Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Cleveland Plain Dealer)   You don't even know who Taylor Kitsch is, but this summer he alone devastated three different Hollywood studios   (cleveland.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

10898 clicks; posted to Entertainment » on 01 Oct 2012 at 5:37 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



100 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-01 05:43:10 AM  
As opposed to three of the same Hollywood studios?
 
2012-10-01 05:51:35 AM  
God bless him, he tried though.
 
Skr
2012-10-01 05:51:56 AM  
They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.
 
2012-10-01 06:01:58 AM  

Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.


Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'
 
2012-10-01 06:09:51 AM  
Haven't seen Savages, but Taylor Kitsch was not the problem with John Carter or Battleship.

The crappy advertising and haphazard storyline screwed up John Carter. 'John Carter' tells me nothing about the movie. They should have kept the title and storyline as 'A Princess of Mars'.

As for Battleship, it was a perfectly serviceable action movie linked to a board game no-one gives a damn about. At least Transformers has followers from the 80's etc, what does Battleship bring with it?
 
2012-10-01 06:11:32 AM  
Articles like this are just hit pieces designed to assassinate somebody's career. The article writer is either a parrot or a hired gun.

I wonder who Taylor Kitsch pissed off. I thought John Carter was better than most of the crap coming out of hollywood these days and everybody I know who saw it enjoyed it. That didn't stop the bad press from coming out even before the movie came out.

I saw the first negative article on Yahoo which is not surprising because their whole writing staff seems to be available to the highest bidder to write hit pieces on any subject.
 
2012-10-01 06:11:35 AM  
Mars Needs Moms is actually not a bad movie in my opinion. I watched it a few months ago.

I didn't realize it was such a bomb.
 
2012-10-01 06:17:02 AM  
I think he was EXACTLY the problem with John Carter. I watched the flick with an open mind, I figured it's got alien civilizations and stuff, and hell I even read some of those books as a kid.

But he is a black hole of charisma. Imagine someone like Harrison Ford in his prime in that role. You'd be hooked. He mostly exists to stare pensively and look pretty and apparently some people in Hollywood thought that could carry huge blockbusters. It doesn't. The man has no personality, he's a blank slate.

I got bored about 1/3 of the way through John Carter and started cleaning up the place, that's how dull it was.
 
2012-10-01 06:19:54 AM  

Confabulat: I got bored about 1/3 of the way through John Carter and started cleaning up the place, that's how dull it was.


Sounds like it should come in a DVD 2 pack with Avengers... I didn't get bored until 2.3 of the way through that one.

All these movies TFA says nobody remembers? Savages is the only one I haven't seen, or at least hadnt' heard of...
 
2012-10-01 06:26:10 AM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'


...I think I'd have to biatch-slap a mother with an Ono-Sendai if I ever heard them say that. Also; aside from The Call of Cthulhu, the greatest single opening line in any story, ever:

The sky was the color of a television tuned to a dead channel.

/If they don't blow 9/10 of the budget on The Straylight Run... I'm going to openly boycott the damn thing. Greatest. SF. Scene. EVER.
 
2012-10-01 06:29:51 AM  
His resume is an absolutely glorious list of trolling movies. Surprised he wasn't in Gigli.
 
2012-10-01 06:37:28 AM  
Savages was so disappointing. I really expected more from Oliver Stone.
 
2012-10-01 06:39:33 AM  
I really would love that "article" writer's job. How the fark is this even considered writing? type up a dozen or so facts without any reference or real context and voila paid for "work". I probably have more words on my grocery list than there are in this "article".

Anyway, John Carter was horribly advertised, named, and really very little of the book. It had none of the epicness of the books, it was advertised during mom shows and to 90% of america John Carter is on ER not Mars.

Battleship should have been something akin to wargames, I never saw aliens on my BS board.

Savages, from the promos reminded me of The Way of the Gun so meh.
 
2012-10-01 07:13:07 AM  

Oysterman: His resume is an absolutely glorious list of trolling movies. Surprised he wasn't in Gigli.


Huh. I did not know he was one of the horny kids who got killed in the bathroom in Snakes on a Plane.

Learn something new every day.
 
2012-10-01 07:15:27 AM  
Well hopefully any grief he has at the spectacular end of his career can be assuaged by his piles and piles of money.
 
2012-10-01 07:21:07 AM  
Another problem is that movies are no longer cultural events the way they were in the 1970s and earlier when every other movie made a major statement about life, the world or society. The only people Hollywood makes movies for today are comic-book fans. Spike Lee said in an interview recently that he couldn't have made "Malcolm X" and Oliver Stone couldn't have made "JFK" today because neither wore tights and a cape.

