While I am as on-the-fence with this film as one can possibly be, I thought the biggest problem with it was that stuff just happened, and we the audience just has to take the films word on it and keep watching.
The reason Carter can jump as far as he can and punch people to death in one blow is never really explained, in the novels they explain that Earth's gravity being greater than Mars' makes the inhabitants more muscular than those on Mars, so John Carter being on Mars' lower-gravity surface is built tougher than those already there.
Mark Strong's race of people can chameleon themselves into other people? okay...
The Tharks have a magic juice that makes those who drink it understand their language completely, speaking and listening, okay...
instead of using slow moving creatures that take like three days to get places, why not just tape themselves to John Carter and have him leap across Mars' surface, they'd get there in a fraction of the time.
It doesn't occur to John Carter until late in the film that Mars is a better place for him to be than Earth. He's a hunted man with a troubled past back home, a war's going on that he has to endure. But on Mars HE'S A GOD, he can jump for miles and he's stronger than anyone there.
We never see John eat or drink anything proper in the movie, there's barely any water on Mars. We can buy that the natives don't need to drink because they're aliens, but John's just a man he needs to drink and Mars looks pretty dry, he surely must get thirsty.
Why intercut Carter's backstory randomly halfway through the film in the middle of an action scene, put it at the start of the film so it establishes something about the protagonist.
One of the factions on Mars lives on a giant machine that claws its way across the surface of the planet, what if it wandered off a cliff? what if it exploded? the entire city would be decimated with all its people.
The Tharks are the most bipolar character in film history. They immediately take an interest in John because of his jumping and strength, so why do they lock him up, shout abuse at him and throw in a gladiators coliseum to die during the film. This guy can jump fifty miles away in a second and punch you to death, why would you mess with him? John Carter should have just abandoned the Tharks and not helped them out considering what they put him through.
Carter's feet make blue lights happen... I did not get this scene at all.
The biggest one of all is the first thing you ask when he lands on Mars: "How can he breathe? there are no trees" This is something carried on from the novel, that was written a hundred years ago, astronomers at the time weren't sure if you could breathe on Mars. After watching so many films over the years that make it clear that humans can't always breathe on foreign worlds (especially those without plant life) it raised a serious question.
I honestly can't decide whether or not I liked it, while I was never bored I found myself questioning a lot of things. The action was solid, and the film looks nice.
Maybe the source material is dated, maybe it's been spun off by other films like "Star Wars" and "Avatar" that are so locked into the public conscious we're aware constantly of what we've seen before that it hosts no surprises.
As for the films box office performance, it's too early to tell, but if Disney needs at least $400million to earn its money back, it seems like a tall order.
Sorry Andrew Stanton, better luck next time. At least you'll always have Wall-e.
The reason Carter can jump as far as he can and punch people to death in one blow is never really explained, in the novels they explain that Earth's gravity being greater than Mars' makes the inhabitants more muscular than those on Mars, so John Carter being on Mars' lower-gravity surface is built tougher than those already there.
Mark Strong's race of people can chameleon themselves into other people? okay...
The Tharks have a magic juice that makes those who drink it understand their language completely, speaking and listening, okay...
instead of using slow moving creatures that take like three days to get places, why not just tape themselves to John Carter and have him leap across Mars' surface, they'd get there in a fraction of the time.
It doesn't occur to John Carter until late in the film that Mars is a better place for him to be than Earth. He's a hunted man with a troubled past back home, a war's going on that he has to endure. But on Mars HE'S A GOD, he can jump for miles and he's stronger than anyone there.
We never see John eat or drink anything proper in the movie, there's barely any water on Mars. We can buy that the natives don't need to drink because they're aliens, but John's just a man he needs to drink and Mars looks pretty dry, he surely must get thirsty.
Why intercut Carter's backstory randomly halfway through the film in the middle of an action scene, put it at the start of the film so it establishes something about the protagonist.
One of the factions on Mars lives on a giant machine that claws its way across the surface of the planet, what if it wandered off a cliff? what if it exploded? the entire city would be decimated with all its people.
The Tharks are the most bipolar character in film history. They immediately take an interest in John because of his jumping and strength, so why do they lock him up, shout abuse at him and throw in a gladiators coliseum to die during the film. This guy can jump fifty miles away in a second and punch you to death, why would you mess with him? John Carter should have just abandoned the Tharks and not helped them out considering what they put him through.
Carter's feet make blue lights happen... I did not get this scene at all.
The biggest one of all is the first thing you ask when he lands on Mars: "How can he breathe? there are no trees" This is something carried on from the novel, that was written a hundred years ago, astronomers at the time weren't sure if you could breathe on Mars. After watching so many films over the years that make it clear that humans can't always breathe on foreign worlds (especially those without plant life) it raised a serious question.
I honestly can't decide whether or not I liked it, while I was never bored I found myself questioning a lot of things. The action was solid, and the film looks nice.
Maybe the source material is dated, maybe it's been spun off by other films like "Star Wars" and "Avatar" that are so locked into the public conscious we're aware constantly of what we've seen before that it hosts no surprises.
As for the films box office performance, it's too early to tell, but if Disney needs at least $400million to earn its money back, it seems like a tall order.
Sorry Andrew Stanton, better luck next time. At least you'll always have Wall-e.