Jump to content
Nothere

AAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAA

Recommended Posts

Well we've had John Carter, the Lone Ranger, and Green Hornet. Theres talk of Doc Savage. But what do we say of the Legend of Tarzan? At least the trailers don't seem to show Jackson being the real hero.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Saw Carter on TV (well part of it) it was so-so (as far adaptions go that means better than usual.  Lone Ranger the promos were more than enough,  Not sure I remember a Green Hornet (no wait I do remember, watching the promos caused me to scrub it out of my mind, nevermind.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if it did bomb. John Carter was cool. Lone Ranger might have been but they went the Green Hornet our main hero is a loser who only succeeds because of his sidekick route. Fortunatly though they seemed to have saddled Tarzan with a sidekick, he's going to be actually competent in the movie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if it did bomb. John Carter was cool. Lone Ranger might have been but they went the Green Hornet our main hero is a loser who only succeeds because of his sidekick route. Fortunatly though they seemed to have saddled Tarzan with a sidekick, he's going to be actually competent in the movie.

 

Yeah, I can watch Carter no problem if I catch it at night sometime.  The other 2, I'll just stare out the window till morning instead. (unless it is a classic Lone Ranger TV show marathon or something)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I can watch Carter no problem if I catch it at night sometime.  The other 2, I'll just stare out the window till morning instead. (unless it is a classic Lone Ranger TV show marathon or something)

 

My issue is I read the books.  Several times.  

It was the book (series) that got me reading as a kid.

 

Seeing them miss so badly actually hurts.  Green Hornet could at least say they were attempting to do the campy show....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't care if it did bomb. John Carter was cool. Lone Ranger might have been but they went the Green Hornet our main hero is a loser who only succeeds because of his sidekick route. Fortunatly though they seemed to have saddled Tarzan with a sidekick, he's going to be actually competent in the movie.

 

If you mean Samuel L. Jackson's character, he's an actual historical figure who brought the first world attention to Belgium's exploitation of the Congo.  The movie appears to be inserting Tarzan into real world events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wife and I saw it Tuesday. We both LOVED it. In my mind, it is the best Tarzan movie ever made. Sure, it takes liberties with some of the "canon", but is well-written, well-acted, and very fun and exciting. And SLJ is at his best.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't seen the new Tarzan movie, and have heard some pretty unflattering reviews from friends that did see it. It sounds like they tried to make the George Washington Williams character into more of a buddy-partner for Tarzan, but my friends felt he came across as little better than a sidekick. Cuz after all, his name hasn't sold millions of books. Too bad - I'd pay to see a real movie about GWW and the Belgian exploitation of the Congo.

 

But what do I know, I liked the John Carter movie. (Can't say I loved it, but it was actually better than I feared it would be.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read the same reviews, saw the movie, and didn't have an issue. I feels to me as if a fair number of the reviewers had pre-determined their reaction to the film based on their own issues with regards to colonialism, racism, the pulps in general, and Tarzan in specific, and just went through the motions of seeing the film before posting their reviews.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you have Christophe Waltz as the bad guy. It becomes good automatically.

 

NO! It doesn't! That guy has been totally full of himself since Inglorios Basterds (in which he was great, I agree) but since then he has been the "Villain of Today"s Movie" and is playing basically the same guy in different costumes.

 

But thanks for the warning: Now I will avoid that movie like the Plague.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course George was more of a sidekick. Tarzan outwrestles gorillias. Unless some one like the Shadow or  Doc Savage shows up, you are a sidekick.

 

I also disagree that most pulp tropes need to be retired. They are a lot harder to pull off today. Pulp tropes were created when getting to Europe could take weeks, and no one had the internet to double check what say the ones that guaranteed authentic info. At the time Africa was miles of unknown and unmapped territory, so Edgar could plop Opar, Plaucidar, or the portal to mars anywhere he liked. Today when you can Skype with your buddies at the Mcdonalds in Windhoek they would be a bit surprised to find out about the tribe of waring savages who sacrifice people to the fire god Rasha in his temple whose alter has the worlds largest ruby that your pacing in Namibia. There really is nowhere you can plop the Rasha worshippers today.  And I wept for there were no more worlds left to explore.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My issue is I read the books.  Several times.  

It was the book (series) that got me reading as a kid.

 

Seeing them miss so badly actually hurts.  Green Hornet could at least say they were attempting to do the campy show....

wasn't Batman the campy show while the green hornet was played straight ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't Batman the campy show while the green hornet was played straight ?

 

Well "Batman" (1943) and "Batman and Robin" (1949)  were both serious, or as serious as a early serial could be.   The "Green Hornet" (1966) was treated much more seriously than "Batman"(1966). 

 

While the Adam West version of Batman was the only campy version and distanced itself from pretty much every version of the character at that time and arguably since.  So when they chose to make a feeble attempt at campy comedy with Green Hornet it was even worse than simply crapping on it.

 

I imagine a comedic director of Mel Brooks' caliber might have pulled it off.   But Rogan is the unfunniest non-comedian destroying the big screen in modern times.   I mean the most humorous thing I have ever seen him accomplish was 7th grade potty humor. 

 

Green Hornet didn't bomb because it was an obscure Pulp character.  It failed because it was simply a bad movie. 

1) it just wasn't funny and so didn't win over anyone that thought they had paid to watch a comedy.

2) because anyone familiar with the character was left wondering WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×