“Women Of All Ages Have Flat Out Rejected” John Carter

Nothing that I’ve seen or heard about this movie has me wanting to go see it and I’m especially not a fan of Taylor Kitsch based on what I’ve seen from him so far.

I read an article about it (just was at Disney) and it sounded pretty awesome to me. I admit that I didn’t love that they changed the name though.

I saw a trailer for it at the cinema this week, and I don’t think I’ve ever been less enthused about a sci-fi film in my life. I don’t think I’d go even if they’d kept the original title.

A Princess of Mars sounds a lot more interesting than John Carter of Mars.

It’s the childishness of the clips shown so far that really does it out for me. Really? Kiddie humor and blue blood is the best you have to show, Disney? Oh, right, forget I asked.

‘John Carter’ is hands down the most boring title ever for a Sci-Fi film. If they wanted to change the title, they should’ve picked at least a name that sounded exotic or exciting. Real marketing fail here, Disney. 

I’m intrigued enough by the design to pay $1.50 to watch it, so I’ll probably see it in the cheap theaters. The title is quite bland though, but all of the options seem to be rather “meh” titles as well.

The previews for this look incredibly boring. And not in a “there’s no explosions!” sort of boring. It looks intellectually boring. Unless I hear otherwise, this is a pass.

The trailer looked… really bad. Like going back and watching the original Dune bad. Prince of Persia bad. No thanks.

When I first heard of this movie I did what I always do. Read the book if I haven’t already. It shows it’s age. You have to get past rampent racism and sexism. It has some interesting bits in there though. After seeing the preview it looks interesting and I’m curious about what changes they made and what they kept.

I won’t be going to the theater for it as do that for nobody but the Muppets nowadays but I look forward to seeing it. Eventually. On Netflix.

Didn’t a lot of people (icky boys included) play a game called Zelda?  Now I may be wrong, but this story makes me think of that.

I think perhaps, at first, the title Princess of Mars would scare off some, but if it was good, they could hear about it and check it out anyway.  Even John Carter of Mars sounds better, and I’m a female.  The word Mars hasn’t ever scared me away from anything, although it has given me the vapors occasionally. Dearie me……!

I have to admit I have only seen one or two trailers for this and wrote it off as another mediocre boy action movie, and I don’t pay money to see those anymore (until there are more mediocre girl action movies — or any other girl action movies). Am I wrong? Will this actually have some reasonable female roles? Or just more shots of Tim Riggins without a shirt?

Huh. I know several people who are interested in this movie, and several of them are women (including me). It looks like a fun, old-fashioned sci-fi popcorn movie promising fun, adventure, and good-looking people. :) High drama and beautiful dialog? Doubtful. If I want to see that I’ll rewatch the exquisite Downton Abbey. But this looks fun, and me and my friends will be there opening weekend!

I was completely confused by the name. I’m a sci-fi/fantasy fan and the name John Carter first had me confused with the Terminator franchise, then made me feel like I was missing out on some really, really awesome books (which I am). I would have been more likely to see a film titled Princess of Mars and not have been so completely confounded and unhappy at the same time. 

Is it a family movie?  The books have been on my to-read list for a while, but when I heard the movie was coming out, I purposely didn’t read them (I find I’m usually happier reading the book after seeing the movie), so I’ve no idea what it’s about.  What few commercials I’ve seen, it looked interesting.  But I didn’t realize it was family fair.  Of course, until this article,  I didn’t even realize it was Disney!

The trailer instantly got me interested in a movie that I didn’t even know about. When I found that Andrew Stanton and other Pixar folks were involved, I only got more excited. I find the vague criticisms it gets puzzling.

I go see Disney movies to see DISNEY movies…this just doesn’t seem like a Disney movie to me…I haven’t really seen or heard much about it…just seems like something I’ll order on netflix in a year or so

The could’ve kept shortening the title and gone with “Carter” (a movie about 1970s politics) or even “JC” (a religious film).  

