Thursday, March 1, 2012

Disney Ruins John Carter



Why is it Hollywood can no longer make a decent pulpy action adventure movie?  Look at what they did to Beowulf and Transformers, for crying out loud.  How can they get such simple and timeless tales so horribly wrong?

Though I do have to admit that, to my eternal shock, they did all right by Captain America.  But that was a fluke.

With a hat-tip to John C. Wright, we have news on the early screening of John Carter in Philadelphia, via Latino Review.  Let me begin by pointing out the first thing wrong with this movie:  the title.  Shouldn't it have "of Mars" in it somewhere?  Edgar Rice Burroughs's first novel in his long Martian series was called Under the Moons of Mars, later retitled A Princess of Mars.  And Disney, in its brilliance, changes the title to . . . John Carter.  Genius.  That title is so totally not boring, really.

Here's from Latino Review, from which I also stole that picture up top:

. . . the story takes us back thirteen years earlier where American Civil War veteran Carter is prospecting in Arizona. Being that they are deep in Apache territory, an Army Colonel (played by an almost unrecognizable Bryan Cranston) takes Carter into custody with the intent of forcing him to join their fight against the Native Americans. After a series of fairly humorous escape attempts, Carter finally makes a real jail break and flees into the mountains on horseback, where he’s forced to save the Colonel’s life after the man and his pursuing soldiers have a run in with a tribe of natives.  [more . . .]

In other words, they twisted up the opening of the novel to make the cavalry the bad guys and make John Carter, who in Burroughs is the greatest fighter on two worlds and likes it, war-weary.

I'll just let Mr. Wright give the response to this mutilation of the story's opening:

. . . I still have some hope for this film, but I also know that, in the same way Jackson could not portray Aragorn and Faramir in a LOTR film, Disney cannot portray John Carter. Political Correctness focuses on two main thoughts: undermining authority and emasculating masculinity. The storybook hero, since roughly the time of Mallory, has always had two characteristics: he was both humble and ferocious. That is the paradox of chivalry: a man obedient to the authority of country, king, and God, and all the noble principles of fair play, who is also a very devil in combat, laughing as he slays. There is no humility in PC, because there is no authority aside from the ego, and there is no laughter in PC, except for mocking laughter such as imps laugh when they see fair and fine things fail, and they have no joy in battle.  [more . . .]

And what becomes of a society when the Leftists and PC-niks have had their way?  What happens when heroism and chivalry are dead, men are taught to be cowards, women are taught to be men, marriages are destroyed, and children are raised in broken homes?

Han shoots second and Derpy gets removed from canon, that's what.  Save your stories, fanboys:  become a conservative Christian.
blog comments powered by Disqus