Tars Tarkas, center, voiced by Willem Dafoe, and John Carter, played by Taylor Kitsch, right, in a scene from "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
Tars Tarkas, left, voiced by Willem Dafoe, and John Carter, played by Taylor Kitsch, in a scene from "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
John Carter, portrayed by Taylor Kitsch, and his pet Woola in "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
John Carter, played by Taylor Kitsch, Sola (Samantha Morton) and Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins) in "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
The city of Helium, also referred to as "The Jewel of Barsoom (Mars)," is the home of Princess Dejah Thoris in "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
Massive airships sail on rays of light on Mars, also known as Barsoom, in "John Carter." (Disney Enterprises)
Link
“Star Wars,” “Superman,” “Avatar” — for decades, Hollywood has found box-office treasure in fantasy science fiction epics about heroes adventuring in strange and mysterious lands. “John Carter,” director Andrew Stanton’s upcoming Martian war tale, is based on the 100-year-old Edgar Rice Burroughs yarn that helped inspire many of those stories.
The script by Stanton, Mark Andrews and Michael Chabon is adapted from the Burroughs novel “Princess of Mars,” which was first published as a magazine serial in 1912 and introduced the movie’s title character, a Civil War veteran who is astral-projected to the red planet. Upon arriving on Mars, known as Barsoom, John Carter (Taylor Kitsch) meets a fierce race of 15-foot-tall, four-armed green warriors called Tharks and a passionate, human-like princess named Dejah (Lynn Collins).
The $250-million film is something of a big bet for Disney, but Stanton, best known for directing the Pixar animated films “Wall-E” and “Finding Nemo,” said he had an aesthetic idea to distinguish his sci-fi epic from the many others derived from its source material.
“I love all those movies,” Stanton said. “To me they’re all movies from the same tree. How can I make this film so it can stand on its own? Taking a period approach, so you feel like it’s antiquated, I felt was the way out of that. I kept saying, I want a really great historical Martian film.”
Aiming for an antique feel, Stanton built tall ships in the sky, powered by manual labor and gliding on rays of light.
“I wanted that romance of the high seas, but it’s romance of the high air,” Stanton said.
Though his design sense was based on a bygone era, Stanton felt he had to update some of the series’ characters for more modern sensibilities.
“It’s written at the turn of the century — a damsel in distress, a guy swings in on a rope, that’s all anybody asks for at that time,” Stanton said.
In the 2012 version, Stanton said he endeavored to make John Carter a more complex, reluctant hero and to imbue Princess Dejah with a Shakespearean sense of duty about her planet. One character the filmmakers didn’t alter much, however, was John Carter’s strong but kind four-armed sidekick, Tars Tarkas, played in the film by Willem Dafoe.
“Anybody I had ever met that had read the book, that tended to be their favorite character,” Stanton said. “As a kid, you wanted to meet him, and you were kind of jealous that John Carter got to hang out with him. Tars Tarkas was one thing we didn’t want to mess with at all.”
“John Carter” opens March 9.
– Rebecca Keegan
RECENT AND RELATED
‘John Carter’: Andrew Stanton on Martian history
‘John Carter’ fan chronicles his martian fascination
D23 Expo: Disney says ‘Make Mine Marvel’
‘Tarzan and His Mate,’ the ‘Avatar’ of its era?
Tarzan and the jungles of time
Keanu Reeves looks for heart of ‘47 Ronin’
Ron Howard’s plan (and passion) for ‘Dark Tower’
Guillermo del Toro: Frazetta’s pantheon
Comments
Print
Read Later
Our legion of super contributors is led by Hero Complex editor Gina McIntyre and 
Ugh, this looks absolutely awful. But then again it comes from the director of Wall-e so this is not terribly surprising. It's a little scary that Disney bet a quarter billion on this guy, I think they are in for a very rude awakening here.
“Wall-e” is universally acclaimed around the world by both film critics and movie-goers alike. Not only was it critically acclaimed it was also a big box office hit. Disliking “Wall-e” puts you firmly in a tiny minority. The fact that you dislike it tells us more about you than it does about the film.
I don’t know what you have against Andrew Stanton but I detect an air of jealousy in your comment. You don’t like the fact that he has had both critical and commercial success with his previous movies and you don’t like the fact that he is getting the opportunity to make a huge movie, which is potentially the start of a spectacular new franchise.
James Purefoy said in a recent interview that in his opinion Andrew Stanton is one of the few geniuses working in Hollywood, and I have to agree. Although failure is always a possibility, and there is indeed a chance the film may flop, there is something that makes me feel optimistic about this film.
Your comment is similar to what many were saying before “Avatar” was released, and look how that turned out. When this film is a success, be prepared to eat Humble Pie.