I do not understand the rational behind the name change at all. A movie titled “A Princess of Mars” sounds roughly 686 times more interesting than “John Carter”, which could be about anything from an old man getting his ‘groove’ back to an up-and-coming business man choosing between work and romance.

“Princess of Mars” tells me that it’s a movie that involves high powered people… ON MARS!

“John Carter” tells me that… there’s a dude named John Carter in the movie.

Andrew Stanton is stupid.

The book is silly by today’s standards, and the trailers for the movie certainly didn’t inspire me to want to see it.

I read all the books when in 8-10th grade. The books were great. I’m pumped about the Movie! Woola, Tars-Tarkas and the GREAT WHITE APE! Woo-Hoo! Edgar Rice Burroughs, Way before there was Han-solo, John Carter was Rocking MARS!!!

So the 100-issue Barsoom pulp had plenty of titles across the board from 1912 to the 1930s and it was popular enough to survive and for a movie attempt to be made several times since the 40s to now. Yet in 2012 the title is enough to kill it?

I’m excited about this movie. My mom is excited about this movie. Most of the few hundred people that listen to my podcast are excited about this movie.

It was “The legend of Zelda”, completely different implications. But true that, in a way, a lot of people to this day think that Link’s name is Zelda, as per the new marketing campaign.

A Princess of Mars is the title.

Remember how Hollywood wanted to change “The Two Towers” title post 9-11? 
the title is the title.

How are people not CLAMORING to see this movie!? ANDREW MOTHER EFFIN’ WALL-E STANTON is directing this film. They should have put his name upfront and people would instantly be excited.

and yes. i will see it.  loved the stories growing up.  happy to give it a go.

Talk about over analyzing a title. “John Carter and the Princess of Mars.” There, if that doesn’t sound pulpy or reminiscent of an Indiana Jones film, you’re crazy. Freaking suits get paid too much to be this stupid.

I have always been in agreement that this movie should be called “A Princess of Mars.” I was dumbfounded by the choice to change the title…TWICE.

That said, I an a HUGE fan of the first three books in Burrough’s Barsoom series, and will see this movie. My fiancee is a similarly huge fan, and she is DYING to see this movie.

Andrew Stanton earned my trust with Wall*E, and Brad Bird’s “Mission Impossible 4″ cemented my desire to see this.

But yeah…changing the title was marketing idiocy at work. We’ll see if the trailers and billboards and posters bring ‘em in.

you took the words right outta my mouth

I agree , it pretty much made me cringe when i saw it .

I’m not a Sci-Fi fan, but it looked fantasy enough that I thought about seeing it, though from the previews it looked about on par with Prince of Persia. However, after reading about the substantial changes to the plot and characters in articles before this one, and now this article about the idiotic, sexist marketing strategies, I dare say I’ll wait to Red Box this one. If not wait until it’s on cable.

What would have been wrong with “John Carter AND the Princess of Mars”?  Just a guy’s names tells the non-Burroughs-loving public nothing.

I’ll be lame and admit it, I still wanna see it. I think there are a lot of things I don’t like that they did. But I’m a huge fan of Barsoom. I really wish they had kept it Princess of Mars or at least called it “John Carter & …”
But the nerd in me is gonna see this just like I went to see all three Star Wars Prequels. 

After seeing so many of the trailers that hyped this movie, my main thought was “Who the heck is John Carter? Did I miss some major pop-culture or something? How is this the movie we’ve been ‘waiting for’?” (As some other commenter mentioned, I briefly also thought this was a Terminator film as well.) I then did a quick Wiki search and found out this is “a popular novel from 1917″ and that Disney has had to “wait decades for the right script and technology to come along” Well sorry Disney, I think you may have really…really…missed the boat on this. Not only did the initial trailers not interest me but I think the “target” audience that enjoyed this early sci-fi is long gone.

