"John Carter" - movie

ChrisMC · February 23, 2012, 03:15:43 AM

Yeah, I love it. Always nice to see a poster that's art, not a photoshop mashup.

Hal2001 · February 23, 2012, 07:26:32 AM

Great picture. I love alien landscape pictures.

The astronomy fan in me needs to point out the Phobos and Deimos would not appear as represented. Deimos would only be a spec of light. Phobos would appear a third of diameter of the sun from the Martian surface. Phobos appears to rise in the west and set in the east due to it's fast rotation. But stuff like that is boring. :old_bash:

Can't wait to see the movie. Looks like it will be fun.

ChrisMC · February 23, 2012, 03:05:40 PM

Quote from: Hal2001 on February 23, 2012, 07:26:32 AM
Great picture. I love alien landscape pictures.

The astronomy fan in me needs to point out the Phobos and Deimos would not appear as represented. Deimos would only be a spec of light. Phobos would appear a third of diameter of the sun from the Martian surface. Phobos appears to rise in the west and set in the east due to it's fast rotation. But stuff like that is boring. :old_bash:

Can't wait to see the movie. Looks like it will be fun.

I think for sure this movie is attempting to capture the feel of the old Burroughs book....which obviously has some inaccuracies. I really hope this is good, I remember loving the book as a kid.

Rico · March 08, 2012, 03:58:44 PM

This movie is getting some good early reviews. Going to try and see this tomorrow. Really looking forward to it.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=87586

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XavXWxqZvLY#

Rico · March 09, 2012, 04:05:24 PM

Saw it with my son Eric today and we both really enjoyed it a lot. It has great action, adventure, romance, and some funny moments too. A real, romantic adventure type of film, similar to the first "Star Wars" in a way. Well worth seeing in the theater. I'll talk more about it on the podcast on Sunday.

ricdude · March 09, 2012, 05:24:22 PM

@Rico: remotely appropriate for a 6 and 10 year old?

Rico · March 09, 2012, 07:00:13 PM

Quote from: ricdude on March 09, 2012, 05:24:22 PM
@Rico: remotely appropriate for a 6 and 10 year old?

I think a ten year old - yes. Not sure about 6. Would depend on the kid. There is violence, but no real bad language that I can recall.

Bromptonboy · March 10, 2012, 03:22:29 AM

That is good, I want to bring my kids to see this one with me.

WillEagle · March 11, 2012, 08:41:35 AM

I was hoping to see this this weekend but it doesn't look like it's going to happen. So next weekend for sure. Then the following weekend it will be the Hunger Games.

MARKO · March 11, 2012, 03:46:19 PM

Looks like it tanked

Rico · March 11, 2012, 04:51:40 PM

Quote from: MARKO on March 11, 2012, 03:46:19 PM
Looks like it tanked

I wouldn't say that. $30 million isn't great - but it isn't tanking either. I liked the movie a lot but rising ticket prices and the cost of seeing this in 3D for some people might be having a negative effect.

Bryancd · March 12, 2012, 06:58:29 AM

Well, the movie is being discussed this morning on CNBC as it relates to Disney. They spent a LOT of $ on this movie and all the research analysts are disapointed with the box office. Stock is up though, so in it's entirety it's not being perceived as a net negative for the company but Wall Street is looking at this movie as a big failure. They had a very expensive marketing campaign that really failed to give this film any traction with the mainstream audience they needed. It is, however, doing much better in Asian markets.

Rico · March 12, 2012, 08:52:58 AM

This is the type of thing that really bugs me. The movie has been out for three days. For an early March release, $30 million is not too bad. But I HATE all this frakking financial analysis by people who probably haven't even gone to see the film. When did the value of something that's an art form become simply about the money it makes? Or the sole measure of it's success? We just had the Academy Awards a few weeks ago. Most of the nominated films barely made any money. Are they failures?

Here's the biggest thing that bothers me about this. Because many people are drones and can't think for themselves they will hear things like this and read reports and feel - oh, that movie must not be any good. Come on honey, lets take the kids to see something else. One of things I try to do on the podcast just about every week is point out things to people that I feel are worth watching. I talked about "John Carter" for a bit on yesterday's podcast. Of course, these are just my views but at least I have seen the product and if you share the kinds of tastes that I have maybe I can interest you in seeing something you might have not seen before.

And YES - I know movies need to make money as do TV shows, etc. But I have loved and enjoyed many things that were over-looked and didn't do well at all. "Star Trek" comes to mind. All I can say at the end of the day, is if this movie looks appealing to you give it a shot. I really feel you will get a kick out of it. Besides, it has my new favorite movie creature in it: Woola!

John Carter - "Mars' Best Friend" Clip

Jobydrone · March 12, 2012, 09:15:42 AM

I think it's absolutely insane that some movies have such huge budgets that they have to make 100+ million dollars on its opening weekend to be considered a success. 30 million in three days considered a failure? Something is wrong with the industry. It's like these astronomical figures have lost all meaning to some people. If I think about it too much it makes me sad and crazy that so much money is tossed at these properties. Somebody should have known that 200 million dollars or more to make John Carter of Mars wasn't necessarily the greatest idea.

Bryancd · March 12, 2012, 09:17:15 AM

Quote from: Rico on March 12, 2012, 08:52:58 AM
This is the type of thing that really bugs me. The movie has been out for three days. For an early March release, $30 million is not too bad. But I HATE all this frakking financial analysis by people who probably haven't even gone to see the film. When did the value of something that's an art form become simply about the money it makes? Or the sole measure of it's success? We just had the Academy Awards a few weeks ago. Most of the nominated films barely made any money. Are they failures?

Because that's THEIR JOB. They are not film critics, they are not opining on the quality of the product as far as their own personal prefernece. In fact that's the entire point of analysis, to be subjective and not emotionally influenced. Their responsibility is to gauge and be predictive as to how this perfromance can have an effect on the parent company, not to say it's good or bad art. As to how their analysis may or may not affect box office, que sera. Although $30 million is a decent amount, based on the cost of the film and it's marketing budget, it is well below expectations.