Troll Lord Games

Rather amusing that Disney of all people would pick this up, but it looks somewhat decent.

http://blastr.com/2011/07/1st-john-carter-trailer-g.php

Been hearing good things about it so far.

I didn't think Disney would go the distance with the actual dress code though. Pity.

Regarding the dress code, the site you pulled this from Pete fell into the same trap almost every modern reader of Barsoom falls into: changing definitions of words. In the article it mentions that Dejah Thoris was nude throughout the book, because of a line in the book noting that she was bare. Problem is that in 1912, bare meant "unadorned" (as in not wearing jewelry), not "unclothed". According to the scholars at the ERBZine, their research leads them to believe the females wore a harness similar in design to what the men wore, only the straps were a different width...wider I believe.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with Dejah Thoris being nude throughout the book, but that's me.

Traveller wrote:Regarding the dress code, the site you pulled this from Pete fell into the same trap almost every modern reader of Barsoom falls into: changing definitions of words. In the article it mentions that Dejah Thoris was nude throughout the book, because of a line in the book noting that she was bare. Problem is that in 1912, bare meant "unadorned" (as in not wearing jewelry), not "unclothed". According to the scholars at the ERBZine, their research leads them to believe the females wore a harness similar in design to what the men wore, only the straps were a different width...wider I believe.

Personally, I'm perfectly fine with Dejah Thoris being nude throughout the book, but that's me.

Oh, I know. I just didn't think Disney would go with the typical depictions is all.

I just think the juxtaposition of this particular movie with Disney is quite amusing.

It is a bit out of character for them given the subject matter...

Gaaaahhhhh! 3D! Another movie I'm going to have to pass on. I hope this 3D fad thing dies soon.

Sir Ironside wrote:Gaaaahhhhh! 3D! Another movie I'm going to have to pass on. I hope this 3D fad thing dies soon.

I've got to wait for stuff to come out on DVD anyway, so the 3d doesn't bother me. Movie plays just fine 2d on the DVD.

Theatre's are just too damn pricey to visit anymore.

Looks like I spoke too soon. Saw over on TMP the "fans" are already picking the trailer apart for not having red skies like the book said or the boats having feathers when none of the original art for the books showed this, etc.

More examples of the inability to enjoy a movie for being a movie.

Not to mention that the trailer is hardly the finished product. Red skies can be added in post production.

Or that movies of books are adaptations. Look to the first harry potter movie to see a movie that was too close to the book and suffered for it. (IMO)

Jay at Exonauts has tons of groovy John Carter links.
http://exonauts.blogspot.com/

I saw the fliers. I have no problem with the design. I'm curious though if the Green Martians are going to follow the general anatomy that ERBZine came up with to explain certain attributes that only the Greens can do.

Disney though may not have been the right company to put out this movie. In terms of capabilities they can do it no problem. But mindset? Sorry...they're too rated G for Burroughs rated R universe. I am wondering how Disney would deal with the material in Gods of Mars and Warlord of Mars.

I think they've had some forethought on that since the "Red" Martians are called that for their red tattoos, not their skin color, in the film. I'm going out on a limb to say that the same will be said for the White and Black Martians. ... If they even mention that the castes have different colors.

I guess that the Greens will be Green through and through.

On that note, the level of irony in Gods is like whole skillet and a half. It's obvious that ERB was trying to turn sterotypes on their head and inadvertently ended up right were he didn't want to be.

Which is exactly my point. Disney may not have been the best choice for this movie, because they are more into family films than anything else. John Carter, if it sticks reasonably close to the book, is definitely not family friendly.

The Tharks are going to be green, thin and lanky, with six appendages. All well and good, but I wonder if in the movie the Tharks are going to have tails. Reason being that the Tharks can switch between walking on two limbs, and walking on four, using a pair of arms. The ERBZine crew did some research into this topic and based upon their research determined that the only way for Tharks to switch like this would be if the center of gravity were located in the pelvis. In order to have the center of gravity be in the pelvis while walking on four limbs, you need a tail.

