I'm not sure it's wise to only listen to positive reviews, IMHO. I'd like this film to do well (it still might make moolah despite the reviews, stranger things have happened) but yeah...when the overwhelming majority are saying similar things....
Alexander Skarsgård
- Thread starter Swanky
- Start date
TPF may earn a commission from merchant affiliate
links, including eBay, Amazon, and others
I'm not sure it's wise to only listen to positive reviews, IMHO. I'd like this film to do well (it still might make moolah despite the reviews, stranger things have happened) but yeah...when the overwhelming majority are saying similar things....
Well, reviews are just opinions of one person and did they really expect that LoT will be the next Citizen Kane? I understand some critics but those guys in Variety and Indiewire are way too serious and uptight.
I'm not against any critics like someone here claimed but I have to ask: is this just an ASkars thing again, searching and posting negative reviews I mean? Never seen this phenomenom at least to this extent in any other threads here and even less in other fandoms/followings. I just browsed Joel Kinnaman's thread and didn't find a single review about Robocop there. It's pretty amazing knowing the same people follow him and Alex. Just my random observation.
Thank you everyone for lovely pictures and videos
Last edited:
It's not, I do know there are some reviewers out there whom I generally agree with and think are good at their job who don't like the movie. Which doesn't mean I won't. But this type of movie was going to be a harder sell, even if done very well, because it's not a genre they deal with much anymore. I'll be interested in seeing what the reviews are from the audience, once we get more of those in. And what the reaction is to it from the overseas audience.
This was a lot more brutal than I thought it'd be, though, a lot more.
ETA: I'll add that it's entirely possible to be a deeply flawed movie and still entertain me. I'm pretty sure by quality standards Van Helsing or Chronicles of Riddick aren't 'good' movies, but I still like them.
So I'll go see it, and see whether it's a bloated CGI crapfest like the Hobbit (Oh, Peter Jackson, what happened to you?) or good fun that's not necessarily a good movie.
Last edited:
Well, reviews are just opinions of one person and did they really expect that LoT will be the next Citizen Kane? I understand some critics but those guys in Variety and Indiewire are way too serious and uptight.
I'm not against any critics like someone here claimed but I have to ask: is this just an ASkars thing again, searching and posting negative reviews I mean? Never seen this phenomenom at least to this extent in any other threads here and even less in other fandoms/followings. I just browsed Joel Kinnaman's thread and didn't find a single review about Robocop there. It's pretty amazing knowing the same people follow him and Alex. Just my random observation.
Thank you everyone for lovely pictures and videos
I think that's a defensive attitude to think people are only seeking out negative reviews. There's reviews from audience members as well that say similar things and the reviews posted are from industry heavyweights not JoeBlog.
This isn't an anti-Alex thing. It's a movie review thing.
I want this film to do well (and it could still pull $$$$) and thought it might get better reviews. But that's just not the case.
ETA: @BuckeyeChicago I love Van Helsing and it got really sh*tty reviews.....LOL
Last edited:
Just some positive reviews for people, there are enough of the negativity out there. You are free to choose if you want to read/listen to them or not.
Personally, I like to form my own opinion of a film and I don´t trust filmcritic so much, I can read a review but I don´t trust it.
As a fan of Alex I will rather look at the positive side of things and not listen to much on the doom and gloom.
I will of course go and see this film and support him and being a fangirl. I have been waiting so long for the film premiere.
Wild horses couldn´t stop me from seeing this film.
Even if I wasn´t a fangirl I would probably see this film because I like this kind of movies and there are so few of them made nowadays with action, adventure, romance, amazing scenery and good actors in old fashion style.
It´s funny, some of the reviews I´ve read seems to be more about what the reviewer expected the film to be like and not what he/she actually saw in the film (and they are all over the place).
We will see how the reactions will be from the audience July 1.
Last edited:
It is, but even in the negative reviews I looked at there seems to be some confusion about the movie, and what Tarzan is supposed to be like. This may be the fault of the movie, it may because the reviewer has preconceived notions of Tarzan based on Disney and Weissmuller and not on knowledge of the source material. Or both.
VH got terrible reviews, and I still love it (and David Wenham). I still love Day After Tomorrow even though the CGI sucked and the storyline was wonky.
Just some positive reviews for people, there are enough of the negativity out there. You are free to choose if you want to read/listen to them or not.
