My Dad first gave me his yellow-paged copies of Edgar Rice Burroughs John Carter of Mars series when I was in junior high. He’d read them when he was my age and now passed them on to me. I remember the joy of losing myself in the adventures of A Princess of Mars during a slow week of standardized testing.
Now as the movie prepares to launch on March 9 next month my main regret is that given that we now live in different states he and I won’t get to see it together. I’ll have to wait and just call him after we’ve both seen it so I can pick his brain about which details they got right and which plot changes he liked and disliked.
Judging by these two clips via Hollywood.com we’ll have a lot to talk about:
Related: See Chris Queen’s John Carter’s Long Road from the Civil War to the Silver Screen
Categories: Movies
Tags: A Princess of Mars, Disney, Edgar Rice Burroughs, John Carter
Looking forward to this movie even though I’ve never read his books. May check them out after seeing it, that way the movie’s 100% fresh.
Nope. That’s not “A Princess of Mars.” It may be a fun movie, it may be good, it’s not John Carter, it’s not Dejah Thoris. They’ve taken some of Burroughs’s elements from the book and slapped it onto an utterly different story with different characters and tone. It’s seems to have borrowed more from story elements from today’s Hollywood than from Burroughs.
Dejah Thoris is disdainful of Carter for much of the original book, at least outwardly; she didn’t and wouldn’t have asked for help for a plot device that didn’t happen in the original novel anyway. Once again someone loves the work, and then doesn’t trust the audience or the source material enough to actually back it up. Adapt Burroughs and people will love it; they may love this, it’s not Burroughs. This films creators have missed out on the fact that the simple details of life on Mars brought about a sense of wonder, not the tenseness of the plot.
I’m not saying it’s easy to invoke this sense of wonder, but it’s impossible if you don’t try and instead rely on plot devices. And it’s not like there was no plot in the original novel, but it’s more like a journey of gradual discovery. In this sense, “Avatar” is more similar to what actually happened to John Carter, including the initial disdain of his future lover, than is this movie. The tension of love in the original novel, a centerpiece of much of Burroughs’s work, seems absent here, or at least transformed.
This post echoes my thinking on the subject. The tip off was when they decided not to go with the book’s actual title, A Princess of Mars. This alone tells me the filmmakers do not trust, nor respect, Burroughs’ work.
Success Schmitz – so you’re saying this movie is not fit to polish the teeth of Burroughs’ grandmother’s sorak?
I don’t know, we’ll see. People familiar with Burroughs know that he struck an odd tone in his work that was unique; it would be very difficult to put on film. Burroughs at times had an artistry about his settings and I would hope to see some night scenes in those dead cities inhabited by white apes with the twin moons chasing each other across the sky and the only sound the clinking of a warrior’s harness as shadows shift faster than they ought to.
Hollywood these days has a tendency to overdo things and have extended stunt scenes that resemble a park ride as witness the unfortunate scenes in King Kong where dinosaurs attack Kong while he deftly flips the girl from paw to paw and they end up swinging around vines; it’s gotten to the point where quiet and straightforward would be its own surprise. Art direction is so important to a film like John Carter as it sets the entire tone. Dejah Thoris is supposed to be incomparable and she should at once have a face a world would fall in love with and exude a quiet sex appeal that is undeniable. This is a woman an entire nation loves and would die for.
I see Carter as more like the guy on the cover of the original Ballantine paperback “Warlord of Mars”; tall, lean, dark, somewhat grim but quick to laugh and with short hair. An easy guy to get along with but no one to mess with.
I know they have to put the flashiest moments on the trailers, but I hope this isn’t just a CGI-fest. Also, they’re making gravity on Mars about 1/10 of what it is here (although I understand that’s the source of his “superpowers”). Oh well, I’m just being a typical nerdy nitpicky scifi fan.
Still, it’s been a dry spell for scifi lately, both on TV and in theaters, so I’m definitely hopeful and willing to give this one a shot.
Where are the videos? The linkee no workee.
They’re embedded in this post and the link does work: http://www.hollywood.com/news/New_John_Carter_Clips_Showcase_Angry_Martians_Menacing_Mark_Strong/17238596
“Sorry but this video is no longer available”
Which is exactly what it said when I tried it before your reply.