Ugh, I hate these WHITHER HOLLYWOOD? portions of the articles by Chicken Littles who can only wax nostalgic for film movements from 40 years ago. Spike Lee barely got Malcolm X made anyway and it was after he had a string of commercial successes. Same with Oliver Stone.
 
2012-10-01 07:31:24 AM  

Lith: I really would love that "article" writer's job. How the fark is this even considered writing? type up a dozen or so facts without any reference or real context and voila paid for "work". I probably have more words on my grocery list than there are in this "article".

Anyway, John Carter was horribly advertised, named, and really very little of the book. It had none of the epicness of the books, it was advertised during mom shows and to 90% of america John Carter is on ER not Mars.

Battleship should have been something akin to wargames, I never saw aliens on my BS board.

Savages, from the promos reminded me of The Way of the Gun so meh.


"This one movie was a flop. Another movie was also a flop! Do you remember that movie from a few years ago? A flop! Taylor Kitsch is bad at career."
 
2012-10-01 07:33:36 AM  
Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.
 
2012-10-01 07:53:51 AM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'


I can practically smell the Cheetos and virginity eminating from this post.
 
2012-10-01 07:54:12 AM  
He was okay as Gambit in the Wolverine: Origins movie.

/everything else, meh
 
2012-10-01 07:55:33 AM  

Mugato: Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.


When is the prime "motion pictures based on board games" season?
 
2012-10-01 07:58:49 AM  
I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?
 
2012-10-01 08:00:36 AM  

EyeballKid: Mugato: Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.

When is the prime "motion pictures based on board games" season?


Far away from two billion dollar Marvel franchise films, that's for sure. Maybe spring or early Christmas.
 
2012-10-01 08:01:48 AM  
If Taylor Kitsch plops his fat ass down on your toilet, you better get the plunger ready.

He BEEFS.
He'll drop 5 or 6 forearm-sized logs in there with no flushes in between. Rumor has it that on the set of "John Carter" he used to shiat in the shower and heel it down the drain.
 
2012-10-01 08:07:40 AM  

Mugato: EyeballKid: Mugato: Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.

When is the prime "motion pictures based on board games" season?

Far away from two billion dollar Marvel franchise films, that's for sure. Maybe spring or early Christmas.


Late summer "all the blockbusters have come out but school hasn't started back up yet" time or late November / early december "get the husband / husband and kids* out of my hair so I can do Christmas shopping" time

*Assuming it's as family friendly as I expect it to be, what with the MB license and all.
 
2012-10-01 08:22:09 AM  
Talk about the biggest flops of all time, and nary a mention of Waterworld? What's this world coming to?
 
2012-10-01 08:22:34 AM  

Mugato: Battleship made a lot of money overseas, easily made a profit. It's problem was that some genius thought it was a good idea to release it between The Avengers and Spider-Man.


Same thing with Savages. I don't think anyone expected a hyper violent Oliver Stone movie to be a box office juggernaut, especially when it was booked between Spider-Man and Dark Knight Rises.

It was supposed to break even, which it just about did, and DVD and Blu-Ray will put it in the black.
 
2012-10-01 08:28:32 AM  
Kitsch? What's he doin', bombing movies with tacky antiques or somethin'?

/good one, chippah
 
2012-10-01 08:29:32 AM  

SurfaceTension: Talk about the biggest flops of all time, and nary a mention of Waterworld? What's this world coming to?


Contrary to popular belief Waterworld was not a flop. It grossed 265 million against a 175 million budget. Not a blockbuster, probably in the red, but not a flop that lost hundreds of millions, especially considering action figures (yes it had them) and tv/VHS rights.
 
2012-10-01 08:36:03 AM  

mjbok: SurfaceTension: Talk about the biggest flops of all time, and nary a mention of Waterworld? What's this world coming to?

Contrary to popular belief Waterworld was not a flop. It grossed 265 million against a 175 million budget. Not a blockbuster, probably in the red, but not a flop that lost hundreds of millions, especially considering action figures (yes it had them) and tv/VHS rights.


Yeah, Waterworld is actually more known for being an over-bloated production than a "flop". A $175mill budget was unheard of in 1995 and Spielberg warned Coster against shooting on the ocean (and he should know).
 
2012-10-01 08:37:22 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?


White People trends from the '80s (most likely)
 
2012-10-01 08:38:17 AM  
I am no insider, but I read a lot of dumb books written by people who are safely out of the INDUSTRY and you usually take the cost of a movie and double it to account for PR/marketing/prints/EEE TEEEEE SEEEEEE to come up with the real amount it cost.
 