Personally, I like to form my own opinion of a film and I don´t trust filmcritic so much, I can read a review but I don´t trust it. As a fan of Alex I will rather look at the positive side of things and not listen to much on the doom and gloom. I will of course go and see this film and support him and being a fangirl. I have been waiting so long for the film premiere. Wild horses couldn´t stop me from seeing this film. It´s funny, some of the reviews I´ve read seems to be more about what the reviewer expected the film to be like and not what he/she actually saw in the film (and they are all over the place).
We will see how the reactions will be from the audience July 1.
Even in the same review. This from the reviewer from Roger Ebert's site, who's got a lot criticism of the movie. But ...
"Strangely enough, though, if you can put these considerations aside—or, I suppose, if you never cared about such considerations in the first place—“The Legend of Tarzan” is a pretty good action-adventure movie. Its narrative is refreshingly free of bloat, folding the Tarzan origin story into a series of relatively pain-free flashbacks that actually dovetail credibly into its contemporary scenario. The lead players, with the exception of the too-familiar Waltz, give appealing performances, and the action scenes are pretty tight. I am amused that somebody took the “Blazing Saddles” joke about stampeding cattle through the Vatican as a sort of inspiration for a climactic set piece, but I also have to admit the conceit works. For what it’s worth, “The Legend of Tarzan” is several unpretentious cuts above the pompous, leaden “Greystoke” of over thirty years ago. (I’m ignoring the 1998 “Tarzan and the Lost City” because nobody even saw it, let alone talked about it.)"
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/the-legend-of-tarzan-2016
Last edited:
The remake aspect of it also put it into a difficult spot. Everyone is so over remakes, but Hollywood keeps making them. People were not excited from the get go.
Chronicles of Riddick!! Yes. Always watch it when randomly flipping channels and it's on. Starship Troopers, too. Now that is a bad movie, but I can always watch it.
I agree. I thought THR would slam it since they seemed derogatory in earlier articles, but their critic actually liked it! I also want the film to do well. Alex put so much time and effort into preparing for this film. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I'm not burying this movie just yet, but I was cringing at some of the reviews. We'll be going to see it Saturday. I'm hoping it will be a good popcorn movie and audience score will help.
Excerpt from USA Today about marketing strategy from a couple of days ago. Read the entire article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...tarzan-swinging-male-female-dollars/86441402/
How 'Tarzan' is swinging for male, female dollars
Andrea Mandell, USA TODAY 6:01 p.m. EDT June 28, 2016Opinion is divided on whether American audiences will welcome back the hero, who last hit cinemas in 1999 in Disney's animated Tarzan, which grossed $171 million. Jeff Bock, box office analyst for Exhibitor Relations, calls the project outdated. "This has Lone Ranger written all over it," says Bock, who forecasts just $25 million for opening weekend, though he predicts the film will still be a sizable hit overseas.
Or it could be "an unexpected surprise," says Erik Davis, managing editor of Fandango.com and Movies.com — particularly because it's not another superfluous sequel. "The success of something like The Jungle Book may play into teens' and adults' desire to see another story told in the jungle. And the trailers are pretty strong."
Who is Tarzan aiming for? The trailers evoke "a Planet of the Apes vibe," says Davis, and some experts say the gender-balanced marketing approach is a sign that Warner Bros. is trying for a four-quadrant movie, meaning a film that appeals to male and female moviegoers who are over and under 25.
"On the surface, it seems easy — it’s Tarzan, it’s an action movie — but it seems like they’re courting the female audience in a big way," says comScore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian, allowing that Tarzan and fellow newcomer The BFG have a "formidable competitor" in Finding Dory, which heads into its third weekend. "If you can get women going to see it because of Skarsgård but also because there’s a strong female character, that’s a smart marketing move."
The remake aspect of it also put it into a difficult spot. Everyone is so over remakes, but Hollywood keeps making them. People were not excited from the get go.
Chronicles of Riddick!! Yes. Always watch it when randomly flipping channels and it's on. Starship Troopers, too. Now that is a bad movie, but I can always watch it.
I agree. I thought THR would slam it since they seemed derogatory in earlier articles, but their critic actually liked it! I also want the film to do well. Alex put so much time and effort into preparing for this film. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't. I'm not burying this movie just yet, but I was cringing at some of the reviews. We'll be going to see it Saturday. I'm hoping it will be a good popcorn movie and audience score will help.