As a lady who read the John Carter of Mars books when i was in my late elementary years, and who has read them again as an adult, i am very excited about this film. I’ve been excited since the moment it was announced, and excited since Andrew Stanton (an admitted fanboy of the series) was put at the helm. I was less excited when the name was changed, but i have so far ignored that while looking at all the stills coming out.

That being said, these are based on Edgar Rice Burrough’s lesser known pulp novels, so yes, there is sexist content, yes, the story is at time ridiculous, and yes the John Carter character is extremely hyperbolic throughout. But it could translate wonderfully into a summer action/popcorn film, since that is basically the motion picture equivalent of pulp novels.

But the marketing is so completely wrong for this. Its clear Disney has no idea what exactly to do with this property – they want it to be the next ‘Pirates of the Caribbean’ and so are trying to make everything as neutral and family friendly as possible. Which is clearly why Dejah is wearing clothes.

The trailers put me off, I didn’t even know it was based on something until someone told me. I thought the name was odd – John Carter? Is that trying to copy Harry Potter? Seems like Disney is trying to make their own Avatar, but market it like Harry Potter. From the trailer I couldn’t tell who was the bad guys, who was the good guys, and why the heck are there humans on an alien planet? I didn’t even know it was supposed to be Mars. Or that he was a war vet. Really? Seems to be like the trailer should have focused on the plot, not the action. Give us hints of the action and intrigue us with the story, don’t show just the best action sequences.

All I really got from that trailer was that it was a movie about a guy named John Carter who is fighting aliens and somehow he has crazy fighting abilities - I assume this is because the planet has a lower gravity, so he’s used to heavier things and has developed stronger muscles, and this is different than the denizens of that planet. But the movie didn’t say that. So I can really just assume this is all B.S. special effects without explaining the HOW, even though it’s sci-fi and you need a harder magic system (a.k.a. science) in sci-fi.

And it’s not just the title…from the trailer you have NO idea it’s actually about the princess.  My son and my daughters both want to see it, but they love action/fantasy stuff, regardless of gender. 

Watch the two trailers back to back, and you get the impression of a film that doesn’t know what it wants to be, and doesn’t really care.

I’ll be happy if I’m proven wrong, but this is feeling like a movie-by-committee.

 Me and the geeks I know(Male and Female) all want to see it.

Same here: as a lady who read ERB’s (and Robert E. Howard’s) books in my tween years I was so, so excited when I first heard about this project.  To me the biggest mistake they’ve made is casting: John Carter is too much of a pretty boy.  I’ll still go, but but my expectations have been drastically reduced.

I never read the books.  Is it as much of a white messiah story as the trailers make it seem?  It looks like Avatar, but not trying nearly as hard to disguise its racism.

 I have to agree with that. At first, when I saw the add all I could say is “What in the world is this about?” I was not amused with or intrigued by previews.

The name they chose to ‘appeal to more people’ kinda is terrible but the film has possibilities I might go see it just out of Sci-Fi nerd loyalty to the genre which has convinced to to watch considerably worse films I’m sure. 

I was interested in this when I first heard about it, because I like Andrew Stanton’s other movies and obviously I’m a huge geek, although I’ve never read the Burroughs books.

Then I saw the trailer… and I’m no longer interested. It looks like yet another movie about the Heroic White Guy who comes in and Saves the Natives. Didn’t we just do this with Avatar? I mean, come on. I would like another plot, please.

Still don’t know what it’s about but based on this article, I’m going with Pocahontas in Space. 

Just gonna throw this out there, didn’t even know it WAS  scifi until I read this article. Just based on seeing the previews, it looked like yet another heavy effects, no actual plot, lots of sexism and swords kind of thing. Not my bag. Now actually knowing what its about I’m mildly interested. So… well done advertising for ramming that last nail in the coffin. 

Having read the books, I am really excited about seeing it with my husband, and were our children older (being 4 and 2) I would totally be bringing them. I loved the books, and we’ve been waiting to see this since we first heard about it hoping that they would actually do the books justice unlike some… and yah, I’m a girl.

