The Legend of Tarzan

I haven't seen "The Legend of Tarzan" (2016), but most of the reviews I've read so far say that it is quite disappointing, with most citing a dreary and colorless approach to the material as the main reason. Has anyone here seen it? If so, what did you think? And is anyone interested in making an edit of it?

i kinda wonder how it compares the the Jane March version of 1998.
back when effects were still practical, Pixar was as young as Matt Damon, we Can't Hardly Wait for another teen comedy, the only Armageddon we worried about was a meteor hitting the earth and Blade showed us what a Marvel comic book movie could be.

hbenthow said:

citing a dreary and colorless approach to the material

Click to expand...

It's certainly starts off "dreary and colorless" in the opening act, but that's entirely on purpose. When Tarzan gets back to Africa and reunites with the people and animals he was born with, the film brightens up tonally and grading wise.

I loved it but it's certainly not a fun adventure for all the family. It's quite dark in places.

There's already been discussion of this movie in the 2016 thread.

baileym43 said:

i kinda wonder how it compares the the Jane March version of 1998.

Click to expand...

Never heard of that one before.


Keith Phipps, The AV Club:

Tarzan And The Lost City is notable primarily because a run-of-the-mill, uninspired Tarzan movie is being released in 1998. With nothing done to set up the major characters, it feels like an installment in a series that doesn't actually exist. It does, however, feature repeated scenes of Van Dien performing the Tarzan yell and swinging on vines—in case you would otherwise forget that this is a Tarzan film—and some discount-aisle computer effects. It also has the good sense to be relatively short, but the day that becomes reason enough to see a film is the day they should stop being made.

I really enjoyed the movie, though the climax was a bit lackluster.  I would definitely look forward to a sequel to this (which probably won't happen unfortunately).  Definitely not a colorless movie at all.  It was a great way to introduce Tarzan without having to do a full-on origin story.  I can't say there were any MAJOR parts that would need editing, but I'd be happy to see what other people think.

I talked about it in a couple of posts in the Movie 2016 thread.

But basically, after putting aside my hopes for a more faithful (ie fantastical) Tarzan movie, I really enjoyed it.  So much so, I have seen it three times now!!! LOL!

The casting of Tarzan and Jane is pitch perfect and the power of their epic romance shines through.  The origin flashback and the jungle adventure portions are wonderful, and modernized just enough without losing it pulp feel.   I thought the third act and the tying into real historical events were the weakest elements, but still entertaining.  

It is a much better movie than most critics would lead you to believe.  Reminds me of how ERB's other movie JOHN CARTER was neglected by critics and audiences, and I believe that to be an absolutely BRILLIANT piece of popcorn entertainment.

TARZAN AND THE LOST CITY is a movie that got more right than wrong on paper, but the actual execution was horrible... poor casting, horrible soundtrack, embarrassing budget and terrible direction.....

bionicbob said:

The origin flashback and the jungle adventure portions are wonderful, and modernized just enough without losing it pulp feel.

Click to expand...

Tarzan STRIKES .... ?

baileym43 said:

i kinda wonder how it compares the the Jane March version of 1998.
back when effects were still practical, Pixar was as young as Matt Damon, we Can't Hardly Wait for another teen comedy, the only Armageddon we worried about was a meteor hitting the earth and Blade showed us with a Marvel comic book movie could be.

Click to expand...

baileym43 said:

bionicbob said:

The origin flashback and the jungle adventure portions are wonderful, and modernized just enough without losing it pulp feel.

Click to expand...

Tarzan STRIKES .... ?

Click to expand...

Maybe.  lol

Have always wanted to do a Tarzan edit.   I am hoping for lots of deleted scenes.  Too bad they went so heavy with the CGI route... particularly with all the jungle animals.... I really missed that kinetic energy of the old movies of Tarzan riding elephants and fighting lions.   Don't get me wrong, the cgi is very good (though no where near as impressive as Jungle Book) but I wish for some scenes they had gone more the practical route.   And one of the many lessons I learned from the LXG edit is, black and white only makes CGI look more pronounced to me.