Millions of people love Big Macs, Vegemite, and Kraft Singles, but that doesn't make them good.
Wall-e was disappointing to me. I left wondering what all the hype was about. Avatar..I could watch again and again. How about a wait and see? I guess I'm in the minority also because I'll reserve my judgement until i see it. You sound like such an angry person..Why attack Jeff for his opinion? "The fact that you dislike it tells us more about you than it does about the film." " You don't like.." seriously? I don't want to call anyone names but the words pompous windbag kept coming up when I read your post.
Avatar, and Wall-E were not that great. Star Trek had a plot that was far more refined, more so than a fat-demic, or a futuristic Pocahontas. :3))
It looks good to me. A lot better than that Tracy Lords thing that came out recently. Special effects are what is required here, and it looks like it has it. And as far as life on Mars is concerned. I thought of the portal as a door through time as well as space. I never considered that there was no life on mars. Now.
The John Carter stories were great. The film's trailer looks fantastic. Hopefully Stanton will give us well developed characters and a good story, both of which are far more important than CGI effects in the making of any film. Looking forward to seeing this one.
I have to disagree, Jeff. As a long time fan of the original works, I see a lot of promise here and I was very skeptical when I heard the project announced. I have some trepidation about modernizing the characters/story – that's always a risky endeavor – but the look of the film (including the casting) I think is fantastic. I can't wait to see it in a theater and count the days until March 9th. I'm easily as excited about this films potential as I am about "The Dark Knight Rises" and "Prometheus".
You listed the three films I'm excited about this year, and John Carter is at the top. I've read the entire series several times, and for me the trailers, even with the changes to the story, get the feel of Barsoom, at least as I envisioned it. Sure, the little snippets of dialogue aren't exactly memorable, but we're talking a few seconds out of 2+ hrs of screen time, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed. If some people want to slit their wrists because Kashmir was used or wasn't used correctly, or complain because the Green Martians aren't 15 ft tall, or Woola doesn't look exactly like Burrough's description, TFB. After all the bailing out of other studios, Disney came up with the money, and picked a director the producers haven't been able to push around. (If you haven't read it already, check out The New Yorker's Oct. 17 2011 piece on Stanton.)
Well at least we agree on the next installment of Nolan's Batman.
"a guy swings in on a rope" is a poor summary of Burroughs. Anyone whose read Burroughs (I recommend Tarzan Untamed as well as Princess) knows how breakneck the action is (these were serialized), how well woven it is into the emotional fabric, how daring the interplay really is, this trailer however gives me great pause with the Pixarization happening here. I'll hold my tongue further and pray the endless camera-mugging that occurred in a very thin Wall-E won't be employed here but the trailer looks plainly bad. And Gene, the look of the film resembles a copycat Geonosis, with the ringing, tinny, terrible orchestral Kashmir, and the boilerplate lines "this very night we will end it!" This is most likely Burroughs only in name. What a shame. We wanted John Carter and we got a former model who's also a nutritionist. Will Hollywood have to resort to cloning Steve McQueen to get some grizzled action heroes?
"And Gene, the look of the film resembles a copycat Geonosis"…shouldn't that be the other way around?
Lucas, Cameron, and dozens of writers, artists, and directors all read Burroughs and were influenced by A PRINCESS OF MARS.
" This is most likely Burroughs only in name. What a shame. We wanted John Carter and we got a former model who's also a nutritionist."
Wow. What a loaded statement. You haven't seen the movie yet, but here you are with this nonsense. And what do you have against nutritionists?
They've been trying to make this story as a film for nearly seventy years. Now, here we are, with the tech to make it and it's reaching the big screen finally….and all we get from the 'Net are moans and groans from hipsters.
I need a drink.
McKenzie: look at how Burroughs had his Princess illustrated. Even in black ink it never resembled Geonosis, so when I gaze at the trailer and see the arena lifted from Attack of the Clones, well, then, you can plainly see where Pixar is sourcing its design. All humor aside, the far too overrated FNL is a fantasy show populated by gorgeous, beautiful people pretending to have real problems, and the acting is more than uneven, it's sometimes eggregious, and it's heavily saved in the edit (how many cut-aways per big speech? too many). Taylor Kitsch is just a pretty boy, he can barely keep his accent on the road, it swerves into okie, alabamee and mississipi every other word. the guy simply can't do peril, he's not believable in the extremes, Burroughs would have laughed at him.
I know. I liked the guy in Friday Night Lights, the series, I had a broken leg at the time and my options were limited, but John Carter, I don't see it. I felt the same way about the trailer, it was rubbery, and Kashmir, that ain't right at all. And they took the perfect title and they changed it. To me that sucks as s uch (if you get my drift.)
