John Carter was better than Tarzan

>>8635608
this thread will die because nobody disagrees but JCoM still is too pulpy for the four people on this board.

>>8635608
>>8635632 is completely right.

The film was great too. Just like a McDonalds hamburger. Perfect balance of pulp and shit (I'm not being sarcastic; it's one of my favourite films).

>>8635654
I have nothing to say but you must know that I agree withy our assesment of the film, down to it being one of my favourites, especailly the first two thirds.

>>8635676
I wish they would adapt the rest of the books.

>>8635654
Why do you think it bombed so hard? Serious question.

>>8635710
I'd like an opinion on this as well

>>8635710
I have no idea. Maybe it got unlucky.

I know I originally avoided it like hell because from the trailer I thought it'd be cashgrab trash. I only saw it 'cause a friend recommended it. But who knows how representative that is.

>>8635710
marketing and name.

It was called "John Carter" and it had a small marketing budget, including a bad first trailer.

The bulk of a movie's money is made in the opening weekend, and if that doesn't do well, it closes in a bunch of cinemas so it basically doesn't get a second chance.

It was a shame about the film crashing, but at least I got a decent three-volume reprint of the novels out of it.