2012-10-01 08:40:27 AM  
John Carter was a good movie, I thoroughly enjoyed it, having read the books as a child. I felt they did a good adaption, and I knew they'd get the look and feel right with CGI advances. I was actually excited to see it and saw it opening weekend. I was not disappointed. They changed some things up a little, but the story was still there, and the Princess was farking h0tt!!!

The movie failed because of the lack of advertising and the complete failure of the advertising that was out there. As I recall, it had a bunch of slow mo shots of John Carter leaping around Mars over Led Zeppelin's Kashmir. I have no idea what angle they were going with that, but it was just wrong. I knew the story they were going to tell and couldn't figure out if they were going to get it or not from those promos. Complete failure in advertising.

I'm sure there's a fan video on youtube somewhere that did much better, but like the advertising company, I'm just too lazy to make the effort.
 
2012-10-01 08:48:04 AM  

B.L.Z. Bub: I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?


I'm pretty sure you can cross off at least 4 or 5 of those names as people you need to keep track of.
 
mhd
2012-10-01 08:49:35 AM  
John Carter would benefit greatly from a non-director's cut. Start with the chase and transfer to Mars, no needless "cousin ERB" backstory. Didn't the book do it that way, too? (It's been a while)

I'm okay with Kitsch being a bit lacking in the charazma department, John Carter wasn't exactly that intriguing himself, either.
 
2012-10-01 08:54:34 AM  
Adding my vote to John Carter being a great watch in the theater. They would have done better if they had put in the Princess of Mars as per the original book title.
 
2012-10-01 08:58:07 AM  
Note to self: Never make a movie in Morocco.

Someone didn't give the memo to George Lucas.
 
2012-10-01 09:02:39 AM  
John Carter was boring. There I said it. IT WAS BORING.

It wasn't bad. The dialogue wasn't terrible. The plot wasn't bad. IT. WAS. JUST. BORING.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

Stop saying it "was good". It wasn't.
 
2012-10-01 09:08:28 AM  
It has to suck to come off one of the most critically acclaimed shows of the decade and find yourself in three huge bombs like that.
 
2012-10-01 09:16:58 AM  
It's not his fault John Carter (OF MARS) bombed. That film was sabotaged by Disney.

/or a secret cabal that doesn't want us to know it was more documentary than science fiction.
 
2012-10-01 09:19:49 AM  

TwistedFark: John Carter was boring. There I said it. IT WAS BORING.

It wasn't bad. The dialogue wasn't terrible. The plot wasn't bad. IT. WAS. JUST. BORING.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

Stop saying it "was good". It wasn't.


You're like my friend The Movie Snob. Because he used to be a projectionist at a movie theater about 15 years ago, he believes he is some mentat of the movies. He tears down movies for no good reason, pointing out inane things, 'unrealistic' action, and the like.

The difference, though, is you're g-damned right about John Carter and the main villain. Like I said, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, and though I know the bad guy because I read the books as s child, I cannot picture what he looked like in the movie.

That's a very interesting point...
 
2012-10-01 09:22:04 AM  

Phaeon: Kitsch? What's he doin', bombing movies with tacky antiques or somethin'?

/good one, chippah


Home run Phaeon!

/double guns!
 
2012-10-01 09:24:22 AM  
I watched Battleship the other night. It wasnt as bad as i was expecting, but thats not saying much. I was laughing my ass off when the alien weapon turned out to be the pegs though.
 
2012-10-01 09:27:35 AM  
You know, that "Ghost in the Shell" movie totally ripped off "The Matrix."

/now why don't they do a live action GitS movie? I'd watch that.
 
2012-10-01 09:29:20 AM  
He needs to change his name to Dirk Squarejaw. or something.
 
2012-10-01 09:34:32 AM  

Cyno01: I watched Battleship the other night. It wasnt as bad as i was expecting, but thats not saying much. I was laughing my ass off when the alien weapon turned out to be the pegs though.


that's Peter Berg for you, I bet if you watch it as a lampoon of big budget bow-em-ups it'd be pretty good
 
2012-10-01 09:35:06 AM  
This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".
 
2012-10-01 09:37:05 AM  

Mugato: This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".


You haven't seen The Debt then, have you?
 
2012-10-01 09:43:37 AM  

Mugato: This is pretty much my opinion of the guy from Avatar and Clash of the Ttitans. Completely unremarkable in every way. He's more like a stand-in than an actor. Like they were using him to set up the lighting and the actor never showed so they just said, "fark it, use him".