Excerpt from USA Today about marketing strategy from a couple of days ago. Read the entire article here:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...tarzan-swinging-male-female-dollars/86441402/
How 'Tarzan' is swinging for male, female dollars
Opinion is divided on whether American audiences will welcome back the hero, who last hit cinemas in 1999 in Disney's animated Tarzan, which grossed $171 million. Jeff Bock, box office analyst for Exhibitor Relations, calls the project outdated. "This has Lone Ranger written all over it," says Bock, who forecasts just $25 million for opening weekend, though he predicts the film will still be a sizable hit overseas.
Or it could be "an unexpected surprise," says Erik Davis, managing editor of Fandango.com and Movies.com — particularly because it's not another superfluous sequel. "The success of something like The Jungle Book may play into teens' and adults' desire to see another story told in the jungle. And the trailers are pretty strong."
Who is Tarzan aiming for? The trailers evoke "a Planet of the Apes vibe," says Davis, and some experts say the gender-balanced marketing approach is a sign that Warner Bros. is trying for a four-quadrant movie, meaning a film that appeals to male and female moviegoers who are over and under 25.
"On the surface, it seems easy — it’s Tarzan, it’s an action movie — but it seems like they’re courting the female audience in a big way," says comScore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian, allowing that Tarzan and fellow newcomer The BFG have a "formidable competitor" in Finding Dory, which heads into its third weekend. "If you can get women going to see it because of Skarsgård but also because there’s a strong female character, that’s a smart marketing move."
This is an aspect that has come up since it was first mentioned that Alex was in the running 'why do we need another Tarzan movie', even though we'd not had a live action one in decades. So people didn't know whether it was a reboot, remake, whatever. And apparently still don't.
They were going for a four quadrant movie, but if the almost 500 audience votes of IDMB are really a proper guide to future audience votes, the audience that really really likes it is female.
Apparently The Purge Election Day is getting good reviews, much to my surprise. I still think it's got a limited audience, but it would be an indicator of how weird this summer has been if a movie that's been out for three weeks wins the week, followed by a horror movie, BFG and LOt.
Last edited:
To go back to a much better reviewed Alex movie, Pajiba has been doing a series 52 Films by Women. And I was hoping they'd do this:
here’s a scene about halfway through Diary of a Teenage Girl where Alexander Skarsgård’s character Monroe is talking to his on-again/off-again girlfriend Charlotte (Kristen Wiig) about her ex-husband, and I found myself thinking, “Yeah, that child rapist does have a point.” Which is to say, this is a complicated film.
It centers on Charlotte’s daughter and Monroe’s sometimes-lover 15-year-old Minnie Goetze. Like I said, complicated. She begins the affair with her mother’s boyfriend just as she comes of age in the sexually, and drug-charged atmosphere of 1970’s San Fransisco. That description alone should make you a little wary. Stories about women, and especially girls, experiencing their sexuality usually come in either cautionary or exploitative flavors. So it was shockingly refreshing to watch a movie that treats a teenage girl who wants to have sex as a fully fledged character. Despite a number of harrowing things that happen to her, Minnie is never tricked or manipulated into wanting to have sex. The fact that she has an active and healthy libido isn’t ever treated or presented as a problem, it’s just a normal part of being a person.
What’s even more surprising is the fact that Monroe, the 35-year-old rapist who’s having an affair with his girlfriend’s daughter, is presented as an understandably desirous sexual partner. And I’m going to level with you, that’s a super weird sentence to write. Because as a nearly 35-year-old myself, a large part of me can only see what an entirely creepy bastard Monroe really is. It can only want to shout, “Eric Northman, you rapist ****, when a child puts your finger in her mouth, you don’t tell her she just gave you a hard-on! ****!” But this story is Minnie’s. Meaning we not only understand how the familial/paternal affection the two share could become weirdly sexual, but we understand why a teenage girl with raging hormones and a lack of proper boundaries might want to sleep with a man who is paying attention to her. Monroe is humanized not because he deserves fair treatment, but because Minnie does. He is a monster, but he’s not just a monster. The movie shows that her choices are valid and understandable even if they’re wrong...
http://www.pajiba.com/52_films_by_w...marielle-hellers-diary-of-a-teenage-girl-.php
here’s a scene about halfway through Diary of a Teenage Girl where Alexander Skarsgård’s character Monroe is talking to his on-again/off-again girlfriend Charlotte (Kristen Wiig) about her ex-husband, and I found myself thinking, “Yeah, that child rapist does have a point.” Which is to say, this is a complicated film.
