Who Wore It Worst, John Carter Or Valerian?!
2012’s John Carter and 2017’s Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets are both sci-fi action films based on books that are considered to be commercial failures. Both are also bloated big-budget spectacles that have a similarly derivative feel and were passion projects for the directors. We’ll be breaking the films down into seven categories to figure out which film truly wore it worst.
Before we begin, let’s take a brief look at each film.
John Carter was based on A Princess of Mars, the first book in the Barsoom series of novels by Edgar Rice Burroughs, and was the first — and only — live-action film written and directed by Andrew Stanton, who’s better known for his work in animation, with Finding Nemo and WALL-E being his biggest hits. Stanton read the Rice Burroughs books as a kid and always wanted to see them adapted, so he lobbied for Walt Disney Studios to acquire the rights to the story, pitching it as “Indiana Jones on Mars,” which it very much is not. The film chronicles the first interplanetary adventure of the titular John Carter and his attempts to mediate civil unrest amongst the warring kingdoms of Barsoom. It stars Taylor Kitsch (as John Carter) and Lynn Collins (as Dejah Thoris) as leads, with Bryan Cranston, Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, Thomas Haden Church, David Schwimmer, Jon Favreau, Dominic West, and Mark Strong in supporting roles. In many ways, John Carter feels like a bridge that joins Star Wars and the MCU together.
Valerian was based on the French science fiction comics series Valérian and Laureline, and was written and directed by French filmmaker Luc Besson, whose other notable works include Léon: The Professional and The Fifth Element. Like Stanton, Besson grew up reading the books for which the film derives. During development on The Fifth Element, Valerian illustrator Jean-Claude Mézières encouraged Besson to adapt the series to screen, which Besson felt was impossible until James Cameron’s Avatar. However, he also felt that "James Cameron pushed all the levels so high," which made him believe that his script was not good enough, so he rewrote it — and he probably should’ve rewritten it two or three more times. Unlike John Carter, Besson independently crowd-sourced and personally funded the film. The film stars Dane DeHaan (as Valerian) and Cara Delevingne (as Laureline), with Clive Owen, Rihanna, Ethan Hawke, Herbie Hancock, Kris Wu and Rutger Hauer in supporting roles, and follows two intergalactic special operatives that embark on a mission to destroy a dark force which threatens the peaceful existence of the City of a Thousand Planets.
In order to determine which film wore it worst, we’ll break them down into seven categories and see who comes up on bottom. The categories are: worldbuilding, performances, action, visuals, story, box office earnings, and its overall rating pulled from several ratings platforms.
With an odd number of categories, there’s no way for a stalemate, so without further ado, let’s find out who wore it worst!
Worldbuilding:
John Carter sets up its world by framing it around a journal that Edgar Rice Burroughs receives from his uncle, John Carter, in 1881 after attending his funeral, which reveals the explanation behind his mysterious death. Jumping back to 1868, we watch a wealth-driven John Carter get arrested to help some Union soldiers fight Apaches before being transported to an habitable version of Mars. The planet’s low gravity allows Carter to jump high and perform feats of incredible strength, but he still gets himself captured by some Martians. At first he desires to return to Earth (or Jasoom, as it’s referred to in the film), but as he gets more and more pulled into the planet’s growing conflicts, he decides he likes it there — mostly because he meets a Martian princess that makes him feel funny. John Carter only has to build the world of Mars, and while its full of some fun and inventive sets and creatures, it feels a bit stiff and fabricated.
Valerian sets its story up beautifully in the first fifteen minutes by chronicling the formation of its intergalactic Space Station world, Alpha, from 1975 to the 2150 in a terrific montage sequence set to David Bowie’s very fitting “Space Oddity.” In the span of four minutes, Besson shows how space exploration brought humanity and extraterrestrial life together. Not only does it set up the background of the film’s world, it’s also a showcase for the film’s many colorful and creative, set, costume, and creature designs. We then jump over to the planet Mül where we watch a stunning sequence that concludes with the annihilation of the entire planet before meeting our main characters and jumping full-on into the story. Unlike John Carter, Besson builds an entire universe around Valerian — and he does so in under 5 minutes — and now matter how messy or wonky things get, the world feels lived in at every turn.
Winner: Valerian.
