Maybe it's the way I've seen the old book covers, but the flying ships just looked creepy and not at all like I imagined them to be.
This is a ship of Barsoom!
What is this?
Kind of creepy. Just my two cents.
Maybe since creatures on Barsoom naturally have six limbs (green martians, white apes, thoats, etc), their ships were modeled after native six-winged birds (which have since died out?).
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Okay, my friend, don't just groan--explain the groan! I mean, "abomination" is a pretty strong word.
IMO, that trailer is anything BUT ersatz.
(I'm not trying to start a fight here, I just want to understand your objections...)
* The green martians looked little, if at all, the way I envisioned. Definitely not savage enough to instill dread. * The actress playing Dejah Thoris doesn't look suitably exotic and alluring enough. Several years ago I mentioned that she should be latina, perhaps Brazilian. Plus, too much kit for my Jasoomian tastes. * The desert of the American SW does not = Barsoom. * The airship does not even closely resemble the way it's described in the books. * The lead actor (Kitsch?) is rather anaemic-looking for JC. * The production company earned my contempt when they announced that they would not be employing the fabulous imagery created by Frank Frazetta, with the excuse that they found his art to be too 'outdated' or somesuch limp language. I'll stop there as the taste of bile in my throat is choking me.
EDIT: Also, the fact they changed the title from A Princess of Mars to John Carter shows Disney's/Hollywood's misogyny. The emphasis is shifted away from the object of his love and the very reason for the protagonist's epic struggles to return to her and rescue her from peril. Really APoM is a romance novel written from the man's perspective. It's about what we are willing to endure, what we are ready to sacrifice for the most beautiful woman on the planet. Can't get more romantic than that. With the name-change the Princess just becomes the peripheral love-interest who happens to be there while the hero is battling baddies.
« Last Edit: Jul 15, 2011, 3:39pm by DungeonDevil »
Joined: Jan 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 2,327 Location: New Hope, MN Karma: 93
Re: John Carter! « Reply #18 on Jul 15, 2011, 3:37pm »
Quote:
* The production company earned my contempt when they announced that they would not be employing the fabulous imagery created by Frank Frazetta, with the excuse that they found his art to be too 'outdated' or somesuch limp language.
EDIT: Also, the fact they changed the title from A Princess of Mars to John Carter shows Disney's/Hollywood's misogyny. The emphasis is shifted away from the object of his love and the very reason for the protagonist's epic struggles to return to her and rescue her from peril. Really APoM is a romance novel written from the man's perspective. It's about what we are willing to endure, what we are ready to sacrifice for the most beautiful woman on the planet. Can't get more romantic than that. With the name-change the Princess just becomes the peripheral love-interest who happens to be there while the hero is battling baddies.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
I've been a bit worried at the prospect of this film, but after seeing the trail I'm a little revealed. The Thark jarred by a little. But the visuals aren't too important to me. It's the spirit of the film that'll be the deciding factor for me.
Pretty much my thinking as well. One of the aspects of Peter Jackson's LOTR was that it did not match my own idea of how things should look, and for awhile I held that against the films. Then I realized that it was perfectly fine for Jackson to present his imagining of characters, place, and action - I could keep my own and that was okay. (Not sure if I'll ever stop shaking my head about the Bros. Hildebrandt versions - but that's for another post.)
I'm also reminded a little bit of the old debates about who was Doctor Who - was it Jon Pertwee or Tom Baker? People get used to the presentation they first encounter and later versions can seem jarring as a result.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,554 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
Re: John Carter! « Reply #25 on Nov 30, 2011, 2:17pm »
Nice trailer! I remain rather optimistic about it, and I really dug that they used LZ's "Kashmir" for the soundtrack.
I wish I could have seen it without all the fawning and gushing over the actor but that is modern society for you. I've got no use for the Cult of Personalities that has arisen.
Re: John Carter! « Reply #27 on Nov 30, 2011, 6:05pm »
...and since LotR was faithful enoughmfor me either, I'm usually restricted to seeing movies that aren't adaptations. For this one, though, I'm trying to keep an open mind.
Joined: Jan 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 103 Location: Sweden, umeå Karma: 6
Re: John Carter! « Reply #29 on Nov 30, 2011, 8:15pm »
I'm pretty sure the movie will end up quite far from the novel, but I try to think of it as "a sword n planet movie inspired by barsoom" rather than "A Princess of Mars faithfully brought to the screen". From that point of view it will probably be decently entertaining.