It centers on Charlotte’s daughter and Monroe’s sometimes-lover 15-year-old Minnie Goetze. Like I said, complicated. She begins the affair with her mother’s boyfriend just as she comes of age in the sexually, and drug-charged atmosphere of 1970’s San Fransisco. That description alone should make you a little wary. Stories about women, and especially girls, experiencing their sexuality usually come in either cautionary or exploitative flavors. So it was shockingly refreshing to watch a movie that treats a teenage girl who wants to have sex as a fully fledged character. Despite a number of harrowing things that happen to her, Minnie is never tricked or manipulated into wanting to have sex. The fact that she has an active and healthy libido isn’t ever treated or presented as a problem, it’s just a normal part of being a person.
What’s even more surprising is the fact that Monroe, the 35-year-old rapist who’s having an affair with his girlfriend’s daughter, is presented as an understandably desirous sexual partner. And I’m going to level with you, that’s a super weird sentence to write. Because as a nearly 35-year-old myself, a large part of me can only see what an entirely creepy bastard Monroe really is. It can only want to shout, “Eric Northman, you rapist ****, when a child puts your finger in her mouth, you don’t tell her she just gave you a hard-on! ****!” But this story is Minnie’s. Meaning we not only understand how the familial/paternal affection the two share could become weirdly sexual, but we understand why a teenage girl with raging hormones and a lack of proper boundaries might want to sleep with a man who is paying attention to her. Monroe is humanized not because he deserves fair treatment, but because Minnie does. He is a monster, but he’s not just a monster. The movie shows that her choices are valid and understandable even if they’re wrong...
http://www.pajiba.com/52_films_by_w...marielle-hellers-diary-of-a-teenage-girl-.php
This link has a summary of reviews so far: (prepare yourselves)
http://thewrap-yahoopartner.tumblr....egend-of-tarzan-is-a-big-disappointment-and-7
The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes aren't good. But this is where it gets murky: the reviews suck but 98% out of 35,437 IMDb users want to see the film (granted this is before the film premiered). It'll be interesting to see if the reviews pan out with regards to audience attendance.
http://thewrap-yahoopartner.tumblr....egend-of-tarzan-is-a-big-disappointment-and-7
The reviews on Rotten Tomatoes aren't good. But this is where it gets murky: the reviews suck but 98% out of 35,437 IMDb users want to see the film (granted this is before the film premiered). It'll be interesting to see if the reviews pan out with regards to audience attendance.
Legend of Tarzan Review: David Yates Delivers A Winner — Pulp Poetry With a Beating Heart.
June 29, 2016Michael SellersERBDOM, Legend of Tarzan (Movie)
There’s a moment in David Yates’ excellent and emotionally resonant Legend of Tarzan when George Washington Williams’, played by Samuel L. Jackson, goads civilized Tarzan, played by Alexander Skarsgard, just a little too much. Alexander Skarsgard’s Tarzan erupts instantly and spectacularly with a combination of physical force and gut-chilling animal sounds and pins the American to a wall, then growls out the words: “They have my wife, and their families.” In this single small moment, Yates and Skarsgard put on display Tarzan’s utter commitment to the woman he loves while at the same time same evoking the internal contradiction of a man who in adulthood could pass among society as a aristocratic Englishman, but whose feral upbringing has left him with a volatile beast within that can overwhelm the civilized trappings in an instant. Unlike the filmmakers who have come before him, Yates effectively captures this duality – and in so doing delivers a film that is fresh and appealing to modern sensibilities, yet is faithful to the character of the books in ways that Hollywood has never attempted before. The result is pure pulp poetry with a beating heart. Edgar Rice Burroughs would approve of it, and 21st century audiences will, if they can be lured into theaters to see it, be intrigued and satisfied by it.
Legend of Tarzan begins eight years after Tarzan and Jane (a luminous and effective Margot Robbie) have left Africa to undertake a gentrified life in London, where Tarzan has claimed his birthright of John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke. He is drawn back to Africa at the behest of George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), a black American journalist who is based on the historical figure who led the exposure of the crimes of King Leopold II of Belgium. Williams recruits him to assist in Williams’ quest to investigate the suspected crimes of King Leopold. Accompanied by Jane, the two men return to Africa where Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) has laid a trap for Tarzan that, if successful, will result in Rom delivering Tarzan to Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who seeks to deliver vengeance to Tarzan for killing Mbonga’s son many years earlier. Mayhem and adventure ensues.
