Alex from FirstShowing.net had the chance to chat to Andrew Stanton recently and was given an update on John Carter of Mars.
What we now know is that Mark Andrews is adapting the first novel, A Princess of Mars to screenplay for Pixar.
One of the biggest questions surrounding the project is whether they’re planning on staying CGI or integrating live action. Stanton starts off by saying that "we honestly don’t know," but adds that "it’s clearly got to be a hybrid of some sort."
says Alex. He adds that at this stage in production they are worrying solely about the story and getting it right. And on the violence in the film and novels, Stanton added, "We’ll find the proper venue to put the movie out." However no word on nudity yet.
Read the rest here. Thanks Alex.
Last modified: June 19, 2008
I would rather prefer that they don’t integrate live-action in the film. I don’t know, I’d most likely get a headache from looking at that on the screen. So, if that does turn out to be the case, I’m probably going to have to deal with headache pain. I’d much rather prefer that they integrate hand-drawn animation or stay with an all CG film.
Ugh, if that’;s the girl’s outfit, I’m not going. Just what we need. More of girls being nothing more sexual objects in hollywood.
Andrew Stanton, why?
Netbug, they are pictures from the story. Doesn’t mean Pixar will stick with it. All of this kind of stuff is being worked out as we speak probably.
All CG + Partial Nudity is my preference.
And I doubt they’re going to market the movie on sexual exploits like most of Hollywood. Nudity is a part of the “John Carter” world. They can do it tastefully and in a respectful way. I would be quite disappointed if they G/PG-ized John Carter.
For example, the Bible contains very strong sexual themes such as adultery. It’s used as a cautionary device to warn against (in one example) of what happens when you stray from God’s intent for marriage.
The point is, humans are imperfect creatures. And there’s a general line of disrespectful, exploitative, and “un-redeeming” imagery (see Miller v. California) and then there’s movies that do it quite well, nudity or not.
Nudity is “a part of” the John Carter world? That’s um… kinda gross. (No, scratch that. It’s REALLY gross!)
I’m still standing at the back of the crowd when it comes to this show. I remember when the rumors had first surfaced about all this, and thinking “What? Pixar??”
At best, I’m curious to see what happens; if it’ll be decided if Pixar has any hand in it for sure, how much so, and if they do, how they’ll work it out. Pixar hasn’t done anything that’s ‘shocked’ me yet, and I’m hoping they won’t.
Bennifer: I have to throw in that while the Bible uses said things as a warning, Hollywood uses it as a source of entertainment [not exactly the same thing as a warning]. You don’t need visuals if you’re trying to achieve a warning.
– Euphreana
True, you don’t need visuals to achieve a warning. I agree.
It could be a new direction for Pixar. Just because things are animated (2D or 3D) doesn’t mean that it’s for kids.
Look at Studio Ghibli. Princess Mononoke is an incredible movie but also very dark and violent. Pixar could go in a new direction. Who says all Pixar movies have to be for kids? There’s plenty of 2D and 3D movies that Disney is putting out that can be for kids.
I think it’s time for Pixar to mature a little bit. Get some variety in there. I’m not talking obscenity or anything like that, but more mature themes for adults. When Brad Bird came in and did The Incredibles, that totally shook up Pixar in a good way. Much more mature of a story.
Maybe they don’t want to go in that direction, fair enough, but it’s an untapped market in the US.
Anyway, the point is, John Carter is a more adult story. Do they need nudity? No. It’s not really a major plot point in the story, but Princess of Mars is very lusty at parts. A whole lot of naked-ness and oggling.
But then again, sometimes less is more, and it’s not what you show, but what you don’t show.
It all comes down to what Pixar wants to do and what direction they want to do in.
I agree with the people saying they should not force the movie to fit in G/PG standards if that’s not how the book is. Maybe PG-13?
Also, can’t fault Pixar from pushing the envelope once again. That’s how they’ve stayed successful. I’ll trust what they do, even if they falter every now and then, until they decide to sell out and make movies just so they can please everyone and make money… Especially since they always make it a point to focus on the story – so nudity or no nudity; rated G or R; CGI, live action, or hybrid, I’ll see it because they worked hard to make it happen.
John Carter of Mars is a grand other planetary adventure. With swords and airships and great big heart.
Nudity = gross ? What are you 10 ?
And they don’t need nudity, that’s always been somewhat contended within the SF community as as how ‘naked’ someone was when described in 1911.
Remember the airships and desert battle in Return of the Jedi ? Straight rip from Mars. As was a lot of Star Wars.
For my money, I want live action. It being Pixar, it will be great whatever they do.
PS : What is with Pixar fans and the Bible-ishiness ?
Why is nudity gross? Some of the best art in the world revolves around nudity…..
It has nothing to do with the Bible. The point was that even a religious text important to a large population of Americans contains a lot mature and graphic themes that contradicts the fuzzy-loving, carrying two sheep kind of Jesus. So nudity or even bare skin is not what you normally associate with Pixar. Not necessarily a bad thing. Nudity and sexual themes, like in the Bible, are a part of the John Carter world. Pixar hits on themes native to all of us and sex in one form or another is a primal type thing everyone can identify with. So to take it completely out would be dishonest in a way.
That was my point.
I love how everyone thinks that nudity is a mature thing (who started that lie)…. It’s maybe the definition for a 14 year old. If we think that showing nudity to children is a bad thing, why do we think that it’s okay for adults to view it?
Maturity is the ability to know right from wrong; It doesn’t mean to put your head in the gutter.
Adding stuff like that to a film means either the writer is a pervert and wants to see that kind of stuff, or the movie is so bad, they think they should put that crap in there to get other perverts out to the movie.
No one is pushing any envelope by putting trash in a film, your just lowering your standards. Why would anyone want to put something in there films that will offend and might start people on the sad road of pornography addiction. It sounds immature to me.
Nudity makes writer a pervert or people that watch nudity perverts?
I don’t think your logic is quite sound.