3D - The Third Dimension

[Asura]

I finally watched John Carter of Mars a few days ago and really enjoyed it.

I was intrigued when it came out at the cinema, but flopped hard and I didn't get chance to see it.

Just to clarify, are you talking about the 2012 film? Because there was actually another one in 2009.

It flopped for a fair few reasons, but one of the most important IMO was that it was released just under the name "John Carter", without the "... of Mars" suffix. I didn't even know it was a sci-fi movie.

[Asura]

I'm still waiting for 4D movies where you pop in the disc and it takes me back to before I had the misfortune to watch Snow White and the Huntsman

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

[cutmymilk]

The ending of Fallen Kingdom is so bad though..a kid decides to commit a genocide, the idiot.

I do like where the next film is going, with Dinos in Vegas etc.

[eastyy]

The ending of Fallen Kingdom is so bad though..a kid decides to commit a genocide, the idiot.

I do like where the next film is going, with Dinos in Vegas etc.

I hope they are not taking a Gamble there.......

[QualityChimp]

Just to clarify, are you talking about the 2012 film?

It flopped for a fair few reasons, but one of the most important IMO was that it was released just under the name "John Carter", without the "... of Mars" suffix. I didn't even know it was a sci-fi movie.

Yeah, the recent Disney one.
Reading around and people have differing opinions of shortening the title, but I agree it makes it sounds like a bloke down the pub.
It doesn't help that the marketing didn't pick up the slack and make it intriguing like "What is The Matrix?" by asking "how is a Civil War Soldier on Mars?" or "How can a normal man leap a mile?". I just remember seeing adverts on a bus.
Here are some other theories as to why it was a flop:

https://theweek.com/articles/477390/why-john-carter-flopped-6-theories

One of the worst movies I've ever seen.

I'll remember to avoid this one, then!

The ending of Fallen Kingdom is so bad though..a kid decides to commit a genocide, the idiot.
I do like where the next film is going, with Dinos in Vegas etc.

Yeah, I get her motivations and why she could empathise with the dinos, but sheesh, she's caused a lot of deaths!

I hope they are not taking a Gamble there.......

[QualityChimp]

No worries man
Still need to sen you your GitS will do it this week...promise

On a side note have you started watching 3D movies with you little ones yet?
Chloe is 7 now & I'm wondering if it's OK to let her start watching 3D movies yet
As I have the Panasonic DX750b & it's active shutter glasses I'm wondering if it makes any difference at all?

I'm sure I read that up to 6 or 7 3D wasn't suitable because their eyes were still developing (think it was Nintendo who said that with the 3DS) but not sure if that's true or if we should give it a bit longer

Thanks

Neil

No stress on GitS, I need to get Machete back to you!

My son, 8, watches 3D films with me and he's fine, but I don't let my daughter (3).
He mainly watches kids 3D films though, rather than My Bloody Valentine, but there's a crossover. I let him watch the Jurassic Park 3D release and he loved it.

[Neon Ignition]

Reading that John Carter link I'd wager:

Theory 1: I didn't even really think about it, there was a bit of a push on Kitsch at the time so there's an element of it making sense but yep though I'm very doubtful having some big names in there would have made much difference.

Theory 2: Marketing was weak but personally I feel they had little to work with. Shortening the title was likely here nor there as 'John Carter of Mars' is an awful, outdated title itself. There's nothing exciting about it and the idea of Mars no longer sells as a 'distant, alien world' concept. It just pushes the B-Movie thought nugget harder that shortening it aimed to avoid. Really they needed to drop the John Carter name altogether and come up with something new for it as any variant just causes a shoulder shrug, there's no recognition attached to it for the masses.

Theory 3: Pretty much ties in with the above. In a world littered with Sci-fi greats it was naïve to think unfamiliar younger adults would get excited by the idea of a bloke riding around on a dusty rock.

Theory 4: I can understand some of the forgiveness the film gets but I'd say reviews being middle of the road were soft. It's competently made sure but it's a soulless, lifeless corpse of a film. Misconceived from the outset, this is almost the least of the issues that sank it.

Theory 5: Doomed by its first trailer? I'd wager only in terms of confirming what was expected. The film was a development hell nightmare for ages and never created buzz in that time because it was so chronically unappealing a concept.

Theory 6: On the money.


I think for a while there was an attempt to pull apart why this failed, same to an extent with The Lone Ranger, but I think in reality there's no 'if only' moment for the film. We're so used to Disney being a box office power house that it's failures almost become forgotten curiosities but every year they quietly have 3-4 box office disasters that get drowned out by their flood of hits and in reality they're very easy to spot in advance to the point it's a wonder Disney keeps making them. A Wrinkle in Time, The Sorcerer's Apprentice, Tomorrowland, Pete's Dragon, The Nutcracker and the Four Realms and... John Carter. They're all the kind of bland forms of fantasy that never do well. Next year it'll be Artemis Fowle and The One and Only Ivan. All projects that are remarkable by how unremarkable they are. None are car crashes on screen but all kind of just exist and I think the reason no-one has ever been able to single John Carter out and explain the 'why, oh why didn't this work?' is because deep down no-one wanted it to.

