Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
Much of what has kept Blade Runner alive for film lovers is the visual style, which influenced countless films in the decades since.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:
If anything, its the new Waterworld - a movie they spent more than they should have on, which had terrible buzz leading up to release, but just barely squeaked by financially, and years later, some people flasly call it a huge flop, while others say "It wasn't that bad".

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

Avatar also was actual 3D, and not that post-converted horsecrap.

---

Quote:

---

So what's John Carter's hook?

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AnthonyT:

This is a sci-fi story as told by a writer at the turn of the 20th century who had none of our scientific information about what alien worlds might really be like. A chance to get lost and have fun in an adventure for a couple of hours without thinking too hard.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zeek, Blade Runner has quite a bit going on, on several different levels. There's the main question & theme - what does it mean to be human? What constitutes being "alive", having worth? And what's a life worth? And who decides?

---

Select to view spoiler:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
I found the 3D some of the best utilized I've seen.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
John Carter won't have that kind of longevity at all

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
a lot of your other favorites I think are mediocre at best.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Storymark:

I really love The Thing, BTW.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ImNotHere:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Zeek, Blade Runner has quite a bit going on, on several different levels. There's the main question & theme - what
Also, much copied since (the Earth-based prologue on the extended cut of Avatar, anybody? -

Agreed. I wondered if anyone else caught that, but the questions remains....is it a rip-off or a tribute to that film?

SGG


does it mean to be human? What constitutes being "alive", having worth? And what's a life worth? And who decides?

---

There is that (although the book does it rather more subtly - the 'big question' of the film is moot in the book: who cares whether or not you're a real human if everything you value is artificial?)

Select to view spoiler:

---

...and the VK test in the book looks suspiciously like a test of religious conformity, which is something lost in the film

---

Its also great eye-whisky* - beautifully shot, haunting and atmospheric. Also, much copied since (the Earth-based prologue on the extended cut of Avatar, anybody?)

I think thats why it stands multiple viewings - forget the plot, soak up the atmosphere.

(*like eye candy only not as sweet, less suitable for children and something of an acquired taste)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
I dare say that John Carter may have been misunderstood . . .

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:
I've seen John Carter three times now, and I've liked it more each time.

---

Quote:

---

Waterworld was more a public relations disaster than anything else. The movie was not as bad as people made it out to be. Blade Runner did not get the recognition it gets today because it WAS different than anything of it's time. The visual style notwithstanding, Blade Runner had a particular rhythm, a kind of film noir effect going for it. So the comparison was not made because of BR's style so much, but rather, the lack of vision moviegoers and some critics had during it's original release. The pacing and storytelling rhythm was quite unique for a major release back in 1982.

I dare say that John Carter may have been misunderstood, but it's more likely that the Disney marketing machine erred in the set up and presentation of it's $200 million dollar movie. They incorrectly thought that having their trademarked name, and that of Pixar's Andrew Stanton, would be enough to get people in the theatres - wrong! No, John Carter is a good film. Pacing, story and, surprisingly, the acting was top notch. I seem to have this cringe affect whenever I hear Disney made it. I was pleasantly surprised with the original Pirates of the Caribbean. My brother, of all people, convinced me to go. He said Johnny Depp, how bad could it be. Who knew. And so, I went to see John Carter with some reservation.

Still though, I could help but wonder about the title, John Carter, so I looked it up. I still wasn't convinced. Then I saw a trailer, not bad. I thought - a trip to Mars, a princess who needs saving (where have I heard that before), Edgar Rice Burroughs? WTF? But I said, why not? I convinced my son to tag along. And I had a good time, suspended my belief and everything. It is a cross between Star Wars, Cowboys vs. Aliens and the Three Musketeers. There was the possibility of seeing horses and spaceships? A theme I'm particularly fond of. I'll have you know that the audience in the theatre where I watched John Carter was enthusiastic and even applauded at the end. Now when do you ever see a movie audience applaud a movie?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
And I loved it on DVD too.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by ecgordon:

Even better on Blu-Ray!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:
Whaddya think Ec, the last movie of its kind?

---