|
Post by kesher on Jul 14, 2011 10:45:39 GMT -6
In a word: AWESOME.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 10:57:55 GMT -6
It looks good to me! My only thought, and I've never been one for gratuitous nudity, but ... Deja Thoris is wearing clothes!
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 14, 2011 11:09:48 GMT -6
Well, if you filmed it the way the book is written, you'd only be able to watch it in Europe...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2011 11:17:04 GMT -6
LOL! Good point but I think it would kind of cool to see a Disney film with boobies.
|
|
Azafuse
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Posts: 245
|
Post by Azafuse on Jul 14, 2011 11:53:40 GMT -6
Awesome trailer.. I can't wait for it. LOL! Good point but I think it would kind of cool to see a Disney film with boobies. It already exists: Mickey Mouse's Fantasia. In that 1940 animation movie, Chernabog - aka Satan - summons different naked female spirits/monsters, like harpies with clearly exposed nipples. ;D Also, in 1989's The Little Mermaid there's a tower in Neptune's underwater castle reminding Ron Jeremy a lot. So, if Disney is not porn.. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 14, 2011 11:58:33 GMT -6
The preview was interesting, although not quite as close to the original stories as I'd hoped. Still, some John Carter is probably better than no John Carter, right?
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 14, 2011 12:12:22 GMT -6
I dunno, this looks to me like it's going to be a pretty faithful adaptation (stressing, of course, the word "adaptation"...)
Even from that trailer, I got a sense of love for the source material.
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jul 14, 2011 12:31:44 GMT -6
*groan* Another abomination. I have to put up with a Faux-nan trailer on TV and an ersatz Princess of Mars. What a sad time we live in.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 14, 2011 12:48:37 GMT -6
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...)
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 14, 2011 13:48:20 GMT -6
I **HATE** unfaithful adaptations (i.e. LotR), but I don’t see anything objectionable so far in this vague trailer. It looks good to me.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 14, 2011 15:50:12 GMT -6
I don’t see anything objectionable so far in this vague trailer. 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.
|
|
|
Post by murquhart72 on Jul 14, 2011 16:28:14 GMT -6
I like the airships, their "wings" look like the streaming banners described in the books. There are plenty of logical arguments against Martians running around nekkid too. The Green Martians aren't dead on, but that's a REALLY hard look to sustain in a film. It all looks really great to me and about as faithful as a Walt Disney (or Hollywood for that matter) production could ever be. I can't WAIT to subject my GF to this ;D
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jul 14, 2011 17:12:59 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by Morandir on Jul 14, 2011 20:12:38 GMT -6
Like anyone else I have my quibbles with this, but it looks like they're sticking pretty close to the story, which is a big deal for me. So I'm excited for now.
|
|
|
Post by thorswulf on Jul 14, 2011 21:35:53 GMT -6
Looks pretty cool to me!. Sure Hollyweird never gets anything 100% right, but at least they are trying fairly hard not to completely f.u.b.a.r. the thing.
|
|
|
Post by Falconer on Jul 14, 2011 21:38:14 GMT -6
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?).
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 15, 2011 7:38:04 GMT -6
Hah! I absolutely buy that!
|
|
|
Post by DungeonDevil on Jul 15, 2011 13:48:09 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 15, 2011 14:37:19 GMT -6
Okay, THAT one I agree with wholeheartedly!
|
|
|
Post by tombowings on Jul 25, 2011 14:56:47 GMT -6
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. Wow, that really hits home for me. Well Put.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 25, 2011 19:06:28 GMT -6
APoM is a romance novel written from the man's perspective. Aw, and I liked the book until you said this. Romance novel? We need to turn in our Man Cards.
|
|
|
Post by badger2305 on Jul 26, 2011 8:11:48 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Jul 26, 2011 11:32:51 GMT -6
What debate? It was obviously Tom Baker. And his scarf.
|
|
|
Post by Finarvyn on Jul 26, 2011 13:40:04 GMT -6
What debate? It was obviously Tom Baker. And his scarf. Tom Baker all the way! I had no idea there was a debate on this.
|
|
terje
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Blasphemous accelerator
Posts: 204
|
Post by terje on Nov 30, 2011 12:51:49 GMT -6
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 30, 2011 13:17:21 GMT -6
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.
|
|
|
Post by warrioroffrobozz on Nov 30, 2011 15:54:56 GMT -6
I **HATE** unfaithful adaptations (i.e. LotR), but I don’t see anything objectionable so far in this vague trailer. It looks good to me. Unfortunately it's lucky for most movies to be even half as faithful as LotR.
|
|
|
Post by rsdean on Nov 30, 2011 17:05:26 GMT -6
...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.
|
|
|
Post by crusssdaddy on Nov 30, 2011 18:05:56 GMT -6
I liked the first trailer a lot more.
|
|
terje
Level 5 Thaumaturgist
Blasphemous accelerator
Posts: 204
|
Post by terje on Nov 30, 2011 19:15:08 GMT -6
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.
|
|