The whole point of a Sam Worthington is to cast a bland, unremarkable person so that viewers can more easily project themselves into the lead role.

Link
 
ecl
2012-10-01 09:52:56 AM  
John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.
 
2012-10-01 09:56:31 AM  

for good or for awesome: He needs to change his name to Dirk Squarejaw. or something.


[ServoMikeCrowsilhouette.jpg]
 
2012-10-01 09:57:15 AM  

ecl: John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.


The original story was written in a time when they could get away with this stuff as the science couldn't be debated. These days, though... not so much. It's like watching The Net or Hackers on DVD these days: you watch it and realize how absolutely computer stupid these movies that's supposed to be about computers really are.
 
2012-10-01 10:06:30 AM  

TwistedFark: John Carter was boring. There I said it. IT WAS BORING.

It wasn't bad. The dialogue wasn't terrible. The plot wasn't bad. IT. WAS. JUST. BORING.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

Stop saying it "was good". It wasn't.


agreed. I never read the books and was going in fresh and nothing about the movie reached out and grabbed me. The only thing i liked was the dog thing that could run fast.
 
2012-10-01 10:08:32 AM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.

Yup, Taylor Kitsch wasn't the problem with John Carter. Also, apparently the budget for John Carter got blown up so much because director Andrew Stanton thought he was still directing a Pixar CGI film and had re-shoot after re-shoot after re-shoot to get the 'best shots'. You can do that kind of stuff with a CGI movie, where re-posing the characters, changing the camera angles, ect., is time intensive, but doesn't cost much; it's another matter entirely to re-shoot live action scenes continuously.

Also, the fact that so many movies and stories have borrowed/evolved out of the John Carter stories, the less sci-fi-educated public only saw things they had seen before in other movies.

/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'


I read the book John carter was based on, and honestly it was boring. It's become the foundation of so much scifi it was a plodding paint by numbers novel without any tension or excitement. The protagonist conquered everything effortlessly and in stride.


And the article doesn't mention but what was Kitches actual involvement? Director? Producer?
 
2012-10-01 10:08:44 AM  
So it's one guys fault?
 
2012-10-01 10:13:38 AM  
Give me Earth Girls Are Easy and take your big budget flops and shove them up your Cinema-Scope rectum.
 
2012-10-01 10:37:12 AM  
I haven't seen Battleship or Savages, but I used a free ticket to see John Carter. I thought it was a great movie - about halfway through, I recall thinking that if I'd known the movie was going to be as good as that, I would have paid money to see it! I don't know WTF the suits at Disney were thinking - different commercials would have put butts into seats, but they seemed so focused on either Kitsch jumping around Mars, or the arena battle that was such a tiny part of the movie. I'd go see a sequel, but that probably won't happen now.

Also, Lynn Collins was smokin' hot as Dejah Thoris. That is all.
 
2012-10-01 10:53:00 AM  

Arn_Dee: It's not his fault John Carter (OF MARS) bombed. That film was sabotaged by Disney.

/or a secret cabal that doesn't want us to know it was more documentary than science fiction.


This.

John Carter pulled in $282,800,000 theatrically. Originally, Disney said the budget was $150e6, then, when it beat that, they changed it to $200e6. The latest I heard was $250e6, and I'm sure they are revising it upward.

mhd: John Carter would benefit greatly from a non-director's cut. Start with the chase and transfer to Mars, no needless "cousin ERB" backstory. Didn't the book do it that way, too? (It's been a while)


No, that's in the books.

/Love the books, good, but not as good as the books, but they completely caught the feel.
//Except no nudity
 
2012-10-01 10:55:50 AM  

TwistedFark: John Carter was boring. There I said it. IT WAS BORING.

It wasn't bad. The dialogue wasn't terrible. The plot wasn't bad. IT. WAS. JUST. BORING.

And yeah, you can probably pin it on this Taylor Kitsch dude. He has the charisma of a hat rack. Even then, it wasn't just him - one of the key ingredients for a good action movie is a memorable villain. The villains in John Carter were dull and bland. Hence. BORING.

Put it this way - I remember that the main villain from the Avengers off the top of my head was Loki and that he was played by Tom Hiddleston who has pretty much been in fark all. But I remember him. I even remember what he looked like, which is pretty key in a movie filled with some real hollywood heavyweights.

I had to go to IMDB to try and piece together who the main bad guy from John Carter was. I think it's the dude 5th from the top billing. It's certainly not Willem Dafoe, even though he's evidently in this movie. I think he was one of the aliens. Why put Willem Dafoe in a movie and then not use him as the bad guy? This movie was boring and it wore it's pants on it's head, so it was retarded as well.