The teaser trailer was good. The following ones allude to Mars destiny being tied to Earth  (Mars is in bad enough shape in the novels, literally dying, so who cares about a thriving Earth’s destiny?) and that was not anything I read in the stories. Maybe it’s a context thing. The name change also doesn’t help when the arrogant and defiant Dejah Thoris, no longer being the focus in the title, but is also portrayed as some breathy damsel yearning for her savior that trailers seem to portray her as doing. It’s bad enough that everyone’s wearing so many clothes but the huge tattoos are over-kill. There’s enough going against this film and I’m starting to have second thoughts about seeing it after initially being intrigued. The newer trailers are burning this film. If they’re a true reflection of the film it’s probably going to flop.

By the way, reading people’s reactions to the trailers is a clear indication that many are not getting the point of John Carter. He’s NOT the savior (his near superhuman strength is the result of being an earth man on a lower gravity world and not white guy superiority). He’s simply a great catalyst. The Martians appreciate his rallying skills to create allies from ancient enemies. The trailers are failing to portray this. Does this film deviate so far from the source material? Or are the editors dropping the ball? Also, Kitsch could have gotten some sun to go with his weight training and physical conditioning for the role. 

A book that was published a century ago has different views on race and gender from modern times? Huh, who’da thunk it.

The book was first published in 1917 after being serialised in 1912, back in the days of Jim Crowe and miscegenation laws. Avatar was released in 2009.  Frankly, Avatar has less of an excuse for its White Messiah Story than an Edgar Rice Burroughs novel.

John Carter – Harry Potter

Yeah complete rip off. . . .

Racism? WHAT RACISM!?!?!?!

Tall green men and flying airships aren’t sci fi at all.

From what I gathered it was just another studio rom-com.

It’s a known fact that Edgar Rice Burroughs time traveled into the future and stole the plot from Avatar.

please.

The title could be called “John Conner and the Cripple Blue Native” for all I care as long as the movie is good. And it WILL be good, you would know this if you did ANY research on all of the amazing collaborators behind this project.

You just made an cliche Avatar joke that was old 2 years ago. About a story that couldn’t be more different than Avatar.

God.

Dammit.

Yes, literary history is silly.

Shakespeare is silly too.

This entire article is so wildly inaccurate with it’s ‘facts’ and ‘statistics’ that I find it hard to take any of it seriously at all.

Having cut my literary teeth on Jules Verne and Edgar Rice Burroughs when I was just a wee lass, I actually want to see how they translated the story for modern audiences  (Although admittedly I always imagined myself as the hero instead of the heroine because the heroines in the original books were rather one dimensional and damsel-in-distressish).  I am keeping my expectations moderate, not quite daring to hope that it will be good.

Hey, nobody tied Andrew Stanton down and forced him to choose this overdone plot.

As far as I know, anyway. I can’t say what goes on at Pixar.

Just call it Barsoom, if and when they make a sequel call that Barsoom 2 and so on, simple and mysterious.

I promise you, this movie was not made by committee.  This is one man’s vision of his favorte boyhood book.  However, the marketing IS done by committee and we see where that’s getting us.

Well first off Tim Riggins isn’t in this movie.  Tyler Kitsch is.  Strong female role?  Yes.  See Dejah Thoris.  She kicks ass!

The plot of this film spans several of the books.  Mostly the first three.  Things got rearranged for dramatic and cinematic effect.  There’s a great interview between Harry Knowles and Andrew Stanton about this.

I’m just disappointed that this movie is getting almost a cut and paste of Prince of Persia’s marketing. PoP wasn’t that bad of a movie, but the commercials did not appeal to me at all. Same with John Carter. I don’t know who he is, I don’t know the original material, but I do know I have no desire to see Prince of Persia in Space.

