Talk:John Carter (film)

First and Second Novel

At least some part of the second novel (gods of mars) was used as the basis for the screenplay. Matai Shang is not introduced until the second novel but is listed as a character in the film. This page needs to be edited to reflect that at least some parts of the second novel will be in this film (how much? only Andrew Stanton knows). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.81.239 (talk) 22:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How?

Does anyone know anything about this movie? I loved the series, but the heroine of the novel is *gulp* naked. Actually, all the inhabitants of Barsoom are. Are they just planning to put clothes on all the actors or are they planning the have them strut around as Burroughs intended? Or are they opting for just topless-ness? The latter two would for sure force it to at least an R rating. I doubt Paramount would want to sacrifice ticket sales to the restrictive rating. Anyone have any more info? — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:08, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

I know I'm just assuming but I think it's a pretty fair assumption, given it's Hollywood, that it won't really stay true to the book. And not just for nudity reason either -- I can't think of any adapted movie that was reasonably strictly-true to its original book story. But yeah, nudity is probably also why even the characters in Richard Corben's "Den" weren't as naked as they were supposed to be in Heavy Metal: The Movie... and that was Heavy Metal for crying out loud. I think the most nudity you'd see would be the nudity seen in the Conan The Barbarian movies, a couple pairs of boobs here and there but doubtfully full-Frazetta frontals. --I am not good at running 21:57, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

If you read any of the comic book adaptations (DC or Marvel) from the past, you see they put them in exotic clothing. Loinclothes and harnesses and the like. Heck, this is what I had always imagianed they were wearing when I read the original books. --Emb021 20:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Really necessary?

I had the link to the IMDb at the bottom of the artcile, so why did Phil Boswell come along and change it to his custom message? Wasn't the explicit link good enough (or even better)? The only argument I can see to using the template is consistency. Yes, consistency is nice, but what if you hate the wording of the template? Particularly, I object to wikilinks in the External links section (it's confusing for newbies). Until someone can answer these objections, I'm reverting it back to my previous version. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:29, Sep 30, 2004 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Describe external links. The "External links" section is not a privileged part of the article: there is no restriction on having internal links to clarify the relevance of the various external links shown. The IMDb templates imdb title and imdb name have been created to bring uniformity to movie references: if you don't like the format, discuss it on the relevant talk page(s). Having answered your question, I'll reapply the change; I'll consider whether we should do similar for movies.com although there's only about 9 hits on Wikipedia for that right now: maybe we should link to that site more as well. --Phil | Talk 08:39, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I put my comments there. — Frecklefoot | Talk 15:46, Oct 1, 2004 (UTC)

Move to John Carter of Mars

Since the name of the movie has officially been changed, should we move this article to John Carter of Mars (film)? If no one objects in a few days, I'll do the move. — Frecklefoot | Talk 16:02, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

Done. — Frecklefoot | Talk 21:13, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Added Details from October 5, 2005 Variety Article

Variety ran an article today on the flick, so I added a lot of details. This picture hasn't even been greenlit, so the 2006 release date was really speculative; I rewrote that. Paramount is the releasing studio, not the producer, so producer information was added. Kerry Conran is out as director; Jon Favreau replaced him. Mark Protosevich wrote the script, so I added that -- rewrite is by Kruger. The article also suggests the movie is based on more than one novel, a la Master and Commander. The studio will also franchise if successful. I think that about covers my redo. David Hoag 21:55, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Rights

How can someone possibly get the film rights to a public domain story?

I only think the first few stories are public domain, having passed out of copyright. The last few stories are still under copyright protection. Therefore, the Burrough's estate still owns the IP of John Carter and related stories. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:03, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Edgar Rice Burroughs, Inc (not 'the estate') owns a trademark on the names, as well as trademarks on such other properties as Tarzan. Theoretically, anyone should be able to make the film, but no one could sell it *as* Barsoom, John Carter, and so on (just like no one without permission can sell a Tarzan movie as such). The IP of John Carter, Barsoom, and so on in copyright form is fair game (and if some of the stories are still not in public domain, it's only those portions that can't be derived from). However, by using the trademark trick, ERB, Inc. has effectively bypassed copyright law to restrict use of something and defeat the spirit of the public domain. I, for one, find this utterly reprehensible, and would cheer if legal action to stop this sort of thing from being possible successfully occurred.

