I wrote this three weeks ago and then forgot to take the file to Chicago, duhh. I assume everybody's seen the film by now, but I'm not sure what else to do with the review but post it.
I too enjoyed it (at a matinee price!). I think Burroughs named "Helium" more for the Sun (Helios) than the element. Princess of Mars was written in 1912, and Helium the element was only discovered a few years before in 1895.
Well, I grant you the advantage of having seen the whole thing, and on the big screen - but what you've said here tends to validate my observation rather than refute it. Boom-zoom-wow CGI only goes so far, before you notice there's no actual bread beneath that butter. (“Forgettable beefcake… unconvincing… all the passion of plum pudding… hard to tell what's going on…” Re-write!)
Sometimes the product outshines its medium. Yes, “Under the Moons of Mars” was published as a pulp magazine serial. Just so, Casablanca was only one of fifty-two movies Warner Bros would release that year. [Yes, that's an average of one fully-produced movie per week. When people speak of “the film industry,” this is what they mean.]
Compared with the REAL pulp hackwork, including the Burroughs knockoffs that became legion, the difference is obvious, and this is why you'll never see a quarter-billion dollar Robert J Horton novel. Or George Allan England, which is too bad, because I'd like to see a decent production of Darkness and Dawn, once the necessary
( ... )
I actually agree with your linked post for the most part. This film's fail is mostly a script problem, and that largely a Disney problem. A brilliant yet smouldering Deja Thoris would have been startling, but Disney doesn't understand smouldering inner sexuality. They mostly understand the toy industry, and I'll bet there will be lots of stuffed Woolas sitting around in the warehouses because nobody saw the film.
As for Woola, yeah: "Beneath that bizarre exterior shone a loyal and loving heart." I'll bet Carol thought the same of me when I was 17. Thankfully, loving and loyal won out over bizarre; see http://junkbox.com/gallery/JeffAndCarol/C_JJuly1971 .
Comments 3
I think Burroughs named "Helium" more for the Sun (Helios) than the element. Princess of Mars was written in 1912, and Helium the element was only discovered a few years before in 1895.
Reply
Well, I grant you the advantage of having seen the whole thing, and on the big screen - but what you've said here tends to validate my observation rather than refute it. Boom-zoom-wow CGI only goes so far, before you notice there's no actual bread beneath that butter. (“Forgettable beefcake… unconvincing… all the passion of plum pudding… hard to tell what's going on…” Re-write!)
Sometimes the product outshines its medium. Yes, “Under the Moons of Mars” was published as a pulp magazine serial. Just so, Casablanca was only one of fifty-two movies Warner Bros would release that year. [Yes, that's an average of one fully-produced movie per week. When people speak of “the film industry,” this is what they mean.]
Compared with the REAL pulp hackwork, including the Burroughs knockoffs that became legion, the difference is obvious, and this is why you'll never see a quarter-billion dollar Robert J Horton novel. Or George Allan England, which is too bad, because I'd like to see a decent production of Darkness and Dawn, once the necessary ( ... )
Reply
As for Woola, yeah: "Beneath that bizarre exterior shone a loyal and loving heart." I'll bet Carol thought the same of me when I was 17. Thankfully, loving and loyal won out over bizarre; see http://junkbox.com/gallery/JeffAndCarol/C_JJuly1971 .
Reply
Leave a comment