Science Fiction Aficionados discussion

John Carter of Mars comes out this weekend, and already there is an important plot change. I hope the movie doesn't disappoint.

OK, most people know that Star Wars has some association with the John Carter books. But do you recall the connection with Heinlein?

just saw an advance screening of this one. stupid, but a lot of fun. i enjoyed it.

i did not know there was a connection between Star Wars and either John Carter or Heinlein. i guess i've always just seen Star Wars as a space opera remake of Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, and gave it no further thought as far as source materials go.

Laz wrote: "OK, most people know that Star Wars has some association with the John Carter books. But do you recall the connection with Heinlein? "

The only thing I can think of is that Heinlein was influenced by these books in some way, perhaps his gateway to science fiction writing.

As far as the movie goes, I'll wait until it shows up on Netflix or RedBox, more because spending $10 to go to the movies these days gives me a fit then any thought that the movie will be terrible or not.

Not to tease, but Cade is on the right track. The thing is, I can't remember which book either. I'll have to go look through the books.

I'm reading A Princess of Mars right now...wondering what took me so long to get to this series. Sometimes it takes a movie I guess!

The Wife and I saw this opening Saturday, and we liked it, but then we loved the books. They made some important plot changes, some of which I accept, though the intro was too complicated. However, the main characters (JC, DT, TT) fit the story well. Unfortunately, if you've never read the books, you probably either won't go see it, or you won't like it if you do.
Anyone else see it?

I'm planning on seeing it sometime this week. I had only vaguely heard of the books before all this, and chances are small that I'll actually ever read them. But I'm looking forward to the film. I'm not expecting to be blown away, but rather a solid, fun couple of hours of pulpy entertainment. Judging by the trailers the film should manage that.

As far as I can work out it's been almost 30 years since I read the books. I read all of them and I was a massive fan at the time. As a kid I even built a Martian chess set out of cardboard and lego and learned to play it (yes, I know it's sad!).

I'm planning to watch the movie and then re-read at least one of the books afterwards to see how they compare. That way, I strongly suspect, I will enjoy the movie more.

I read the first book last week and saw the film on Saturday. I enjoyed both - but I thought the ending of the movie a little too neat and saw how Disney left it neat and tidy so they don't have to continue making any more films if it makes no money. They certainly had a great opportunity to turn people on to a classic author but I wish they did more PR with that piece.

I felt like a big nerd when I informed the concession stand kid that the movie was based on a book. He looked at me like I had grown a third head. I felt old but I am a teacher so I guess I just can't get away from being teacherly...

Of course I will promote the book to my 8th grade students. I think they'll like it.

Perhaps my eyes and TV deceive me, but I could swear the first ads for JOHN CARTER (of what? Peoria? The Bank of the West?) had very muted colors, perhaps the better to sell it as 'gritty and grim', and the last one I saw before opening day had much more saturated hues. I guess with almost every film being put through the computerized pipeline, 'digital grading', that is, altering the film's color palette after the fact, can be done as a matter of course.
There seemed to be a real shying-away from the film's true pulpy roots in the marketing. No "From the creator of TARZAN" type of copy, no acknowledging its 'retro' style. It's as if Disney didn't get what it was they were spending all that $ on, and when they did, panicked.

Rory M. wrote: "I read the first book last week and saw the film on Saturday. I enjoyed both - but I thought the ending of the movie a little too neat and saw how Disney left it neat and tidy so they don't have t..."

Ah, but they did leave the hooks to have a sequel that follows the books. Of course, they may never make it, as it looks like they're going to lose money on this one.

Laz wrote: "Rory M. wrote: "I read the first book last week and saw the film on Saturday. I enjoyed both - but I thought the ending of the movie a little too neat and saw how Disney left it neat and tidy so t..."

I agree...I don't think they will make a second. I showed the movie trailer in class today to generate interest in the book and most of my students hadn't even heard of the movie - which is pretty unheard of really. Did they do any marketing because I'm really out of the loop being a mom of a toddler I don't get to the movies often. One very astute student made the observation that Disney has done other Burroughs books - such as Tarzan - I hadn't made the connection myself. I'm wondering if they have the rights or something...

On the positive...quite a few of my students said they'd like to read the book.

Jaime wrote: "Perhaps my eyes and TV deceive me, but I could swear the first ads for JOHN CARTER (of what? Peoria? The Bank of the West?) had very muted colors, perhaps the better to sell it as 'gritty and grim'..."]

Jaime: Do you really think Burroughs meant for his books to be "campy". I'm not certain. I know the B-Movie industry certainly capitzlied on them and made some very campy versions of his books. The big question..did "camp" exist in 1912?

Well, 'camp' was given its academic and intellectual explications by Susan Sontag in her 'Notes on Camp' in 1964, and basically it stems from western gay culture's seeming infatuation with art informed by the grand emotional expression and gesture - torch songs, melodrama, opera (and by extension musical theatre) but that's neither here nor there WRT Burroughs and the Barsoom books.
They're so obviously of their time (before the term 'science fiction' was even coined), where the men are men (and swashbucklingly so) and the women are the most seductively feminine ever (and oviparous, to boot!) - if there's any precedent, it's Dumas and The 3 Musketeers. So any cinematic adaptation for a 21st C audience has to IMO be light on its feet and not ponderously crushingly 'EPIC' - rather like the Michael York, Oliver Reed et al 3 Musketeers movie from a while back. I just saw JOHN CARTER t'other day and thought that particular line was trod rather well. I don't think it's a total train wreck, but I'm not going to call it the best Barsoom adaptation I'll see in my lifetime (tho' given its cost and seemingly middling success, I'm sure it'll be the last). I feel it has a host of other problems, but I've gone way beyond what I think the original question was... ;-)

Well said Jaime!

i agree, very well said.

another attribute of camp is the reappropriating of many kinds of art (such as opera, cautionary films of the 50s, pulp novels, etc) and placing them squarely within the camp tradition. this implies no intentionality of the original source's creators (say, Edgar Rice Burroughs) to actually create campy material. oftentimes the more straight-faced the source material, the easier the reappropriation. the mid-career films of Joan Crawford were entirely serious in their form & overall goals - but lend themselves very easily to camp reappropriation. as do many pulp novels.

I just watched this, having no knowledge of it other than what I read in this thread. I enjoyed it a lot. Sort of a cross between Star Wars and Indiana Jones. I was a little lost in the beginning, but loved it by the end.

Hi,

Has Burroughs Mars series ever been release in a "complete" volume collecting all of the Mars novels ?

Bob