Speculation

Given that this project has been on/off since the 1930s and still hasn't made it, it seems rather speculative to me to say that "this time it's going to happen. No really...". The history and present status of the project is certainly worth discussing but I think we should be careful about predictions. The opening paragraphs in particular are worded as if it's a foregone conclusion that the film is going to happen this time. While I sincerely hope that it is, I don't think that we should make the assumption. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Plug pulled?

If it's true that the plug has been pulled on the latest attempt to film Princess of Mars, perhaps the title should be moved back to A Princess of Mars (film) and reworked so that the latest is treated as just one more attempt. Nareek 12:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Where did you hear it was cancelled? It seems to me it is just in development hell. — Frecklefoot | Talk 17:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It's from an unsourced edit made to the A Princess of Mars that I've since reverted--the editor may well have pulled it out from his or her nether region. Nareek 17:19, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Frazetta's involvement???

Is there any better source regarding Frazetta's involvement with the Rodriguez version? The linked to story from Aintitcoolnews.com simply says, "If Rodriguez was able to convince Frank Miller that he can reproduce SIN CITY's look onscreen, one can only imagine what would happen if he signed Frazetta to help steer the John Carter film's palette." While Frazetta has done a lot of John Carter paintings over the years, I haven't found any indication he did any work for Rodriquez's attempt. Jccalhoun 05:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Carolco

I put a {{Fact}} tag on the line about the film's increasing budget being partly/contributing to the bankruptcy of Carolco. Unless someone can find an actual source, this is very highly doubtful seeing that the film was only in pre-production and Cruise was only in negotiations at that point. Had he signed and had some sort of pay or play deal, that would be one thing. But Carolco's troubles came from film's that had already gone way over budget and then failed to make money, like Cutthroat Island and Showgirls (plus the owners' lifestyles and buisness expenses). The John Carter project contributed about as much as their office rentals: some, but not really. RoyBatty42 17:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Most of the content in the article could citation. Hopefully, I can get around to cleaning it up, and additionally address the Carolco information. —Erik (talk • contrib • review) - 17:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Pixar

Seems the project is now at Disney, Favreau is out and it will become a Pixar film according to a side-item in a story on Yahoo about Joss Whedon departing Wonder Woman. I'm lousy with doing the reference tags, so here's the info: [1] RoyBatty42 18:35, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The IMDb page is now up. link --211.27.219.22 10:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Disney/Pixar" section --- specifically the 2nd paragraph -- needs to be checked for grammar/accuracy. Also, since WP's policy is not to cite blogs as sources, I am hesitant to even include the entire 2nd paragraph at all as it does not really add any usable information to the article. SpikeJones 12:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this article needs a massive clean-up. I'd suggest being bold in re-shaping the article's content -- I doubt that you'd decrease its quality. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:06, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Citation for use

• Robert Sanchez (2007-05-21). "Exclusive POTC 3 Coverage: Pixar Heads Lasseter and Catmull on John Carter of Mars!". IESB.net. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Citation for use. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:54, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Adapting the 11 Volume series...

Really? My assumption was that were adapting 1 or a little more... but forcing all 11 into one film? That seems odd.
Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The article is a little bit of a mess, so I wouldn't necessarily say that's true. It'd be a representation of the character as he's been written in these volumes, probably. In the meantime, the article could use a definite clean-up. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was just pointing out that the openning line was misleading and badly worded.

Still is.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Any better now? I fixed the sentence so it's clearer that the project is about the character and not about the 11-volume series. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 15:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Better. As you say, whole thing needs a clean-up, though.

