Feb 2 2012 6:30pm

New John Carter Trailer is Surprisingly Giggle-Worthy

It looks like Disney has finally realized that no one understands what John Carter is actually about or who it’s for. They just released a featurette that lets us all in on a little secret: the movie’s actually a lot more goofy than they’ve been letting on. Complete with alien confusion over Earth names, plucky princess action and a couple of one-liners, this makes us us feel a little better about how silly the aliens looked in the earlier teasers.

What do you think? Fun or too far?

1. Kirshy
I think they took what could have been an amazing sci-fi movie and made it a stupid kids movie. Here's hoping it won't be as bad as it now seems. Stupid Hollywood.
2. Hollysmess
They did their best with that trailer but the dialog was still lousy. Not holding out a lot of hope.

And was that Led Zepplin in the background?
j p
3. sps49
It looked okay. A production that cares enough to note Michael Whelan's depiction of Carter's harness is one that gives me hope, even if they are using video game physics and not actual physics for the jumping (i.e. parabolas, speed changes during jump) that probably only bugs me.

Dejah Thoris is still overdressed.

Hollysmess @2-
It's not Led Zeppelin, but it is Kashmir.

Edited for typo.
Steven Halter
4. stevenhalter
I am less hopeful as of this trailer than the first one. The Mars books are not a giggle fest.
Jenny Thrash
5. Sihaya
This is a serious book! Every topless princess and harness-clad superman is there for serious business! There should be no laughing in any depiction of it! Wear your serious faces, people.

... okay, who giggled?
Constance Sublette
6. Zorra
If that's what it is, really -- NO INTEREST AT ALL IN SPENDING $13.

I had been looking forward to it.
7. SF
It's a trailer. You can't tell anything about the tone of a film from its trailer since the trailer can be cut in many different ways from the same source material.
Nick Rogers
8. BookGoblin
My take is that I was perfectly happy with the Disney version of Prince of Persia, and for whatever reason this just screams the same vibe.

Admittedly I'm a lifelong fan of the books, so I'm constantly fighting down the urge to take the whole thing more seriously than its pulp origins demand. Frankly, if I get a chuckle, a thrill, a decent romance, and a version of John Carter that doesn't make me want to strangle someone in frustration I'll be ok.

I still wish the film version of the short story "The Film Makers of Mars" would come out, I'd wait in line to see that.
Mike Conley
9. NomadUK
I won't waste my time watching the trailer, and will predict with complete confidence that this thing will be as bad and quickly forgotten as the recent Conan remake was.
10. SF
@9 NomadUK - Given the director's track record as a writer and director (director of Finding Nemo, Wall-E, and A Bug's Life, story credits on Monsters Inc. and all three Toy Story films), I'm much, much more hopeful about this film.
11. StrongDreams
This trailer looks like it is aimed at the "Princesses" market, i.e. 4-10 year old girls who buy Ariel and Tinkerbell dolls. Handsome hero, damsel in distress who also kicks butt, funny dog, green friend who sounds like Shrek.

That might a shrewd move on Disney's part, but I will wait until I can read a review written by an adult.
Chris Hawks
12. SaltManZ
@11: That's kind of the exact opposite of the reason why they said they didn't want to name the film A Princess of Mars.
13. nancym
I have a bad feeling about this.

Just kidding, it might be decent. As was said upthread, trailers can be cut different ways to look like entirely different movies. This is done quite often, if the first trailer doesn't generate the buzz or reactions they were expecting.
14. StrongDreams
@12, the Disney Channel is, as far as I can tell, aimed largely at tween and pre-tween girls. The primary market for this film is tween and pre-teen boys (monsters, swords) so they can't put Princess in the title. But that doesn't mean they don't want the little girls to see it too. Hence this trailer, which I suspect emphasis some elements of the film at the expense of others to achieve a desired appeal.

And folks, let's face it. This is a Disney film, not one of their adult brands like Touchstone. No matter how good the director is, it will never be the John Carter of Mars film for the 21-54 year old demographic.
jon meltzer
15. jmeltzer
Even the Traci Lords version couldn't give us an authenticly costumed Dejah Thoris. (Sigh)
16. Gardner Dozois
I'd have been wild to see this movie when I was thirteen.
18. slfoster01
When is someone going to do ERB true to the books? Tarzan: Jane was a preacher's daughter from Baltimore, MD, USA, not an english Lady; his chimp pal was Nkima, not Cheetah! John Carter: captain in the Conferderate army during the War Between the States- hope the got the accent right. Doomed to disapointment, again. (sigh)
19. Dr. Thanatos
Agreed that Dejah Thoris must be properly attired (or unattired, as the case may be) and that John Carter is a Gentleman from Charlottesville. But as any Virginian will tell you, Captain Carter served in the War of Northern Aggression...

And Tarzan's monkey spent entirely too much time with Jane; she's the one who should have been called Cheetah...

Seriously, a pulp novel of this type can't be taken too seriously but it should have the prerequisite basics: manly men, swooning women, and moustache-twirling, scenery-chewing villians.

And of couse lots of T*ts and L*zards.

Subscribe to this thread

Receive notification by email when a new comment is added. You must be a registered user to subscribe to threads.
Post a comment