Alexander Skarsgård

[BagBerry13]

This isn't an historical film in that manner, though it'll probably be brought up in some way, considering who two of the characters are.

Comparing BONN to Tarzan isn't really fair, Cary probably had more freedom to do what he wanted without the constraints of a major studio. And, despite both being set in Africa, they're not the same type of movie. Not in subject matter, or in actual setting.
We know you don't like the blockbuster type movies, but that's being nitpicky for the sake of being nitpicky.

That's not true. I'm the biggest fan of the Fast and Furious franchise and I sure will be in cinemas when Bad Boys 3 and 4 is coming out. But that's because it started out as something original. Nowadays hardly anything is original except indies. So yes I might prefer indies but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good blockbuster if it's done well and original.

 

[audiogirl]

With an industry that just recently whitewashed that Egypt film and that Aloha film (and I'm sure other films that didn't get as much indignation), you certainly put a lot of faith into a blockbuster (that's what it wants to be) to address historical political conflicts enough to pay it justice. Just because Alex was walking around with a book about the Congo doesn't mean that WB took that and ran with it. We had that subject in class and even we didn't have enough time to get through it fully. So I doubt a 90 minutes film will do it.

Tell that to Cary Fukunaga. He didn't care and had less of a budget than Tarzan for Beasts of No Nation.

SLJ plays a RL character George Washington Williams, who did try to expose the horrors in the Congo. And Waltz plays Leon Rom, a RL nasty piece of work, known as the butcher of the Congo. Even Honsou's character has a basis (albeit fictional) tied to the Congo Free State. He plays Chief Mbonga, who is a character directly from the Tarzan books. He's chief of a tribe devasted and displaced by the Congo horrors.

The plot has been described several times as being set in the Congo Free State.Of course it isn't Heart of Darkness or King Leopold's Ghost. It's a fantasy, action adventure movie, not a two-hour historical treatise. But its underlying plot does include the Congo attrocities.

I'm not concerned if someone chose to film in Africa. All filmmakers weigh their costs and options and do what's best for the production, given a myriad of individual constraints. I don't think anyone not directly involved with the decision can effectively judge the choices made.

 

[BuckeyeChicago]

That's not true. I'm the biggest fan of the Fast and Furious franchise and I sure will be in cinemas when Bad Boys 3 and 4 is coming out. But that's because it started out as something original. Nowadays hardly anything is original except indies. So yes I might prefer indies but that doesn't mean I can't appreciate a good blockbuster if it's done well and original.

Neither of those franchises started out as truly original. And certainly aren't now. But you're still overly nitpicking in comparing Tarzan with BONN. Especially as we haven't actually seen Tarzan. And you've already stated repeatedly that it's not your type of movie.

 

[BagBerry13]

Neither of those franchises started out as truly original. And certainly aren't now. But you're still overly nitpicking in comparing Tarzan with BONN. Especially as we haven't actually seen Tarzan.

And how was F&F not original? Because I can't remember having seen a film about street racing in that setting before that. And as I said "started out". I didn't say they still are. Now they have the same built-in audience that Star Wars has. No one's questioning the originality of either of them anymore.

But I guess I'm expecting too much of the studios. Doing these kind of movies is safe in terms of earning the most profit and therefore lazy. None of the big studios would risk any money or have unusual casting choices to create something exciting.

 

[BuckeyeChicago]

And how was F&F not original? Because I can't remember having seen a film about street racing in that setting before that. And as I said "started out". I didn't say they still are. Now they have the same built-in audience that Star Wars has. No one's questioning the originality of either of them anymore.

But I guess I'm expecting too much of the studios. Doing these kind of movies is safe in terms of earning the most profit and therefore lazy. None of the big studios would risk any money or have unusual casting choices to create something exciting.

Fast and Furious is Point Break, but with street racing.

ETA: F&F was fun, but to see some comments that the remake of Point Break was rip off of F&F was amusing.

