‘John Carter’ Trailer Offers More Martians

Published 3 years ago by , Updated September 12th, 2013 at 7:22 pm,

John Carter Trailer Disney John Carter Trailer Offers More Martians

Disney is placing a lot of their 2012 movie hope$ on the big screen adaptation of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ John Carter, a film being brought to theaters (in 3D) by Andrew Stanton, the writer/director of acclaimed Pixar films like WALL•E and Finding Nemo.

The John Carter teaser trailer took an unusual approach to introducing the film, offering viewers a slow-paced, moody and atmospheric look at the world of Mars, rather than a kinetic action-heavy flurry of footage. Today’s John Carter trailer, by comparison, is pretty much all rapid shots of action and/or the visual effects that are being utilized to bring the world of Mars (and her many inhabitants) to life.

Take a look at the synopsis for John Carter below, and then check out the  full-length trailer:

The film tells the story of war-weary, former military captain John Carter (Taylor Kitsch), who is inexplicably transported to Mars where he becomes reluctantly embroiled in a conflict of epic proportions amongst the inhabitants of the planet, including Tars Tarkas (Willem Dafoe) and the captivating Princess Dejah Thoris (Lynn Collins). In a world on the brink of collapse, Carter rediscovers his humanity when he realizes that the survival of [the Martian civilization] Barsoom and its people rests in his hands.

Based on this footage and the recent John Carter images that have been posted online, it seems as though Stanton has been pretty successful in translating the fantastic otherworldly creatures of Burroughs’ novels into cinematic form – albeit, in a decidedly more kid-friendly fashion than some of the books would suggest (i.e., less strange and potentially frightening). The exception, of course, would be the Martian white apes, which are larger and more intimidating onscreen than they were on the page.

For all the money Disney has invested in this film ($200 million +) and all the talent they’ve thrown at it, it seems as though anticipation for John Carter is tepid at best – even amongst the many fans of Burroughs’ source material. Of course this IS Disney we’re talking about, a marketing machine that can make magic happen when it gets its gears turning. Still, one can’t help but wonder if we’re looking at the studio’s next TRON Legacy (i.e., a long-term, high-cost tentpole film that doesn’t quite have the desired impact).

We’ll find out when John Carter arrives on Mars on March 9, 2012.

Source: IGN

Get our free email alerts on the topics and author of this article:


Post a Comment

GravatarWant to change your avatar?
Go to Gravatar.com and upload your own (we'll wait)!

 Rules: No profanity or personal attacks.
 Use a valid email address or risk being banned from commenting.

If your comment doesn't show up immediately, it may have been flagged for moderation. Please try refreshing the page first, then drop us a note and we'll retrieve it. Keep in mind that we do not allow external links in the comments.

  1. I am psyched about this after seeing the trailer. Are they playing Led Zeppelin’s Kashmir in the background.

  2. She should’ve asked if he will play Gambit again in any future Marvel flicks.

    • God please no.

    • Oh yeah, these two were in Wolverine. She was Silverfox right?

  3. WOW!!!! Looks awesome!

  4. Damn. This looks sick. I get a Planet Hulk feel from it.

    • My thoughts exactly.

  5. What movie is he playing a navy seal?

    • Battleship I’m guessing.

  6. The poster seems like a misstep in the marketing campaign, unless of course it is an homage to one of the original book covers. Not familiar enough with the book series.

  7. This gives me a Prince of Persia vibe.

    • Slightly agree so far.

  8. i luv me sum Starwars! (joke)
    -I know the 3D and CGI in this are fantastic, hopefully the story is consistent.

  9. Impressive! Read the books over 30 years ago and have anxiously awaited a movie treatment. Looks like my waiting has paid off.

    • You want John Carter naked too?

      Honestly, if movies were exactly like the books or comics, then the movies would have some guy turn the page every so often…

      But my guess is that you would get upset about the comic not being in mint condition or the book not being a leatherback…

      • Okay, yes, I’m all for naked Earth men. But, I agree with your main point.

      • Is that the only thing you have to rebut with because you will notice I made no mention of that. To not get an R rating they had to make that particular concession BUT none of the changes I listed were necessary nor required to make the movie more appealing or work.

        The alterations made serve no purpose other than to do so because they wanted to be different. That is a very self serving and arrogant attitude to think their vision is better than the author’s. What kind of a reason is that?

        • Whether or not you agree with the changes, it’s unfair to say that the alterations, “serve no purpose other than to do so because they wanted to be different.”

          The alterations to their size and face are likely intended to make them more relatable to human audiences – not just giant insects that are meet for the grinder. By “humanizing” them a bit we can see more ourselves in them – and, as a result, we’ll ultimately care more about them. I find it hard to imagine that Burroughs would disagree with subtle changes that help audiences invest in the characters he created.

          • Yes, I already covered that in my original post and I fully disagree with that PoV. Did we care about WALL-E or EVE any less because they were robots? All Pixar did was give them some relatable facial expressions and we ALL cared about them, imagine that (I even loved the little scrubber bot). What about Mike from Monsters Inc.? He’s hardly what I would call even remotely human looking. Hell people are bonkers over Boba Fett even though he’s little more than a uniform and helmeted anonymous person in a bit part.

