like I was expecting a deeper meaning. They did make some changes from the book(s) but I didn't think they detracted from the story. I loved what they did with Woola, who was my favorite part of the book.

I think much of the budget probably went to self-tanning lotion for the Red Martians.

And the clothing for the female lead (who's name escapes me right now)

I saw her wedding dress and I'm like HOLYCRAPIWANTTHATDRESS!!!!

I'm going to see The Hunger Games on the weekend.

[fireheart]

So I'm gradually working my way through the books in the series. At the moment I'm up to the third one(they're free on the iTunes bookstore up until number five) and I'm really enjoying them.

Now it's making me want yo see the movie all over again....

[violiavampyr]

Thought it was a pretty good flick. I really don't understand why it didn't do well.

[Rapscallion]

Tell me about it. I think part of it was that they lost some of those who knew the original tales by removing 'of Mars' shortly before release.

Rapscallion

[sms001]

(they're free on the iTunes bookstore up until number five)

They're in the public domain and available in a variety of formats at Project Gutenburg.