I’ve never been more disinterested in seeing a fantasy/sci-fi film EVER, and basically, fantasy/sci-fi movies are about the only films I ever get excited about seeing. This was before I found out the story behind the name-change. Then when I found out why they changed the title of this, my disinterest became outright disgust.

I try not to be too much of a hater, but I can’t help but feel somewhat delighted at this film’s failure.

I actually did like PoP more than I expected, but that’s possibly because I went into it with so little expectation.

Oh, Mr. Stanton, I thought that was you. How nice of you to join us today.

I’m boggled to think that people decide what movies to see because of the title. Do they make their decisions while standing in line? I’m excited to see this because it’s Burroughs’ story and Michael Chabon is one of the writers.

I don’t think it was strictly the title. There were a lot of marketing factors at play. The disconnect between the title and the trailer when it first started coming out was kind of off-putting, particularly if the viewer didn’t know about the book in the first place, and tragically, that’s a lot of the audience.  Secondly, the trailer itself was so underwhelming. It didn’t excite people. It had these terribly generic shots and pans, and it was just–it was a mess. And thirdly, the bad press behind the name-change made it seem like the creators of the film would be fucking this up, because if they can’t even understand how people responded to the story in the first place, then how could they make a film that would do the book justice?

I don’t really care about the title (although “*Anything* of Mars” would definitely sound more interesting). What killed any desire I or my mom could have had to see this movie was ABC playing the same fucking ad for it during every single one of the commercial breaks on all of their shows on OnDemand. I’d never wanted to figure out a way to physically harm a movie trailer before, but then I sat through -that- 20+ times…

I know a lady who saw it at a pre-screening in January.  She said she and her entire family “loved it!”

Further proof there is no such thing as a feminist who’s straight: ‘Ewwwww, a movie directed by a MAN starring a MAN who has icky MAN parts; quick we must slander this film at all costs!!!!!’

Y’all make me ashamed to be female.

What?

I’m reasonably certain nearly every Star Wars movie, Star Trek movie, Lord of the Rings movie, Batman movie, Superman movie, Avatar: The Last Airbender cartoon, Muppet movie, and episode of Firefly were directed by men, and starred men with man parts and have been lauded by The Mary Sue; so, leaving completely aside the sexual orientation of the writers of this site, I submit that the entire premise of your statement is wrong. 

They lost me at ‘Mars’, honestly. So much is known now about the planet that the idea of there somehow being a hidden civilization there–regardless of the era on Earth in which the story is set–just struck me as too ridiculous to be worth my attention. Aside from that, the lead guy looks so generically handsome that he’s completely uninteresting, I doubt that the princess who should have been in the title will do much of anything aside from the occasional showpiece bit of action, and what I’ve seen in the trailers really doesn’t interest me at all–probably because the generic action hero dude is doing everything.

And all that leaves aside the fact that the novel was originally published in 1917. I’m sure that the whole ‘public domain’ thing had a lot to do with that choice, but seriously, how could the producers expect the audience to find any sci-fi with its origins in *1917* anything other than quaint, at best? If they wanted to pretend that humanoid life evolved on Mars, couldn’t they have at least used Ray Bradbury?

Finally, I’ve said it before, but I really wish that Hollywood would give us consumers some damn credit. My six year-old son, just as one example, freaking loves princesses. He thinks women are awesome in general and loves watching them do cool stuff. He loves the  new “My Little Pony” series more than the “Power Rangers” and has “Barbie and the Three Musketeers” among his favourite movies. My husband might not be hugely into princesses (me neither, in all honesty), but he told me he would have at least looked up the movie on the Internet Movie Database before deciding that it wasn’t worth seeing. 

 Doesn’t mean that makes it a fun read now.

Honestly, it’s like you wrote the film yourself. Is Disney paying you?

Theres a pretty red line between “Cliche” and “Classic”.
“Lord of the Rings” has been stolen from just as much as “A Princess of Mars”, yet they made film history.

“A Princess of Mars” is a classic, and bringing it to the screen has been a long time coming.

