Andrew A. Smith
Scripps Howard News Service
If you’re wondering who John Carter is, and why there’s a big, splashy movie about him premiering March 9, let me add two words that will make it all clear:
Of. Mars.
Does “John Carter of Mars” sound more familiar? It should, because he’s a character that’s been around for exactly a century. His first story began in 1912 in the pulp magazine The All-Story, and was called “Under the Moons of Mars.” It was re-titled A Princess of Mars when it was released as a novel in 1917, with 10 more novels following.
Still not ringing a bell? Then maybe the author’s name might help: Edgar Rice Burroughs. That’s right, the creator of Tarzan of the Apes.
Got it now? I’d hope so, because John Carter of Mars is relatively famous, which is why it’s a mystery why Disney decided to drop the “of Mars” for this film’s title, given that the ERB series is the great-grandfather of movies like Avatar and Star Wars. I can understand why Disney would avoid naming it “A Princess of Mars,” since a poorly received movie of similar name – one based verrrrry loosely on the ERB work – sank without a trace in 2009 (starring, believe it or not, Traci Lords).
But John Carter of Mars is a big fave in the sci-fi crowd, of which I am a happy member. The first book I ordered from the Science Fiction Book Club in 1968 was A Princess of Mars, and Dejah Thoris – the titular princess – aroused strange longings in my pre-adolescent self. I desperately wanted to be John Carter, a Civil War officer mysteriously transported to Barsoom – that’s what the natives call it – where he can hop around like a grasshopper and is much stronger than he should be, due to the lower gravity and thinner atmosphere. So even Superman owes a debt to John Carter, since his powers were the same in his 1938 debut, and his creators used the same explanation.
Speaking of Barsoom’s atmosphere, the first novel establishes that it’s slowly dissipating, suggesting that Carter might have moved through time as well as space – and that the planet is doomed to be as lifeless as it appeared to the scientists of the mid-1800s. But as a Confederate, John Carter is used to lost causes, and he won’t let that happen! Not with the gorgeous Dejah Thoris of the city-state Helium at his side! And his buddy Tars Tarkas, the mighty, green, four-armed Thark warlord! (Many creatures on Barsoom have extra limbs. The humans don’t have anything extra, except Dejah Thoris, who has an extra dose of va-va-voom.)
In addition to trailblazing the whole interplanetary warrior thing (say “thank you,” Flash Gordon and Luke Skywalker), the John Carter books also moved in more-or-less real time, and eventually the novels were about the children of Carter and Thoris. One was named Carthoris, anticipating the celebrity portmanteaus of today.
While not as successful as his “big brother” Tarzan, John Carter has had his share of media exposure. He appeared in Big Little Books in the 1930s and ‘40s, and in a syndicated comic strip that ran from 1941 to 1943. He appeared in three Dell comics in the 1950s, as a backup in DC’s ERB books in 1972-73 and a four-issue miniseries at Dark Horse in 1996. The most successful series so far is John Carter of Mars by Marvel Comics, which ran 28 issues and three annuals from 1977 to 1979, and enjoyed the efforts of top creators like Marv Wolfman, Gil Kane and Dave Cockrum.
Currently the John Carter concepts are appearing in a variety of titles by Dynamite Entertainment, which brings us to another reason why you may have heard of John Carter lately. The character is in the public domain, but the Burroughs family’s company, ERB Inc., is suing Dynamite anyway for trademark infringement and unfair competition.
As to the movie, it features faces familiar to fans of genre fiction, like Willem “Green Goblin” Dafoe, James “Solomon Kane” Purefoy, Mark Haden “Sandman” Church and Mark “Sinestro” Strong. And if the trailers to John Carter bring to mind Avatar or Star Wars, just remember that Edgar Rice Burroughs is a well from which both James Cameron and George Lucas have drunk deep.
As did my younger self, who to this day still dreams of red skies, green warriors and beautiful princesses.
Of. Mars.
Contact Andrew A. Smith of the Memphis Commercial Appeal at capncomics@aol.com.
