Re: The even-newer film thread – MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS! : Sun Apr 01, 2012 1:40 pm
Cronus wrote: Find myself increasingly baffled by the whole 'John Carter' cock-up. Wouldn't normally comment but this smacks of irresponsibility and incompetence. Firstly - what sort of studio puts a quarter of a billion dollars into a film in the current climate? I read somewhere recently studios were (wisely) avoiding major gambles and taking safe, relatively inexpensive options rather than huge blockbusters - especially on what is a gamble. Secondly - why a film based on these books? I read A LOT and love sci-fi novels, and I've never heard of them. Then you can't be much of a sci-fi fan. The John Carter series is regarded as one of the key stages in the development of pulp SF and inspired countless major SF writers such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov. Books such as "A Princess of Mars" were - in their day - as popular as any SF novel you care to mention over the past fifty years. |
Cronus wrote: Find myself increasingly baffled by the whole 'John Carter' cock-up. Wouldn't normally comment but this smacks of irresponsibility and incompetence. Firstly - what sort of studio puts a quarter of a billion dollars into a film in the current climate? I read somewhere recently studios were (wisely) avoiding major gambles and taking safe, relatively inexpensive options rather than huge blockbusters - especially on what is a gamble. Secondly - why a film based on these books? I read A LOT and love sci-fi novels, and I've never heard of them. Then you can't be much of a sci-fi fan. The John Carter series is regarded as one of the key stages in the development of pulp SF and inspired countless major SF writers such as Arthur C. Clarke, Ray Bradbury and Isaac Asimov. Books such as "A Princess of Mars" were - in their day - as popular as any SF novel you care to mention over the past fifty years. |
|