"Of all the various remakes coming down the pike, the Point Break redo arguably feels the most self-defeating. By that I mean Point Break is a classic example of “Don’t remake, rip off!” in terms of crafting new would-be franchises. This Warner Bros./Time Warner TWX -1.52% Inc. release will be the second would-be remake of Point Break since the original Kathryn Bigelow film was released in July of 1991. The first was Rob Cohen’s street racing adventure The Fast and the Furious. The film hews so closely to the Point Break narrative that Universal/Comcast CMCSA +0.00% Corp. is lucky that 20th Century Fox didn’t sue them. But that rip-off/homage was an out-of-the-park smash, opening with a $40 million debut weekend. That’s just $3m less than Point Break made total, by the way. And said Vin Diesel/Paul Walker/Michelle Rodriguez/Jordanna Brewster action drama is now a seven films (and counting) franchise whose last entry is THIS close to earning $1.5 billion worldwide."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/scottme...break-should-have-been-ripped-off-not-remade/

I can see why WB wanted to do a PB remake, probably to try and get some of that F&F money. I don't think it'll work, but if they want to throw 100 million at it, fine.
Tarzan being reimagined/rebooted/whatever is slightly more questionable, in that the name is familiar, but the actual source material, beyond orphan being raised by apes, really isn't. At least not the adult character of Tarzan. So it's an opportunity to see what can be done with much older source material, both novel and historical, and see if it can still appeal to the 2016 audience. I have no idea whether it'll work.

 

[audiogirl]

So we're being told that F&F is street racing... only different. Well Legend of Tarzan is Tarzan... only different.

Why in the hell extole the virtues of F&F as a means of knocking Tarzan? This seems surreal.

 

[BagBerry13]

First of all, I haven't told anyone what to think. I was just stating an opinion, unpopular (as per usual), but I didn't ask anyone to contest it and jump into the defense trenches again. And don't tell me it's some ridiculous view because I know I'm not the only one thinking that.
I've seen a few trailers over the years and they always work the same way. The big studios won't suddenly start being inventive and trying to deceive the audience. Especially with blockbusters the best stuff goes into the trailer. The only trailer that ever f*cked me over was The Place Beyond The Pines. And that was an indie.

Btw, I can't remember Point Break having gotten a franchise out of their success. Only a remake. So one of the two must be more popular.

But yeah, I'll be going back to lurking in this thread and silently saying to myself next year "Told you so".

 

[BuckeyeChicago]

First of all, I haven't told anyone what to think. I was just stating an opinion, unpopular (as per usual), but I didn't ask anyone to contest it and jump into the defense trenches again. And don't tell me it's some ridiculous view because I know I'm not the only one thinking that.
I've seen a few trailers over the years and they always work the same way. The big studios won't suddenly start being inventive and trying to deceive the audience. Especially with blockbusters the best stuff goes into the trailer. The only trailer that ever f*cked me over was The Place Beyond The Pines. And that was an indie.

Btw, I can't remember Point Break having gotten a franchise out of their success. Only a remake. So one of the two must be more popular.

But yeah, I'll be going back to lurking in this thread and silently saying to myself next year "Told you so".

That still doesn't mean that F&F is original, which was your point.

I do enjoy your comments, but you get very defensive when pushed back on some of this stuff and you always come back.

 

[BagBerry13]

That still doesn't mean that F&F is original, which was your point.

I do enjoy your comments, but you get very defensive when pushed back on some of this stuff and you always come back.

That is your only argument. You always call it push back which it isn't. It's just defending. I think I will die before I see the day someone in this thread just accepts an opinion (even if reasonable) without having the need to "push back".

 

[BuckeyeChicago]

That is your only argument. You always call it push back which it isn't. It's just defending. I think I will die before I see the day someone in this thread just accepts an opinion (even if reasonable) without having the need to "push back".