When Edgar Rice Burroughs was firing on all cylinders, his pulpy, emotionally infused adventure novels were able to strike a mythic vein that caused him to become the J.K. Rowlings of his day – the first global superstar pop culture author, translated into 57 languages, his books and characters embedded in cultures from Russia to Turkey and Japan. At the time of his death in 1950 he was the best known author on the planet with his works selling more than the combined sales of his contemporaries Hemingway, Faulkner, and Joyce. Hollywood tried more than fifty times and although the movies obviously met with success — not one of them ever captured what the grand old pulp master had created on the page. Yates is the first to do it; his Legend of Tarzan stands head and shoulders above the Tarzan movies that came before it–and regardless of how it fares in the crowded summer theatrical marketplace, it is assured of a place in cinema history as the Tarzan movie that captured the heart and spirit of Burroughs’ creation.
It remains to be seen how 2016 audiences react. Has Tarzan’s time on the world stage passed, or is there indeed something mythic and archetypal that can cause the character to come alive in the modern imaginations? Yates and his team have given it an extraordinary “best shot” and have created something of heart, beauty, and lasting value. The editing of the film by Mark Day is taut and streamlined –not a moment is wasted and the story drives forward with energy and commitment; Henry Braham’s cinematography is cool and brooding in London, and lush and earthy in Africa; the production design by Stuart Craig is grand and evocative; and the music by Rupert Gregson Williams is both emotional and pulse-quickening. Special mention goes to screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer who updated the Burroughs material, giving it unexpected historical gravitas, while excavating from the pages of the early Tarzan books the core values that made them unique. And the CGI wizardry is seamless, photorealistic, and effective on all levels.
Give Legend of Tarzan a chance to work its magic on you. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
June 29, 2016Michael SellersERBDOM, Legend of Tarzan (Movie)
There’s a moment in David Yates’ excellent and emotionally resonant Legend of Tarzan when George Washington Williams’, played by Samuel L. Jackson, goads civilized Tarzan, played by Alexander Skarsgard, just a little too much. Alexander Skarsgard’s Tarzan erupts instantly and spectacularly with a combination of physical force and gut-chilling animal sounds and pins the American to a wall, then growls out the words: “They have my wife, and their families.” In this single small moment, Yates and Skarsgard put on display Tarzan’s utter commitment to the woman he loves while at the same time same evoking the internal contradiction of a man who in adulthood could pass among society as a aristocratic Englishman, but whose feral upbringing has left him with a volatile beast within that can overwhelm the civilized trappings in an instant. Unlike the filmmakers who have come before him, Yates effectively captures this duality – and in so doing delivers a film that is fresh and appealing to modern sensibilities, yet is faithful to the character of the books in ways that Hollywood has never attempted before. The result is pure pulp poetry with a beating heart. Edgar Rice Burroughs would approve of it, and 21st century audiences will, if they can be lured into theaters to see it, be intrigued and satisfied by it.
Legend of Tarzan begins eight years after Tarzan and Jane (a luminous and effective Margot Robbie) have left Africa to undertake a gentrified life in London, where Tarzan has claimed his birthright of John Clayton III, Lord Greystoke. He is drawn back to Africa at the behest of George Washington Williams (Samuel L. Jackson), a black American journalist who is based on the historical figure who led the exposure of the crimes of King Leopold II of Belgium. Williams recruits him to assist in Williams’ quest to investigate the suspected crimes of King Leopold. Accompanied by Jane, the two men return to Africa where Leon Rom (Christoph Waltz) has laid a trap for Tarzan that, if successful, will result in Rom delivering Tarzan to Chief Mbonga (Djimon Hounsou), who seeks to deliver vengeance to Tarzan for killing Mbonga’s son many years earlier. Mayhem and adventure ensues.
