John Carter: Lot of promise but flawed script

I went to see John Carter tonight. I went in not really expecting too much. I already heard from a few that the movie wasn't that great. They didn't go into too many details so I essentially went in there unbiased.

My first mistake was to bother watching it in 3D. I have this idea that 3D works in a movie if there is a purpose to it. I know that this movie takes place in a different world much like Avatar did. In Avatar, the 3D really was part of immersing the reviewer into the movie. I watched Avatar in 2D and IMAX 3D.  Nothing beat the experience in IMAX 3D because I felt as if I was there with the characters. I really didn't feel like I was immersed in Mars while I was watching John Carter. I only noticed the stereoscopic depth when the digital characters were involved.

Speaking of the digital characters...

The character designs of the martian character were pretty cool. At first it was kinda like watching Jar Jar Binks but after a while I just excepted them. Unfortunately, I don't think they were really integrated in the movie as well as they could have. There were a few times when they seemed like they were too in focus.

I noticed the same about John Carter. At times, it seemed like he was put into the scene as a cardboard cutout. I wonder if the production had enough time to complete the scenes. The times I really noticed it were when Carter was about to leap. I feel like it could have been better to show it once or twice.

The dog was certainly the best digital character in the movie. The animators had this guy nailed great. I huge dog that had the speed of Speedy Gonzalez. They didn't over use him and you couldn't help but smile when you saw him.

The Story
It was essentially an allegory of the American civil war. There were the native Americans who wanted nothing to do with the white man and the two groups locked in civil war for dominance. They were all being manipulated by a race of immortals for no known reason.

The story had started off great. Andrew Stanton did exactly what he mentions in his recent lecture at TED called Andrew Stanton: The clues to a great story | Video on TED.com. He makes the promise to the viewer of an amazing adventure. I was intrigued. It worked. As the movie went on, some things were not working though. Stanton establishes why Carter's does not want to fight anyone, but the turning point of when he reluctantly joins the cause on Mars. Was it to prevent the princess from marrying the bad guy from the "South" (Sorry, I can't remember the other character's name or where he was from, but because it is a allegory of the civil war, I will call the guys in red, the South and the blue guys, the North)? At one point Carter even asks why the princess doesn't just marry him and avoid bloodshed. What made him just say "OK. I am in this for the long haul".

It seems like the screenplay could have used a lot of character development. They had to cover so much in this movie that I think it was just too much to cover in the time given. The story could have been better as a trilogy. Maybe have him while the "Natives" in the first movie. Establish why the Native daughter and father were so distant and why she needed to take care of Carter when he came to their tribe. The second act could have been their journey to the "Holy Land" (Again, Can't remember what his place was called). The last could have been there race to the North and the revelation that the immortals were involved.

It was a fun movie to watch overall. The acting from Taylor Kitsch, Mark Strong and Lynn Collins were done well. They would have been better served with a stronger script. Stanton just bit off more than he could chew this time. The beauty of the movies he has done at Pixar is that they will take years to develop a great story. It may have been the case that he was just rushed.

Let me know what you think if you have seen it. I would love to hear your impressions.

Some really great content recently

I have been following Stu Maschwitz for years now. I first heard of him listening to the fxguide podcast a few years ago. He was a grad from Art Center and one of the youngest hires at ILM at the time. He went on to one of the co-founders of The Orphanage, a great effects company that has created a lot of great work for film as well as television. These days, Stu runs a site called Prolost where he comments on everything from digital cinematography to screenwritting apps.

One day he had mentioned that he was on a podcast called, SpotCast, hosted by Ron Small of Sway Productions. He did an awesome interview with Stu covering everything from Stu's days working on the Star Wars - Special Edition movies, music video work after 9/11 and his thoughts on where he sees his career taking him. Ron asked all the questions I wanted to know and he did it in a no nonsense kind of way. Ron has done other great interviews with guys like Vincent Laforet and Jason Wingrove. If you haven't heard the podcast, you should definately check it out.

Behavioral Economics in Media and Entertainment

I am fascinated with the way that people have been marketing themselves.

You take a group like the guys at UnderWaterRealm Pictures. These guys have an ambitious goal, to make a great film that takes place underwater. They gained my notice when they started posting links to their weekly video diary entries. I loved watching them work together on scenes and sharing the things they learned on production. They offered backers great incentives to invest in their film. They offered investors things like, plans to build an affordable LED light that can be used underwater, background diaries of Zomblies (their horror film), and Lighting tutorials from their DOP Eve Hazelton.

I am currently enrolled in the latest term at FXPhD. Mike Seymour's background fundamentals course goes over topic of Behavioral Economics. I can't help but think that these guys have a lot in common.