John Carter Review – Formerly of Mars

I’ve become more selective over the years with what media I purchase. A combination of moving too frequently, wanting to reduce clutter, and accepting the digital age. There are few Blu-rays/DVDs or video games I purchase on disc. When there’s a movie I choose to own (Avengers, Wreck-It Ralph), that means it’s pretty damn good, at least by my standards. I own “John Carter” on Blu-ray. I thought it was a fantastic movie that no one else saw.


Edgar Rice Burroughs invented the science fiction genre with “A Princess of Mars” in 1917. Many common place sci-fi elements had their inception here, much like fantasy with Lord of the Rings. I highly recommend any fan of the genre to pick up the books. They’re public domain and easily obtainable for free. Disney took the intellectual property (IP) and made the first live action film version with Andrew Stanton (WALL-E, Finding Nemo) directing. Sadly, like many tent pole films as of late, the budget skyrocketed, and the return was detrimental.

Carter, a former Confederate Army captain, is pursued by Union Colonel Powell who is trying to acquire his assistance in fighting the Apache. The two are attacked by the Apache, and hide in a cave that happens to be filled with gold. The same cave Carter had been trying to locate. A Thern (magical type people) appears in the cave. As Carter subdues him, he accidentally actives the Thern’s medallion which transports him to Barsoom (Mars). The dying planet is embroiled in a civil war. With a different gravity, Carter is much stronger and able to leap great distances, much like someone else in pop culture history.


Many years after it’s release, I saw the original “Amityville Horror.” I was bored watching it as it contained every horror beat and cliche I’d seen hundreds of times before. Halfway through I realized that this was the template that many horror movies drew from, the prototype. I watched “John Carter” with the same mindset. It’s easy to dismiss the movie as derivative sci-fi when it’s unfair to due so. This is the original. I have no doubt much of the inspiration for Superman came from John Carter, for example.

Two of the movies biggest problems were it’s title and marketing. The movie was originally intended to be called “John Carter of Mars”, though Disney decided to drop the “of Mars” part a few months before release. That made the title sound so generic that I doubt many people had any clue what the movie was. I can understand not wanting to call it “A Princess of Mars” as every movie besides rom-coms are required to have male leads (sarcasm). Naming it after the title character from a 100 year old story (original serialized in 1912), does little to entice your potential audience. Which leads into the marketing. Disney did not do themselves any favors with the promotional material. I knew what I was getting into, but I am not the typical audience. I needed to force a few people to watch this with me (I threatened to smash). They thoroughly enjoyed it afterwards, but I think this was indicative of people not wanting to spend money on something completely unknown (my friends watched it for free at home, and were hesitant with that).


Budget was a major concern. First time live action director Stanton reshot many scenes that probably didn’t require it. This quickly skyrocketed the budget, escalating the required return for profit. His methods work in animation, as it’s mostly little changes on a computer. With live action, each take costs money. Rumors abound that an extra $100 million was spent in reshoots.


“John Carter” is an excellent movie. Taylor Kitsch gave an amazing performance as the titular character, which sadly didn’t bolster his stock. Lynn Collins was powerful and sexy as capable Dejah Thoris (i wish more female characters were like her). Mark Strong was born to play villains, proving that point once again as Matai Shang.

Give the movie a spin. After, be sad that there won’t be any sequels. Then realize there are 10 more books in the series, for free (or $0.99 if you prefer formatting). Or pick up the Marvel comics.

See the movie in theaters? Tarzan or John Carter? Comment below!


4 responses to “John Carter Review – Formerly of Mars

  1. Do you really think marketing was the main problem? Yes Disney did one of their legendary turnabouts on the marketing, utterly failing to sell the film properly, but that was in part because the film is hard to sell. I know people who love this movie, but I also know people who HATE it, and watching it I can see why. You can’t expect the general moviegoing public to watch something in the midset of watching an anachronism. Most of the films problems come from adapting old material, and attempting to fit it into a modern hollywood format, and the marketing suffers from the same problem. I really like it, but normal film goers, often didn’t, and you can see this in the highly mixed reception.

    • Every movie has problems and critics. I’m not saying it’s perfect. Though this is a hundred year old story, I still thought it was very enjoyable and somewhat timeless given the setting. You’re right, you don’t need the mindset of watching a period piece (narrative wise) to enjoy this movie. Love or hate it, this could have been more successful with better marketing.

  2. Pingback: Movie Trailers: Jupiter Ascending, Godzilla | The Credible Hulk·

  3. Pingback: Comic Reviews: 10/8/14 – Avengers and X-Men AXIS #1, Batgirl #35, Birthright#1, Wytches #1, Batman #35 | The Credible Hulk·

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s