John Carter isn’t going to feel cliche, it’s going to feel classic.

“John Carter and the Princess of Mars” seems a bit overlong to me. How about shortening it a wee bit to “John Carter: Princess of Mars”?

You don’t really need to tell us that you’re ashamed to be female.

It shows.

 ”Is it as much of a white messiah story as the trailers make it seem?”  From what I read of the book, yes.  I have to admit, I didn’t continue after APoM, it was just too much messiah story … bleh.

It’s really not difficult to clear out the sexism/racism and make it more appealing to modern audiences.  It will be interesting to see how they do that, if they do. 

I have been waiting for many years for this film to be made. I read that 250 million dollars has been spent on it, but why are they releasing it in early March? Between January and the end of April all the “bad” movies are released. meaning the studios don’t have faith that these films will make any money, or that anyone will want to see them. This has all the ear marks of a blockbuster. But the studio is dooming it to fail by altering the name, and putting it out in March. Such a pity. This is a classic story that deserves so much more than the lack luster fanfare it is being given.

It was written 1911-12.

I read the books and I’m seeing the movie, regardless of the name (it brings to mind the ‘why didn’t they go with Firefly instead of Serenity’ debate – meh).  I think they did an awesome job with Woola (<3  It's a pug/toad!)

I think they weren’t far off on changing the title, honestly. I was surprised to see how dismissive my guy friends were of the upcoming movies this year. They barely showed any interested in ‘John Carter’, I can only imagine how less they’d be interested if it had ‘Princess’ in the title. A lot of guys would probably dismiss it, even if they have wholesome attitudes towards women.

 You are dismissing all sci-fi before, what, 1970?  1990?  2000?  1940?  What gives?  You may want to widen your horizons a tad and check out HG Wells.  I hear he wrote a few things before 1917 that still hold some interest for folks today.

Life is too short for bad movies. 

 But…But…TIM RIGGINS.

The racism/sexism charge against ‘A Princess of Mars’ is a common misconception, much as Twain was long criticized for ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’.

Some of the antiquated terminology reads suspiciously to us, but that is merely the surface.

One of the core themes of Burroughs Mars series is equality among all races.  All are made to see past their differences, and question their preconceptions. 
Women are held in equal – if not higher – esteem than men upon Barsoom.   These books are, in truth, surprisingly progressive.   Certainly moreso than the makers of the current film – who have slunk away from the issue with an entirely caucasian cast.

If they had kept the A Princess Of Mars title I’d have been more interested in learning more about this movie. When I heard stuf about John Carter I didn’t know who that was and I didn’t really care. Then I saw a trailer which makes it look like another movie about a white dude saving a bunch of aliens and I lost more interest. What about the original books, are they worth a read? Are the story better than the movie is making it out to be?

I don’t think guys would be as dismissive of the Princess title actually. I think stuff like Star Wars & Star Trek have shown us that dudes like aliens. And dudes like hot alien women. A movie that might be about an alien princess on Mars? Simply change the marketing stratagy and I think dudes would at least be a little interested.

“Helium is proud to accept.” And if you know why, you’ll know why I’m going.

I’ve been impressed by the previews, so i’ll bite.  Good word of mouth could totally turn this around for Disney, if the film is strong.

Disney’s Marketing Department is out of control and out of touch. I’ve come to the conclusion that when they manage to make anything look good, it’s completely by accident. They’ve gotten too used to trading on the Disney brand name and assuming that alone will bring in the crowds. But the company has produced a lot of heavily publicized stinkers in the past decade or so, and marketing a Disney film is no longer a matter of simply not alienating anyone, as this retitling proves. They have to actually work to draw people in.

And stop, you know, making stereotypical assumptions about what various market segments will be interested in.

Would Hunger Games qualify?

