 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason John Carter bombed? It looked like a remake of Yor, the Hunter from the Future.
You obviously never saw both films. Or... damn, I fed the troll.
I guess you can't take a joke. Seriously on the surface they both look like Tarzan in space. Even if the general audience didn't make such a connection the fact is John Carter is antiquated, and wouldn't work literately in this day and age. That's why George Lucas updated Star Wars so it's esthetics fits the times, and didn't look like a 40's Buck Rogers serial.
"Aesthetics fits the times"?
In what way was this true with STAR WARS in the 70´s?
I believe your argument is just retro-fitting your opinion. JOHN CARTER - the movie - was nothing like TARZAN, and the story itself is nothing like it either. Unless you say: hey, the hero does wear skimpy clothes, so they are the same.
As already stated by some here, there are many reasons why JOHN CARTER bombed at the box office (poor marketing, very bad pre-chatter within the media who just loved to see a big Disney movie fail). The lack of interest in this film might mainly stem from people having already seen big chunks of that story in other films before. STAR WARS, of course, cannibalized it. And AVATAR had recently done so. JOHN CARTER just was released with bad timing. If it had come before the STAR WARS prequels it would have been embraced as a "return" to the kind of space opera-fun, I´m sure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jun 20, 2016 - 8:16 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Solium
(Member)
|
The reason John Carter bombed? It looked like a remake of Yor, the Hunter from the Future.
You obviously never saw both films. Or... damn, I fed the troll.
I guess you can't take a joke. Seriously on the surface they both look like Tarzan in space. Even if the general audience didn't make such a connection the fact is John Carter is antiquated, and wouldn't work literately in this day and age. That's why George Lucas updated Star Wars so it's esthetics fits the times, and didn't look like a 40's Buck Rogers serial.
"Aesthetics fits the times"?
In what way was this true with STAR WARS in the 70´s?
I believe your argument is just retro-fitting your opinion. JOHN CARTER - the movie - was nothing like TARZAN, and the story itself is nothing like it either. Unless you say: hey, the hero does wear skimpy clothes, so they are the same.
As already stated by some here, there are many reasons why JOHN CARTER bombed at the box office (poor marketing, very bad pre-chatter within the media who just loved to see a big Disney movie fail). The lack of interest in this film might mainly stem from people having already seen big chunks of that story in other films before. STAR WARS, of course, cannibalized it. And AVATAR had recently done so. JOHN CARTER just was released with bad timing. If it had come before the STAR WARS prequels it would have been embraced as a "return" to the kind of space opera-fun, I´m sure.
Just my opinion but I think it's reasonable to believe if Luke Skywalker was shirtless, holding a sword and jumping huge distances on Tatooine, Star Wars would have bombed. Aesthetics fits the times by creating fresh ideas that fits current sensibilities. In Star Wars we got the Lightsaber, opposed to a man in rags branding a medieval sword. Industrial designers were hired to create hardware based on modern technology. Lucas didn't fall back on cigar shaped spacecraft.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Jul 3, 2016 - 11:11 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
joan hue
(Member)
|
My husband and I went to see Tarzan as we were in the mood for a popcorn flick.
The Bad:
Too much CGI. (What did Johnny Weissmuller do without CGI?) At times the CGI was obvious and poorly done, but I admit that in places, it was effective.
Not enough spoken lines for Tarzan.
Christoph Waltz was effective as the villain in Inglourious Basterds, but he brings no new layers to his villainous shtick, and he is becoming redundant and rather ineffective.
The narrative didn’t flow. Someone, I believe, edited the film with a heavy hand. The narrative would jump to a new scene or story without explanation or transition which seemed confusing at times.
I understand a lot of it was filmed in England and that showed. I wanted more authentic jungle scenes.
The Good:
Places in the story did seem relevant to the whole issue of slavery and the European and American destruction of Africa for its diamonds.
I quite liked the music within the context of the story.
Jane was no victim. She was feisty and brought some feminism to her role.
Skarsgard was physically a handsome Tarzan. I just wish he’d been give more opportunities to act.
I doubt that the Samuel Jackson character could have even existed during this time, but he brought a bit of levity to the movie.
Hubby and I enjoyed this movie as a popcorn flick, an entertaining afternoon. (After viewing the retched new Independence Day sequel, this was at least entertaining.)
Most importantly, this dirty old woman had erotic dreams of Tarzan’s abs and shoulders. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most importantly, this dirty old woman had erotic dreams of Tarzan’s abs and shoulders.
Tarzan like Joan. Tarzan come for Joan tonight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dreadful. Sounds like a spoof score, poking fun at every cliché in today's film music.
.
Just caught the last 15 minutes plus end titles on HBO......
oh man did you get that right!!!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
..... so generic, as if someone programmed a computer to mix everything from the Zimmer clone-factory (not even Zimmer originals).
.
that too
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tarzan relied far to much on CGI, its a complete mess, it killed any chance of being a good movie.
looks like it was directed by the same guy who did the RDJ HOLMES movie
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