As for the tattoo thing, expect a lot more howling in disgust, because ERB fans simply will not accept Red, Black, White, and Yellow Martians that aren't red, black, white, and yellow.

I'm split down the middle, While I'd appreciate the nudity, the now unpoliticaly correct Gods would cause a spitstorm if kept faithful to the books. You might find yourself in the same situation as a lot of comic book fans who said, "Yeah, Hemidal should be Norse, but I'm not agreeing with an Aryan Supremacist."

Except Disney actually isn't off base on the nudity part, as I mentioned in my first post on the thread.

Traveller wrote:Which is exactly my point. Disney may not have been the best choice for this movie, because they are more into family films than anything else. John Carter, if it sticks reasonably close to the book, is definitely not family friendly.

Didn't Disney do Pirates of the Caribbean? I see a John Carter movie as being similar in style to those. Lots of action and attitude, probably not a lot of gore, cool special effects. I don't see that Disney is obviously a bad choice.

I wouldn't know. I haven't watched any Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Regardless, you could very easily be right. I'm not a Barsoom scholar like the source I've been referring to throughout the discussion.

Is the movie released under the Disney name or one of its many labels, like Touchstone? I think that, whether Disney decides to stick its own name on the thing, makes far more difference than if a suit somewhere at the Mickey desk pushed the Go button.

But, that said, it has potential.

Not to me, because I don't care. But, to someone who wants it to succeed... or at least be interesting.

I thought that the preview trailer had the Disney logo on it, but I'll have to go watch again to be certain.

It does have the Disney logo, the castle and all.

The Pirates movies are good. More fantasy than historical. 3rd is weakest, but 4th supposed to be bad (in all fairness, I haven't seen it yet). 1 and2 were lots of fun and 3 good, but tasked with "wrapping it all up" so not as much fun, it's "doing the homework" so to speak. (like how jedi isn't as much fun as Empire, but it's still good).

((such thread drift, sorry))

For John Carter, I'm actually psyched now... I think I'll see the movie, then read the stories so see how its "really should be". but like any translation, there will be differences out of necessity, so I try not to stress out over them too much as long as the movie is true to the spirit of the book.

For example:
the telepathy just wouldn't work, so talking martians makes sense.
that said, if all the martians were to become little green men, that would be so wrong! The color thing, eh... if they really are supposed to be red, white, etc, that's easy to do correctly, so why not do it correctly? But I'd still go.

I mean, In Transformers, Bumblebee wasn't a VW bug and you all went, right?

Well, I just watched the trailer, and must admit I was a little disappointed. It doesn't help that I reread the series this last year, so the imagery from the books is still fresh in my mind. I felt the landscapes looked completely earthlike; the red martians are supposed to be red damn it. Not a big deal maybe, but I thought that was just really cool in the books. It made John Carter look weird and stand out among the Red Martians. The grittiness looks non-existent. But hey, in all fairness, it is a quick trailer, and the it may not have put it's best foot forward, so to speak. I will still most likely go see it, but man.....no red skinned martians? I know, I know, not a huge deal to most, but for some reason that really takes the wind out of my sails.

Piperdog wrote:but man.....no red skinned martians?

I'll bet it is for totally PC reasons.

I kind of like the idea of colored tatoos, but it's certainly not that way in the books.

I bet Finarvyn nailed it.

I really hope this is better than what ScyFy did a couple of years ago...
That was... was... so bad. Just, so, so, so bad.

I hope this is a fun fantasy movie, and that's all I'll ask from it. I have learned to let movies be their own thing seperate from novels or comics upon which they are based. It's the only way to enjoy such movies, IMO. I mean, look at Lord of the Rings. They got loads and loads wrong, but they're still enjoyable- just so long as you just forget the books.

The only time that becomes a real problem is when the movie makers just seem to say, "F*ck the source material, I wanna make a kids' and/or gay porn movie!" Such as we endured with Conan the Destroyer and Batman and Robin.

oh gods! THose are like Star Trek 5... we deny they exist!
LOL