You're not actually being pushed back on your opinion, you're being pushed back on the way you argue your opinion. And to write that you'll go back to lurking, and you'll delurk when Tarzan flops to say 'I told you so', that's juvenile. It would be similar to me having hoped for Pacific Rim to flop so I could say 'I told you so' that Charlie Hunnam can't lead a movie.

 

[FreeSpirit71]

I always come back too if I have a solid opinion AND can be a stick in the mud, pain in the a$$ about it and I think Bag is entitled to defend what she feels. And I see no offensive language or nastiness at all soooo...

We all have our faves and especially with something as subjective as film which is a form of art (can't believe I'm doing that with Point Break, original or remake...lol) you can't police what appeals or doesn't to peeps.

I'm not sure I agree with BB, but that ^^^ reads like a pile on.And I'd be defensive too.

I want this film to be a surprise hit and smash it out of the ballpark, but talking about the concerns surrounding it won't put a hex on it's success.

 

[BuckeyeChicago]

I always come back too if I have a solid opinion AND can be a stick in the mud, pain in the a$$ about it and I think Bag is entitled to defend what she feels. And I see no offensive language or nastiness at all soooo...

We all have our faves and especially with something as subjective as film which is a form of art (can't believe I'm doing that with Point Break, original or remake...lol) you can't police what appeals or doesn't to peeps.

I'm not sure I agree with BB, but that ^^^ reads like a pile on.And I'd be defensive too.

I want this film to be a surprise hit and smash it out of the ballpark, but talking about the concerns surrounding it won't put a hex on it's success.

To repeat, it wasn't her expressing her opinion, it was her changing the goalposts in the way that she expressed it. I wasn't talking about nastiness. I was talking about argument style. (yeah, I'm weird).
So, no I don't think I, nor AG, were piling on Bag, and we weren't pushing back for her having her opinions. Bag's hardly the only one on this forum in the last three years to express doubts about the movie. Or any of his movies. Or his girlfriend (s), or his clothing choices, etc.
And she's a powerful enough personality that, while probably ticked off, she'll be fine. It's not as if I've not been 'piled on' before. I've survived.

The European film awards are tomorrow in Berlin. Christoph Waltz is receiving an honorary award.

http://tinyurl.com/h8rt785

And it looks like Alex and Fares are in Berlin as well:

https://twitter.com/danielchangz/status/675338835178479616


ETA and OT: I've gotten several of the newest releases on DVD from the library and concerning reboots/reimagining: Terminator Genisys WTF? But Ant-Man? Oh, yes.

 

[jooa]

^^ ... and it looks like Alex will be presenting some awards http://www.taxidrivers.it/71488/new...s-con-le-star-del-cinema-di-tutta-europa.html

 

[FreeSpirit71]

My reply got eaten. Anyhow the gist of it is that's how it looked to me, coming in cold BC. But...whatever, moving on.

And yes, posters on this thread who have been here for a few years have thick skin.

Thanks for the links. Alex is presenting? Hmmm...might be the start of raising his profile.

 

[audiogirl]

Bag started out combative and jumped on me with the odd comment that just because Alex read a book about the Congo it didn't mean WB based the movie on it. I responded with the facts about the plot which obviously have the backdrop of the Congo genocide.

She also seemed to want it to be another Heart of Darkness, which wouldn't be the point about any fun action adventure movie, original, remake or not. Her issue wasn't Tarzan's originality, but rather the fact that it wasn't something it was never intended to be. Especially, when my original point had been simply that this Tarzan movie was more sensitive about African issues than previous ones.

She also knocked my comment about the difficulties filming in Africa, which seemed like an apples and oranges argument showing someone managed to do it. I hadn't said it couldn't be done, but just pointed out why someone might not want to do it.

She quickly dropped the Congo as an issue and veered into a discussion of originality. Valid in itself, but not so much if using F&F as the comparison.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. But it is never just being a "defender" if someone disagrees with that opinion. And in this case, she was simultaneously wrong (about the Congo plot), off target about the "proper" tone for the movie (serious examination vs. exciting adventure movie) and on a tangent about what constitutes originality.