Both videos embedded in this post are working. I don’t know what you’re looking at but nobody else is complaining about not being able to see the 2 videos.
It’s weird. There is the, video not working, message and then the video plays, albeit overlaid with the video not working message. See everyone is right!
I don’t know anything about John Carter but I know fathers. Fly out there and catch the movie over a weekend. It will be the best thing you do this year.
I agree. Travel to where your father is and see the movie with him! You won’t regret it – well not the time with your father anyway – jury is still out on if any of us will regret seeing the movie. Take care!
I read the books growing up and consider myself a fan, but I’m not going to criticize a movie studio for making changes to translate this to the screen. The original title was John Carter of Mars, and they decided to drop the whole Mars link in the title. Correctly in my opinion. I just don’t think you could get people into the theaters with a title like that. The audience that is familiar with the books is a small one at this point. Not nearly enough to make this a commercial success.
Of course, it could still be a crapfest, but I’m not going to assume that just because they had to change things a bit to get this project off the grown. After seeing the TV movie version, I already know this material can be done poorly.
I don’t find the title John Carter to be at all compelling. Perhaps it is a movie about Jimmy’s smarter brother. If I didn’t know the source material, I would have zero interest based on the title. And as for the audience that is familiar being small, I think you may be wrong. I will see the movie, but I will not expect much. I hope to be pleasantly surprised, although Hollywood does not have a good track record at that (just look at the figures of movie attendance). Take care!
Read all the books.
Nah….that’s not John Carter.
There’s a word for things flying 20 feet in the air over a battlefield.
Skeet.
That’s not Dillon, Texas.
My first thought was, “My, isn’t everybody a bit over-dressed?”
(Just read my way through the Barsoom books last week.) Ok, you couldn’t be that authentic to the original books without getting an R rating.
Does anyone expect Hollywood to do a straight adaptation of a book? Hardly ever happens.
But there can at least be the intent to do an honest adaptation: This has never happened in a single Tarzan movie and “Starship Troopers” mostly used the title. “Children of Dune” did try to be faithful to the original material and succeeded, “The Puppet Masters” tried, 1982′s “The Thing” was faithful to the spirit of the original story, “Lord of the Rings” was pretty faithful.
The fact that Hollywood overdoes original material which fail like “All Mimsy Were the Borogoves,” “Vintage Season” or “Cold Equations” is not a reason to keep doing it. Do a faithful and witty version of “The Big Front Yard” or “The Witches of Karres” or “The Naked Sun” and people will be amazed.
“Lord of the Rings was pretty faithful.”
Sorry, but I have to disagree. Superficially, LOTR was highly similar in plot. But in tone and characterization it was completely different, and for many of the reasons cited here with respect to John Carter. Although, I believe it’s been mischaracterized by some posters: it isn’t that the filmmakers distrusted Tolkien or his audience, it’s that in their hubris they actually believed they could improve on the original by substituting their own judgement. They failed.
To take just one very egregious example to show you that I’m not picking nits: Aragorn is portrayed in the film as an anti-hero. This is hilariously stupid. Jackson could have made a bold decision: actually go with a straight-up hero, who knows honor, duty and yes — ambition. It is the kind of characterization Hollywood is simply incapable of. So instead he went with a silly adolescent cookie-cutter Jimmy Dean. [Although Viggo did a pretty good job with the part the filmmaker gave him.] Many of the other major characters, including Elrond, Arwen, Eomer and Faramir are completely unrecognizable. Several (Bilbo, Denethor, Gimli) are idiotic caricatures of their roles in the book.
Having read all of the John Carter novels, and having been disappointed in one adaptation after another — not least the supposedly faithful LOTR — I’m not very hopeful about this effort.
I disagree: Aragorn is not an anti-hero in the film but a more animated version of the character in the book – he does possess and display those characteristics you say he doesn’t.
I think Jackson did make the story better by dramatizing the appearance of the sword of Aragorn and the fight on Weathertop without violating the essential plot and by eliminating the useless Tom Bombadil. Even over 3 films that was an extremely difficult screenplay to write and then bring to life. In a real rather than perfect world, I find it hard to imagine a better trio of films having been made from that work.
