• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

John Carter

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
3-D was great.

Story confusing. What was that about a 9th ray?? Then inside that island thing they visited, did the "9th ray" somehow relate to the 9 planets lit up in the floor map? Didn't understand.

Female lead = pretty eyes, bust just plain way too old to play a hottie. If the same chick 12-13 years ago, then yes.

We pretty much had the whole theater to ourselves.
 
I thought the movie was barley tolerable. I didn't go in with high expectation and got pretty much what I expected. I don't exactly have any reason to want to watch it again though.
 
dave_the_nerd said:
What are you, 18? She's gorgeous.
Click to expand...

And if he is 18, she's old enough to be his mom. It's an action movie and it's largest demographic is probably teenage boys. Her role in the movie is to be attractive, and I don't think that works out as well when the actress is old enough to be the target audiences mother. She's not an action star, or a big name, and I don't think anyone is going to see John Carter for the acting. So it's all about sex appeal, and in that she fails for their target audience.
 
BladeVenom said:
And if he is 18, she's old enough to be his mom. It's an action movie and it's largest demographic is probably teenage boys. Her role in the movie is to be attractive, and I don't think that works out as well when the actress is old enough to be the target audiences mother. She's not an action star, or a big name, and I don't think anyone is going to see John Carter for the acting. So it's all about sex appeal, and in that she fails for their target audience.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

She is attractive for an almost 35 y/o. I would certainly have many a fun night with her and wouldn't kick her out of bed. That said, she does look like a mid thirties MILF more than a super hot young female actress/model. Which I don't mind, but her role in this movie was to play a scantily clad "bimbo" of a chick and I think she was miss cast for the role as well.
 
BladeVenom said:
And if he is 18, she's old enough to be his mom. It's an action movie and it's largest demographic is probably teenage boys. Her role in the movie is to be attractive, and I don't think that works out as well when the actress is old enough to be the target audiences mother. She's not an action star, or a big name, and I don't think anyone is going to see John Carter for the acting. So it's all about sex appeal, and in that she fails for their target audience.
Click to expand...

He's not even four years younger than her.

KT
 
I thought the female was extremely well cast. She's a strong leader who is very capable and confident. I thought she fit very well.

I myself was actually really entertained by the movie. I liked the art direction, and action. I enjoyed the story. It's not deep by any means... just fun.

After watching the movie, I felt the movie was poorly marketed
 
tmc said:
is this movie ok for a 8 year old boy? planning to go this weekend.
Click to expand...

Some horrifically mutilated alien bodies and they kill their weak young. They're anthropomorphized but they aren't people, so it may or may not have an effect on the kids.

ringtail said:
3-D was great.

Story confusing. What was that about a 9th ray?? Then inside that island thing they visited, did the "9th ray" somehow relate to the 9 planets lit up in the floor map? Didn't understand.

Female lead = pretty eyes, bust just plain way too old to play a hottie. If the same chick 12-13 years ago, then yes.

We pretty much had the whole theater to ourselves.
Click to expand...

Distracted by the 3D or low attention span? They didn't even have to point out that their technology was solar-based. Everything had lenses focusing light and such and they talked about not being able to maintain altitude at night. Their technology was based on the 8 rays of light they were aware of while that God-like race was a civilization that discovered a 9th ray long ago and used the tech to ensure that the remaining civilizations would never attain it. Their abilities were simply technological and part of what the 9th ray allowed. When the books were written, physics of light and matter were not nearly as well understood as they are today, hence this 8+1 "ray" stuff in the science fiction. It's surprisingly parallel to our knowledge of the subatomic, radioactivity, and the nuclear bomb that goes hand-in-hand with it, considering that it was written so long ago.
 
Doppel said:
One of the dumbest names ever for a sci fi action movie, might as well have named it tree trunk or something else forgettable, whether based on books nobody has read or not. Reviews indicate it's probably half decent, but nothing great. The premise sure sounds absurd to me and a lot of others it appears.
Click to expand...

I don't understand why they didn't just title the movie with the book's name: A Princess of Mars. Maybe that sounds too girly for an action movie, in which case they could have called it "John Carter and the Princess of Mars".

I read all of those books years ago when I was a kid. I enjoyed them but barely remember the stories and wonder what I would think of them today.

I do wonder, what the hell was Disney thinking by investing so much money on this project? Yeah, it's based on a series of books, but those books are pretty obscure and few people today would have read them. If they had strictly set a budget of $75-100 million for it they would have been much better off.

I agree that the trailers for the film were really awful.
 
Last edited:
It doesn't seem to be a total flop; it's up to 254.5 million worldwide gross so far. I'm not sure about movie economics, but they'll probably profit all said and done at least?
 
Eli said:
It doesn't seem to be a total flop; it's up to 254.5 million worldwide gross so far. I'm not sure about movie economics, but they'll probably profit all said and done at least?
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking. Get the movie out on disc fast and see if you can sell it for a good price. Hell, if it sells for $15-20 on Blu-ray at release (preferably $15), I'd probably buy it.
 
Eli said:
It doesn't seem to be a total flop; it's up to 254.5 million worldwide gross so far. I'm not sure about movie economics, but they'll probably profit all said and done at least?
Click to expand...

international cut of ticket gross is much smaller than domestic, so it'll be a long while before they break even.
 
Eli said:
It doesn't seem to be a total flop; it's up to 254.5 million worldwide gross so far. I'm not sure about movie economics, but they'll probably profit all said and done at least?
Click to expand...

unpossible

254m worldwide gross = we haven't even recouped distribution expenses yet
 
Same reaction as I am when I first saw the trailer but I got a lil’ disappointed, with the casting I guess. I read news also that this movie flopped and Disney loses millions of dollar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top