[Asura]

Theory 2: Marketing was weak but personally I feel they had little to work with. Shortening the title was likely here nor there as 'John Carter of Mars' is an awful, outdated title itself. There's nothing exciting about it and the idea of Mars no longer sells as a 'distant, alien world' concept. It just pushes the B-Movie thought nugget harder that shortening it aimed to avoid. Really they needed to drop the John Carter name altogether and come up with something new for it as any variant just causes a shoulder shrug, there's no recognition attached to it for the masses.

Personally? I take a tiny measure of glib satisfaction from the movie's failure. Not because of the work of so many (almost certainly earnest) people ended in failure, I've got sympathy for those people, but rather because someone screwed up and couldn't make up for it by simply throwing money at the problem. They had a perfectly good title: "A Princess of Mars", which was the title of the book, which they presumably didn't go with because... They didn't like it?

The story's set on Mars and extensively features a princess. If they didn't like the title "A Princess of Mars", why did they make the bloody movie in the first place?

It just smacks to me of one of the grandest ever cases of wanting to "style it out". It's the Hollywood multi-million-dollar equivalent of when you're writing, and you make a mistake, and you write over your mistake again and again, in a futile attempt to make that "r" look like it was always meant to be a "b".

I'll remember to avoid this one, then!

Right from the start (and this isn't a spoiler), it's Snow White, where the Evil Queen (Charlize Theron) asks the magic mirror (on the wall) about who is the fairest (of them all)... And the mirror tells Charlie that Twilight Girl is the fairest. I'm sure other stuff happens too, but that was so unbelievably stupid that I practically checked out there and then.

EDIT: For the record, I'm aware the moral of the story is that it's meant to be about "inner beauty", but then Twilight Girl isn't exactly a plain Jane either, and from my recollection her characterisation is really flimsy.

[Neon Ignition]

Snow White and the Huntsman has one special honour though. The number of films I've seen at the cinema now totals 678 and it remains the only film I've walked out of because it was that bad I figured my time was better spent watching something else.


With John Carter, there were probably one or two senior staffers who saw it as a passion project and didn't question its market potential enough

[QualityChimp]

Right from the start (and this isn't a spoiler), it's Snow White, where the Evil Queen (Charlize Theron) asks the magic mirror (on the wall) about who is the fairest (of them all)... And the mirror tells Charlie that Twilight Girl is the fairest. I'm sure other stuff happens too, but that was so unbelievably stupid that I practically checked out there and then.

Does Blobcat know how shallow and judgemental you are on people's looks?

SHAME on you!

[Asura]

Does Blobcat know how shallow and judgemental you are on people's looks?

SHAME on you!

Aaaaall I'm saying is that maybe the evil queen should've got a second opinion.

[QualityChimp]

Flicking through YouTube with the VR goggles on, I found this Star Wars fan film, which is pretty well done.

I guess it's more VR than 3D, but pffft.

[Soundwave]

No stress on GitS, I need to get Machete back to you!

My son, 8, watches 3D films with me and he's fine, but I don't let my daughter (3).
He mainly watches kids 3D films though, rather than My Bloody Valentine, but there's a crossover. I let him watch the Jurassic Park 3D release and he loved it.

No worries dude, I'm in no rush

Thanks for that, might see how she gets on.
Yeah the majority will be re-watches of Disney stuff like Coco / Moana / Frozen etc.

Does Blobcat know how shallow and judgemental you are on people's looks?

SHAME on you!

He has a point though, quite possibly the dumbest mirror in all kingdoms anywhere

Neil

[QualityChimp]

I watched Ghost in the Shell that the lovely [MENTION=7037]Soundwave[/MENTION] got for me and it's lovely.

The story itself is an interesting amalgamation of several of the GitS films, but there is tons of references and Easter eggs in there too.
I quite liked how the story was still its own thing and knowing the other stories didn't mean you knew where it was going.

Watching this again, I noticed Scarlett Johansson's subtle performance with some of her (purposefully) robotic movements and interactions with people and her surroundings. A bit like a dexterous Robocop!

There are three featurettes about the making of the film that are good, but a little lacking when you see how rich the film is with atmosphere. A lot of effort went into making the world seem alive.

The action scenes are good, but it's the production that shines for me.

3 D
There are a few too many dark sections, the ending especially, but aside from that, this is as eye-popping as I'd hoped.
The opening shot as we go through the city and meet the Major for the first time is great as there are giant animated holograms between the buildings. They shot those actors in 360, so they could animate them later.



Loads of translucent effects and a variety of depths to the scenes, make the 3D effect stand out.

You could stop the film at almost any moment and it would look like a cyberpunk desktop!
I split the film up into even chunks (16m 33s!) and took a photo at each interval, rather than my fave moments, and I think it shows how great it looks:

https://twitter.com/QualityChimp/status/1202353483355217925

[vanpeebles]

Told you it was a good film. I liked how for futuristic cars, 80's British cars are best, and Takeshi Kitano was awesome!