Alexander Skarsgård

[audiogirl]

I'd be more interested in what the scene was about, especially before deciding it was a sign of problems.

And I still see it as a positive example of Yates' striving for perfection. Odds are, they've mastered in the Fx and think another scene woukd smooth something out.

They've had relatively few reshoots, actually.

 

[merita]

Oh this is just silly. A chance to run the doom and gloom narrative one more time. All movies, and especially big Fx movies, have reshoots. So I fail to see how this means the movie is in trouble. A big movie like this is never shot in order. It's a huge collection of moving parts, and only after it's assembled can they effectively evaluate its flow. Some scenes make no sense until they are mastered with their CGI.

I think we should be glad that Yates is enough of a perfectionist to want to tweak the movie. I see this as a good thing, not a sign of ruin and catastrophe.

It is not silly. This would be a typical discussion around any big film. I don't see anyone running a gloom and doom narrative. ?

 

[jooa]

@ Free Your words rather weren't optimistic so I thought that you interpret all that as a bad sign, not a good one. Maybe I'm read too much

When it comes to Yates, the article suggested rather that he has no time to finish the film properly and I think that the fact that the reshoots is planned denies it. Yates has time and want to do it as well as he can.

 

[audiogirl]

It is not silly. This would be a typical discussion around any big film. I don't see anyone running a gloom and doom narrative. ?

Then you must not have read many of Bag's posts about the movie from before he was officially cast in the role.

This is interesting. Not a good sign I don't think.

Sounds gloomy to me.

I haven't said anything about them changing but adding. Or call it "enhancing". If you're satisfied with the result why adding stuff? They try to improve an apparently not so great result. But I guess you already know how it looks.

Also gloomy. One additional scene is truly no big deal. But it does show that Yates isn't disengaged from the film like the HR story alleged.

Again, I'm interested more in what the scene shows. I'm guessing it's a flashback to the events right before Tarzan was left orphaned. Hence the need for new casting.

 

[FreeSpirit71]

I think there's a big difference between optimism, "gloom" and being realistic.

Stories of reshoots always make people nervous, no matter if it's this film or any other.

So @Audio, is this about the comments or the poster who said it?

 

[BagBerry13]

It's like talking to a wall. As soon as you make posts that are not cheerleading Alex's every movie it's doom and gloom. Reality check: Actors do make bad decisions.

The scene concerns Tarzan directly which means Alex might have to go back to London otherwise the scene makes no sense to the audience except another character does all the explaining. I don't know if they will use it in a flashback or in present time. It could fit either way. But it's rather expensive since it's also motion capture.

 

[audiogirl]

I think there's a big difference between optimism, "gloom" and being realistic.

Stories of reshoots always make people nervous, no matter if it's this film or any other.

So @Audio, is this about the comments or the poster who said it?

It's about the comments. It's always about the comments. Honestly, don't you think that deciding it's a "bad sign" or that they think the movie is a "not so great result" isn't a gloomy outlook. To me it just shows Yates perfectionism. It's just one scene. It doesn't even indicate a poor script. Just a desire finesse the outcome.

@Bag I think the time to determine he's made a bad decision will be after we can see the finished production. I actually don't think Alex will be in the new scene. He's going to be busy filming in LA almost 6000 miles away.

 

[merita]

Then you must not have read many of Bag's posts about the movie from before he was officially cast in the role. Sounds gloomy to me.
Also gloomy. One additional scene is truly no big deal. But it does show that Yates isn't disengaged from the film like the HR story alleged.

Again, I'm interested more in what the scene shows. I'm guessing it's a flashback to the events right before Tarzan was left orphaned. Hence the need for new casting.

I don't get that at all but who knows.

 

[RedTopsy]

It's like talking to a wall. As soon as you make posts that are not cheerleading Alex's every movie it's doom and gloom. Reality check: Actors do make bad decisions.