Duggy 1138 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I set up a Google Alert some time ago to capture relevant headlines for this project. This article should be merged per the notability guidelines for future films, though. Some examples of merges can be seen here. I'll see about adding substance here first, then merging it to a more appropriate article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 16:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

There exists no Moab County in Utah

I changed the information on this page from 'Moab' County to Grand County. The desert city of Moab is located in Grand County. I don't believe I changed it correctly though. Someone might fix it? Thanks.

Rights

I'm confused as to why there would be "rights" that need to be bought for a film version of A Princess of Mars. Isn't the book in the public domain? john k (talk) 03:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IANAL, but I believe the rights to movies based on the books belong to the Edgar Rice Burroughs Estate, and that is who they are administered by. So, yes, the book is in the public domain now, but the rights aren't. The copyright to the characters in the books are still owned by the estate. — Frεcklεfσσt | Talk 14:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IANAL either, but someone above explained it as a trademark issue rather than copyright. To my layman's ears that makes perfect sense. If this is true, it's a real shame, as it severely undermines public domain. -- Nils (talk) 17:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Simple solution - the story is in the public domain, so change the names of the characters and republish it. John Carter can become John Cartwright. But is any of this really necessary? The Asylum did their own version of the movie, did they get permission from whoever owns the characters?173.60.95.232 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC).

History section should be deleted

The MOS:Film does not call for a "History" section, so it should be deleted. I think that there are some good nuggets of information within the current "History" section that could be put into the "Production" section, but in an effort to bring the article up to standards, we should consider deleting the "History" section. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The guidelines try to recommend best practices for certain topics. The "History" section is really part of the overall production history. Most of the history falls under the "Production" section, but sometimes the history is extensive enough to be in its own section. See Production of Watchmen, for example. I don't think we should delete it, but if editors want to separate the previous production attempts from the actually successful production, we could create a sub-article. My feeling is that the "History" section is not quite long enough to do a worthwhile content fork. Erik (talk | contribs) 18:53, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe just renaming the section to the production section will suffice. I agree, an entire new article is probably not the best option here, but if we move a few items around, I think we can get the article in better shape. I'm working on re-writing a few of the sections, as well as adding sources. I'll be sure to post my draft before making any major changes, but I'll keep your opinions in mind regarding the History section. Thanks again. --TravisBernard (talk) 19:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I revised the history section in my draft, and decided not to remove much of the information. Basically, I just removed non-sourced information and a little information about the Lord of the Rings background. I also did a little bit of work on the plot and the introduction paragraph. The most important item I would like to change is the film genre. All reports thus far have indicated that it is an action adventure film, not a science fiction fantasy film. Finally I added a few additional "see also links." Because these edits are not as substantial as originally intended, I'll go ahead and make them today. I'm open to keep the conversation going about the edits. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

I just implemented these edits. Here's a summary of the edits made with an explanation:

• Fixed infobox. There was some information missing as well as incorrect information.
• Switched genre from "science fiction fantasy" to "action adventure" because all information released so far has indicated that it is an adventure film. Perhaps we should switch it to a "science fiction adventure" film. I also revised some information in the introduction paragraph, inlcuding adding Lyndsay Collins to the producers.
• There are a number of times in the article where Pixar is reference as the studio. It's actually Disney.
• Cast section - added sources and removed a few non-sourced cast members.
• Revised plot, but it still needs work. I've never read the book and I'm not sure how closely the movie follows the book. Any help here would be greatly appreciated.
• Added sources to production section.
• Added two links to the "See Also" section.

Let me know if you have questions or would like to discuss my edits and/or the article. Thanks --TravisBernard (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Jon Favreau cameo not bulleted

I noticed he's listed under the cast section, but is there any reason why his name isn't bulleted? It just seems a little off. Any thoughts here? --TravisBernard (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Marketing section (re: Super Bowl spot)

It has been confirmed that the film will have a Super Bowl commercial. Is this worth adding now, or should we wait until after the game? --TravisBernard (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Pixar animation box at bottom

While Andrew Stanton is attached to the project, it isn't a Pixar Animation film. We should probably remove this and replace it with some sort of Disney Films box. Thoughts? --TravisBernard (talk) 17:10, 27 February 2012 (UTC)