            I could find many many more examples but the point is we, as a movie watching audience, are more sophisticated so humanizing the Tharks was not needed, just like changing the movie title by dropping the “of Mars” was pointless over thinking. I don’t know of a single person that was drawing any connection between this movie and “Mars needs Moms” when the original title was released.

            Aside from the Tharks, you seemed to have forgotten the other 2/3 of my examples. Can you explain to me, with any reasonable argument, why they changed the look of the calot? and why exactly they decided to make the white apes nocturnal with little mole eyes (among other changes)? The answer is there is no good reason.

            If you want proof I would suggest you read the previous article that discussed the white ape changes. They were changed because they thought it was a “cool” idea. Can you honestly tell me that is a good enough reason to alter well established descriptions?

            So I stand by my original statement and think its fair. Is it so wrong of me to want the creatures I have read about to be brought to life AS THEY WERE WRITTEN?

            • As far as my statement before, I was not directing it towards your beliefs on how the movie version changed from the source material, I was simply pointing out to everyone who dislikes marvel movies, batman movies, superman, and the rest based off of books/comics, that sometimes (SOMETIMES), being simple is better…

              ie:joker fell into a vat of acid VS having scars and wearing face paint.

              However, sometimes its not always a good thing to make the character different then the source material. (Deadpool)

        • “Is that the only thing you have to rebut with because you will notice I made no mention of that.”

          Mention what? You showed that picture of John Carter naked and said “THIS is what they should look like” you may have been talking about the aliens, but then my comment says, how if it were exactly like the source material, it would be some guy turning pages in a book.

          So tell me, what did I miss? Seriously, I would LOOOOVE to rebut anything you say.

          • I already mentioned that clothing was a necessary concession.

            Still waiting for anyone to give me a good reason why they felt justified altering the looking of the creatures so much.

            • Justifiable reasons:

              I don’t have all day so I will keep it as short as possible. Film makers (I happen to be an aspiring animator, concept artist and story teller) will never make a film bound by the exact parameters of the source material. There are many factors that go into this.

              One reason, as many have already stated, is due to the fact that human audiences DO need to be able to relate to a character. I know you feel you have already dismissed this claim but there is fault in your examples. We could relate to WALL-E because the story and circumstances surrounding his actions were human in nature but also (and more importantly) because the majority of the on screen time was spend among other robots AND there were NO (this is the ultimate reason IMO) REAL humans ever sharing the screen with the character… Oddly enough, this principal also applies to Monsters Inc and will probably apply to most of your examples.

              So, regarding John Carter, characters needed to be designed around real world parameters not that of a book. forward facing eyes on the green characters is likely the result of how the book version lacked the ability to play well on screen with the human character an/or other characters. The same goes for other character/creature designs. I can promise you that there are probably many drawings and likely screen tests that included the characters as they are in the book. After the screen test it was determined that XYZ needed to be changed or that a White ape needed to be bigger so that the scene played out with a more epic feel or a different dynamic.

              Another reason source material won’t be replicated exactly is because what works in the book and what we see in our minds eye (which is completely subjective and changes from reader to reader). Creative talents have to come up with approximations that satisfy a larger audience than just the fans of the source material. Which brings me to my last point… They aren’t making the movie for you. They aren’t making the movie for the fans of the book or comic book or video game or any other type of source material out there. These movies are being made to bring awareness to the property and create a larger fan base. If anything, the movies are made to rekindle popularity in the books and broaden the fan base of the books and the property as a whole. That being said the film makers will make sure they try to remain as true to the source material as they can.

              Many unforeseen factors come into play when translating a book to film or anything to film that wasn’t meant for film. What works in a 2D drawing or in the written word may not work in 3D space. The bio mechanics of a creature don’t matter if it never moves or only moves in your mind… build that out in 3D and start moving it in space and a mass of issues can show themselves. When a character is translated to screen EVERYTHING that character may do has to be taken into account when designing it’s look. If the character needs to furrow its brow in concentration the eyes and face must be able to accommodate that action. This principal trickles down through out the design of the character. So, all of the character’s action and acting MUST be considered when the design process starts.

              I am sure you took all of this into account, huh? Probably not… I am going to go out on a limb and call you out as being one of those hyper-critical for all the wrong reasons movie goers that can’t even come close to doing what he is critiquing or lacks even a very basic comprehension as to what film making really involves. You sir, have just been trounced.

              • @Mongoose. What Patrick said.

  10. Lucas, it’s not Star Wars by Disney, so relax. This sci-fi epic will be on the back burner and i don’t think this is the right direction for Disney, but then again POTC4 did make a lot of money. I guess Disney has money to spend on other possible franchises. John Carter? eh, whatever.

  11. that was stupid “walt disney productions, owned by disney” like we do not know that gah

  12. i won’t say nothing until i see more
    of the film and see what critics and
    movie goers say after it comes out,same
    way I saw the Dark Knight or Titanic and
    i wasn’t let down by neither:)

  13. Impressive. If they ever make another GL movie this guy should do it.

  14. I wonder if Mark Strong ever gets a script where he’s NOT playing the villian. He’s a good actor but he’s typecast at the minute

  15. Does the arena remind anyone else of the arena from star wars attack of the clones on geonosis?