Really looking forward to this. I trust Andrew Stanton as a forward-thinking visionary director, Michael Chabon as a terrific and nuanced screenwriter and Taylor Kitsch as an actor who looks like a dismissable pretty boy but, as anyone who saw him in FNL can tell you, is very capable of transforming even ordinary characters into iconic scene-stealers.
This is honestly at the top of my list of 2012 must-sees. I think it's going to surprise the hell out of everyone, especially the naysayers.
Really looking forward to this. I trust Andrew Stanton as a forward-thinking visionary director, Michael Chabon as a terrific and nuanced screenwriter and Taylor Kitsch as an actor who looks like a dismissable pretty boy but, as anyone who saw him in FNL can tell you, is very capable of transforming even ordinary characters into iconic scene-stealers.
I'm dubious. I was a Burroughs fanatic at age 12 back in Canada. Grandson Danton B. and I became friends later in life. His home in Tarzana, before it burned down, was a vault of riches of all things of his father the illustrator and of his grandfather, which had come to him. We talked eagerly of the day when the Mars books would become a cinematic reality. Danton tragically passed away very young. He left two epically beautiful daughters — a la Dejah Thoris, except blond. As for the film, I'm hoping for the best, but the trailer doesn't feel right and the title is, and always will be, "A Princess of Mars." What the hell? Yes, we know there's no such life on Mars. We can handle it … you wieners. Not a good start. Does not portend well.
There are probably just as many fans of this story as there are for The Lord of the Rings. Disney is the first to cash in on doing it right. If you recall the horrible cartoons of TLOTR's. When something is done right, it is worth seeing. A lot of people have read this series over 10 decades since it was written. I am still looking for the final books on audio. Most are free at librivox.org. I see a lot of influence on other Sci-fi writers in their writings. Even Stephen King briefly writes about Barsoom in the novel "Cell". These are fun action adventure novels with a touch of romance. Disney has done well with this kind of film. Pirates of the Caribean is still doing well.
Trailers typically don't portray the entire entity of the movie, they are there to draw you in to the story…judging the entire content of a movie without actually seeing the whole thing is absurdity
At best..John carter has drawn me in…I have read the books and am finally happy to see someone have the guts to bring these stories to the screen…casting is excellent..this movie is going to be one of the biggest of the year…
I personally disregard any comment that trashes on Wall-E. The first 30 minutes of that film are genius and beautiful and hysterical, and the rest of the film is quite good, especially considering it was a Pixar film who had to attract families. I'm REALLY excited to see this film. I'm hearing Carter's character is massively easy to cheer for, and that the character Woolah is very likeable. The ships and scenery look very cool, and the ape fight scene should be entertaining. It likely won't totally satisfy every John Carter of Mars lover, but we should all be happy that a studio like Pixar/Disney is gutsy enought to shell out 250+ million to make this film.
I'm looking forward to seeing the science fiction movies I've loved over the last 30 years torn apart, reassembled, and renamed 'John Carter.' It's 'Star Wars' + 'Avatar' + 'Treasure Planet' with a dash of 'Beverly Hills 90210.' Hollywood does so love a good formula, unfortunately this forumula is staid and this Frankenmovie is going to tank.
My prediction: this movie makes about $60 million at the box office, unless Disney really starts pushing hard on the marketing, in which case I'd say look for about $90-120 million.
The assertion that the character of John Carter needed to be 'updated' by jamming him into the generic, modern mold of 'reluctant hero' is the most troubling aspect of this production.
He speaks with reverence for Tars Tarkas, but sees the central character – through whose eyes and words we experience everything – as something to completely change at the fundamental level. Do we really need another reluctant hero moping about his problems before finally having the courage to stand up and do something? Reluctance is the antithesis of the character Burroughs created, who has endured a century and inspired so many other heroes. I'd argue that's a main driver of the book's continued appeal – he's the better man you'd like to be. So sure about right & wrong, unable to witness injustice without action, a character so purely in love that he'll restructure an entire civilization to win her back. His first love, his only love. Now this Disney John Carter has a dead wife and kids back on Earth? You can say this one is superficial (and it would be if it didn't reflect all the changes made to the character throughout), but when John Carter of Mars opens his eyes on the dead sea bottom, he says 'I knew that I was on Mars… as plainly as you know you are upon Earth', and Disney John Carter says 'Where am I?' Lynn Collins pleads to DJC – 'Will you fight for me, will you fight for Barsoom?' — if he were truly JCoM, she wouldn't have to ask. I also can't imagine Virginia Gentleman JCoM ever stooping to grammar like 'That don't look like a fair fight', but I digress.
They've taken a man who knew himself, a man to look up to and aspire to be more like, and turned him into a broken man, damaged goods 'trying to rediscover his humanity'. What press release screenwriting 101 pap. I love Chabon and I like Stanton, but these choices are severely disappointing.
