I agree, John Carter has a very simple plot. So how did the film makers botch it so bad?

They left out the most important part of the novels: They're all naked. If they can show Dr. Manhattan's blue balls, surely they could have done the same here. Oh wait... PG13...

They also could have cast somebody sexier as Dejah Thoris, but that's just my personal opinion.

what is the worst thing on that poster? Its that tiny little word above the massive name. That ruined this movie more than anything else. Same with Mars Needs Moms original book had a nice esthetic for both alien design and reasons but they had to add all kinds of BS to it for some odd reason. Whomever runs the IP department for Disney needs to be fired. Lots of bad decisions lately. I still don't get why Hollywood makes all these R comedies that are trash and yet smashes Horror and Action down for a Tween audience.

Wow, someone else enjoyed this? I thought I was alone.

Yeah, the dialogue flopped, and yeah, the plot was clunky. But it was a fun action film with great decisions and a compelling world. Not to mention the original novels are awesome.

>>33590

Seconded. Why couldn't they use Berkeley Breathed's designs for MnM? Retards.

>>33588

Agreed, Dejah needed to be fatter. Frazetta's women always, ALWAYS had junk in the trunk. None of this modern spray-painted-skeleton bullshit.

Exhibit 1: Dat belleh. Dem thunder thighs.

>>33592

Oops, wrong pic.

Fuck it, let's dump some Frazetta, shall we?

>>33592
>Wow, someone else enjoyed this? I thought I was alone.
A lot of people enjoyed it, actually! John Carter made BOATLOADS of money its opening weekend.

It's seen as a bomb because that was the media narrative that got spun out before the movie even came out, and nobody with enough exposure had the balls to say, "hold up, a lot of people went to see this movie."

The things that pissed me off the most about the reviews I read

3. The same reviewers that said the plot was difficult to follow gave high marks to Lord of the Rings. Um. What? If you can follow LotR you can follow this. It's a low bar, frankly.
2. The same reviewers that said the characters in this lacked much depth and character gave high marks to Cowboys and Aliens. For fuck's sake, seriously? Half the time they're almost the same characters.
1. By FAR the most infuriating, I came across several reviews that said the movie had "too many Jar Jar Binkses". What the hell does that even MEAN?!?!?

>>33587
>I agree, John Carter has a very simple plot. So how did the film makers botch it so bad?

Have you got specific complains, or just a general grousing?

I thought they did a decent job, all things considered. Almost 100 years have passed since Princess of Mars came out, there's inevitably going to be changes in making a movie. And the original story was a first person narrative, always a bit awkward to make into a movie. Also: it needs to be a movie, not a book, there's going to be changes due to that too.

>>33595
>The same reviewers that said the plot was difficult to follow gave high marks to Lord of the Rings. Um. What? If you can follow LotR you can follow this. It's a low bar, frankly.
Are you saying that because LotR's plot was complex, or because the movies told the stories poorly and in a confusing manner? Because while I don't much like Lord of the Rings (and consider it far too dry and lacking in intangible human touches to be seen as an apex of fantasy literature rather than just an Important Prototype of the genre), the story was told in a straightforward manner in both the books and the movies.

>>33596
I'm saying if you had an easy time understanding LotR, which name-dropped various warring races and dudes with odd names, with lots of history going on between the factions, then you shouldn't have had any problem understanding John Carter, which name-dropped fewer warring races and fewer dudes with odd names, and less history going on between the factions.

>>33588
Wow, I can totally see the pocket and sheathes on those women's harnesses.

No wait a second, I can't. Because they aren't wearing any. I guess they just store their knives up their buttholes, because clearing "Naked" means the same thing now as it did in 1917.

General conscientious seems to be that the people that actually watched it enjoyed it.

>>33587
How do you figure?

Aside from a general "book to screenplay" difference, the big changes were

* Dejah Thoris was smarter and less a Damsel in Distress (not that she was ever a complete DiD), which I have a hard time seeing as a problem
* Bringing in the Therns to be the big bad of a planned franchise of movies (seems like a good idea to me, to be honest)
* "However will I irrigate the land for my people?" isn't the big problem Carter faces at the end. Again, I'm leaning toward thinking that was a good call.