Stop saying it "was good". It wasn't.


collider.com

What the fark did I do?

/didn't see it
//Avon Barksdale is in the new Dredd movie, BTW
 
2012-10-01 11:07:28 AM  
John Carter seems to be a case of nobody reading the script. Any reasonably minded person should have seen why the film was going to be a disaster. For what's supposed to a be formulaic science fiction adventure film, the plot is unbelievably complicated and convoluted. Everything involving the characters Mark Strong played should have been cut. It added a hole unnecessary layer to the movie that was simply boring. And all the stuff with blue energy or whatever the hell it was, cut that too. Just keep the film to a struggle of good vs evil.

And most importantly, don't have your hero wearing a loincloth for the whole movie.
 
2012-10-01 11:09:09 AM  

HST's Dead Carcass: ecl: John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.

The original story was written in a time when they could get away with this stuff as the science couldn't be debated. These days, though... not so much. It's like watching The Net or Hackers on DVD these days when they were released: you watch it and realize how absolutely computer stupid these movies that's supposed to be about computers really are.


Hey, at least in Hackers when they "hacked the Gibson" they used representative visuals originating with Gibson himself. Most of the "tech talk" is terrible- though from what I understand that's because their technology consultant was trolling them
 
2012-10-01 11:13:03 AM  

thornhill: For what's supposed to a be formulaic science fiction adventure film, the plot is unbelievably complicated and convoluted


What was complicated exactly? If any studio is known for complicated plots its disney...

/didn't read the books but found the movie very entertaining
//my gf probably preferred the loin cloth option
///wish the princess would have worn it
 
2012-10-01 11:19:55 AM  
Wait. His name is actually "Kitsch"? As in cheap, mass produced cultural crap? This is too good to be true. Are we sure this guy isn't pulling some kind of James Franco-type performance-art thing?
 
2012-10-01 11:34:55 AM  
I liked John Carter. It was a fun film.

Fark you!
 
2012-10-01 12:27:25 PM  
I don't think It's Taylor's fault, I would point blame at the screenwriters and producers.
 
2012-10-01 12:29:02 PM  

Jorn the Younger: Hey, at least in Hackers when they "hacked the Gibson" they used representative visuals originating with Gibson himself. Most of the "tech talk" is terrible- though from what I understand that's because their technology consultant was trolling them


Yeah but even us CS students didn't care because

img2-2.timeinc.net
 
2012-10-01 12:31:24 PM  

ecl: John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.


This is response uses retarded logic.

Taylor had NOTHING to do with the look of the movie or the story or how it was promoted.
He was paid to act and he did.
The movie didn't suck, it was fine for what it was and a sequel would be fine with me.

FTFA: 'Another problem is that movies are no longer cultural events the way they were in the 1970s and earlier when every other movie made a major statement about life, the world or society. The only people Hollywood makes movies for today are comic-book fans. Spike Lee said in an interview recently that he couldn't have made "Malcolm X" and Oliver Stone couldn't have made "JFK" today because neither wore tights and a cape.'

Neither 'Malcom X' or 'JFK' was made in the 70s.

The writer is an idiot. There weren't very many 'cultural event' movies made in the 70s and only reason they are remembered - 'Silkwood' I guess would be an example - is that there were so few they are easy to point to.

The writer apparently has it 'out' for Kitsch.
Kitsch must have turned down the writer's offer of a hummer.
 
2012-10-01 12:35:09 PM  
Typo, sorry.

Anyway, blaming the actor is stupid - unless it's Cruise.

The actors give the director what he wants.
And 'John Carter' wasn't poorly directed nor poorly acted.

When a movie bombs blame the studios first, the director second, the screen writer third and then the actors.
 
2012-10-01 12:42:30 PM  

douchebag/hater: FTFA: 'Another problem is that movies are no longer cultural events the way they were in the 1970s and earlier when every other movie made a major statement about life, the world or society. The only people Hollywood makes movies for today are comic-book fans. Spike Lee said in an interview recently that he couldn't have made "Malcolm X" and Oliver Stone couldn't have made "JFK" today because neither wore tights and a cape.'

Neither 'Malcom X' or 'JFK' was made in the 70s.


Spike Lee is a whiny biatch, always was.
 
2012-10-01 12:49:45 PM  

thornhill: J

And most importantly, don't have your hero wearing a loincloth for the whole movie.


I strongly disagree. That man's face and physique were my favorite things about the movie.

