It's damn convenient, though. I'm a die-hard hard copy guy, but having to leave my entire library behind because of a move, being able to put the entirety of Burroughs' output on the Kindle (which I just did!) is a pretty great thing.

I really enjoyed the movie and it definitely had that Burroughs feel to it, but I certainly wouldn't call it a translation of Princess of Mars as Andrew Stanton and company added a whole new race of badguys called Thurms who have magical abilities and have apperently manipulated the politics of Barsoom for centuries. It's kind of neat plot idea just not something that Burroughs ever used, or if he did I've completely forgotten about it as it's been about 30 years since I read them.

The movie is loads of fun and has a damn good cast. Well worth checking out.

It's a fun, light bit of pulp. I thought of Krull and Flash Gordon while watching it. Which honestly feels right. It was unashamed to indulge in the fun of being a pulp fantasy. So yeah, ultimately: it was a good movie IMO.

Sorry Mike, but you do need to check that one up to misremembering--the Therns (a.k.a. White Martians) were the main antagonists of The Gods of Mars and their role as secret manipulators of Martian society is straight out of Burroughs. Even their base appearance in the movie (bald, pale, and robed) is from the books--the only things Stanton changed are their shape-shifting powers, teleportation technology, and early appearance in the story (although it's clear he set them up in this film for a planned Gods of Mars sequel which will never occur).

More is the tragedy of that. I defer to those who may no better, but in the world of heroic pulp literature, did anything precede John Carter which deliberately worked in a cliffhanger ending and anticipated a sequel? Tarzan came after A Princess of Mars. So many of the aspects of modern pulp entertainment was pioneered by Burroughs that I find the condescension toward it from critics and the mishandled, unsure marketing of it from Disney to be deflating and irritating.

I find it especially irritating since we have had two movies that piled praise and affection upon the pioneering work of Georges Melies and awarded a movie that hearkened back to the silent movie as Best Picture. But no one can muster the same affection for the pioneering work of Edgar Rice Burroughs?

I don't know for sure, either, but the best place to begin a search for antecedents would probably be the penny dreadfuls of the Victorian and Edwardian eras. Nevertheless, A Princess of Mars was clearly unusual for putting a cliffhanger not merely at the end of a chapter (which was standard practice in the days when novels normally got their first exposure to public view via serial publication in magazines), but at the end of the whole book.

Just saw this. MINOR SPOILERS!

I would describe it as a perfectly competent pulp adventure, which sounds like a backhanded compliment but isn't meant to be. "Perfectly competent" is in fact something most modern blockbusters aspire to and fail. My point is that it's missing that extra spark that catapults a movie into real greatness, and of course the way this story has already been strip-mined for a century of pulp SF made the movie feel, inevitably, a little rote. But it's still a lot of well-executed swashbuckling fun.

The movie made excellent use of the Burroughs mythology, especially the Therns, who I found to be really boring in the books but are made nicely creepy here (and the shapeshifting aspect helped get around the disappointment of how there seem to be so many races on Mars that look exactly like humans). Of course, their motivations are pretty undercooked, though what was hinted at was pretty interesting--I didn't actually finish reading The Gods of Mars, was the idea that the Therns were pulling the strings on Earth too suggested by the books? The Tharks were amazingly done, and I'm so glad we had Pixar people working on them, since they're creatures who actually did have to be done in CGI. Woola was great. The juvenile cro-magnon in me was disappointed when it became clear that Dejah was going to be wearing more clothes than Frazetta's depiction of her, but having seen Collins in action, yowza. We have a new actress for nerds to fancast as Wonder Woman!

I really wish the script hadn't blown by so many interesting ideas, though. So much of the early going was wasted space, even if it gave us Bryan Cranston, which is always a good thing. I can see the thematic point they were trying to make, but that's screentime that would have been much better served getting us to Mars faster. Likewise, the romance is barely there in the script, and relies almost entirely on Kitsch and Collins' acting, especially Collins, who actually makes it sort of work through sheer charisma. Speaking of acting, though, Kitsch...is not that great. There's something amusing about seeing Kitch's "Grim and gritty" Christian Bale-style performance dropped into a generally lighthearted and even humorous adventure, but I prefer the idea that Carter is a gentleman, noble and compassionate, making his impact on the violent and brutal races of Barsoom somewhat touching. In a way, I've always thought of Carter as the anti-Conan for that reason. I would have like to have seen that explored. Of course, the movie didn't lack for ideas...there were almost too many, and most of them barely touched on.

Still, I've missed SF and fantasy being willing to be this sweeping and imaginative and weird. I miss respected actors in silly costumes, elaborate exposition about SF elements, and fantasy worlds that are detailed for the sake of being detailed. This movie's failure means we might not get another like this for a while, so I'll enjoy it while I can.

You nailed it: It just misses the spark to greatness but it's fun. I need to say this about Collins: she needs to jump to the A-list now. She held me from her first scenes where she starts speaking in a stilted manner then immediately breaks it to reveal a far more relaxed, real persona. She was one of the things I was least certain about but she absolutely nails it. And I doubted she'd convey the legendary sultriness of Dejah Thoris. I doubted Robert Downey Jr. would be charismatic enough for Tony Stark. Do not trust my first instincts.

Lot's of buzz ont he radio this monring about how Disnay is going to loss 200 million on this flick. Here were the talking points:

1. 250 million to make
2. 100 Million to promote
3. Earned about 50 million at the Box Office
4. Equals a loss of 200 million

Therefore, Bomb.

Of course, I have soem critiques of this standard assumptions. For example, they failed to discuss the ocverseas box office take. Second, the long tail could add to this films profitability. Again, we see the overrelianc eon opening weekend box office to determine a films ultimate success/failure.

Also, if Disney spent $100 million promoting this, they were completely ripped off. The only reason I knew this movie was coming out was I happened to see a poster at the theatre, and investigated it. Plus, this board helped. otherwise, I had no idea about this movie coming out, until the day before it opened, then I read a bunch of articles online.

Indeed. The first I heard that it was really, truly happening, and within the next couple of weeks at that, was when our own Beggar So's Hat popped in here to offer his thoughts on it. (Atypically for an American film, John Carter was released in the UK slightly earlier than it was over here.) The project had been mired in Development Hell for so long that I just assumed it was still there.

I've been seeing the trailers for months. Problem is, the trailers didn't give you a clue what the movie was about. It's as if Disney assumed we all knew the story.

Can't help but feel a little depressed at how poorly this did. Enjoy your Transformers and Men in Black sequals America...

Don't forget Teenage "Alien" Ninja Turtles.

John Carter may have bombed, but at least it wasn't made by Michael Bay. Then, it owuld have made a crap ton of money, and been atrocious.

I enjoyed it for what it was. A nice Disney remake of a great book. Taylor Kitsch wasn't really great, but he sure was worth looking at, from a girl's point of view

Yeah. It just so happened that I did know the story, more or less (allowing for faded memory). If I did not, the trailers would have given me no clue either. I guess it's possible that, in time, word of mouth will help, if the movie is actually good.