My hat’s off to Jackson; too bad he didn’t have as much luck with “King Kong.” As a kid I don’t ever remember thinking how cool a re-make would be with new special effects tech wasted on dinosaurs stampeding and tripping over one another.
Other than a couple of changes, I don’t think the LOTR movies show any hubris but show respect for the essential work and the idea of conveying that work to a film audience.
My main beef was with Return of the King — the film totally fails to make us give a rats ass for Gondor being so worthy of saving in general (something Tolkien did with some lesser characters), and INO they horribly botched the dynamic between Merry/Pippin (sorry I dont remember which one) and Denethor.
Sorry Fail Burton, but you are absolutely wrong about the LOTR movies. Peter Jackson systematically stripped Tolkien’s characters of their essential heroic qualities. If LOTR was a love story, Peter Jackson turned it into a cheap, soft-porn Skinimax movie.
For some reason this reminds me of my fading memories of the short-lived Marvel Comics series, crossed with some weird storyline involving an invasion of earth.
A Holy Thern? Leading the Warhoon?
Should I guess the Black Pirates were not “acceptable” for PC reasons?
I’m not liking where this is going.
The books are all available, free of charge, courtesy of the Gutenberg Project, if you would like to read them.
Looks like a remix of Attack of the Clones, Troy, and Avatar. Think I’d rather stay home and read the books.
Mars has one third of Earth’s surface gravity, but CGI makes everything seem weightless, massless. You can see it in the way the Martian warriors appear over the ridgeline-instantly, as if they were all mounted on hydraulic rams. The same scene played out in many western movies is more believable because the movements are real, performed by real extras. This is not, I think, a quibble. People know how things move, deep in their bones, and this is one of the elements that can make a movie more believable- or not. Frenetic and weightless motion makes you more aware that these are simply images projected on a screen, and that takes you out of the scene, and out of the movie. It would only take a little bit of discipline to slow things down a bit and make them more plausible, but too many filmmakers seem to take the suspension of disbelief for granted. Modern movies display a lot of impatience. Impatience with source material, with adaptation, with the laws of nature and finally with the audience. Is coke still popular in Hollywood?
I have been waiting for this movie for over 50 years. Nothing in the trailers leads me to believe that the screen writer and director understand (or care) anything about the character of John Carter and Dejah Thoris. Carter had “ever been a fighting man.” His only regret about the Civil War was losing it. He loved a good fight and abhored an unfair one. He was an aristocratic Virginia gentleman; his initial rescue of Dejah Thoris was an act of chivalry. Instead of terrifying Tharks and Warhoons, we get four-armed Jar-Jar Binks. The screen writeer and director have screwed the calot.
I agree with Dotar Sojat. The key to Burrough’s story is John Carter’s sense of honor as a Virginia gentleman, and Dejah Thoris’ reaction to that. This is the romantic side of _Princess of Mars_ which Hollywood seems incapable of presenting. JC’s extreme fearlessness, physical prowess and violence merely got Dejah Thoris’ attention. Lots of humans and others on Barsoom were similar.
But JC’s honor was new on Barsoom, and Dejah Thoris picked up on that immediately. _Why_ JC did what he did was far more interesting to her than _what_ he did. She paid real close attention to this in _Princess of Mars_ while JC was just clueless. This was one of the book’s charms. JC had no idea he was winning Dejah Thoris’ respect, admiration, awe, and eventually love until she finally expressed the latter to him.
THAT would have made a great love story if Stanton had realized it.
Tom Hollywood does actually do what you wrote in your first paragraph, they did it in “Avatar.” Cameron said John Carter was in that movie and the rite-of-passage/romance in “Avatar” is virtually a template of many of Burroughs’s novels. Sully learning to ride beasts and the language and culture does impact the plot but is not in itself a plot and it is this simple sense of wonder Hollywood usually falls down on in favor of driving a story forward.
There are of course many exceptions but apparently this Mars film is not one of them. Sully was enchanted by the simple initial act of flying or riding a weird beast and this is pure Burroughs and part of the dreaming fantasy readers so loved.
I could overlook some plot changes, but making the green men sound like campy extras from the Phantom menace is horrible.