I personally really liked the movie, and I think - considering the likely PC limiters put on it by Hollywood and Disney - it did pretty well. I'm still catching up on the books, but this is one of those cases where I feel comfortable loving both the books and the movie (though I understand where others would prefer one to the other!).
I am one of those people who prefer to see the source material translated into the movie and not someone's interpretation of what he thinks the source material is. There could've been at least 4 books translated into the movie by proper use of the source material as opposed to the tossed salad of mixing several books into 1 movie.
Edgar Rice Burroughs really hit the ground running with "A Princess of Mars." Wow.
As for the film, "John Carter;" it's much better than it gets credit for. It began as a labor of love but the Disney exec who supported it the most left the company (IIRC) and his successors weren't about to support a film they didn't greenlight.
Worse, because of every other sci-fi film that's been released for the last 50 years, too much of the audience thought "John Carter" was a copycat instead of being the novel that started it all!
An uneven but fascinating book into the sausage factory that "John Carter" crawled out of is "John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood" by Michael D. Sellers. Sellers has his own checkered, uneven history; the book is exhaustive and repetitive; and after you're done, you'll be amazed again that "John Carter" turned out as well as it did and even more amazed that ANYTHING gets made and released successfully.
OK this is super weird because I decided to watch "John Carter" for the first time tonight, and am about halfway through it!
Coincidental good timing is a thing! XD
I've read A Princess of Mars many times since the '60's and enjoy all the books. The movie wasn't done spectacularly well, but is still enjoyable.
I personally really liked the movie, and I think - considering the likely PC limiters put on it by Hollywood and Disney - it did pretty well. I'm still catching up on the books, but this is one of those cases where I feel comfortable loving both the books and the movie (though I understand where others would prefer one to the other!).
I am one of those people who prefer to see the source material translated into the movie and not someone's interpretation of what he thinks the source material is. There could've been at least 4 books translated into the movie by proper use of the source material as opposed to the tossed salad of mixing several books into 1 movie.
When someone asks me what literary world I’d want to live in, I often say “Barsoom. After I have some fencing lessons.”
Edgar Rice Burroughs really hit the ground running with "A Princess of Mars." Wow.
As for the film, "John Carter;" it's much better than it gets credit for. It began as a labor of love but the Disney exec who supported it the most left the company (IIRC) and his successors weren't about to support a film they didn't greenlight.
Worse, because of every other sci-fi film that's been released for the last 50 years, too much of the audience thought "John Carter" was a copycat instead of being the novel that started it all!
An uneven but fascinating book into the sausage factory that "John Carter" crawled out of is "John Carter and the Gods of Hollywood" by Michael D. Sellers. Sellers has his own checkered, uneven history; the book is exhaustive and repetitive; and after you're done, you'll be amazed again that "John Carter" turned out as well as it did and even more amazed that ANYTHING gets made and released successfully.
This is the beginning of a remarkable literary legacy most famous for introducing Tarzan to the world.