Seriously, this was a cool movie. Just bought the blu ray last night.

It won't be winning best screenplay, but it was a really really fun action adventure sci-fi romp.

I've got to agree that it's downright criminal that this got such bad PR that it won't get a sequel.

The naked part really doesn't matter.

It would if this were some kind of exploration of real world cultures, if this was typical white people being prudish even in the face of a real culture of women who didn't wear clothing with our sensibilities, but let's not pretend like that's a key or integral thing here.

John Carter is based of cheezy pulp schlock. Entertaining cheezy pulp shlock but pulp schlock none the less. The naked angle doesn't mean anything because we know what he meant when he said women were naked on mars. It had nothing to do with trying to show us racial parallels or to try and explain the faults in our prudish sensibilities. The naked aspect doesn't add or subtract ANYTHING to the plot. If you remove it and suddenly give women halfway sensible clothing then nothing changes. The nakedness isn't there to make a statement or to belay some parody with our cultural perceptions. It's there because "OMG naked ladies are hawt."

Another thing that annoyed me slightly were the Sci-fi ships. I would have expected some steampunk ships or blimps, or something like Jabba's sail barge.
That and the PG13 friendly exploding peoples guns.

>>33610
And making it so that everybody in the movie is, at least most of the time, wearing stuff that covers their sexual organs... you get a much more commercial viable movie.

Because a movie where everybody is naked for everything but the first and last 10 minutes of the movie would probably end up being classed as pornography.

>>33610
>"OMG naked ladies are hawt."

They ARE?!?

Goddammit, now I'm pissed they cut that. I didn't know that!

Sure is nsfw general in here.

sign the "I liked it" tally. It wasn't world changing or mind blowing, but it was fun and well done. And despite not following the original stories to the letter, I don't feel like they did anything that truly crippled it as a narrative.

>>33624
I've only seen a handful of uberpurists upset at the changes. The sort of people that wanted Tom Bombadil in the LOTR movies.

>>33623
Admit it. The story is perfect T&A material. Who doesn't like titties, asses or manly men? Conan the Barbarian showed off more than this.

>>33630
You do know that there's plenty of material available if you want to see video of naked people for two hours, right?

And that most theaters avoid even hard R rated movies, never mind the NC17 thing you're bucking for?

>>33637
but the difference would be that it wouldn't be played for smut in Prince of Mars. People are just naked and it doesn't mean anything sexual or seductive.

>>33638
Um, this is HOLLYWOOD we're talking about here.

>>33638
>Okay, we need to make a movie with a LOT of costumes and special effects, huge cast, four-armed CGI aliens everywhere, exotic locales, the main character needs to be jumping like he's superpowered ALL THE TIME. Got that?

Okay, that'll cost a few bucks...

>Also, we need everyone to be naked

Okay, um, no. We've not spending that kind of money on something as risky as an all nude movie. wtf.

>>33645
And that is why Disney should never have been let near this property.

>>33647
Dude. There isn't a non-porn studio on Earth that would make the all nude version of John Carter. There'd be NO WAY to make their money back. At all. Ever.

The higher the rating, the fewer the screens. The fewer the screens, the lower the box office take. The lower the box office take, the less money coming back to the studio. Producers only front money for movies that will turn a profit, and John Carter's Flacid Penis on Mars would open to like 47 porno theaters and then end up forgotten, after netting a spectacular -$240 million dollars.

>>33647
>Disney

No. You're talking crazy gibberish. This has NOTHING to do with Disney, and everything to do with the fact that you are living on Planet Earth. Maybe on MARS an idea like this would fly, but not here on Earth. NOBODY would do that, do you understand? The amount of money a decent John Carter movie would need is not going to be small (huge cast, lots of special effects, exotic locales needed to simulate martian terrain), and nobody with that kind of money would ever in a million years consider investing that moolah in an "All Nude Movie". You can stop blaming Disney for this, okay? They put in decapitations and a man stabbing a giant white ape and then stabbing more and more until he emerged from the other side. It's not a Disney thing.

>>33648
>Producers only front money for movies that will turn a profit.

The dread of every fanboy!