How come Pixar directors are bad at making live action movies?

How come Pixar directors are bad at making live action movies?

But it wasn't a bad movie.

Pic obviously unrelated

>bad

7/10
A fun Romp for the entire family.

I liked this film and was hoping for a sequel, but that seems very unlikely now

What was the hate for this movie in the first place?

reminder that based George Miller has directed both animated and live-action films, all acclaimed

I don't think there was any hate, the lack of marketing and generic title just meant that no one paid attention to it.

i think critics felt it wasn't interesting enough seeing how the source material was old.
(at least thats what i read in a few reviews)

Its about a civil war solider who goes to mars and gets super powers and has to save a princess and stop an invasion. pretty interesting stuff with a cool setting.

The Main Actor wasn't really all that charismatic i guess...but he did an okay job for the movie. Maybe it was a bit too plot heavy? they could have stream lined it.

No, I mean I saw the movie I just don't understand why it didn't do so well. You always hear stuff like an over bloated budget and it failed at the box office like Waterworld but the world building and concepts were pretty interesting. The ending is the best part.

It's a bit messy, the fantastical names that while great for worldbuilding weren't a great idea for a general audience fantasy movie, no one knows what these things are, they carry no particular weight or importance, it was quite a long movie, too. Ultimately it was kind of flat, I remember watching it again a while back and sort of being bored by it.

John Carter the
>That was surprisingly good
of movies

It could easily be edited down a lot. I assume its accurate to the book but they should have dumbed it down.
Make it more straightforward
90 mins

and it would have been a lot better. I still liked it though. Didn't deserve the hate critics gave it. Probably the last good Disney film

Aren't the source materials much more adult?

>I just don't understand why it didn't do so well.
It's a movie based on a sci-fi book that was 100 years old and most people haven't hear of. In order to avoid turning people off with a title that was too sci-fi, they called it "John Carter," which is boring and tells you nothing about the movie. And it's marketing campaign wasn't very great. Disney just didn't do a good job of making people interested in the movie.

Because many directors and creators from an animation background don't understand that limitations of live action film. You can't do a lot of stupid, over-the-top or goofy shit in a live action medium without feeling off or looking stupid - unless if your said target audience is college levels or younger.

Also John Carter wasn't a bad movie - it just under-marketed and derived from dated source material that modern audiences didn't give a fuck about.

Shorter yes

dumbed down nah. It's a fantasy movie plus it wasn't really that hard to follow. The names throw people off for the same reason George R. Argh Martin and Tolkien make up names in their books.

But that 100 yr old sci-fi story is compelling in and of itself.

John Carter was fucking awesome. Shit was like a much better version of Avatar.

>shitting on John Carter
you must be a stretching bookfag or just retarded.
JC is k i n o

I'm still mad at how badly they fucked up Tomorrowland.

>the fantastical names that while great for worldbuilding weren't a great idea for a general audience fantasy movie

Funny, because the audiences who love Harry Potter and LotR , eat up that kind of stuff.

>not calling it John Carter of Mars

What were they thinking?

I think Disney realized it was going to flop and decided that blowing more money on marketing wasn't going to help, so they just wrote it off and let it sink.

As far as the movie itself, it was too generic and formulaic to really reach out and grab the imagination. It felt like every other big budget PG-13 rated movie from the last 10 years.

The source material was a poor choice as well in my opinion, because the original book focused much more heavily on the "stranger in a strange and hostile land" aspect of the story and much less on developing a plot or compelling characters. Burroughs wrote escapist fantasy for teens, and his stories all rely heavily on world building and immersion. This doesn't work in a modern adaptation because the Scifi genre was built to a great extent on the foundation laid by Burroughs. Modern movie audiences have seen his stuff before in a hundred different movies and won't find any novelty in Burrough's original works.

The goofy fake latin spells and shit came from an already hyper-popular series of books, the audiences who saw that shit were already familiar and to new audience members, lets be real, abra muh scabra doesn't need to mean shit, you know they're doing magic shit. As for LotR, all that comes from decades of normalization in fantasy and pop culture. LotR is the baseline for fantasy for most people, people take the whole fancy weird elven names for granted.

Point is, there's a major pop culture base for those things. John Carter didn't have that. It's a comparatively much more obscure source material, so no one really came to this with the knowledge and were bombarded with tons of names that meant nothing.

I liked John Carter!

They thought something with an obviously sci-fi title would make women not come. It's basically the same reason they didn't call it "A Princess of Mars," because they knew men wouldn't want to see a movie about a princess. "John Carter" was supposed to be a middle ground.

>But that 100 yr old sci-fi story is compelling in and of itself.
I'm not saying it isn't. I like the movie. But it bombed because people didn't see it, and people didn't see it because Disney didn't give them a reason to. Hell, the only reason I saw it is because my dad was an Edgar Rice Burroughs freak, so I'd read a few of the books as a kid.

>it was too generic and formulaic to really reach out and grab the imagination. It felt like every other big budget PG-13 rated movie from the last 10 years.

So was Avatar, and it made all the money in the world.

Such a better title, I don't know why they dropped 'of Mars'. I'd like to know why this normal Earth name guy is of Mars.

Avatar was also hyped to hell and back and John Carter was sort of quietly released.

Avatar was the vanity project of a guy who has a massive amount of pull in Hollywood,so it benefited from a top-tier marketing campaign. It also took advantage of new technology to make itself a big deal from visuals alone.

Avatar was pushed into your asshole as being the first completely digital 3D computer generated shitshow. People saw it just because of the hype.

>first completely digital 3D computer generated
Toystory?

The John Carter defense force is certainly one of the more bizarre aspects of Sup Forums.

I saw it because it was about space. Same reason why I saw The Martian but skipped garbage like Passengers and Arrival.

probably cuz of the objective criticism while simultaneously giving it praise where it deserves instead of the usual shill just to shill.

Wait, what the fuck? I thought Jake Gyllenhaal starred in this movie.

You're thinking of Prince of Persia

LotR was just a timing miracle, I think. It hit the cusp of the escapism trend before it swelled up to the monstrosity of fantasy, sci-fi, and capeshit that it is today. Combine that with the movies actually being good, and its successful.

Harry Potter is trash, but it does something important for a particularly audience, it allows for an unmerciful amount of character insert. Like shamelessly so.

I'm not your cuz, faggot.

ayy yo hol up mah nigga my bad cuh

John Carter is one of the few big budget action/adventure movies of the last decade I've had any desire to rewatch. No pop culture quips, no fancy editing, just a classic adventure story done well, with a lot of chemistry between the leads and a compelling villain.

>Don't mine me, just being the best character in the movie

The best character in the movie was the princess. This was genuinely one of the few films where I unironically had to pause the film for a wank because I was so unable to concentrate on anything once I saw her.

martians didn't wear clothing in the books, because the lower gravity combined with regular climate made them unnecessary.

They were also thick as fuck.

Are you 12? Or just a Fucking neckbeard? This is why you don't have a gf

...

oh yeah internet tough guy post your gf with timestamp tits and shoe on head then faggot