And I enjoyed the movie, but I saw my friend's DVD at home, rather than paying for it.

Every time he mentioned seeing "John Carter," I'd say, "What's that?" This happened repeatedly, and I'm not usually that dense. The movie's name was a problem.
 
2012-10-01 12:50:44 PM  
Taylor Kitsch can devastate me all he wants.
 
2012-10-01 12:52:33 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost:
/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'


Oh god, please tell me this isn't happening
 
2012-10-01 12:53:17 PM  

ForceIsStrong: Taylor Kitsch can devastate me all he wants.


This times eleventy billion.
 
2012-10-01 12:57:38 PM  

Jorn the Younger: Hey, at least in Hackers when they "hacked the Gibson" they used representative visuals originating with Gibson himself. Most of the "tech talk" is terrible- though from what I understand that's because their technology consultant was trolling them


True story: One guy I knew took that movie as gospel and would quote from it as if they were facts, things like the most common passwords and such. It was embarrassing... for him.
 
2012-10-01 01:11:33 PM  
Referring to previous comments: they aren't making a Neuromancer movie, are they? Because that would NEVER work as a movie. Great book (my most re-read) but would never work on film.
 
2012-10-01 01:23:51 PM  

MisatoNERV: Referring to previous comments: they aren't making a Neuromancer movie, are they? Because that would NEVER work as a movie. Great book (my most re-read) but would never work on film.


Having the main antagonist as a AI would not fail, so, they'd do something stupid like download the AI into a human body so the protagonist can beat him in a physical fight ala Michael Jai White in Universal Soldier 2 or something.

Never underestimate the stupidity of Hollywood Elites when trying to market something for the masses. Sure, us geeks would love that, but what about the folks down in Alabama and South Carolina? They need a visual and blatant subtext so they won't feel stupid.
 
2012-10-01 01:24:08 PM  

douchebag/hater: He was paid to act and he did


And he did a blank, charismatic-free performance that made the character a useless cipher to audiences who were wondering who to root for in a giant space epic.

He did not live up to his paycheck, that's for sure. See again, Harrison Ford or Bruce Campbell for how to carry a movie. Hell even Arnie or Stallone in their heyday would have made that movie work. A blank pretty-boy could not.
 
2012-10-01 01:27:37 PM  

Confabulat: He did not live up to his paycheck, that's for sure. See again, Harrison Ford or Bruce Campbell for how to carry a movie. Hell even Arnie or Stallone in their heyday would have made that movie work. A blank pretty-boy could not.


This is not the old Hollywood, this is the New Hollywood, and much like the music scene, they realized they can mass market pretty faces and fake the rest. Or at least they are trying very hard. It's much easier to fake musical talent on a CD than it is acting in a movie.
 
2012-10-01 01:29:37 PM  
I started reading the John Carter books after seeing the movie. Seems that it took elements of the first two books t make a surprisingly not-bad movie.

But my god! You take one of the great sci-fi book serieseses, written by one of the all-time great authors,and simply name it after a character from ER?? The commercials had no mention of Burroughs, the books, their influence... Hell, i don't think they even mentioned MARS!

Between the budget and the abysmal advertising campaign, John Carter had no chance of succeeding. And that's a damn shame, since it was a fun movie that I didn't discover until it was on DVD.
 
2012-10-01 01:33:54 PM  

Phaeon: Kitsch? What's he doin', bombing movies with tacky antiques or somethin'?

/good one, chippah


goddammit, i read that in Jimmy's voice
 
2012-10-01 01:37:29 PM  

Cyno01: I watched Battleship the other night. It wasnt as bad as i was expecting, but thats not saying much. I was laughing my ass off when the alien weapon turned out to be the pegs though.


oh sh*t, i didn't realize that til now.
 
2012-10-01 02:16:58 PM  
Battleship was a pretty darned good movie, and a perfect example of how action movies involving Michael Bay can actually be half decent when he's held back with some kind of restraining device
 
2012-10-01 02:34:51 PM  

kroonermanblack:

I read the book John carter was based on, and honestly it was boring. It's become the foundation of so much scifi it was a plodding paint by numbers novel without any tension or excitement. The protagonist conquered everything effortlessly and in stride.


And that was the writing style of pretty much every science fiction and adventure story written in the late 1800's/early 1900's. Every protagonist is the epitome of everything that is best in humanity: physique of Captain America, intelligence of Albert Einstein. '20,000 Leagues Under The Sea', Nemo is a savant in virtually every scientific field and a formidable fighter. 'The Time Machine', the Traveller is an inventive genius and man of action. 'Sherlock Holmes', not just the greatest detective but also a champion caliber fencer and pugilist. Conan, The Shadow, Tom Swift...The point wasn't tension or drama in the story, it was the imagination and description of the character's environment and actions.
 