When Edgar Rice Burroughs was firing on all cylinders, his pulpy, emotionally infused adventure novels were able to strike a mythic vein that caused him to become the J.K. Rowlings of his day – the first global superstar pop culture author, translated into 57 languages, his books and characters embedded in cultures from Russia to Turkey and Japan. At the time of his death in 1950 he was the best known author on the planet with his works selling more than the combined sales of his contemporaries Hemingway, Faulkner, and Joyce. Hollywood tried more than fifty times and although the movies obviously met with success — not one of them ever captured what the grand old pulp master had created on the page. Yates is the first to do it; his Legend of Tarzan stands head and shoulders above the Tarzan movies that came before it–and regardless of how it fares in the crowded summer theatrical marketplace, it is assured of a place in cinema history as the Tarzan movie that captured the heart and spirit of Burroughs’ creation.
It remains to be seen how 2016 audiences react. Has Tarzan’s time on the world stage passed, or is there indeed something mythic and archetypal that can cause the character to come alive in the modern imaginations? Yates and his team have given it an extraordinary “best shot” and have created something of heart, beauty, and lasting value. The editing of the film by Mark Day is taut and streamlined –not a moment is wasted and the story drives forward with energy and commitment; Henry Braham’s cinematography is cool and brooding in London, and lush and earthy in Africa; the production design by Stuart Craig is grand and evocative; and the music by Rupert Gregson Williams is both emotional and pulse-quickening. Special mention goes to screenwriters Adam Cozad and Craig Brewer who updated the Burroughs material, giving it unexpected historical gravitas, while excavating from the pages of the early Tarzan books the core values that made them unique. And the CGI wizardry is seamless, photorealistic, and effective on all levels.
Give Legend of Tarzan a chance to work its magic on you. I don’t think you’ll be disappointed.
The review I posted above is from the Tarzan Files. He went to the premiere with ERB's family. He knows what should be in a Tarzan film that is true to it's source material. I think the problem with most of the other reviews is that they don't really know the source material. They think the movie should be a campy, silly movie without much depth. I'm so confused by the reviews. They are all over the board. Some say too much origin story, some say not enough. Some say the CGI is awful, others say it's incredible. Some like Margot, some say she's missed cast. Christoph is the perfect Villian or his performance is tired. SLJ is just playing himself, SLJ is the comic relief and the bright spot. Alex is stiff with no emotion, Alex is brilliant and embodies the spirit of Tarzan. There is no chemistry between Tarzan and Jane. The chemistry is off the charts insane. There is no real majority on a reason why they don't like the film. I think too many had preconceived ideas on what they thought it should be or not be and that it's not meeting those ideas is what's upsetting them. Also I find that the entertainment world is getting way too politically correct. I've heard stand up comedians say this. Many no longer want to tour college campuses because of it. No one can address any subject that might make someone else feel uncomfortable. Well if it's never mentioned or shown, how do you get people to have a dialogue that creates understanding, knowledge and compassion for what other cultures have experienced.
I'm going to see it Saturday. I can't wait and I'm sure that we'll continue to get many positive feedbacks from movie goers.
I'm going to see it Saturday. I can't wait and I'm sure that we'll continue to get many positive feedbacks from movie goers.
True enough, audiences are very PC - but you can hardly blame them in a climate where Scarlett Johannssen gets cast in an iconic Japanese role, that awful film Gods of Egypt gets cast with all-white actors, they try to pass Emma Stone off as part Hawaiian/part Japanese in Aloha and Daniel Craig has just been cast as the protagonist in a film with Halle Berry about the LA Riots.
I digress but there's no doubting the original ERB books had a fair amount of "better than thou" attitude when it came to indigenous populations and with the obvious wrong of that, people's first hurdle of a film like Tarzan has to be to overcome what could look like from the outside a white-saviour film, even though the film itself is sensitive to that and changes the angle. And I totally get that, and it's not irrelevant.
However the same could be said for the Indiana Jones films and people really love those. It's an adventure re-telling of an unfortunate time in history for many indigenous people.
I don't doubt that they've handled it well. For me, it's more a concern regarding commentary on the CGI and the actors.
And like I said - I'm still going to watch it.
I digress but there's no doubting the original ERB books had a fair amount of "better than thou" attitude when it came to indigenous populations and with the obvious wrong of that, people's first hurdle of a film like Tarzan has to be to overcome what could look like from the outside a white-saviour film, even though the film itself is sensitive to that and changes the angle. And I totally get that, and it's not irrelevant.
However the same could be said for the Indiana Jones films and people really love those. It's an adventure re-telling of an unfortunate time in history for many indigenous people.
I don't doubt that they've handled it well. For me, it's more a concern regarding commentary on the CGI and the actors.
And like I said - I'm still going to watch it.