Performances:
Unlike most big-budget blockbuster, John Carter didn’t cast major stars in its leads, which would’ve helped to garner a larger audience. Casting the relatively unknown Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins, who both appeared in 2009’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine, as the leads may not have given the film mass appeal, but the pair certainly share a palpable chemistry on-screen. Collins in particularly gives a strong performance, which should’ve launched her into a bigger action star (her get-up for Dejah should’ve at least made her a shoe-in as an Amazonian in Wonder Woman). Backing up the relative unknowns are big-name stars like Bryan Cranston, Willem Dafoe, Samantha Morton, and Thomas Haden Church, who each give solid performances.
Valerian puts Dane DeHaan and Cara Delevingne in the lead positions, and unlike John Carter, they share little to no chemistry. The film really loses its gusto by having its leads miscast to a duo who have trouble emoting. Throughout the film, we're supposed to be convinced that Valerian and Laureline have a romantic connection, but most of their scenes are cold and lifeless. Rihanna also has a lot of difficulty delivering her lines, and while she makes up for it by displaying her dancing skills in a crazy pole dancing scene, it’s still a pretty lousy performance. Even big-names like Clive Owen, Ethan Hawke, and Rutger Hauer do little to raise the bar. Owen, in particular, feels like he’s sleepwalking through it as the baddie.
Winner: John Carter.
Action:
John Carter is filled with more dialogue than action, and when the action scenes hit, they don’t feel too pumped with adrenaline or oddity, coming across like a rehashed action sequences from other films. In many respects, they play like the action sequences from some of the Star Wars prequels, but are are disposable and ultimately forgettable.
Since Valerian is more of a cosmic road film, it’s loaded with a lot more action and adventure than John Carter. Its sequences span several planets and are full of fun action and oddity (the chase through the invisible city is a prime example). They really help to make up for its very cold, stiff, and otherwise phoned-in performances.
Winner: Valerian.
Visuals:
Both films are heavily reliant on computer-generated effects, but John Carter was shot six years prior to Valerian, so its CGI and special effects aren’t as rich or rendered as Valerian. John Carter looks fine enough, but it just can’t compare to Besson’s colorful, highly imaginative vision full of moments of spectacular awe and beauty.
Winner: Valerian.
Story:
While both films have stories that admittedly murky and hard to follow at times, John Carter has the edge here, since it’s a smaller story that’s a bit more focused and coherently executed. Valerian’s story feels all over the place, and it’s entertaining qualities stem more so from the visuals and worldbuilding. At the heart of John Carter is a “trying to get home” story, which a lot more people can easily relate to; however, we want it put on the record that Valerian’s Mül planet sequence in its opening is better than ALL of John Carter. But since we’re factoring the whole film here, not just pieces or aspects to the story, John Carter takes the win.
Winner: John Carter.
Box Office Earnings:
To calculate this category, we’ll look at the year each film was shot (2010 for John Carter and 2016 for Valerian), and we’ll factor in inflation to John Carter’s totals for added accuracy.
John Carter had an estimated budget of 250 million (or $273,820,439.09) and an overall box office haul of 284.1 million (or $311,169,546.98), giving it a profit of $37,349,107.89 in 2016 dollars.
Valerian had an estimated budget of $180 million and an overall box office haul of $225.9 million, giving it a profit of 45.9 million.
Winner: Valerian.
Overall Ratings:
To calculate this category, we’ll factor in our own Viddy Well score along with Rotten Tomatoes, IMDb, Metacritic, and Letterboxd. If a platform has a critics and general audience scores, like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic, we’ll average the two together. We’ll also inflate all rating scales to a 10-point system, and add up all totals to see which film gets the best score outta 50.
Valerian:
Rotten Tomatoes: 5/10
IMDb: 6.5/10
Letterboxd: 5.4/10
Metacritic: 5.75/10
Viddy Well: 6/10
Total: 28.65/50
John Carter:
Rotten Tomatoes: 5.6/10
IMDb: 6.6/10
Letterboxd: 5.4/10
Metacritic: 6/10
Viddy Well: 6/10
Total: 29.6/50
Winner: John Carter by a nose.
So Who Wore It Worst?!:
With only 3 categories to Valerian’s 4, John Carter takes the L here, confirming that it did, in fact, wear it worst.
What do you think? Did John Carter wear it worst?! We want to know. Share your thoughts and feelings in the comments below, and as always, remember to viddy well!