The scene concerns Tarzan directly which means Alex might have to go back to London otherwise the scene makes no sense to the audience except another character does all the explaining. I don't know if they will use it in a flashback or in present time. It could fit either way. But it's rather expensive since it's also motion capture.

Yes, of course they do sometimes. But that doesn´t mean the Tarzanfilm is one of them.
Most actors wants a leadrole in a big blockbusterfilm and they have to take some risks.
Joel Kinnaman made a bad decision with his role in Robocop, but at least he tried and I think
the Tarzanfilm has a lot more potential to be more popular to a wide audience.

 

[VampFan]

Not having read the script and not having seen the movie and not knowing what scene they're adding, I'm not ready to get concerned yet. I would be more interested in whether the additional scene is Yates driven or WB driven. I don't have a lot of confidence in WB. Their recent track record isn't great.

After the HR article there was some discussion about moving Tarzan's release date and moving KA into it's slot. I am happy though that between Tarzan and King Arthur, they felt better about Tarzan since they left it at its original release date and ended up moving KA. Of course, all of this is speculation on my part.

I do think it will boil down to marketing, which again WB hasn't been excelling at. Only time will tell. Regardless, I'll be going to see Tarzan. I love everyone in the cast, and hopefully the story will be good. For this movie, it doesn't even have to be great. This is where I'm putting my hopes on David Yates.

 

[merita]

It's about the comments. It's always about the comments. Honestly, don't you think that deciding it's a "bad sign" or that they think the movie is a "not so great result" isn't a gloomy outlook. To me it just shows Yates perfectionism. It's just one scene. It doesn't even indicate a poor script. Just a desire finesse the outcome.

@Bag I think the time to determine he's made a bad decision will be after we can see the finished production. I actually don't think Alex will be in the new scene. He's going to be busy filming in LA almost 6000 miles away.

I didn't say it was a bad sign. I said it was not a good sign. There is a difference. I am not going to bother explaining. This is exhausting. Alex is perfect and Tarzan will be perfect.

 

[audiogirl]

I don't get that at all but who knows.

If he was disengaged, he'd not set aside time for a new scene. The HR article implied that Yates had left Tarzan behind. One scene is really just a very small fine tuning, but it does show his continued commitment.

I apologize that I quickly (and accidentally) paraphrased. So I'll clarify. "Not a good sign" sounds gloomy to me. I don't think Alex is perfect, but he does come damn close . I only react when the criticism seems out of context to the situation.

And I think Tarzan will be damn good. They've got a great cast, a surprisingly deep script. There was no real need to place it in the Congo Free State. This makes it set 30 years earlier than the Tarzan books. But they chose to add texture. And having Tarzan slowly peel off the layers of civilization, is an interesting twist on the typical Tarzan story of finding him in the jungle and then civilizing him. They've also got an excellent director. And due to WB's bad year, they will probably give this movie the support it deserves.

@Free I was never convinced by that HR article. They were just fleshing out CGI. Yates didn't need to invest that much effort to supervise the result. Also the article's author had a established relationship with Disney, which was probably the source for the anonymous industry comments in the story. It makes the entire article lose credibility.

 

[FreeSpirit71]

It depends if this was a decision by Yates or by Warner Bros execs. They need this year's films to make $$$ as they haven't the big run of other studio's in 2015.

 

[OHVamp]

Personally I thought Ant Man was generally a fun movie for the genre it is. I've seen worse comic book movies. I believe they made a good decision to keep humor in it. If someone doesn't enjoy this kind of fluff movie, they are not likely to praise it. Saul good, man.

 

[FreeSpirit71]

Ant-Man was enjoyable, though maybe not as humourous as I thought it was going to be. But as a Rudd fan I was always going to see it.

Same with Tarzan. I'll see it. The trailer was good. My 8yr old will be into it (though he'll think any romance is "Gross!!" ) and films the whole family can see are in short supply . How the reshoot pans out, we'll have to see.