No, just because we have applied modern academic rules to storytelling doesn't every godsdamn character needs an 'arc'. What a breath of fresh air it would have been to see a modern blockbuster hero with purpose and passion to begin with.
The most ironic part about this is that they're constantly fending off comparisons by saying 'well, Avatar was inspired by this first' – which is true – but by all accounts Stanton & Co. have essentially re-written John Carter as Jake Sully.
As for Dejah Thoris – they've made the trite, obvious, and insulting Hollywood choice of changing her into a trained, armored warrior – as if a woman needed to wield a sword to be seen as an equal. That Shakespearian sense of duty for Barsoom is not something the screenwriters can take credit for, either, as it was on the page a hundred years ago.
I don't begrudge the filmmakers adding detail and nuance to flesh out these personalities for the screen, (ERB wasn't especially subtle, sure) but it seems they've completely inverted who John Carter is, and turned Dejah Thoris into a Xena cliche'. Every interview carries this smug sense of 'look how we've improved this terrible writing from the wayback times', and even though there is a lot to admire in the design and tone of what Stanton has done, there's a real misunderstanding about the soul of the text and I find myself repulsed by it.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I've been saying the same for months.
But I look at it this way: it could be worse.
The Hollwyood screewriter tinkering will probably only last about 5 minutes on screen, so I can see past it if it isn't too insistent. Compared to other recent action epics, this looks downright subtle! We might have gotten a modernized JC, with him being sent to another planet entirely, since we *know* this can't be Mars now, it would easy enough, he gets teleported to a distant world called "Barsoom" etc. They could have changed every other character's name apart from John, Dejah & Tars. At least we have a storyline derived pretty much entirely from the first Burroughs serial, a Civil War era JC, and *all* of the names intact.
I'm willing to give this a chance.
Having read all of these books many times over I completely agree with you. Your gift for writing states my thoughts better than I ever could have. What is wrong with the hero just being the hero because of a sense of duty? Why must they change things that do not need to be changed? Very disappointing but I'll probably still see the movie.
The creators of this film missed a bet when they didn't stick to the Frank Frazetta feel and look.
Frank gave the entire series a texture that the filmmakers entirely missed. The women, the men, the creatures.
I'll wait for the DVD.
VLaszlo, your criticisms sound valid and well spoken. I have not read all the original Burroughs writings, so am certainly looking at Stanton's film from a different point of view. Like it or not, for a HUGE-scaled movie like "John Carter" to be made, any studio that's not okay with losing hundreds of millions of dollars, will insist that the film have as big of an audience appeal as possible….and I think part of that is having a central character that is at least somewhat sympathetic and one that has at least a little bit of an arc. Maybe I'm wrong on that. But Disney is taking a giant risk with this film, and maybe having a filmmaker with a history of making loveable, relatable, and easy-to-root-for characters comforted Disney enough to think a wide audience will go see it. Dirty Harry is an awsome, tough action character. But Bruce Willis in Die Hard had a wider appeal 'cause he had a slight softness.
Wow, some of you guess can't even give the guy who co-wrote the Toy Story films, Monsters Inc and co-wrote and directed Finding Nemo a break. That amazes me. The man has proven he has chops, you could at least give him the benefit of the doubt. Just maybe he's better at this than you are. At least entertain the idea.
Funny that you guys talk like you've already seen the film based of couple of trailers. Fail. Stanton has specifically said that he does not want the trailers to give away the movie like most trailers do. Person who has seen the movie, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0401729/board/thread/… said as bottom line "Movie is very good".
You also underestimate the vast audience who have actually read the books in last 70 years or so. I bet everyone who have read A Princess of Mars WILL go to see this movie merely for curiosity.
Regarding Danton Burroughs, his home did not burn down in 2008. A room in an addition to his house suffered fire and water damage, especially to a lot of his father's original art from the 1940s. It is believed that the stress from this led to Danton's fatal heart attack 2 days later. The house is still there and will be open to fans at a specific time during the Edgar Rice Burroughs convention being held in Tarzana March 2nd & 3rd, 2012. Info can be found at http://www.edgarriceburroughs.com — James Van Hise
I read every single book ERB ever wrote. I loved them all. Never thought they could capture this in a movie until special effects could catch up with ERB's imagination, and of course whoever was reading the books. I will go see the movie and not wait for it on DVD. If they are to have a chance this book has to be presented in IMAX and 3D. The characters and landscape from ERB's books were larger then life and there is no way to capture this on a flat screen, no matter how big.
If it doesn't live up to my imagination I will not be disappointed because I never thought anything could. If it gets halfway there it will be better then Star Wars. My imagination saw these characters and Barsoom as larger then life so I have to give it the chance. Be a fool at wait to see it on DVD. No doubt then you will be disappointed if you ever read this book.