It’s the same basic structure as the Harry Potter titles, and no one worries about those being too long.

not to mention one of the legend of zelda games is called Twilight Princess

I immediatley thought of Terminator as well which isn’t good because if the movie is as mediocre as it looks I’m just gonna be sitting there wishing I was watching Terminator 2.

Am I the only one who hears “Pocahontas in  space” and thinks “awesome!” ?

It has Dominic West in it – that’s reason enough for this woman to want to see it x

The trailers have been slightly intriguing to me, but I agree with many that Princess of Mars is a more interesting title. I’ve been thinking about renting the movie when it comes out because I have a toddler and just don’t go see films in theaters anymore. Reading this article and the comments, however, have me thinking I might actually enjoy this film.

lol best title ever

I didn’t reject it completely. I’m cool with liking what I want to even if society tells me “that’s not cool”. I thought that’s what being a geek was

first of all… what a sad way to nearly completely discredit a legendary author and story.  secondly… what on earth (pun intended) would have been wrong with using the book series’ name of “Barsoom” for the title?

I must admit.  I’m a fan of the books — They aren’t exactly female friendly even if Dejah is a main character and there is the awesome Sola (another female character).  It’s a typical pulp and a very early one at that.  Dejah is a damsel in distress quite a few times and John Carter has to save her with his magical powers bestowed once he is on Barsoom/Mars. That being said — it’s a fun read and I’m still a female excited to see it.  So not all females reject John Carter (yet.)

Agreed Andrew Stanton, Michael Chabon!  And I love that not only is Pixar working on the animation but Tars Tarkas is going to be voiced by Willem Dafoe!  I can’t freaking wait to see this.  I loved the sneak peak trailer best with the wonderfully bittersweet “My Body is a Cage” — so fitting for John Carter.

They should have called it ‘John Carter:Warlord of Mars’…the same title that the comicbook series by Marvel in the 70′s had.  I’ve read the first book in the series, and though it was written in 1917, it was way ahead of it’s time. The imagery still works today, though, from what I’ve seen in the trailers, the look they’ve gone with doesn’t seem that dissimilar to ‘Attack of the Clones,’ the 2nd Star Wars prequel. I also feel the Tharks (the four-armed green aliens) are much too cartoonish looking.

When I first heard this movie was being made, my interest was piqued. I love the space opera genre, especially Star Wars. Specifically, I love learning about the ins and outs of the genre which became my favorite film trilogy through some post-modern, New Hollywood re-imagining, When I heard there was going to be a straight up adaption of a turn of the century “planetary romance” (set on Mars!,) I was looking forward to some cheesy space fun. Then there was the title change, and the complete lack of well done advertising, the seeming refusal by Disney to embrace what the film actually is, and the bit where I was told that I must have been mistaken in my initial interest, because I’m a girl. The people behind John Carter have no one  to blame for these numbers but themselves.

http://tinyurl.com/8a4vnr5

Of course. Riggins in a chest harness.

Honestly I keep thinking it’s John CONNOR and then I’m just disappointed it isn’t in the Terminator franchise.

I don’t know who the guy is, but from the looks of it, he can eat crackers in my bed anytime.

Seconded.

I think you’re slightly confused, but I know the Marvel series you’re talking about.. The series you’re referring to is “The Warlord”. The title character wasn’t John Carter, it was a guy named Travis Morgan, a guy who got teleported to the alien world of Skartaris. Artists often depicted him on the cover with a winged helmet and a sword, yes? Anyway, yeah, it ran from 1976 to 1988.

Taylor Kitsch
 In German and Yiddish, kitsch means “trash,” especially “gaudy trash.” American English probably borrowed the word from Yiddish rather than German. See YIDDISH WORDS IN AMERICAN ENGLISH.” 

 I’ve read “The Time Machine”; it was fun. But that doesn’t mean it transcends its era, which it doesn’t.

