Screw that, it's still my most anticipated movie of 2012.
Aeryn Send a noteboard - 27/02/2012 03:02:13 PM
Yes, it should have "of Mars" in the title, I still refer to it that way. The movie looks epic and awesome. People who are saying that it looks empty and plotless don't know that it is built on a a book (an entire series of books), so plenty of material there. Also, it is being made by people who are huge fans of the books. How frequently do we get good fantasy/scifi movies? The demand is huge for themm, which is why so much crap gets through. John Carter will not be crap. It's going to be awesome. I'm right.
There are basically 2 theories.
1) People who think it should have "of Mars" in the title are so cheesed about it that they think no one will want to go see it because of that omission.
2) Remember that sandy Coliseum scene in Attack of the Clones? The preview makes the film look like a two hour long re-imagining of that scene, devoid of any plot, character motivation or reasonable explanation. It says "Here's a human being simply beating the shit out of a variety of CGI creatures. Now, give us your money."
Are you going to see John Carter? Theatrically? Netflix? Torrent?
For me, unless the word of mouth is phenomenal, it will probably be one of those films I say I'll get around to eventually, then six years after it's been out on DVD, I'll see it in a $3.99 bin, say "Huh, I can't believe I never watched that" and then I'll seriously continue walking by without grabbing a copy.
You can also feel free to be one of those people who, instead of discussing it or theorizing on why it might flop, angrily discusses why box office take is stupid and doesn't matter. That's cool, too.
1) People who think it should have "of Mars" in the title are so cheesed about it that they think no one will want to go see it because of that omission.
2) Remember that sandy Coliseum scene in Attack of the Clones? The preview makes the film look like a two hour long re-imagining of that scene, devoid of any plot, character motivation or reasonable explanation. It says "Here's a human being simply beating the shit out of a variety of CGI creatures. Now, give us your money."
Are you going to see John Carter? Theatrically? Netflix? Torrent?
For me, unless the word of mouth is phenomenal, it will probably be one of those films I say I'll get around to eventually, then six years after it's been out on DVD, I'll see it in a $3.99 bin, say "Huh, I can't believe I never watched that" and then I'll seriously continue walking by without grabbing a copy.
You can also feel free to be one of those people who, instead of discussing it or theorizing on why it might flop, angrily discusses why box office take is stupid and doesn't matter. That's cool, too.
John Carter. It's being declared a flop weeks ahead of it's premiere.
- 25/02/2012 12:49:00 AM
861 Views
I'd like to see it, but only at the discounted matinee ticket price. *NM*
- 25/02/2012 01:39:11 AM
223 Views
Screw that, it's still my most anticipated movie of 2012.
- 27/02/2012 03:02:13 PM
1587 Views
So I can tell you who's going to see this movie: me, my sister, my boyfriend, his brothers...
- 27/02/2012 03:05:41 PM
554 Views
Its cast is awesome enough that I might consider watching it.
- 03/03/2012 05:46:57 PM
374 Views
Yes, do. It's even better than twilight. *NM*
- 11/03/2012 09:50:24 PM
240 Views
LOL. That doesn't sell many people on the film. 
*NM*
- 11/03/2012 11:41:21 PM
173 Views
*NM*
- 11/03/2012 11:41:21 PM
173 Views
Well, he saw Twilight on my recommendation and didn't hate it, so in this case it might work
- 12/03/2012 02:56:20 AM
421 Views
Did you make him watch the first three first? Or did he go in cold? *NM*
- 13/03/2012 10:57:58 PM
179 Views
Breaking Dawn Part One was entertaining enough, I had a good time.
- 12/03/2012 10:09:00 PM
371 Views
It looks like some reviewers agree
- 09/03/2012 03:42:17 PM
471 Views
- 09/03/2012 03:42:17 PM
471 Views