Though maybe one could replace the flashbacks with footage from Greystoke?  But then the modern cgi apes would stand out more....   who knows.   I don't seem to do much editing anymore these days.... sigh...

bionicbob said:

 . . . though no where near as impressive as Jungle Book . . .

Click to expand...

Perhaps you could incorporate some of the JB scenes.

I just caught a glimpse of the title card, from a DVD of the movie proper - and there was a [font=arial, sans-serif]® [/font]symbol next to "Tarzan" on the title card! In the movie itself! You WB bastards! Keep that corporate crap out of the film! 

Oh... wait, this is surely because Tarzan is one of those characters where the earliest works are public domain, meaning that the character, and whatever traits and world details established in said works, should also be public domain. So this is the Burroughs Estate not only polluting their own movie, but trying to keep a hold of what isn't properly theirs. Boooooo.

Gaith said:

I just caught a glimpse of the title card, from a DVD of the movie proper - and there was a [font=arial, sans-serif]® [/font]symbol next to "Tarzan" on the title card! In the movie itself! You WB bastards! Keep that corporate crap out of the film! 

Oh... wait, this is surely because Tarzan is one of those characters where the earliest works are public domain, meaning that the character, and whatever traits and world details established in said works, should also be public domain. So this is the Burroughs Estate not only polluting their own movie, but trying to keep a hold of what isn't properly theirs. Boooooo.

Click to expand...

Actually, Tarzan isn't a copyrighted character. He is in the public domain. His name, on the other hand, is trademarked. That means that you can make a Tarzan movie without the permission of ERB Inc - but only as long as you don't call him Tarzan. Use of his name requires permission. The character is in the public domain, but his name isn't. The same goes for John Carter. 

It's weird, but that's the world we live in.

For example, Dynamite comics had both a Tarzan and John Carter series, and did direct adaptations of the first couple of novels, but retitled the series as Lord of the Jungle and Warlord of Mars.   Though they did use the actual character names within the series itself.  Dynamite has since gone into partnership with the ERB estate.

In regards to the recent blu-ray release... no deleted scenes.... :-/
Too bad, if any flick would have brought me back into the editing game, this would have been it.   Love this movie more with each new viewing, though there are some definite tweaks I would have liked to have made if there was new material to support it.

I'll pick this up at some point, when it's cheap and probably do a light edit. I'm trying to not buy worthless blu-rays like this anymore and spend my money on decent releases. If the studio can't be bothered to include worthwhile extras, I can't be bothered to buy it.

Reaction #1: Well, that was a pretty okay rental. And it's at least better than John Carter: twenty minutes shorter, more straightforward, only one strand of unnecessary flashbacks rather than a whole Russian Dolls sequence of the same, no Confederate hero, Christoph Waltz, and an interesting if ultimately ill-advised take on historical atrocities (with an ahistorical happy ending).

Still, yeah, they should have passed up the well-intentioned but fun-dampening history lesson and gone gonzo bright cheerful fantasy. (Ditto with John Carter, which could have given us a yellow/orange/red jungle planet, but whiffed with plain, boring deserts, which allowed Carter to believe he was still on Earth for an annoyingly long time.) Instead, we get Spider-Man-style vine-swinging (at physics-defying speeds, no less) and a laughable CG animal finale plagiarized from Avatar. They should also have cut the lame origin flashbacks (apart from the campfire song, that one was fine), and given Robbie more to do. Instead of having her kick ass in a leopard-skin bikini, she mostly has to settle for this:


Also, Samuel L. Jackson is way too old for his part. He filmed this in his mid-60s (though he does look a good deal younger), and the real-life guy he's playing died at 41. An Anthony Mackie, say, would have brought a much better energy.

Reaction #2: Holy schnitzel, they spent $180 million on this?! It doesn't look anything better than $100m.

Reaction #3: Well... they didn't even bother teasing a sequel, did they? (Neither did John Carter or The Lone Ranger, really.) I sort of admire the restraint, but that's no way to build a franchise, folks.

Grade: B-