Rypro 525

from The Wrap
I'll see this for Robbie alone

hanshotfirst1138

Wondered what Yates would do, I figured he'd have his pick of projects after the blockbuster success of the HP movies, is this his first film since then?

You're holding out for a loincloth, I'm assuming?

RocShemp

Last I read about this, Alexander Skarsgård will be playing an already "domesticated" Tarzan who has to rely on his jungle survival skills to rescue someone. So I think you won't be seeing much of anyone in a loincloth. Maybe during the film's climax.

Ash Ketchum

Damn, this Robbie chick is busy. What, is she like an up-and-coming star or something? She's also prominent in the GHOST IN THE SHELL thread.

Mike86

I sort of see this as destined to flop or at least underperform. I just don't think the general public really has much interest in Tarzan and the cast while not bad isn't really all that impressive either.

RichC2

I don't dislike the guy or his acting, but I associate Alexander Skarsgard with B-grade movies. It's like they go to him when no better actors will accept the role.

RocShemp

Wow. I totally forgot about this flick and had assumed it was in production hell.

I always liked that plot synopsis. It's basically Brian Mills of the Jungle and has a pulpy feel to it (which is fitting given the source material). But, despite assuming this could be a great flick (despite the director chosen), I fear Mike86 is correct. This is not a property that would appeal to a modern audience.

Dr. DVD

Is this being financed by Disney? It's a perfect opportunity to use the tag line: "from the studio that brought you John Carter and The Lone Ranger" .

Michael Corvin

My thoughts exactly. Not only has it been done to death, but nobody gives two shits about Tarzan these days.

Sounds like Warner just wanted to burn some cash.

My Other Self

That was my first thought as well. Tarzan is like the modern Western. People just aren't in to them like they were 50 - 60 years ago.

Rypro 525

She was Leo's wife in Wolf of Wall Street.

Why So Blu?

Yates is a very uninteresting director, imo.

Also, if Casper Van Dien doesn't play Tarzan then no deal.

Dr. DVD

Don't know if I would agree with that, but I will say that the plot for this one sounds quite similar.

Why So Blu?

Greystoke is pretty good. Christopher Lambert before he became the Highlander. Also, the apes are by Rick Baker.

Dr. DVD

The first third of Greystoke is probably the most faithful Tarzan adaptation ever. After they leave Africa it kind of goes downhill. What's interesting is that they never once say the name Tarzan in the movie.

Tarzan the Ape Man is a travesty, but still works as guilty pleasure/skin flick.

RocShemp

I absolutely adore Greystoke. Always wanted to see another take on it that stayed true to the novel beyond the Africa scenes.

Abob Teff

If they put out a good film tomorrow, it doesn't matter what the general public is into today.

I think "the public doesn't care about Tarzan" is a pretty lame argument. Six months ago, the public didn't give a shit about Godzilla. Two months ago the public didn't give a shit about Guardians of the Galaxy or Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles ...

I've never been a Tarzan junkie, but I'm perfectly willing to see a good film. I'll also agree you should watch the Casper Van Dien one (I haven't seen it since it came out, but I remember it being good campy fun) and the Disney version.

rw2516

There's several things they could do that attract people to a Tarzan movie. Dinosaurs, killer apes, Indiana Jones stuff like ancient temples, booby traps, fight on rope bridge over chasm. Set it in the past with Nazis. Make it like an Indy movie.

Dr. DVD

Precisely. John Carter and Lone Ranger both had limited appeal, but one cannot say that Godzilla and Guardians were things people were clamoring to see either. The bottomline is that there is some brand name recognition, and if they can make a decent movie they can expand beyond the few people who care based upon that alone. Neither John Carter nor Lone Ranger were cases where they executed that concept well.

RocShemp

I disagree on John Carter. It was very well done, the clumsy prologue notwithstanding. The problem was that it was poorly marketed.

hanshotfirst1138

GOTG had no name recognition at all except the Marvel tag and the considerable good will they've built up from their studio's name. They've now established a new brand and the audience will have their asses in the seats day one for the sequel. The Lone Ranger and John Carter of Mars were also frankly bad films, the former bloated, overlong, tonally inconsistent, and and scattershot, and the latter utterly incomprehensible, and bother were attempts to kickstart new franchises. The former was banking on the audience goodwill from the POTC films, and I frankly don't know what they were hoping for with the second. Which is a goddamn shame, because both have great pulp fictions roots which would've made for lots of fun if done correctly. JC was poorly marketed, no question, and their insistence on not mentioning the sci-fi aspects was certainly a poor decision. But it also would've helped if the film had made any damn sense. And I read the book. Tarzan has some mainstream recognition, certainly more than JC, and I think it's word of mouth which would make or break a new Tarzan movie, but at least it's a fairly well-know property.

Sonic

This is what these execs and producers are going to do with a Tarzan reboot. They will hire a model super fit type sexy actor (they not going to hire a ugly mediocre actor) with piercing blue eyes. Raised in the jungle, pretty girl can't contain herself. He yells and jumps like a monkey. He also lives with a fucking monkey.

Chicks and gaylords will buy tickets. We've seen this shit before.



I like Tarzan (the old series back in the day) I really do...but what potential does a dirty human have to offer on a big budget or small budget scaled movie in today's era? He swings around, he fondles with tigers, and he roars. He doesn't have super human strength, he's not a mutant.

At least Godzilla carried something, big special effects. Tarzan doesn't need special effects because he don't have powers. It's fucking boring man.

Or maybe I'm wrong. Maybe this movie will be educational for teens to stay in school and not be a illiterate bastard.

RocShemp

In the books, Tarzan was the ultimate male. He is a savage but hyper intelligent so he taught himself to read while at the same time he learned to speak to the apes (who named him Tarzan) and he's very strong and agile. He's basically Batman of the jungle. Or the Phantom sans the purple costume fetish.

Ash Ketchum

I can hear the trailer now: "In a world where apes can talk, Tarzan learned their language...He's Batman of the jungle!"

Image: Tarzan swings down from a tree and lands in front of the bad guys and says in a low, husky voice: "I'm Tarzan."

Image: Someone hands him a purple spandex costume with a mask and he tosses it aside, saying, "I don't think so," and strips down to his loincloth and the women in the audience squeal.

RocShemp

Now I'm picturing Tarzan hanging some fat dude by his ankle from a vine while growling "where were the other bananas going?!"