![]() Worse, John Carter was a filthy Confederate reb. John Carter is about as Disneyfiable as Tarzan is: In other words, not very. "While “Twilight” fends off “True Blood” for supremacy over the vampire romance market, the Stephenie Meyer-penned series might have an unlikely lovelorn competitor to contend with - the newly announced “John Carter of Mars” starring Taylor Kitsch could well be Hollywood’s next romantic hit."Īs are concerns such as: Disney to Fast Track John Carter of Mars Film: Already the speculation is circulating with articles like `John Carter of Mars': Will It Dethrone `Twilight' As The Best Romance Flick? Viz: And this is what Disney is planning to adapt into a movie? It doesn't make sense. Remember the examples of Frazetta's artwork? They're relatively timid and decorous in comparison to the reality of Barsoom as writ. Except for his leathern harness, covered thick with jewels and metal, he was naked, nor could one have comfortably worn apparel in that warm and humid atmosphere. The moment we entered the city Talu threw off his outer garments of fur, as did we, and I saw that his apparel differed but little from that of the red races of Barsoom. Such certainly seems to be the case on Barsoom, or so we can extrapolate based on the following passage from Warlord of Mars: Yet this does not preclude the use of skins or furs. Extremes of heat and humidity may make it impractical for a primitive culture- or a culture with limited agricultural resources teetering on the brink of collapse, as is the case on Barsoom- to have more than rudimentary and crude textiles. Yet another reason for the lack of clothing on Barsoom, besides lack of resources for extensive textile manufacture, may be environmental. Edgar Rice Burroughs novels remind us it is intellect, not clothing, or trappings of civilization, that separate mankind from primates. For while nude John Carter is never truly naked, for he retains his wit. Such reflections are at the core of the Barsoom novel series. Strip us of our trappings of culture and civilization and we become little more than naked apes, do we not? If this were the case no one would ever take off their clothes to bathe. One does not become any less human, or worthy of dignity, because one has disrobed or lacks apparel. Nudity, in and of itself, is neither salacious nor provocative. What this says about our culture, and it's self-anointed blowhard watchdogs, is too disturbing to contemplate here. Yet the MPAA rubberstamps movies depicting amoral violence in which it's okay (by their standards) to display eviscerated human bodies and internal organs yet, unbelievably, insanely, a woman's bared breast or buttocks must be blotted out as verboten to see. ![]() One need look no further than documentaries aired on channels like PBS, Discovery, History, The Learning Channel, et al to see how such programs come saddled with warnings about "indigenous nudity" and, more often than not, blurring and digital fogging. How non-Aboriginal cultures treat depictions of aboriginal cultures often reveal far more about the non-Aboriginal culture than the true state of the aborigines themselves. What once didn't raise an eyebrow several decades ago becomes scandalous, or politically incorrect, today and so too might attitudes that obtain today seem archaic or puritanical decades from now. But, to be fair, that anyone felt a cartoon required editing for content is a sign of shifting attitudes. The fact faux nudity and/or characterizations of fantasy creatures in a cartoon bothered anyone would be funny, if it weren't so ridiculous. ![]() ![]() This studio ran like a scared cat to the editing room to alter a brief segment from Fantasia that featured cartoon Centaurettes. If the past is prologue Disney, currently helming the John Carter of Mars project, is not likely to rush to take up the baton of aboriginal rights. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |