Why Do People Hate Live Action Disney Movies?

     I felt I should write about this because I am re-reading the John Carter series and feeling near euphoria while reading it because those books are such kick ass and reminiscing about how the Disney movie, (based on the first book A Princess of Mars), was so good and got me into the series in the first place.
     But we'll get to John Carter in a little bit. Let's take a step back. I've found that nearly every live action Disney movie after Pirates of the Caribbean has gotten negative reviews from critics, and my friends and other people I talk to generally dislike them. For the most part, I have no idea why. Most of their complaints don't make sense to me. The three Disney movies I'm going to be talking about are Prince of Persia The Sands of Time, The Lone Ranger, and John Carter. The first one was okay, the second one was pretty good, and the last one was amazing.
     So let's get the first one outta the way:

 

     I would have to give this movie a 5/10. 

     Pros: 

• Scenery and locales are beautiful and very well made.
• Action was so-so.
• Given the limitations of the script and director, Jake Gyllenhaal did very well in his acting and did his best to bring the Prince to life. The Prince and Tamina's teasing each other and double crossing each other is amusing and is probably the one thing that stayed true to the video game. 

     Cons:

• Prince of Persia The Sands of Time is my all time favorite video game. I was obsessed with this game in high school. It is utterly flawless. So my #1 complaint about this movie is that it didn't stay true to the video game in even it's basic premises. In the game, you fight sand zombies. There was not a single sand zombie in the movie. In the game, the princess, Farrah, fights along side you with a bow and arrows. In the movie, Tamina just whines with her annoying ass voice.
• Action could've been better. In the video game, there is a lot of stabbing and slashing. The Prince slices zombies completely in two halves in 2 strikes. The death toll is in the hundreds by the end of the game. But the action in the movie is mostly a mixture of chasing and chaotic just trying to stay alive type of fighting. It was a kiddie, toned down sort of fighting that was not fitting for this movie. I don't know what Disney was thinking when they churned this out.
• No memorable music at all. One of the best things about the video game is it's soundtrack. Here's my favorite track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKwbptphnVU. It was the perfect blend of Middle Eastern and hard rock music. In the movie? Nothing, just generic orchestra movie music that does nothing to excite or immerse me in anything. 

    Out of all of the three movies I'm reviewing, this one is the one that peoples' complaints make the most sense to me. I can definitely see where they're coming from. All I'm saying is that it was just a decent movie. For people who didn't play the video game, which I'm guessing are the majority of people, it would've been fine.

     Second movie:

          
      Overall grade: 7/10
      Pros:

• Good storyline, keeps you drawn in. Has character development, characters are memorable, good villains, etc.
• Action is pretty darn good. The final scene with the William Overture finale was insane and very entertaining.
• Johnny Depp plays a good Tonto. I know there were many criticisms on this role, but none of them make any freaking sense. Tonto is a weird character, hence, Johnny Depp has to be weird. Nothing he does is "racist" towards Native Americans. The film goes out of its way to point out that Tonto bizarre actions are not the results of any Native American culture, it's simply because Tonto is a weird creepy dude. Even his own tribe says that. So are people saying its racist to have a Native American role that is anything but 100% positive? What the shit logic is that?!
• The movie length of 2 1/2 hours didn't bother me at all, because I was entertained the entire time.   

     Cons:

•  Except for the William Overture finale, the rest of the movie lacked in the music department. Nothing really memorable. As in Prince of Persia, just bland stereotypical movie music. 
• Western movies just aren't my thing, which is why this movie rating isn't higher. So it's nothing against this particular movie, I guess feel that Western movies as a genre ran its last course a long time ago because of all the limitations put on a film because the genre is so narrow. 
• Rebecca Reid, (played by Ruth Wilson), is a boring love interest. I like the love interest in movies to have some flare, a bit of drama, something to keep you interested. Reid is stone faced the entire movie, never showing any emotion, even when she finds out her husband just died. It's like she's in a daze the entire movie. 

