Forty years ago I loved the movies and Burroughs' books. Now, not so much. Both are quite dated, but every now and then they will break out the character and try again. What do you think? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aj7ty6sViiU Sir Rhosis
As am I. Interestingly enough, Samuel L. Jackson's character is a historical figure, so they're mixing a little reality with the jungle lore. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Washington_Williams
Interesting. If the movie deals with the atrocities inflicted on Africa by the Belgians and other European colonialists, it might help offset the inherent racism of the books and early film adaptations. Tarzan can be a tricky thing to adapt. But I like it that they're acknowledging Tarzan's cultured Lord Greystoke side. Hopefully this will be fairly true to the aspects of the books that aren't problematical in retrospect. Casting an American as Jane Porter is also authentic, though it took me a moment to remember that she was American in the books, as opposed to the English Jane Parker of the Weissmuller movies.
The idea of John returning to the jungle after years in England could almost make it a loose sequel to Greystoke (calling Bryan Singer?), as does the casting of a European actor (though Lambert didn't seem to spend quite as much time on his abs as Alexander clearly has). Greystoke had an American actress (Andi McDowell) as Jane, overdubbed by another American actress (Glenn Close) but IIRC she was affecting an English accent. (@ Christopher, Margot Robbie is Australian, putting on an American accent). I'm a sucker for pulp source material so I'm probably unduly easily pleased, but this looked good. The apes looked impressive (kind of a rarity for Serkis not to be behind them these days) and it's always good to see Waltz or Jackson (even if the dialogue is unlikely to be up to the high standard of Django Unchained, where they most famously shared a screen).
I've heard it described as an anti-Greystoke, in that it opens in England where Skarsgard's John Clayton (Lord Greystoke) has lived for a decade and when he is sent to the Belgian Congo as Parliament's representative, he spends the film becoming less and less civilized, reverting to his Tarzan persona.
Interesting. So perhaps he's sent to support colonialism but ends up fighting against it instead? Sort of Dances with Apes? (I guess that's a valid analogy -- I never saw that movie.)
With the quality of the cast and director I'm pretty optimistic. Although there have been quite a few movies with great casts and directors that have been total shit, so it's not a guarantee.
^Yeah, that's been pointed out. Let me amend that to say "Portraying Jane Porter with an American accent is also authentic."
^ Oops, I missed that. Sorry for correcting you a 2nd time! Anyway, about the trailer: You can tell it's from the director of the last couple of Harry Potter movies because everything's blue. I think it looks pretty decent and it has a good cast, but it also looks kind of generic so far. If we must have another Tarzan movie, I hope they have something more interesting than just "straight adaptation, but with CG apes" in store.
maybe if this film is successful they'll go to Pal-ul-don in a sequel. Jurassic World proved dinosaurs are still extremely popular.
Could be, hard to tell from the basic plotline given out by Warner Bros. It reads: It has been years since the man once known as Tarzan (Skarsgård) left the jungles of Africa behind for a gentrified life as John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke, with his beloved wife, Jane (Robbie) at his side. Now, he has been invited back to the Congo to serve as a trade emissary of Parliament, unaware that he is a pawn in a deadly convergence of greed and revenge, masterminded by the Belgian, Captain Leon Rom (Waltz). But those behind the murderous plot have no idea what they are about to unleash.
The Legend of Tarzan, too problematic a character or so pulp cultural hero the racist roots won't matter? I love the books, Burroughs could write action (even if as repetitive in his tropes as to make JMS a glittering gem of unique word-smith) and the movies are what they are. Every time I think of the character and the setting, here in the 21st century, I can't but think of Tanya Roberts in Sheena making her rally the troops speech. I hope it's a fun movie but there's quite a mine field of racist baggage around the loin clad one that I hope the film makers can keep from haunting the story.
Not that hard to tell. A Belgian officer as the mastermind of a murderous plot? That emphatically suggests that the film is portraying Belgian colonialism in the Congo as a destructive and immoral force. Which is a nice anodyne to the traditional Eurocentric view of African colonialism in Tarzan tales.
^Indeed, one of the main characters in Greystoke was Belgian, Capitaine D'Arnot, played by Ian Holm. I always assumed that they brought in a Belgian character to explain Lambert's accent (D'Arnot taught John English in the film). IIRC, he was a relatively benign and enlightened chap, but it's been a long time since I saw the film.
No, that's from the original book, except that D'Arnot was a French naval officer. French was actually the first human language that Tarzan learned to speak, thanks to D'Arnot's tutelage, although he'd learned to read English from his late parents' books without knowing how to pronounce the sounds. (Which leads to a major contradiction in the book, because he was able to write his name "Tarzan" on a keep-out sign on his home despite having no way of knowing that those letters corresponded to the sound of his name.)
^Ah, that I did not know. I Googled the name but only references to the filmic character came up. Thanks for the clarification.