|
Post by KiramidHead on Jul 5, 2016 12:44:40 GMT -5
I might have to use one of my Fandango gift cards on this movie.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Jul 5, 2016 16:04:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Jul 6, 2016 11:06:35 GMT -5
There seems to be some real anger out there that the film didn't bomb. Most of it falls into the "racist Tarzan" category. Then when you discuss what's actually IN the books, "Well, I don't know about that, but it's just racist!!!" I wonder if these are the same people who thought Brian Wood did a great job on Conan...
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 6, 2016 16:33:55 GMT -5
Well, just saw The Legend of Tarzan, and damn, it was actually good. Spoilers, of course: They had a tough job with this one: how to do a character who has become something of a joke in the public eye seriously, how to deal with his origin without an origin story, how to deal with a white character in Africa in a time marked by oppression? Somehow, they made it all work. I guess it was a good idea to address the Tantor in the room with regards to colonialism. Now, Tarzan vs. Colonialism would be a boring long-term direction for the series, but here it works well. They don't bludgeon the audience too much, and it doesn't feel tonally out of whack with the actual novels where there are plenty of greedy white villains. It could have been heavy-handed, and thankfully isn't. Slowly moving the story from a believable 19th century setting and introducing the more fantastical elements was a wise move. By the time we have Tarzan swinging through the jungle and fighting apes with his bare hands, you believe it. Loved the little details, like Tarzan's knuckles, his unusual eating habits, his scars. It's vaguely reminiscent of Greystoke, but doesn't get bogged down like that movie did. And the screenwriters have actually read the source material! The mangani are not normal apes! Jane is American! And blonde! And Tarzan can speak articulately! And he's John Clayton, Lord Greystoke! His hair should be darker though. Heck, they even mention Opar, though I'm guessing that in this version, Tarzan hasn't actually been there yet. And how cool would it be to see an honest-to-goodness Lost Race story on the big screen again? Even the Indiana Jones movies haven't done that one. And on the purely shallow level, Margot Robbie is definitely a woman worth running naked through a jungle for. You should go see it. Soon.
|
|
|
Post by hawkbrother on Jul 6, 2016 18:55:56 GMT -5
Sounds like it is definitely worth seeing. I was disappointed in Greystoke,did not like it much as it had Tarzan spending more time in England than Africa. And I have yet to bother watching that Tarzan movie with Bo Derek that is supposed to be so bad. Of course no movie has ever followed Burroughs correctly when it comes to the origin of Tarzan . Strangely enough the old Elmo Lincoln silent came closest but fell short. Now I enjoy the Tarzan movies, Weissmuller, Lex Barker, Gordon Scott,etc,. They are a lot of fun. But their Tarzan is NOT the Tarzan of Burroughs' books. Take the first Weissmuller for example, which changes Jane's name from Porter to Parker and makes her the daughter of an English trader instead of an American professor. And so many of the movies depict Tarzan as a barely articulate oaf instead of the literate and kindly Lord Greystoke of the books, truly a " noble. savage," Not to mention that movies or a TV show based on some of the novels would be far more interesting than some of the plots the screenwriters have come up with for the ape-man. Come to think of so would Conan movies that would follow accurately some of the best stories like People of the Black Circle or Hour of the Dragon.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 6, 2016 19:11:18 GMT -5
And I have yet to bother watching that Tarzan movie with Bo Derek that is supposed to be so bad.Continue not bothering. Trust me. jabootu.net/?p=4229
|
|
|
Post by thedarkman on Jul 6, 2016 22:00:52 GMT -5
Hoping to see this next week. The positive vibe from fans, rather than "critics"' has swayed me. To avoid future racism issues, the sequel(s) should be set among the many lost civilizations and warring cities featured in the original works. I vote for Opar first; gargantuan crumbling walls, savage beast-men, slinky sexy La, human sacrifices, treasure vaults! Did I mention La?
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Jul 10, 2016 9:15:11 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 10, 2016 10:37:32 GMT -5
One issue: glancing through Tarzan Alive, I see that Farmer placed Tarzan's birth in 1888, while this movie takes place in 1891. So, if they ever adapted Untamed/Terrible, they couldn't be taking place during WW1 (unless of course, the Kavuru elixir was in use).
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Jul 10, 2016 11:24:46 GMT -5
One issue: glancing through Tarzan Alive, I see that Farmer placed Tarzan's birth in 1888, while this movie takes place in 1891. So, if they ever adapted Untamed/Terrible, they couldn't be taking place during WW1 (unless of course, the Kavuru elixier was in use). Tarzan had already been given an immortality treatment before the Kavuru elixir was found. Hard to say how they'd handle things.
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 10, 2016 12:03:20 GMT -5
One issue: glancing through Tarzan Alive, I see that Farmer placed Tarzan's birth in 1888, while this movie takes place in 1891. So, if they ever adapted Untamed/Terrible, they couldn't be taking place during WW1 (unless of course, the Kavuru elixier was in use). Tarzan had already been given an immortality treatment before the Kavuru elixir was found. Hard to say how they'd handle things. I suspect they might just skip the whole immortality thing altogether. Suspension of disbelief is a tricky thing.
|
|
|
Post by johnnypt on Jul 10, 2016 12:55:36 GMT -5
One issue: glancing through Tarzan Alive, I see that Farmer placed Tarzan's birth in 1888, while this movie takes place in 1891. So, if they ever adapted Untamed/Terrible, they couldn't be taking place during WW1 (unless of course, the Kavuru elixir was in use). I don't think they'll be doing any direct adaptations if they do a sequel. The original book was set in 1909 as it was (based on the letter from Jane to Hazel in Chapter 10), which caused the original "Korak conundrum". The way they do it here would actually make Korak serving during WWI way more plausible. My own solution was to push back Tarzan's birth to Burroughs' own 1875 (I think Tarzan Alive mentions an alternate 1872 possibility).
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 10, 2016 17:35:09 GMT -5
No, probably not. Speaking of the prospects of sequels, it came in second for the second week in a row, which is pretty good considering the low RT score and the low expectations it had going in. It won't do Marvel money, but it is looking like it may be a modest hit.
Opar is the most likely destination for a sequel, since it's already been mentioned. If they wanted to go wild, I'd suggest Pal-ul-don. Tarzan and dinosaurs? That could be awesome.
|
|
|
Post by deuce on Jul 11, 2016 23:00:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by almuric on Jul 12, 2016 9:50:38 GMT -5
And I'm sure the wife/girlfriend will appreciate it. Overheard some ladies the other day talking about Tarzan. They were VERY excited . . .
|
|