2012-10-01 02:36:16 PM  
I might have seen John Carter if they used Frank Frazetta's artwork as the inspiration for the production design.

Instead, they had Kitch wearing giant sandy diaper pants, and everything just looked drab and boring in the commercials
 
2012-10-01 03:03:16 PM  

zorgon: RoyFokker'sGhost:
/I swear to Odin, when Neuromancer comes out in a few years, I'm going to defenstrate the first person I hear saying that 'it totally ripped off 'The Matrix'...'

Oh god, please tell me this isn't happening


Apparently, it is.

Good News: Liam Neeson confirmed as Armitage.
Bad News: Mark Whalberg, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pine all apparently in the running to play Case.

Also, if this is made, Julius Deane *must* be played by David Bowie. An ageless and slightly androgynous character, it's the part he was born to play.
 
2012-10-01 04:22:41 PM  

RoyFokker'sGhost: Good News: Liam Neeson confirmed as Armitage.
Bad News: Mark Whalberg, Chris Hemsworth, and Chris Pine all apparently in the running to play Case.


Last I heard it was Hayden Christenson so it could be worse.

/Neeson is an excellent choice though
//as others, concerned it'll be accused of ripping off of movies that ripped it off
 
2012-10-01 04:43:10 PM  

Skr: They say box office poison about John Carter, but the movie was decent. It was the non-existent advertising and the naming of it that were so horrible that the film never stood a chance. Battleship on the other hand was a poor film with heavy advertising.

Either way, the name Taylor Kitsch wasn't ringing any bells until I opened the article.


Battleship > John Carter, and i also disagree that JC wasn't heavily marketed... It was. There was just nothing good to show, so the marketing fell on deaf ears.
 
2012-10-01 06:23:59 PM  

Confabulat: douchebag/hater: He was paid to act and he did

And he did a blank, charismatic-free performance that made the character a useless cipher to audiences who were wondering who to root for in a giant space epic.

He did not live up to his paycheck, that's for sure. See again, Harrison Ford or Bruce Campbell for how to carry a movie. Hell even Arnie or Stallone in their heyday would have made that movie work. A blank pretty-boy could not.


Well, whether he did or didn't is a matter of opinion.
I happen to think that he was fine for the movie and he was good in FNL.
As for him 'carrying the movie': this was not expected by ANY ONE.
Why would he be? It was his first big budget movie.

If Bruce Campbell is sooooooooo good why is he stuck in crap? And I like the guy but still, he's never been a great mainstream movie ever.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Willis; he's carried LOTS of crappy movies.
 
2012-10-01 08:14:03 PM  
FTFA: Consider the biggest flops of all time. So many are obscure. Like 2005's "Stealth" starring Jamie Foxx, who was coming off his Oscar for "Ray." It lost $111 million. It was a "Top Gun" knockoff, minus the box office.

Did that guy even watch Stealth?
 
2012-10-01 08:19:06 PM  

VaportrailFilms: FTFA: Consider the biggest flops of all time. So many are obscure. Like 2005's "Stealth" starring Jamie Foxx, who was coming off his Oscar for "Ray." It lost $111 million. It was a "Top Gun" knockoff, minus the box office.

Did that guy even watch Stealth?


Really. Like there were any black people in Top Gun.
 
2012-10-01 09:55:18 PM  

ecl: John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.


Are you seriously trolling a book that was written in 1912 ?

Wow look in the mirror...
 
2012-10-01 09:58:41 PM  

thornhill: John Carter seems to be a case of nobody reading the script. Any reasonably minded person should have seen why the film was going to be a disaster. For what's supposed to a be formulaic science fiction adventure film, the plot is unbelievably complicated and convoluted. Everything involving the characters Mark Strong played should have been cut. It added a hole unnecessary layer to the movie that was simply boring. And all the stuff with blue energy or whatever the hell it was, cut that too. Just keep the film to a struggle of good vs evil.

And most importantly, don't have your hero wearing a loincloth for the whole movie.


For the first quarter of the book the guy is BUCK NAKKED!!!! and yes its a loincloth in most of the book.

Lets go put Conan in a three peace shall we....
 
ecl
2012-10-02 12:03:39 AM  

attention span of a retarded fruit fly: ecl: John Carter failed at physics. It was like watching a movie based on child/retard logic.

Are you seriously trolling a book that was written in 1912 ?

