Talk:John Carter of Mars (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Film Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Films. This project is a central gathering of editors working to build comprehensive and detailed articles for film topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Future This article has been rated as Future-Class on the quality scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the priority scale.
Editing Guidelines Please remember these guidelines when editing a film article: If a non-film article already exists with the name of the film that you are trying to create an article for, disambiguate and use (film) in the title: Film Title (film) For more information see: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (films) When writing an article about a particular film, the general format should be a concise lead section, followed by a plot summary of no more than 900 words, production details, a cast list, a reception section, and references. Create an Infobox that tells all pertinent information about the film.
Additional Information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points are appropriately cited. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no This article may need an appropriate infobox template.

Contents 1 How? 2 Really necessary? 3 Move to John Carter of Mars 4 Added Details from October 5, 2005 Variety Article 5 Rights 6 Speculation 7 Plug pulled? 8 Frazetta's involvement??? 9 Carolco 10 Pixar 11 Citation for use 12 Adapting the 11 Volume series...

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Citation for use

• Robert Sanchez. "Exclusive POTC 3 Coverage: Pixar Heads Lasseter and Catmull on John Carter of Mars!", IESB.net, 2007-05-21. 

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

[edit] 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)