As for what gives? Well, time does. As in, time goes on. Things that were fantastic back in 1917 or 1940 or, yes 2000, don’t always resonate beyond their moment. Some stories themselves are universal enough to have ageless appeal, but that doesn’t mean the way the story was written does. Sure, the story of the outsider who ends up saving the group they unwillingly or unintentionally end up in will likely never get old. But take that story and fashion it around a guy who gets miraculously transported to Mars where there’s a humanoid civilization and yeah, I’m not going to be interested.

 You really think that feminists are a) all Lesbians and b) all man-haters? Seriously?

Wait–the 1950s called; they want their bigot back.

Agree with KWDragon.  There is an awful lot of scifi and fantasy fiction set on an habitable Mars pre-Mariner and Viking programs.  I think Taste_is_Sweet may have wandered onto the wrong site?  This is a geek site, afterall…

I’m giving this movie the benefit of the doubt because it’s helmed by the director of Finding Nemo and WALL-E. 

You make me ashamed to be human.

I strongly suggest you get more from the hot inter-racial dating club” BlackWhiteFriends.℃0M ” where LOve is color blind and you can meet many cute babes, both black and white and try more……kljhjhjk

Hey Aaron – Actually, I believe you’re confused on this one…lol…The Warlord was indeed a comic series, but published by DC and drawn by Mike Grell. 

Yes, that had nothing to do with the Edgar Rice Burroughs books, but the series I was referring to, was indeed based upon the books…specifically ‘A Princess Of Mars.’ Some of the art was by Gil Kane. I have almost all the issues of ‘John Carter:Warlord of Mars’ (and a few of the Mike Grell DC series.)  It only ran from 1977-1979 for a total of 28 issues and 2 annuals.
This is the DC series, ‘The Warlord,’ which you are thinking of:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlord_(comics)

And this is the Marvel comics series,’John Carter:Warlord Of Mars,’ based around the Burroughs novels. (the action for the most part actually takes place between the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of chapter 27 of ‘A Princess Of Mars’).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Carter,_Warlord_of_Mars

Yeesh, what an idiot.

Who the hell judges a film by a trailer? You’re a real smart critic.

Though the name is surely lacking, I have to say that was one of the best movies I’ve seen. Better yet, it had a princess of science, SCIENCE. A Disney princess of science?! That’s huge! She’s a professor trying to discover the secrets of the ninth ray. Also, as an astrophysics major, the detailing put into this movie was truly a delite. I saw Olympus Mons and the Tharsis Buldge. The landscape was incredibly accurate, and that not only did the length of time without water tie into accurate history, there was also several races on Mars, not just human, to create the illusion that aliens do not have just one type of face. Also, the princess could explain why Carter was so strong on Mars using science. As for it being a flop, critics are localized. I work at a movie theater so movies are my business. John Carter made its budget and more overseas (basically everywhere but the United States). As for the critics saying it was boring, it does have a lot of information because they’re assuming you’ve never heard anything about the books. The critics who rated it were most likely too busy playing with their iphones and missed important information so instead of looking like idiots said “It’s too long. Too slow.” If you like Lord of the Rings and watched all that walking you have no excuse for not watching John Carter. (Not to be misconstrued, I am a fan of LOTR as well.) Also, I saw both Hunger Games and John Carter. Movie rating: Hunger Games: 3.5/5 John Carter: 4.5/5. With Hunger Games, since I haven’t read the books, I had to assume certain people were connected because it wasn’t stated, I guessed either by race or looks they gave each other. Ex: Why did the other guy care so much about Rue to avenge her death? Sure they’re from the same district, but other people from the same district couldn’t care less about each other. Also, are you seriously going to tell me that same bad ass guy who smashed some girl’s skull in for taunting Katniss about Rue was killed dishonorably at the end by a dog, without the fight even being seen? That devalues his entire character, making him seem incredilby unimportant and making me wonder why if he was so strong he died so easily. But back to John Carter, yes, it should have been named “A Princess of Mars,” no it’s not a flop, and yes it is worth seeing if you deem yourself a nerd in any sense of the word.