Wow look in the mirror...


I'm sorry I offended you and your simpleton brotherhood. I forgot to turn my brain off while watching that turd of a movie.
 
2012-10-02 12:23:29 AM  
Taylor Kitsch and Summer Glau should have a child. Then they could retire while movie studios pay them to keep the child as far away from Hollywood as possible.
 
2012-10-02 02:59:44 AM  

Crudbucket: B.L.Z. Bub: I can't keep track of all the Taylors, it's killin' me. Now I have to be careful not to mix up Taylor Kitsch with Taylor Lautner, Taylor Swift, Taylor Hicks, Taylor Dayne, Taylor Momsen or Taylor Hanson. Taylor, Taylor, Taylor, why do so many people have that name, chicks AND dudes?

I'm pretty sure you can cross off at least 4 or 5 of those names as people you need to keep track of.


Even Zachary Taylor was an unremarkable military-man president. But boy, does that name not sound like box-office treasure today!
 
2012-10-02 07:28:53 AM  
John Carter visits the Dust bowl . This was not the planet Mars from the books. It's a barren desert.
The canyon lands of Utah Which would have made a great backdrop.

If I can slip into my geek PJ's for a minute. It is the same problem that sword and sorcery movies suffer from lack of environment.

Every Conan movie is either in a desert (sandy beach) or a smokey half ass fire in a market place that looks more of black plague just passed through.
Missing are the bright lights of the big city . The gleaming towers (polished marble and granite ) Barry Windsor Smith laid out a template for any director or set builder to follow. Instead it's a trip to a tire dump and crones.

Oh Battleship was better than I had expected . I give it thumbs up on the lack of racial stereotypes. Not a "Hell No" in the entire movie.
 
2012-10-02 11:52:56 AM  
http://">Linkhttp://">Linkhttp://">Link

Mugato: VaportrailFilms: FTFA: Consider the biggest flops of all time. So many are obscure. Like 2005's "Stealth" starring Jamie Foxx, who was coming off his Oscar for "Ray." It lost $111 million. It was a "Top Gun" knockoff, minus the box office.

Did that guy even watch Stealth?

Really. Like there were any black people in Top Gun.


Snowball reporting for duty. I think he was the initial replacement for Goose after he died.

/hangs head in shame.
 
2012-10-02 11:57:21 AM  

WhiteElephant: http://">Linkhttp://">Linkhttp://">LinkMugato: VaportrailFilms: FTFA: Consider the biggest flops of all time. So many are obscure. Like 2005's "Stealth" starring Jamie Foxx, who was coming off his Oscar for "Ray." It lost $111 million. It was a "Top Gun" knockoff, minus the box office.

Did that guy even watch Stealth?

Really. Like there were any black people in Top Gun.

Snowball reporting for duty. I think he was the initial replacement for Goose after he died.

/hangs head in shame.


Should have read "Sundown" instead of "Snowball"
 
2012-10-03 09:59:21 AM  
RoyFokker'sGhost:
Also, if this is made, Julius Deane *must* be played by David Bowie. An ageless and slightly androgynous character, it's the part he was born to play.


Good idea, but I always envisioned Malcolm McDowell.
 
2012-10-03 03:38:16 PM  

WhiteElephant: WhiteElephant: http://">Linkhttp://">Linkhttp://">LinkMugato: VaportrailFilms: FTFA: Consider the biggest flops of all time. So many are obscure. Like 2005's "Stealth" starring Jamie Foxx, who was coming off his Oscar for "Ray." It lost $111 million. It was a "Top Gun" knockoff, minus the box office.

Did that guy even watch Stealth?

Really. Like there were any black people in Top Gun.

Snowball reporting for duty. I think he was the initial replacement for Goose after he died.

/hangs head in shame.

Should have read "Sundown" instead of "Snowball"


Yeah, Snowball was the token in the first half of Full Metal Jacket.

zorgon: RoyFokker'sGhost:
Also, if this is made, Julius Deane *must* be played by David Bowie. An ageless and slightly androgynous character, it's the part he was born to play.

Good idea, but I always envisioned Malcolm McDowell.


Nah, McDowell has too much of an edge on him - see Gangster No. 1 or Caligula (well, don't actually watch Caligula, but you know what I mean)

How about Jonathan Pryce? He's quickly getting too old for a role like that, but his Bond villain seems like a good fit if the script is right. If it takes too long for a Neuromancer movie to get off the ground, though, I'd suggest Paul Bettany. He's into his 40s now and can easily pull off that look.
 
Displayed 100 of 100 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report