     I don't get it when people say they don't like this movie. They can never give me a straight or coherent answer. They usually say something along the lines of "it's racist," referring to Johnny Depp playing a Native American. Since when it is a rule that people have to be the same race of anyone they portray in film? That's all Depp's doing, he's portraying a Native American. He's not saying that he himself is a Native American, or that anything he's doing is of Native American culture.
     Critics have said it has a "bland script." How is an outlaw teaming up with a Native American to avenge his brother against ruthless bandits in the Wild West a bland script? How much more action and conflict can you get in a movie?

      What really doesn't make this criticism any sense is that critics, in the same breath, say this movie is bland, while praising other movies that are just straight up boring as hell, like Avengers, the Book Thief, Captain Phillips, and Iron Man 3. I guess what I find entertaining and what the vast majority of Americans find as entertaining is very different. That's what I'm trying to understand, but so far, no luck.
      People called the plot confusing and impossible to follow. Well, I'm sorry if you people are so fucking stupid you can't follow a basic plot:

1. Bad guy kills good guy.
2. Good guy seeks revenge.
3. Good guy gets help from weird good guy, who was also wronged by a bad guy.
4. Good guys kill bad guy. 

   Okay, final review.

    Overall score: 10/10
    Pros:

• Great storyline. A Civil War veteran gets teleported to Mars, where he gets caught up in the conflict involving the green and red men of Mars. And he meets a Princess of Mars, Dejah Thoris, who he falls in love with. I mean, how does that not sound awesome? It keeps you on the edge of your seat the entire time.
• Great action. John Carter is an unstoppable fighting machine. He's a good hero. You want him to win. Every fight is memorable. From rescuing Dejah Thoris to the fight with the white apes to John Carter and Woola taking on an army of green men by themselves to the finale battle at the wedding, the action is just superbly written.
• Scenery is amazing. Great visuals. Seeing this is in I-MAX in theaters was stunning. The huge deserts of Mars and the beautiful cities of the red men was a sight to behold. 
• Characters are unforgettable. John Carter is not a brute, he is a noble warrior with a sense of honor, something the green men of Mars find totally alien, (pun intended). He is a old school gentlemen, something that most films today lack. Dejah Thoris is the gorgeous heroine who is not your stereotypical damsel in distress. She's very smart, she's the one who is trying to figure out how to fix Mars's dying atmosphere with science....stuff, (it doesn't really go into it that much). But the point stands. Sola is a gentle carer in a culture of constant warfare and brutality, someone you can easily sympathize with. Woola is an adorable and loyal "hound."  

                                  

• Villians are good as well. From the savage green men to the Zodangan red men to the mysterious shape shifting white therns, John Carter really has his work cut out for him.

     Cons:

• I mean I guess the music could've been better, it was just alright. 
• As with all movies based off of books, it changed a few things that don't detract from the movie significantly, but could've been better if they left it the same. In the book, there are no shape shifting therns guiding the actions of the red Zodanga men. In fact, the therns aren't even shown till the second book. So why did they introduce them in the first movie? Also, John Carter is much more critical of the green mens' culture in the book than in the movie. In fact, except for the two green friends he makes, Sola and Tars Tarkas, he really hates them. Did they not want him to look racist by cutting that stuff out of the movie?  
• That's all the cons I got, there's a reason why this movie is a 10/10. 

     Conclusion
     I simply do not understand the criticism of John Carter. This was probably the best movie I've seen in theaters since Lord of the Rings The Two Towers in 2002. People, as with The Lone Ranger, say the plot was too hard to follow. I am a complete idiot and I understood the plot with no problem. I mean, a plot has to have twists, otherwise it's boring. Why can't people understand this. Dan Jolin of Empire magazine said the action was "unmemorable." Excuse me? What kind of action do you like? How is this fight "unmemorable?": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7ZeptdPPrU. Other people said it was boring. What is your peoples' definition of the word "action packed" and "boring" because apparently they're the exact opposite of my definitions.
     The sad thing about John Carter being a total flop and gutting any chances of completing the trilogy, is that the books only get better. The Gods of Mars is my favorite book out of the three. The action only gets more intense from here on out. Imagine Peter Jackson doing the Fellowship of the Ring movie and then not doing the other two. WE'RE MISSING OUT ON SO MUCH GOOD SHIT PEOPLE. 
     With complete shit movies making hundreds of millions of dollars now in days, and people raving about how good they are, and with very good movies making almost no money and having people tear into them, it appears I do not understand the human race at large.