Photos:
1. John Carter (TAYLOR KITSCH) By Frank Connor ©2011 Disney. JOHN CARTER™ ERB, Inc.
Comments
It sounds to me like the people being paid to run the show are falling down on the job. I've seen many times a genius being allowed to do whatever he/she wanted (Spider-Man Turn off the Dark?). Some can pull it off, some need someone to sit on them.
If the material for an early trailer wasn’t available it should have been made clear to the director that the movie’s release date would be delayed. If material was selected for an early trailer, the director should not have had veto power over the choice of that material. If some of it needed tweaking, then the tweaking should have had the highest priority.
For a change it sounds like the people trying to assemble the trailer were approaching it correctly. Often, trailers seem to be designed to make a movie seem like something it is not. This approach results in the wrong audience being attracted, disappointed, and providing no positive word of mouth.
I am far from an expert, but I could have told the director that no one outside of fandom has heard of John Carter. Leaving “of Mars” in the title might have attracted the curious, at least.
Another movie that I have a soft spot for is Watchmen. They managed to put together an exciting trailer. Of course, it was exciting to me, someone who already knew the material. The studio was also misled, I think, by the reaction at the San Diego Con, thinking that the general audience would be just as blown away. Apparently it was confusing to many non-fan movie-goers. Touting that it was “the most honored graphic novel” meant nothing to most people, sounding like “eat your vegetables”. There was a person on the street at the time who was asked about the movie. He responded that he “cared about Batman and Spider-Man, but didn’t care about these Watchmen.” When the first X-Men movie was released no one seemed to express these sentiments, even though the general public didn’t know these characters either. Somehow the trailer made the story more accessible. As I said earlier, John Carter was marketed as poorly as can be imagined, not being well-known to the general public.
Well, the numbers are in: "Disney Projects $200 Million John Carter Loss"
It's made $184 million, but production costs were $250 million, plus marketing -- which, according to Hollywood math, means it had to make north of $600 million to break even.
Here's an interesting commentary on i09, lamenting both John Carter's failure and The Lorax's success: "The Fact The Lorax Is a Hit and John Carter Is a Flop Makes Me Want to Stab Everybody"
The ads I saw for John Carter did indeed make it look like the recent Clash of the Titans ie they screamed avoid this movie! I'm glad that the movie seems to be better than that. The involvement of the director of Wall-E and Michael Chabon was always going to make it worth a second look.
I'd like to see it myself now actually.
I wouldn't hold up much hope for a sequel though...
I've got a lot of stuff sitting around the house to read but I'd like to one day read ERB's Mars books. I really did like the movie. I've mentioned to my friends that I saw it and liked it. I just get weird looks from them.
As I tweeted yesterday, "Star Wars" evolved from "Flash Gordon," and "Flash Gordon" ripped off "A Princess of Mars." So, in a sense, John Carter is Luke Skywalker's grandfather.
I blurted out Woola's name when he appeared on the screen, and was as surprised as my anyone that I remembered the name from more than 35 years ago. I suddenly realized that I had never forgotten words like Thark, Warhoon, Tars Tarkas, Kantos Kan, calot, and so forth. I guess I really loved that series.Or maybe it's simply that the things you learn first are the things you forget last.
I thought the movie did a fine job on the plot, too, as the original is pretty dated in its structure. Especially in how they updated how Carter got to Mars, a method both movie audiences and Carter would understand ("It's a telegraph!") and that wasn't as loopy as "pyschic projection."
Oh, and wow! I really liked it! I'd see the sequel(s) in a heartbeat!
I just saw it a few hours ago and in December I finished the first John Carter book, "A Princess of Mars." I think the screenwriters (a group that includes Michael Chabon!) did a good job sorting through things and re-arranging the plot to bring some action to it. The book itself seemed to lack a plot until the last quarter of it. The movie rebuilt the same plot, but inserted the key parts much earlier which helped it flow.
Woola was a nice surprise ... I loved what they did with him!
My wife was surprised that he was a Confederate. But it seems to me that most adventure characters from that era were, like Jonah Hex. I'd be interested in any theories why that might be.
They occasionally referred to him as an animal, as well.
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
of 4 Next