Andrew Stanton believed he had to change ERB’s “Prince Valiant” style of John Carter to a more modern, flawed hero with a need for redemption and an arc because, in his view, leaving John Carter as the “classic hero” or “heroic hero” of Edgar Rice Burroughs wouldn’t work with today’s audiences, who have evolved beyond that and wouldn’t be able to relate.
Was Stanton right about ERB’s Carter being too “vanilla” for today’s audiences? Did he update Carter successfully or, alternatively, did he cure what he perceived as a problem by substituting one cliche for another, in the process losing something that was essential to the charm of what Burroughs created? Are the choices really a damaged goods broken man in need of redemption, or a superhero with no flaws and thus little to identify with? Is it fair to criticize Burroughs’s Carter as too unblemished, too “good”? Is it fair to criticize Stanton’s hero as “mopey Carter”?
When we talk about flaws — what were the “flaws” of Burroughs’ John Carter? The one I hear mentioned a lot is that he blunders with Dejah Thoris and is clumsy with women even though they are naturally attracted to him. I’m not sure that qualifies as a flaw. He also has a tendency to be overconfident — perhaps to a flaw?
Are classic heroes automatically boring?
The question I am really seeking input on is — what other kind of “take” on John Carter could Stanton have had that would have still met the perceived needs of the “modern audience” without wholly remaking John Carter?
Are there seeds of what he could have used within the books themselves, and the character as presented?
Or, even if no, are there choices that could have update the character without altering his essential character?
Any thoughts? I have some, and I’ll share them in the comments along with anyone else who wants to weigh in.